Pick One Lens Manufacturer Only

[Andre Noble]

Warning: This Thread Contains Idle Banter of Marginal Meaningful Significance. :D

Suppose for a moment that you were forced to pick only one large format lens manufacturer from which to choose all of your current and future line up of lenses.

Which manufacturer would you settle on?

Single word/short answers appreciated.

[Gordon Moat]

Tough to pick just one, since there are so many good choices depending upon focal length and size of large format film one wants to use. Shame that Zeiss is not still making large format lenses, though maybe they might in the future. However, baring a return of Zeiss, I would say Schneider.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Either Fuji (for the large range of affordable lenses available from 65-600 mm) or Rodenstock (for high quality, sharpness, and personal preference).

[Oren Grad]

Rodenstock - at least the plasmats (Apo-Sironar-N/S/W), for their delicious mix of character in the plane of focus (balance of contrast and resolution) and character in the OOF backgrounds (bokeh); the Grandagons are OK but the bokeh isn't so consistently pretty.

[Linhof]

Schneider!

[Andre Noble]

Either Fuji or Rodenstock...

Now boys and girls, did Brian follow the directions?:p

[Capocheny]

Andre,

Definitely Schneider for moi! :)

Cheers

[Leonard Metcalf]

Schneider for me

Len

[Nick_3536]

Fuji

[Gary Tarbert]

Andre in all fairness to rodenstock & nikkor have not had the pleasure of using any of
there LF lenses have seen some stunning images taken on the rodenstocks my vote schneider.
Cheers Gary

[Joseph O'Neil]

Wollensak!!!!!!






No, not really - I just wanted to see the looks on all your faces. :)

[Frank Petronio]

Lensbabies

[Janko Belaj]

schneider-kreuznach

[Jack Flesher]

Cooke.

I've tried just about everything and just 'LOVE the look of Cooke'.

But like wine, women and friends, I think they're all good -- just some are better than others ;)

The sharpest lenses I own are modern Rodenstocks. My Schneiders are less sharp but a bit smoother. Fuji and Nikkor are kind of middlemen and I'd place my Schneider Dagors second to Cooke for their unique combination of sharp and smooth.

[Ralph Barker]

Schneider.

(Did you know you can add a poll, Andre?)

[Arne Croell]

Schneider, based on their innovation in the last 10-15 years, and the availability of their lens lines. On the other hand, due to the adaptable nature of view cameras, LF photographers are probably the most promiscuous - when it comes to lens loyalty, of course! I carry 5 different brands in my bag...

[Michael Graves]

Fuji.

[Walter Calahan]

I'd pick them all, I don't play by the rules. Grin.

I love my Cooke, Nikkor, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Schneider, and all the other lens manufacturers I don't own but wish I could.

Why? Any company willing to make optics is worth praising.

Secretly - I love my Cooke XVa.

[paulr]

WhatArneSaid

[BrianShaw]

Schneider

[Sheldon N]

Fuji - for their selection of lightweight longer lenses, and overall affordability.

[Hugo Zhang]

Voigtlander, the maker of Heliars!

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Wollensak, the largest selection of types and styles.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Rodenstock

[John Kasaian]

The manufacturers I'd choose first are all out of the lens making business (or out of business all together!) and Schneider stopped making the G-Claron :-( Bummer, man!

[Bill_1856]

(Whoever said that there's no such thing as a stupid question was wrong!)

[Christopher Perez]

I was trying to think of a snide answer. But none comes to mind. So here goes:

Schneider-Fuji

[David Karp]

I have Rodenstocks, Fujinons, and a Nikkor. If I had to choose one from the start knowing what I would know now, I would go for Fujinons from the era of the EBC coated Fujinon W lenses, because of their high quality and extreme reasonableness in price. If price was no object, I don't think I would be able to choose just one manufacturer.

[tim atherton]

Goerz (+Zeiss-Dagor)

[Ron Marshall]

I own lenses from all of the, now, big three. All are wonderful, it would be a very close call, but I would go with Rodenstock, as I could never give up my 150 S.

[Brian Ellis]

Schneider - they're at least as good as the other three and they're the only company that seems interested in large format so I think they should be supported. Nikon's gone, Fuji can't be troubled with having a U.S. distributor, and Rodenstock hasn't brought out a new LF lens in years. Sorry for so many words.

[Eric Leppanen]

Schneider, because:

1) They have the best wide-angle series (SSXL).
2) They have the best telephotos (APO Tele Xenar).
3) At least based on experience with my 480mm, the APO Symmar L series holds up quite well versus the APO Sironar-S (although I'd still prefer the Sironar if given the choice).
4) Schneider has kept LF film lens development alive (most recently the Fine Art XXL series), which earns them bonus points.

[Mike H.]

Rodenstock. That's all I know. I have two. Only. No more. 210 and 115. They're perfect. :) Wish I had more ... :( 300, 450, 600 - or whatever.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Rodenstock. That's all I know. I have two. Only. No more. 210 and 115. They're perfect. :) Wish I had more ... :( 300, 450, 600 - or whatever.

OH, that's real easy to fix. :) Just put up an add in the classified section : WTB - Apo Ronar.

Trust me - you'll have your wish come true real fast. :)

joe

[Aender Brepsom]

Rodenstock (Apo-Grandagon and Apo-Sironar N/S)

[Scott Davis]

Depends on the film format.... for 4x5, I'd go with Rodenstock. They're what I have the most of for that format.

For 8x10, Kodak. (you didn't say they had to be currently manufacturing said lenses).

I'm enthralled with my Commercial Ektars and my Ektar 12" f4.5.

That said, Wolly did make some very nice compact wide lenses for 8x10.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Schneider!
Ditto

[Donald Brewster]

Rodenstock.

Of course I have 1 Schneider, 1 Rodenstock, 1 Wollensak, 1 Nikon, 2 Kodak, and 3 Goerz.:o

[Armin Seeholzer]

Rodenstockschneidervoigtländerwollensak I could now life without my two Nikkors and would replace them with Rodenstock or Schneiders.
I really can not deside between Rodi and Schneidi!

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Leica.

You said "This Thread Contains Idle Banter of Marginal Meaningful Significance". Man, is that ever correct!

[Jim Rice]

Rodenstock

[John Flavell]

Whatever I can afford----USED.

[Steve Hamley]

Only one? I'm with Tim - Goerz.

Steve

[Ed K.]

If you're compiling a survey, you should pay us with a free lens of our choice...

Fuji - if they can stay in business doing it, and especially if they would execute some of the other needed lens designs as new releases. But then the price would go up, the quality would go down, and at that point, it wouldn't matter.

The question you didn't ask - if you could pick one lens, from one manufacturer only - then I might want a Cooke Triple if I were rich.

[vijayn]

Rodenstock, no question.

[Ole Tjugen]

It looks like the majority of my lenses are Schneider, and it's likely to stay that way.

As to defunct manufacturers, I would pick Steinheil. Anyone who can make a lens that is as good as new after 135 years is good.

[Eric Rose]

Rock'n with Roddie!

[Dan Fromm]

Folks, please go on buying lenses from the well-known manufacturers and leave the not-so-well known ones for me.

Yours for inexpensive good lenses,

Dan

[Andre Noble]

I cast for Rodenstock, and with 37 decipherable votes cast (so far), here is the breakdown:

39% Schneider

31% Rodenstock

16% Fuji

5.5% Goerz

5.5% Wollensack

3% Cooke

0% Nikon

[BrianShaw]

Wow... 0% Nikon. Why is that?

When I was first buying LF lenses (in the 1980's) I remember people saying things like "if you really want great contrast, buy Nikon". I bought Schneider.. and don't quite remember why I chose them over the others. But I've been more than satisfied so I'm using the same lenses I've always used.

Why so little preference for Nikon LF lenses?

[Jack Flesher]

Wow... 0% Nikon. Why is that?

When I was first buying LF lenses (in the 1980's) I remember people saying things like "if you really want great contrast, buy Nikon". ~~SNIP~~
Why so little preference for Nikon LF lenses?

Too much contrast ;)

[Arne Croell]

Wow... 0% Nikon. Why is that?
Probably because they recently, officially, abandoned us...

[Gregory Gomez]

I cast the single vote for Nikon. But I would be just as happy with Schneider, Rodenstock, or Fuji.

I own the 90mm f8 Nikkor-SW, 120mm f8 Nikkor-SW, 150mm f5.6 Nikkor-W, 210 f5.6 Nikkor-W, 300mm f9 Nikkor-M, and 360mm f8 Nikkor-T ED.

To this collection I plan to add the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 180mm 5.6 and the Fujinon Compact 450mm f12.5.

These lenses will be used on 4x5 and 5x7 cameras.

It was the very high quality of John Sexton's prints that led me to choose Nikon over all the other brands. As you may know, John uses Nikon glass. I also chose Nikon because their lenses deliver a very good price/performance, and because I already own Nikon 35mm manual focusing lenses. Equally important is the fact that I am only an armature photographer and my reproduction rations do not exceed a factor of three times the linear dimensions of the film plane. Nikon makes excellent glass that meets these criteria quite nicely, but so does Fujinon.

Another deciding factor was an article written many years ago by Ron Wisner for Darkroom Techniques that clearly showed once f22 is reached, there is very little difference among large format lenses due to diffraction effects. When one also adds subject movement, camera vibration, and focusing errors, the differences among large format lenses are vanishingly small, and maybe non-existent.

Over the years, I have also been very impressed by the images of Ansel Adams, who used a Cooke XV Triple Convertible lens for many of his finest and most famous images. These photos are among the sharpest I have every seen. So one can use a "classic," non-fixed (convertible) focal length lens (or lenses) and get outstanding results.

Now that Nikon no longer makes lenses for the large format market, I would choose Fujinon without any hesitation based upon their excellent price/performance and upon the wonderful large format landscape work of Shinzo Maeda, who used Fujinon lenses extensively.

If I were shooting 8x10 and could put my own personal "dream team" together, I would choose the Schneider G-Claron 210mm f9, Schneider Goerz 250mm, Schneider Goerz 300mm, Schneider Red Dot Artar 480mm, and Schneider Red Dot Artar 600mm.

For ultra-large formats, I would use pristine Goerz Dagors and Red Dot Artars if I could find them.

Now how's that for a one-line answer?

[Gordon Moat]

Wow, indeed. Maybe this will mean used prices dropping on Nikkor lenses.
:D

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[Dan Fromm]

Warning: This Thread Contains Idle Banter of Marginal Meaningful Significance. :D

Suppose for a moment that you were forced to pick only one large format lens manufacturer from which to choose all of your current and future line up of lenses.

Which manufacturer would you settle on?

Single word/short answers appreciated.I don't mean to insult you, Andre, but your question strikes as at best a contrived attempt to generate responses (= troll) and at worst just plain dumb. I don't think any of us has the budget or need to scrap all of our lenses and use ones from just one maker. You're asking us to reveal our fantasies. And the fantasies that have surfaced so far seem poorly anchored in reality.

Actual practice is more interesting. Never mind what we'd want in an ideal world, what do we actually own and shoot?

I shoot lenses made by, in alphabetical order: Aldis; Bausch & Lomb; Boyer; Ilex; Kodak; Nikon; Reichert; Rodenstock; Schneider; Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson, now trading as Cooke; Wollensak; and Zeiss. Why should I have constrained myself to lenses from just one maker? I'd have been poorer in lenses and ability to take pictures if I did.

OK, let the flaming begin,

Dan

[Andre Noble]

Thanks to all who took up the challenge, suspended reality for a moment to use your imagination (or at least the majority who responded were capable to) and had fun with this poll.

I think that most of us recognize and enjoy that indeed each lens maker has a 'style and personality' to their large format lineup, and that being highly individualistic, we large format photographers gravitate towards one type of 'lens personality' or another...

Regarding the flames you were seeking Dan, I sent you some in a PM.:)

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you, Andre, for the PM. I have replied.

I don't for an instant accept that each lens maker has a 'style and personality' in their lens lineup for any format. I've done some of the highly obnoxious lens trials that Bob Monaghan has, i.e., shot the same scene on the same emulsion at the same aperture with the same lighting with a variety of lenses. Persons skilled in the art can't match image to lens at all. Neither can I without my notes. I and they may be insensitive clods, but I think that people who assert the ability to tell which lens took which shot, other things well-controlled, are deluded.

Now, I did cheat in two ways in my trials.

I used only known good lenses. I have other lenses that are known bad. Images taken with them can easily be told from ones taken with known good lenses. My good lenses all shoot pretty well.

And I used lenses that had more than enough coverage for the format I shoot. Most of the noise people make about 'personality' seems to be about performance towards the limits of coverage. By not practicing lens abuse I may have biased the results towards "all good lenses shoot alike."

Cheers,

Dan

[Jack Flesher]

No offense Dan, but I can ALWAYS tell my Cooke shots form the others...

:D

[BrianShaw]

You're asking us to reveal our fantasies. And the fantasies that have surfaced so far seem poorly anchored in reality.


Oh... really?

[Robert Skeoch]

Hope I'm not too late.
"Fuji"
300C, 450C, and 240A are tough to beat on 8x10 for the price/size/sharpness/filter size.
-Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

[Eric James]

Here's another vote for Fuji, then

2) Schneider
3) Nikon
4) Rodenstock

When starting out with 4X5 photography I used this forum, photo.net and Kerry T's website to steer me in my lens selection. I decided to start with the Fuji 240A and I designed my kit around it. When expanding my selection, I quickly realized that the other manufacturers provide better offerings when weight and image circle come into play. If forced to choose only one manufacturer I could live with Fuji - my 240A and 450C are great lenses; and replacing my Sironar-s 150mm, and Nikon 90mm f8 wouldn't be too distressing. Giving up the Schneider 110XL would suck - fortunately I don't have to.

[Dan Fromm]

No offense Dan, but I can ALWAYS tell my Cooke shots form the others...

:DWell, Jack, I do admit to being an insensitive clod who doesn't appreciate or even see the finer points ... More power to those who are more sensitive to them.

It takes a huge effort to select 'em without prompting, but in an unblind test pictures taken with the two TTH lenses I use regularly can be told from those taken with my other lenses of about the same focal lengths. The short one offers a tiny bit better corners at (relatively) large apertures and the long one loses the ends of the frame to vignetting by the bellows. This last isn't really an attribute of the lens, it reflects one of my camera's shortcomings.

Cheers,

Dan

[Gary Tarbert]

recent deserter of the fold i geuss

[Jim Galli]

Cooke

[brian steinberger]

Definately Fuji

[Scott Fleming]

Schneider. Like that's a surprise ey? I always feel somewhat partial to any manufacturer or service provider that goes out of their way to get me all the info I need and keeps their prices in line. That they continue to inovate counts for a lot too. That the other big guy charges more for their lenses and does less in all the above categories certainly does not endear them to me.

[John Kasaian]

I can take a truly bad picture with any make lens!

"How do You do it?" You might ask

Just lucky, I guess! ;-)

This reminds me of a recent post on the Online Trombone Journal regarding trombones (I play sax, but trombone guys really have it together so I lurk around OTJ more than SOTW)

The gist of the post is that in days past you'd buy a bone and learn to play "it" rather than the current modus of buying a bone (or camera or...?) that has features that make a bloke look (or sound) good 'out of the box' rather than requiring the musician to get a good sound out of the instrument. An example was given of professional bone players back in the 30's who would practice with a new trombone at home for a month before even considering using it in a gig.

I wonder how relevant this is to LF photography?

Bellows move in and out---so do slides! ;-)

Do we expect too much from LF equipment? As photo stuff goes, LF is about as basic as it gets(maybe pinhole beats it, but then again there isn't much 35mm or 2-1/4 pinhole action that I'm aware of going on)

IMHO old school Goerz, Kodak, Wolly and Ilex rock! Even my Gennert (what the hecks a Gennert?) is pretty cool considering it cost like $20

The one manufacture lens thing is a good mental exercise I suppose, but the realilty I think is that it is the artist, not the brush, the 'tog not the lens, and the bone player not the axe that makes it happen.

[bruce terry]

Since Andre is running a tally (thanks), I've a couple of Goerz'z, period.

[Gary Smith]

I have a combindations or Fuji, Schneider and Dr. Optics lenses. My favorites are the Dr. Optics, its a shame that more weren't produced.

Gary

[Gary Tarbert]

Nikon being the recent deserter of the fold is the reason for their low rating i geuss

[Christopher Perez]

I completely forgot about Dr Optics! I must be getting old. I have three of the wee-sharp-buggers in various sizes. They're GREAT!!!


... My favorites are the Dr. Optics, its a shame that more weren't produced.

Gary

[Austin Moore]

SCHNEIDER

[Andre Noble]

36% Schneider

22% Rodenstock

21% Fuji

6% Goerz

4% Cooke

4% Docter Optics

3% Nikon

2% Voitlander

2% Wollensack

[Hany Aziz]

I guess people are feeling jilted by Nikon, so hereby I vote for Nikon. Their 120 SW, 135 W, 200M and 300M lenses are superb. I know some people have questioned their regular "W" lenses but I certainly have no complaints. I have to admit though, they seemed almost ashamed of the fact that they were making LF lenses prior to completely dropping them.

Actually I have lenses from all four major makers (plus Goerz Berlin and one Kodak Commerial Ektar). I have to admit Schneider seems to be the main one with still a major commitment to LF. I also wish Fuji would bother to find a US distributor and bother to post lens specs etc. on their website.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Hany.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hany,

"I also wish Fuji would bother to find a US distributor and bother to post lens specs etc. on their website."

I think Fuji lost a lawsuit to Kodak over flooding the market with color printing paper thru Mexico and they can't sell lenses in the USA. Might just be an 'urban legend'.

[Gordon Moat]

http://fujifilm.jp/personal/lens/largeformat/index.html

You should be able to pick the numbers and specifications out of the Japanese. Of course, if anyone actually reads Japanese, then even better resource link.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[Nick_3536]

Hany,

"I also wish Fuji would bother to find a US distributor and bother to post lens specs etc. on their website."

I think Fuji lost a lawsuit to Kodak over flooding the market with color printing paper thru Mexico and they can't sell lenses in the USA. Might just be an 'urban legend'.

Aren't the Fuji MF lenses and cameras sold in the US? I can't see Kodak gaining anything from blocking Fuji LF lenses. When was the last time Kodak sold a LF lens?

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Nick_3536,

If the story is correct, it would have been the Justice Dept. that spanked Fuji for 'pumping & dumping' color paper to photo finishers at a price below their manufacturing cost, a major no-no. About the same time Kodak was spanked over their "Ektaflex' color paper infringing on Polaroid patents.