Any Real Reason To Favor One Particular Lens Line?

[JLeeSaxon]

As a guy thinking about getting into LF, I've been searching through a lot of older posts here. There are lots of posts asking to compare different "modern" (coated) optics, both in the form of "X focal length from Y brand or Z brand" or even "X focal length from Y line and Z line within the same brand", and the consensus usually seems to be "you can't go wrong [unless one of the two doesn't cover the image circle you need]".

So is it really the consensus that there's no strong distinction in "look", sharpness, even build quality, and doesn't really matter whether I pick Schneider vs Fuji vsNikon vs Rodenstock? Or even, like, Symmar S vs APO-Symmar?

Would you even think it matters, once I pick one, that I stick with it? Are two focals lengths of Nikkor-W's going to "match" any better than a Nikkor-W and a Nikkor-M? Or a Nikkor-SW and a Super Angulon XL?

[Vaughan]

The older single-coated writing-on-the-front Fujinon W and SW lenses often have larger image circles than comparable lenses from other manufacturers which makes some like the W-series 180mm f5.6, 210mm f5.6 and 250mm f6.7 lenses cheap options for 8x10.

[Dan Fromm]

I've never seen anything solid to support the assertion but people have asserted that brand X offers (a) consistent color rendition across the line and (b) that color rendition is (pick one) warmer or cooler that brand Y's. I've also seen assertions that Japanese lenses consistently have "more clinical rendition" than German.

If you want to know about color rendition, look at published transmission by wavelength curves or get a spectrophotometer and a heap or lenses and measure what they do.

My approach has been to get lenses that offer what I think I need (coverage? performance close-up? light weight?), buy inexpensive, often "off brand," and when a lens arrives ask it if it good enough. Most seem to be.

[ic-racer]

I found it easy to know just one or two brands. Pick a brand and try to get all the brochures and technical files for their lenses. Trying to do that for all the brands is a hobby in itself. Though some, like Dan, have done it.

[xkaes]

As Dan says, decide what focal length you want, then pick a lens based on the features you want -- and the price. And don't forget, that you will not be the first photographer in the world that trades in one lens for another -- for one reason or another.

[Vaughan]

I've also seen assertions that Japanese lenses consistently have "more clinical rendition" than German.

I heard it described that German design favoured resolution and accuracy, while Japanese design favoured "looking good" which usually meant contrast.

[Tin Can]

When lenses were still in production

PRO photographers were given a few to test, to find the best one from the factory

Variables exist the eye of the beholder

I worked in 2 huge factories, constantly testing

Failures, yes

Big Dog says SHIP! sometimes

More often I shut down production

[Havoc]

Only reason I prefer the Fuji CM-W line is that in the focal lengths I prefer they all use a 67mm filter so I only have a single set to take along.

[Peter Lewin]

In my experience (I've been using large format in an "amateur way" for at least 50 years) you will be happy with any mix of lenses from the "Big 3" you mention: Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock. Within their lines, they made lenses at different price points, and there are differences between those. But we introduce a bunch of variables in between the lens and the final print: choice of film, choice of developer, and our own skill levels. Given that, I would not be too picky between manufacturer's offerings at similar price points, I would suggest you choose the focal lengths you want at prices that seem reasonable to you from any of those three manufacturers.

[xkaes]

I heard it described that ......

That says it all.

[xkaes]

Only reason I prefer the Fuji CM-W line is that in the focal lengths I prefer they all use a 67mm filter so I only have a single set to take along.

This is a great example. Different people will choose different lenses because they have different features.

[xkaes]

In my experience (I've been using large format in an "amateur way" for at least 50 years) you will be happy with any mix of lenses from the "Big 3" you mention: Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock.

In case you missed it, the OP listed FUJI as well. It's the big FOUR-- not three!

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/

245498

[Havoc]

In case you missed it, the OP listed FUJI as well. It's the big FOUR-- not three!

Ssssssttttt... More cheap(er) lenses for us. :) Fuji doesn't seem to be popular in the US, they prefer the German lenses for some reason.

[Peter Lewin]

Havoc, Xkaes: Apologies for neglecting Fuji, it was a sin of careless omission. I am very happy with my Fuji C 300 lens. My lenses include 3 Schneider, 1 Rodenstock, the afore mentioned Fuji, and 1 Olden-rebranded Congo (which was my very first LF lens, and is noticeably not in the same class as the other lenses).

[Alan Klein]

Pick coated lenses. Buy from reputable dealers with a solid return policy. Good luck.

[paulbarden]

You could show us 100 photographs made by 100 skilled photographers and in 95% of these examples, none of us would be able to identify what lens or brand of lens made those photographs.
So no - there's very little reason to isolate a specific brand or line of lenses as "better".

[Michael R]

You could show us 100 photographs made by 100 skilled photographers and in 95% of these examples, none of us would be able to identify what lens or brand of lens made those photographs.
So no - there's very little reason to isolate a specific brand or line of lenses as "better".

Agree except I'd up that to 100% and the photographers don't even need to be skilled :)

[Neal Chaves]

Fast, wide, sharp...Pick any two.

[Drew Wiley]

Yup; it's the "Big Four". Fuji has been right there at the top too for a long time. And Fuji was held in especially high repute for video and TV studio lenses. Although all these brands offered analogous general purpose lenses, they also had their own unique specialized lenses. Fuji didn't advertise in the US as much as the German brands; but the big downtown Photo Store at the time carried every one of their lenses in stock at the Pro counter, along with every LF lens from Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock. The counter men were pros in their own way back then, and one of them told me that, in his opinion, Fuji had the highest quality of all.

I have always used a mix. But at one point I sold off my well-used Schneider lenses when the exchange rate favored the German Mark, and bought Japanese when the Yen was low. I came out making a little bit of money - selling off the old used lenses for more than the new ones cost.

[neil poulsen]

Ansel Adams requested that John Sexton and Alan Ross compare all the different lenses, and Nikon lenses emerged as the most contrasty. I think it likely that different lenses within manufacturers and lens designs tend to exhibit similar characteristics.

For myself, with certain exceptions for specific reasons, I have all Schneider Apo Symmar lenses and Schneider multi-coated XL lenses. For example, I have the 90mm f8 SW Nikon for its convenient size and its extra large image circle. And so on.

[Mark Sampson]

As far as color rendition, contrast, and consistency across one manufacturer's lens line- I'll venture to say that none of us here are shooting large-format transparency film for offset reproduction. Until twenty years or so ago, that was how commercial (advertising) photographers made their living. The camera original was the deliverable (final product). Thus the need for consistency across different lenses.
Since color doesn't matter in b/w, and those shooting LF color now have their work mediated by digital post-production, and there are no picky art directors looking through their Schneider loupes, there is no reason beyond personal choice to own a matched set of lenses.
Remember that all of these lenses were expensive when new; they were designed to serve a demanding and competitive professional market; and so the LF lenses often served as their manufacturer's flagship products, the best that they could make.
I'll suggest that almost any LF lens made since WWII will be more than good enough (given good physical and mechanical condition). And while it's true that the most modern lenses have more contrast than their predecessors from the 1940s-1960s, that difference is actually less than you might expect.

[Vaughan]

I'll suggest that almost any LF lens made since WWII will be more than good enough (given good physical and mechanical condition.

Agreed. I'm more concerned with the shutter the lens is in.

[jnantz]

A lot of stuff is hype .. seems to me at least that most lenses (unless they are a specialty lens like soft focus portrait landscape &c ) are similar and chances are if you saw images lined up done by 5 different lenses you might not be able to tell them apart maybe other people have that super power but I sure don't. The main thing is price.. and personal preference
Good luck!
John

**. added later . **
you might do a google search or a brand brochure images to compare or if you like graphs and charts they might have white papers to compare. I would have suggested to do a tag search on Flickr or similar websites, but people do post production work on all their images so you wouldn't be able to see any variety.

[John Layton]

...but I do think that a lack of consistency in color contrast does equate to a lack of consistency in black and white (PANchromatic) tonal (contrast) rendering and (therefore) filter response, but that these affects are typically relatively very minor in practice.

[Tin Can]

I prefer variety

I love my old lenses without modern shutters

ANSI shutter speeds may vary by a lot

Look it up

Good shooters know variables

[xkaes]

The counter men were pros in their own way back then, and one of them told me that, in his opinion, Fuji had the highest quality of all.


Fuji claimed to be the leader in air-spaced designs with many 6/6 and 8/6 lenses. They claimed this produced better edge-to-edge sharpness. And their exclusive EBC coating (up to 21 ultra-thin layers) was top-notch.

[Drew Wiley]

neil - that was long ago, and some designs like the Nikon M are inherently more contrasty than even their other designs of comparable vintage because of less air-glass interfaces. These were multi-coated tessar design. Sexton liked these M's for their small size and portability too. But Fuji deliberately marketed their own tessar L -series with a single coating, better tailored to the studio portrait market. Too much contrast is not necessarily desirable. The highest contrast lens I ever had was the last version of the Kern 14 inch Dagor - only 4 air/glass interfaces plus superb multi-coating. It was just too much contrast for the color chrome shooting I was doing at the time, and I replaced it with the previous single-coated version.

Schneider chose to only single-coat its G-Claron taking lenses, and it wasn't just to save cost, but a deliberate choice for sake of optimizing what they had in mind as its primary market - studio tabletop photography. But Fuji's comparable A-series was multi-coated, except for the earliest samples, and has a bit higher contrast. I own examples of both brands, and select accordingly to fine-tune the contrast which is best for each project. It makes a difference especially with color film, although otherwise, I consider both GC's and Fuji A's of equally high quality.

And the actual hue rendering distinction between them is identical for all practical purposes; the brand make no difference in that respect, nor would you see any color difference
with a Nikkor M lens. Of all my lenses, only the Kern Dagor has a slightly warmer rendering. Pretty much a moot point with lenses from the big four 70's onwards.

[BrianShaw]

“ Pretty much a moot point with lenses from the big four 70's onwards.” sums up my approach to LF lenses for quite a while. In the 1980’s, when I bought most of my LF equipment , I thought those differences might have mattered. For the past couple of decades I’m much more satisfied using older and less sophisticated lenses.

“ Good shooters know variables” is also very true. Different needs for different photographers and rarely, it seems, does online advice fully answer the question of individual needs, perception, or photographic vision.

[Joshua Dunn]

As a guy thinking about getting into LF, I've been searching through a lot of older posts here. There are lots of posts asking to compare different "modern" (coated) optics, both in the form of "X focal length from Y brand or Z brand" or even "X focal length from Y line and Z line within the same brand", and the consensus usually seems to be "you can't go wrong [unless one of the two doesn't cover the image circle you need]".

So is it really the consensus that there's no strong distinction in "look", sharpness, even build quality, and doesn't really matter whether I pick Schneider vs Fuji vsNikon vs Rodenstock? Or even, like, Symmar S vs APO-Symmar?

Would you even think it matters, once I pick one, that I stick with it? Are two focals lengths of Nikkor-W's going to "match" any better than a Nikkor-W and a Nikkor-M? Or a Nikkor-SW and a Super Angulon XL?

JLeeSaxon,

You mention you are thinking about getting into large format. If that means you don't have much experience in large format then you have a steep learning curve ahead of you. You need good lenses to start but do not get your head wrapped around getting the best lenses right from the beginning. You have a lot of factors that will effect your negatives, the lens is just one of them. There are plenty of good lenses from all the manufactures discussed in this thread. You mentioned Schneider Symmar-S vs Apo-Symmar. Apo-Symmar lenses are more modern lens designs and have more optically precise coatings (most beneficial for color) however, Symmar-S lenses are still very good lenses and available for a fraction of the cost of Apo-Symmar lenses of a similar focal length. The same can be said for Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S vs. Apo-Sironar N. As someone new to large format, I doubt you will be able to tell the difference between them. For what it's worth I have lenses from all of those manufacturers and use them for different applications.

I would look for good Schneider Symmar-S or Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N lenses and start with those. Don't be afraid to buy a Nikkor or Fuji at a good price. This will save you a lot of money in which you can reinvest in everything else you need, camera, film (super expensive now), chemistry, processing equipment etc. If you absolutely fall in love with large format and are finding technical limitations with your first lens purchases, you can always upgrade. Those lenses likely hold their value and should have a similar price in a year or two, so you have a good chance of selling them for a similar price that you bought them for.

Lastly spend time searching this forum. It's an amazing resource, you can learn a lot and it can really help with your introduction to large format.

-Joshua

[Mark J]

I'd second Joshua's comments, the Symmar-S ( and Sironar-N ) are almost as good as the later Apo versions, they are a real bargain when you look at the Ebay prices. They are really sharp and hardly flare at all if you point them into the sun. I assume ( maybe not ) that you're thinking of 4 x 5 " ?

[djdister]

If you restrict your thinking to any single line of lens maker you will miss out on the many special characteristics of lenses that don't have direct comparisons from other makers. A Wollensak Verito is not exactly the same as a Kodak Portrait lens, and somehow I have both of them. I also have Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji and Nikkor. When it comes to the supply and demand for these LF lenses, it would be shortsighted to get hung up on a single line. Try one, try many, but get started and don't overthink it...

And, if you want to compare and debate MTF curves, well, you've come to the right place!

[Sal Santamaura]

Only reason I prefer the Fuji CM-W line is that in the focal lengths I prefer they all use a 67mm filter so I only have a single set to take along.

Additionally, while many seem to complain about that size, it is in reality a significant advantage with the shorter focal lengths if one regularly uses filters. Other brands tended to make their front cells' filter threads as small as possible in the interest of compactness. Then, if one employs movements to any degree, vignetting from filters becomes problematic. I've never run out of unimpeded image circle with a shorter CM Fujinon W that has a 67mm filter attached. Good design decision.

[xkaes]

I don't have a problem with the CM-W 67mm standardized filter size -- but they could only do that for lenses under 300mm. But the reason I don't have a problem is that my standard filter is 77mm. So I have to get step-up rings for all my lenses, anyway -- except one, maybe two.

If someone uses 67mm as a standard, the CM-W lenses work great, but not everyone uses that as a standard.

My beef is with Fuji's approach. Instead of placing the filter ring relatively close to the glass, they put it far out. Fuji probably thought, "free lens shade", but for me it just makes the lens much larger than it needs to be. In my case I sold my TINY NW 105mm f5.6 for the CM-W 105mm f5.6 due to its SLIGHTLY larger image circle -- but its almost twice the size of it's NW predecessor (which has a 46mm filter thread), thanks to its elongated, 67mm cone.

So the "67mm almost"-standard is great for the 67mm users, but for everyone else it means either step-up or step-down rings.

It doesn't work for everyone -- and like I said before, the filter thread, and other features, are what you should consider in a lens purchase, not the brand name.

[Mark J]

Good points. Because I use a lot of 67mm for slightly smaller lenses ( and 49-67 step-up rings ) I've avoided buying a Symmar-S 210mm because it's out of step with many other similar lenses, in having a 77mm filter.

[Drew Wiley]

That's one of the reasons I eventually sold off my 210 Symmar S (it had seen some pretty hard use anyway). I do own even bigger filter sets, including 82mm. But for travel and backpacking, I standardize on either 67mm or 52mm, depending on the lens set I have along (plus reduction step rings as needed).

And for that tighter range of portability using petite 52mm filters, the Fuji CMW design is counterintuitive. Even a tiny 105 has a big odd funnel front end for sake of 67mm filters. Makes no sense to me. My 125 NW is plenty good, and uses 52mm. Little Fuji A lenses are better corrected than general-purpose plasmats anyway; and compact "C" Fuji lenses are top-end too except for extreme close-ups. The Nikon 200M is tiny compared to the old Symmar S 210, and superb unless you need an especially generous image circle.

I'm not adverse to heavier gear. I'm just older now. Numerous times I've hacked my way up 13,000 foot ice pitches wearing an 85 lb pack, with a full Sinar kit in it, including the 210 Symmar S plus a brick-weight 120 Super Angulon replete with CF and an 82 mm filter set - PLUS ten days of camping gear and supplies, rope, Gitzo metal tripod etc. But them days is long over, and I'm glad I downsized a lot the photo gear. I still have and use the Sinar system, plus a full 8X10 kit, but sure as heck don't backpack or climb with it anymore. Studio or road usage is a whole other topic, and maybe there the last generation Fuji CMW's do make sense.

[xkaes]

It can be crazy. I've got a Vivitar 20mm lens with a ridiculously large 82mm filter thread, and a Vivitar 19mm lens with a ridiculously small 62mm filter thread. Go figure. I use a step-up ring on one, and a step down ring on the other. LF isn't the only place with filter threads all over the place -- but it sure does "take the cake".

[Alan Klein]

It can be crazy. I've got a Vivitar 20mm lens with a ridiculously large 82mm filter thread, and a Vivitar 19mm lens with a ridiculously small 62mm filter thread. Go figure. I use a step-up ring on one, and a step down ring on the other. LF isn't the only place with filter threads all over the place -- but it sure does "take the cake".

Don't you vignette with the step-up?

[xkaes]

Don't you vignette with the step-up?

Step-up rings rarely cause vignetting, but it's easy to test.

The more likely vignette problem is with step-DOWN rings. On my Vivitar 20mm with an 82mm filter thread, the answer is NO lens vignetting with a step-down ring to 77mm -- and on other lenses as well. Of course the step-down ring needs to be tested and it decreases the number of filters that you can pile on, but it varies from lens to lens. Many lenses have a very wide ring around the front of the lens -- for the brand name, focal length, f-stop, serial #, etc. In these cases, especially with long lenses, vignetting is not an issue. I have a Vivitar 120-600mm f5.6/8.0 with an 82mm filter thread -- a step-down ring to 77mm works fine because of the wide front ring. Same thing would work on the Tamron 200-500mm lenses, and many others too.

TEST, TEST, TEST. Very easy with any step-up or -down ring. BUT, with LF, you have to add in any expected movement of the lens.

[Mal Paso]

I think it was in the '70s AA proposed that gelatin filters behind the lens degraded image quality less than glass filters in front of the lens. The only glass filters I use are polarizers.

Caltar lenses can be a very good value. I have a 210mm Sironar and a 115mm Grandagon purchased for less under the Caltar II N label rather than Rodenstock.

[Drew Wiley]

Filters behind the lens, even gels, are a no-no unless the lens has been specially designed with that in mind. It's an utter myth that rear-mounted gels are going to give sharper images than modern coated glass filters mounted in front of the lens. Just the opposite. Gels smudge and crinkle and attract dirt and grit easily; and rear mounting is generally a bad idea. Yes, uncoated glass filters, perhaps routine back in Ansel's Day, do attract condensation and need cleaning way way more often than coated and multicoated glass ones.

In terms of position, graphics process lenses were designed for gel filter placement at the nodal point between the two cells, and often came with a slot to accept those along with optional Waterhouse stops. However, I get superb result with front mounted glass ones. Some truly big telephoto lenses have a built-in rotating contrast filter set installed at a specific internal position. But any lens actually optically engineered for rear-mounted filters would be a rarity.

Have you ever seen some of AA's classic 8x10 shots blown up more than a 3X enlargement? Well, I've seen a lot of those, and nearly all of them are quite unsharp by modern standards.

[Mark J]

1. Filters behind the lens, even gels, are a no-no unless the lens has been specially designed with that in mind.

2. Gels smudge and crinkle and attract dirt and grit easily; and rear mounting is generally a bad idea.

3. Have you ever seen some of AA's classic 8x10 shots blown up more than a 3X enlargement? Well, I've seen a lot of those, and nearly all of them are quite unsharp by modern standards.

1. Gels are quite thin, and LF lenses are used at very slow apertures. The potential risk we expect from a filter behind the lens is spherical aberration, but that's really mainly a problem for 35mm lenses which are faster, I can't see an issue at f/16 or less with a gel filter much less than 1mm thick. You still have the ghost image problem from bright sources eg. the sun in the picture, that appears diametrically opposite the main image, though.

2. I agree that gels can be less than ideal in surface quality or durability, but behind the lens, at least the pupil size for any point in the image is smaller (hence the transmitted wavefront damage is less) , and you avoid the problem of direct sunlight from outside the field of view, which can cause scatter from an imperfect gel. They are safer behind the lens than in front, in my opinion.

3. Yes, I saw some of Ansel's 'Mountains and Rivers' shots in London a few years ago, and was surprised at the variability in technical quality and the patchy focus across the frame in some cases. I still prefer the Desert SW shots ... but that's another well-worn subject.

[Mal Paso]

Maybe you smudge and crinkle gels but I've never had that problem. Gels are to thin to adversely affect the light path and inside the camera there are fewer problems with reflections. Your argument is FUD.

[Drew Wiley]

If you sometimes make very precise big expensive color enlargements, like I tend to do, it can make a significant difference. So do precision sheet film holders versus the regular kind. And per gels- they fade. And new ones certainly aren't cheap; often more than multicoated glass ones. I do have a lot of esoteric gels in the lab for technical purposes, where they are pampered; but that is another story. In the desert on mountains, I gave up on gels decades ago. If they get wet, you can't just wipe them off. And I'll only use uncoated glass ones if there is no other choice in a particular flavor I need.

Many of AA's classic mountain shots were taken in what was almost my back yard growing up; some of it our front porch view. So I can appreciate his sensitivity to the light, as well as his contribution to our National Parks and Wilderness protection movements. But his darkroom was rather primitive, and until late in life, the cameras, lenses, and films he used were less precise than what we take for granted today.

[Mick Fagan]

Is was reasonably common with our product photography, all lit with flash and using transparency film, to use colour correction (CC) filters stuck on the rear of the lens using Blue Tack.

Mostly the CC filters we used were to take the coldness away from sterile white objects. This was the late eighties through to the early nineties where pretty much anyone used a CC filter to get the look on the lightbox that the advertising account executive was looking for.

I cannot remember there ever being any hoopla about lost definition.

[Alan Klein]

Filters behind the lens, even gels, are a no-no unless the lens has been specially designed with that in mind. It's an utter myth that rear-mounted gels are going to give sharper images than modern coated glass filters mounted in front of the lens. Just the opposite. Gels smudge and crinkle and attract dirt and grit easily; and rear mounting is generally a bad idea. Yes, uncoated glass filters, perhaps routine back in Ansel's Day, do attract condensation and need cleaning way way more often than coated and multicoated glass ones.

In terms of position, graphics process lenses were designed for gel filter placement at the nodal point between the two cells, and often came with a slot to accept those along with optional Waterhouse stops. However, I get superb result with front mounted glass ones. Some truly big telephoto lenses have a built-in rotating contrast filter set installed at a specific internal position. But any lens actually optically engineered for rear-mounted filters would be a rarity.

Have you ever seen some of AA's classic 8x10 shots blown up more than a 3X enlargement? Well, I've seen a lot of those, and nearly all of them are quite unsharp by modern standards.

Isn't it true that dust and scratches on rear elements are worse than on front elements because the back elements focus stuff better on the film? So that would account for why filters are better on the front?

[Mark J]

If you sometimes make very precise big expensive color enlargements, like I tend to do, it can make a significant difference.
I've been pondering this. I realised that ripple in a filter can cause distortion ( image shape distortion ) when placed at the back, but wouldn't in front.

[Mark J]

Isn't it true that dust and scratches on rear elements are worse than on front elements because the back elements focus stuff better on the film? So that would account for why filters are better on the front?
There are two competing issues here.
1 Scratch or dig on the front lens can be illuminated by bright source ( usually the sun ) which is outside the field of view of the image. In that case, better that a fault is on the rear lens which only receives light for the image field of view.
2. The pupil size : the bundle of light going from a point in the subject to a point in the image is significantly smaller on the rear element than on the front element. If there's a dig of significant size on the rear element then it would be more likely to block or scatter light from a bright source in the picture.

So it can't be a hard & fast rule. My feeling is that there are more cases when a defect on the front lens would matter, than a defect on the rear lens.

[Mal Paso]

Gels have 4 handles, the center is never touched, there is no defect in the image area. They are only .005" thick but if your tolerances are that tight you can always refocus, you have to with glass (behind the lens). I wouldn't open the camera in a dust or rain storm but I probably wouldn't have the 4x5 out in that either. I'd shoot with my weatherproof digital and do filters in post.

[Drew Wiley]

Too bad no actual optical engineers are chiming in at the moment. I do know what they've said in the past, which certainly contradicts the previous two posts. But in this era when very high quality multicoated glass filters are routine, gels are almost antique by comparison. Much of what filters do simply can't be done in "post", not either well or not at all in many cases. That applies to both color and black and white film work except for minor color temp corrections. My own "studio" for several decades by now is everywhere but indoors. Weather comes with the territory. But how would I handle a situation with a scratch or ding on the front lens? - throw that lens away to start with. That's just common sense.

[Mark J]

Too bad no actual optical engineers are chiming in at the moment.
You must have missed posts 41 and 47.

[pgk]

FWIW I once owned a Takumar lens with a small but very obvious scratch on the front element. After a time i used a black felt tip pens to fill the scratch in - more obvious but it proved to be effective in reducing flare. I am pretty sure that the result of this filled scratch was so minimal that I would have been very hard pushed to have distinuished between photographs taken with this or a similar unscratched lens. Of course this does depend somewhat on lens, ype of lens, subject matter and very importantly any extraneous light, effectiveness of hood used, etc.. But in general, and especially after using some very early lenses with siginificant issues, I would say that poor lens condition is generally rather more forgiving that we often suppose.

Living by the sea and often photographing from boats, I see filters as protection and accept that they need periodic replacement. The filters are rarely immaculate. Resulting images show no discernable degredation much of the time.

[rdenney]

No brand loyalty for me. But later generations do outperform earlier generations, at least for brands like Schneider who have been around forever.

Lenses turned a corner with multicoating, but my old 121/8 Super Angulon, despite not being multicoated, is still a favorite. That probably has little to do with performance.

These days, I’d by later stuff just to get a shutter that might work.

Rick “on the agenda: putting the watchmaker tools to work on shutters” Denney

[Greg]

I am not loyal to any one manufacturer. I've used both Leitz and a Voigtlander optics that were dogs. My 508mm Caltar on 11x14 on the other hand has never disappointed me once after all these years.
In the 1990s I had and used professionally a 24-120mm AF Nikkor that was supposed to be one of Nikon's worst optic. My sample was super sharp, and over the years was able to compare it to newer models of the 24-120mm... my early sample outperformed all of them by a mile.

[Sal Santamaura]

You must have missed posts 41 and 47.

:D

[Drew Wiley]

pgk - I live near the sea too, and a salt spray affected lens or filter does lead to a degraded image. I pity those pro bird videographers who sit around some beach cliff with $40,000 worth of gear for two weeks on end, and have to clean their lens every ten minutes, hoping to get 10 of 15 seconds of footage of some rare event.

[pgk]

pgk - I live near the sea too, and a salt spray affected lens or filter does lead to a degraded image. I pity those pro bird videographers who sit around some beach cliff with $40,000 worth of gear for two weeks on end, and have to clean their lens every ten minutes, hoping to get 10 of 15 seconds of footage of some rare event.

Many years ago I was offered a long Nikkor lens (400) by a sports photographer working for a national newspaper in London. I was obviously used and unfortunately had some fungus as a result of being all too often used in wet conditions and not dried out enough. I declined but he didn't seem too bothered about the effect of even fungus. I suppose it goes with the territory.

Back to the thread title. Leica have designed and built their own lenses but have also use Schneider, Minolta and Sigma designs too. One major reason for sticking with a manufacturer is consistency but clearly this may not be appropriate if differing designs are used. Also over time design parameters chage too so a mix of conventional and aspherical lenses would give slightly differing results. Perhaps a set of lenses from a particular era and all from the same maker might be more coherent. But in stills photography is coherence a desired aim I wonder?

With modern AF cameras I tend to stick with the makers own lenses to maximise compatibility. With MF cameras I have a real mix.

[Scott Davis]

Being a fan of vintage optics, I'm not at all concerned about brand consistency from lens to lens. If you had to nail my feet to the floor about a single brand, I'd probably go with Kodak - the Wide Field Ektars, Commercial Ektars, and the Portrait lenses are really really hard to beat, regardless of what you have to pay for them. And I've gotten VERY lucky with buying mine when I have - all of them have been bought on the cheap, either through being in the right place at the right time, or (in the case of my 405mm Portrait lens) knowing that the weirdness going on in the cement between the elements will have zero effect on the images (it's a soft focus lens! And it gets used in the studio and never will have light directly shining into it...).

[Gabe]

I own and use lenses from all of the big four. In terms of performance I see no significant differences between them. Rather they were all bought for a specific other inherent feature (size, weight, coverage and so on) vs other alternatives. Diffraction is typically more of a limiting factor in terms of resolution than the specific lens design anyway.

[jnantz]

Rick “on the agenda: putting the watchmaker tools to work on shutters” Denney

exactly ! and your milk homogenizer I mean ultrasonic cleaner..

[PRJ]

Personally I think of lenses with respect to coatings. There is an obvious spectrum from uncoated to multicoated. Similar coatings give similar results regardless of the manufacturer. Later multicoated lenses are pretty much all the same, though I generally prefer Fuji for no reason whatsoever.

[Mal Paso]

Back in the day a friend got a very good price on a 150mm Sonnar with a 1/16" chip on the rear element. After consulting a couple LA camera gurus we covered the chip with a dot of black paint then tried to find a problem with the lens, never did.

[angusparker]

Only reason I prefer the Fuji CM-W line is that in the focal lengths I prefer they all use a 67mm filter so I only have a single set to take along.

Sticking to one filter size 52mm or 67mm is a good idea. As long as you have a modern multicoated lens the results are going to be similar. The advantage of Fujinon is they have a bunch of focal lengths and small sizes not replicated by other makers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Mal Paso]

I have the Fujinon 400mm Tele, very sharp, very good price. It's a true tele, infinity focus is way less than 400mm. Almost got the 600mm but a 600 Nikon convertible came along...