Favourite lens design and why?

[Shen45]

Through the years many lens designs have been used but do you have a personal favourite?

Your choice may be coverage, contrast, resolution or a mystical property you can not fully convey.

I shoot 5x4 on a modified 5x7 empire state #2 for the extra bellows draw and my choice seem to be Tessars and Dialytes.

I have two specialty lenses a Verito and a Petzval but the Tessars and Dialytes are certainly my choice for image qualities I like.

My reasons are probably quite simply explained as sharp and creamy for the Tessars and sharp and contrasty [but not too much] for the Dialytes.

I have a couple of plasmats but I find them increadibly boring lenses. Great optics but boring. They do everything well but have no personality. In colour they are probably sensational - but I don't shoot colour.

[Walter Calahan]

I simply love my Cooke XVa. Three wonderful lenses in one. Simple to use.

[Dave_B]

Nikkor 300M. It just works for me. My best shoots are with this lens. The 200M is a close second.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Shen45]

If you wouldn't mind can you guys elaborate a bit more. Walter I've never used a Cooke like you have so any impressions you can share will be interesting and valuable in appreciating what other photographers find special about their favourite optics. The heritage of your particular lens Walter is rather special and not just from a technical point of view.
Dave I can understand your feelings on the Nikon as a friend has both the 200 and 300 but if you can can add something extra it may explain to some other person the character of the lens.

Anyway any information on what makes other photographers tick is to me interesting.

Steve

[William Barnett-Lewis]

I, too, prefer the Tessar and other asymmetrical lenses. What I especially enjoy is that with a good tessar design (and the old classic 127/4.7 Ektar is a good example of this) is how the center of the image is razor sharp but then it gently fades away the further from the center you get - and yet you'll still run out of coverage before you are completely out of sharpness. Using that right can be a total bit*h, but that's half the fun of the camera game.

William

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Lessee now. I shoot an Uno type, tessar types, dialyte types, a 4/4 double Gauss type, heliar types, 6/4 plasmat types, 6/4 double gauss types, a 6/6 double Gauss type, dagor types, an f/5.6 Super Angulon, an f/4.5 Biogon. No triplets, just haven't got around to using the ones I have in the drawer.

I have my favorites, but don't see any connection between which lenses I prefer and their designs.

[Jack Flesher]

I get the question, but the answer is tougher...

Personally, my favorite lens of all time is a triplet -- creamy smooth with interesting aberrations wide open, gradually falling off to quite sharp when stopped down... I do like the comparative smoothness from tessars and Dagors, but they have a harsher contrast. Angulons are smooth and a bit less harsh, but perhaps not quite as sharp. Plasmats are nice and sharp, excellent contrast, excellent flare control, and modern versions are consistent in color rendering. The SA's have more notable, but still manageable, falloff, but are also sharp with great contrast and flare resistance, so I like using them mixed with the plasmats for wideangle work. So for me, the "favored" kit is one of consistent performance using plasmats and SA's.

And I aknowledge, as you pointed out, that they have no character... But I think it is their neutrality that I have come to appreciate; not too strong in any direction, delivering consistent and exceptional performance between focals without surprises. That said, I still carry the triplet when I want a unique look -- but I've only found one particular triplet that delivers character as described above, so I am limited to expressions that will work using her lone focal...

Cheers,

[Neal Shields]

75mm Biogon for 4x5.

Even though there is little or no movements, the prints just pop out at you. I always try to use it first and then revert to a 90mm Angulon if I need more movement.

There is a reason these things when 30+ years old sell for more than a new lens on the auction site.

[Dave_B]

In general I tend to be a Nikkor guy. I like their rendition of colors. The 300M is a Tessar type with 4 elements in three groups. It has a covering power of 52-57 degrees when stopped down to f22. The 300M has an image circle of 325mm at f22. It is small and compact for a 300mm lens that covers 8x10. I find this lens to be very sharp and contrasty. For some reason, I just know I'm going to nail the shot when I reach for this lens. I always seem to get a keeper with it. I use it for 4x5 and 8x10. I guess golfers feel that way about certain clubs and carpenters that way about a certain hammer. I just really like how it performs and the images it produces. It is probably the last lens I would be willing to part with and I have more than 60 others to compare it with.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[John Kasaian]

Whichever lens is out front on the lensboard at the time a scene comes together. I have tessars, double gauss, dialytes, dagors, rapid rectilinears, at least one radio active aerial and a lot whose names I don't even know. If I do my part, I figure they won't let me down.

[Jim Galli]

Hi Steve.

The answer to your question is yes.

I cannot, dare not, delineate as I'm looking for a couple of sizes by a couple of makers and when names get dropped around here, well, it ends up costing me $$$ :D:D

Now Celor's are nice. So are Dogmar's. Radionar's are very nice.

[Shen45]

Sorry Jim :),

I totally forgot the "I must have one of those" desire that drives up the cost of lenses.

A friend gave me a box of lenses the other day and it ranges from Cooke Aviar [10"] to whole plate brass RR. There is also a very -- modern -- 210/4.5 Xenar in a wonderful compound shutter. [1930 - 40's I think]

He said these are just a few of the lenses he has for me to play with.

I don't think I have ever made so many lens boards.

I'm yet to shoot with the Aviar. It is very crisp, I presume it is a dialylte but not too sure really.

[Nick_3536]

The first series of Fuji-W.

1) Small for the most part.

2) Good coverage

3) Fast

4) And cheap -)

[Lazybones]

My favorite lens design is the one that works best for the task at hand. :D :D :D :D

[Bill_1856]

DAGOR. I've had a hard-on for Dagors ever since I ran across a Goerz Catalog in my local Carneigie Library when I was about 14. I have a 120mm Berlin (coated), a 6" and 8.25" Golden Dagors -- all are wonderful!
DR. STAEBLE POLYPLAST casket set I got from Davor77 a few years ago. f:16/105mm, f:5.0/135mm, f:7.7/165mm, f:9/195mm, and f:23/220mm lens combinations, all bayonet (not screw) into a tiny little Compound shutter. Total weight including the case and 3 filters is 12 oz. Only drawbacks are lack of coating, and 1/8" focus shift on stopping down 3 stops.

[Jim Galli]

Sorry Jim :),

I totally forgot the "I must have one of those" desire that drives up the cost of lenses.

A friend gave me a box of lenses the other day and it ranges from Cooke Aviar [10"] to whole plate brass RR. There is also a very -- modern -- 210/4.5 Xenar in a wonderful compound shutter. [1930 - 40's I think]

He said these are just a few of the lenses he has for me to play with.

I don't think I have ever made so many lens boards.

I'm yet to shoot with the Aviar. It is very crisp, I presume it is a dialylte but not too sure really.

I do love my Aviar. Wide open it is extremely pleasant and has a look very much like the Velostigmat, perhaps even smoother. Find something to do with that one wide open and let me know what you think.

[Shen45]

Jim I must build the box for the Packard. Maybe this weekend.

I found a Cooke VII B and a Taylor Taylor 11.1 inch Brassies [f8] as well in the "box" of bits.

There is a very old brass lens, no name and no aperture except a WH slot that seems to be about 6" focal length.

And a truly magmificant Russian N-37 300/f4.5 Tessar I presume. Similar size and weight to the Veliostigmat.

And also the Aviar 10" f4.5.

Oh and a 210/f4.5 Xenar in a very nice Compound shutter.

I will try my hand at woodwork this weekend and try to post some results soon.

Steve

[archivue]

i've found the apo sironar S line to be the best lens for color work
(sharp, flare resistant and neutral)

[Toyon]

Hey Bill 1856, where did you have your Berlin Dagor 120 coated? I have one uncoated, at it is just a sweet "do it right" lens, nothing exceptional, just sharp and well rounded with good bokeh, crisp detail, great shadow detail and moderate contrast.

[Jan Pedersen]

Steve,
If your 11.1" Taylor Hobson is a RR then you are in for a treat. I have one and love it. Mine should be from around 1898.

[Mark Sawyer]

I have a lot of lenses I love, but if one has a special place in my heart, it's my first 12" IWSWGon, because:

* It's in an 1882 Prosch Triplex shutter, which is very pretty, fun to use, and has (sort of) real shutter speeds

* It's my own (very simple) design, so no one else has one.

* I made it, so I got to name it. :)

* It's so full of aberrations, coma, and general problems that it's images don't look like any other lenses' images.

* It's images look like I sometimes feel...

* It has no resale value, just like me...

The first 12" IWSWGon on my 8x10 2d, and one of its first images, "Chairoscuro":

[Bill_1856]

Hey Bill 1856, where did you have your Berlin Dagor 120 coated?
It came that way when I bought it in the early 1970s, (probably from Lens & Repro or Ken Hanson).
I love the lens, but it's a PITA to use because there's no press-focus button on the Compur shutter, nor a "T" setting, so I have to use the "B" setting and a cable release with locking screw.

[Shen45]

Steve,
If your 11.1" Taylor Hobson is a RR then you are in for a treat. I have one and love it. Mine should be from around 1898.


Hi Jan,

Yes I just read -- very small lettering RR. F8 to f64

Very small with a beautiful iris shape. Many blades.

What can you tell me about it? Do you have any images from it?

Steve

[Ralph Barker]

Steve, the original question is somewhat parallel to, "With whom would you prefer to spend the night? A ravishingly beautiful blonde, a ravishingly beautiful redhead, or a ravishingly beautiful brunette?" - ignoring that there are personalities involved.

Lenses, IMHO, have "personalities" too, so the choice often boils down to whether that "personality" is important to the image, or are "practical" considerations more important (modern shutter, electronic flash, etc.). Bottom line, it's all a matter of artistic taste, I think.

[Jan Pedersen]

Here's a couple shots with the TTH
Flowers are taken on a 4x5 around f11 with a front mounted Luc. The pond is taken on 8x10 with a Packard behind, it was just a test to see if it would cover. Lower corners are cut but i think it will cover if centered on the front.
Yet to use it on something interesting but that will come.

[Shen45]

Steve, the original question is somewhat parallel to, "With whom would you prefer to spend the night? A ravishingly beautiful blonde, a ravishingly beautiful redhead, or a ravishingly beautiful brunette?" - ignoring that there are personalities involved.

Lenses, IMHO, have "personalities" too, so the choice often boils down to whether that "personality" is important to the image, or are "practical" considerations more important (modern shutter, electronic flash, etc.). Bottom line, it's all a matter of artistic taste, I think.

Ralph you can interpret the post in any manner you choose but I just re read my post and I actually asked nothing about blondes or brunettes. Maybe you meant to say Brassy or Japanese Black?

I did mention characteristics of lenses which conveys personality quite well.

[Shen45]

Here's a couple shots with the TTH
Flowers are taken on a 4x5 around f11 with a front mounted Luc. The pond is taken on 8x10 with a Packard behind, it was just a test to see if it would cover. Lower corners are cut but i think it will cover if centered on the front.
Yet to use it on something interesting but that will come.

Thanks Jan,

The one I have is the same. So looks like I will have to get a sock or the Packard working.

I will be shooting 5x4

Thanks for the images.

[Jim Galli]

I MUST Have a IWSWGon :eek:

Look at that darned Mark! Look how happy he looks next to the IWSWGon!! Must have, must have!!!!

[Mark Sawyer]

Grrrr.... Keep your philandering hands off my sweet, innocent lens! She's mine, I tell you, MINE!!! :mad:

[Shen45]

Grrrr.... Keep your philandering hands off my sweet, innocent lens! She's mine, I tell you, MINE!!! :mad:

I'll send him lots of complimentary emails Jim and you sneak up on him -- you're closer :)

I actually thought about taken the front element off a 300mm and replacing it with a 1 dioptre closeup lens. Might work -- might not.

[Dan Fromm]

Steve, the original question is somewhat parallel to, "With whom would you prefer to spend the night? A ravishingly beautiful blonde, a ravishingly beautiful redhead, or a ravishingly beautiful brunette?" - ignoring that there are personalities involved.

Lenses, IMHO, have "personalities" too, so the choice often boils down to whether that "personality" is important to the image, or are "practical" considerations more important (modern shutter, electronic flash, etc.). Bottom line, it's all a matter of artistic taste, I think.Ralph, y'r examples are all the same design, differ in minor details of implementation. I'm sure you can think of alternatives to women ...

[Shen45]

Here is an image from a 1930's cooke Aviar 10".

Barrel lens so I had to stop it down to f16.

[Jim Galli]

Here is an image from a 1930's cooke Aviar 10".

Barrel lens so I had to stop it down to f16.


Beautiful image Steve and a perfect subject for a Cooke Aviar. When you've collected a bunch of these lenses half the battle is matching lens personality to subject.

[Ole Tjugen]

"Reverse Dagor"...

First of all the Angulons - from 90 to 210mm, they do the job they're designed to do with no fuzz and comparatively low weight. A 210mm was my main lens this past week, I've been to northern Norway to see the midnight sun. :)

And the Zeiss Amatar. I'll never understand why they stopped making them, they're a lot more "pleasing" than the Dagors. :(

[Uusilehto]

Even though I'm an amateur in the field of LF, of the lenses I've tried, I like Dagors the most. Lots and lots of coverage (although only when stopped down) in a very compact package.

[justin mueller]

1920's berlin dagor, old lens that has "that" and more in the "bokeh" (i hate that word but...) than my modern lenses

[Ole Tjugen]

And the Zeiss Amatar. I'll never understand why they stopped making them, they're a lot more "pleasing" than the Dagors. :(

Here's an Amatar example - the uncoated lens helped preserve shadow details which would have been lost with a modern multicoated lens.

Carl Zeiss Jena Doppel-Amatar 15cm F/6.8 on Anniversary Speed Graphic 4x5", f:16 at 1/10s, Fuji Provia.