PDA

View Full Version : Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?



JPlomley
1-Jan-2008, 11:32
Happy New Year everyone. As today is a snow day here in Montreal (15 cm minimum), I've taken the time to re-evaluate my lens kit after having sorted all of my chromes for scanning. Having started in LF last April, I went on a lens purchasing rampage and ended up with the follwoing arsenal:

55 APO Grandagon
75/4.5 Grandagon-N
90/4.5 Grandagon-N
135 APO Sironar-S
210 APO Sironar-S
300 APO Sironar-S
120 Nikkor AM-ED

Having taken three major trips since then, I've been able to evaluate relative usage. Needless to say, each and every lens has been placed into action (which helps to ease the financial guilt somewhat). However, my most frequently used lens has been the 135 APO Sironar-S, followed by the 75mm and 210mm. In order to reduce weight, I'm thinking of replacing the 90mm and 135mm with the 110mm Schneider XL. Does this make sense? Does the 110XL compare favorably to the 135 Sironar-S and 90 Grandagon, both of which are ubersharp.

Ed Richards
1-Jan-2008, 11:41
The 110 is clearly a wide lens, while the 135 is a normal. The perspective is very different. I will bet that under field conditions, you will see no difference between macro shots with the 120 and the 135. I would dump it first. I would then trade the 300 for a compact lens like the Fuji or Nikon - that will save you the weigh of at least two other lenses, since it is such a monster. You could replace the 90 with a Grandagon 90mm 6.8 and save a lot of weight with no loss of sharpness and not that much loss of light.

Walter Calahan
1-Jan-2008, 11:52
Keep everything, and then add to the weight with the 110XL. More glass the better in fine tuning your seeing.

Get a 3-wheeled baby jogging stroller to push your gear instead of carrying.

Ted Harris
1-Jan-2008, 12:07
Hmm, its only snowing a bit less here in the Upper Valley. I dug a path to the studio and then retreated to the house. So ....... I almost agree with Walter. As you know I use both the 135 S and the 110 SSXL. I sold my 90 some years ago, a few months after i started using the 110. The 90 just wasn't seeing any use. The 135 still gets lots of use. First, I like its "look" and second when i want to take a real light kit with just one or two lenses stuffed in a pocket the 135 S is always one of them, the other is usually the 240A. The 110 has the same feel as the Rodenstock series S and W lenses, same sharpness and same difficult to define sparkle. I don't think you'll miss the 90.

OTOH, since I know your work, I'd definitely keep the 120. It's perfect for some of the real close in things you do, images that macro lenses were made to produce. The only other change I might recommend would be to switch the 300 S for a Fuji 300 A (remember you used it I think when we were shooting the Stations of the Cross) if you can find one and can live with the f9 max aperture. IMO, the other f8/9 300's aren't up to the A series. The only reason to make the change is weight.

Frank Petronio
1-Jan-2008, 12:28
Idk I think you have too many good lenses ;-)

It does seem kind of silly to add a 110 when you have the best fast 90 and the sharpest, most compact 135 already.... but everyone loves the 110. Going 75 to 110 to 210 are mighty big steps...

I kind of always thought a 110 and a 180 would make a nice two lens combo, or maybe the 80-110-180-240 as a set. But it seems silly to sell and buy lenses when you already have a helluva nice set.

But what do I know? I'm a one lens guy. And swapping gear around is a fun hobby as an alternative to photography, lol.

David Karp
1-Jan-2008, 12:28
Your most used lens is the 135mm. There is a reason for that. Don't get rid of it.

Bruce Watson
1-Jan-2008, 12:40
Only you can decide of course. But I'll throw in my (much devalued) $0.02 USD just to try to give you something else to think about.

For my pack, the 75mm and the 90mm are too close together, while the 135mm and the 210mm are too far apart. So I'd replace the existing 90/135 combination with the 110mm SS-XL and a 150mm Sironar-S.

I'm only saying that of course because that's the combination that I have in my pack and that I've been using for four years now without even the smallest temptation to change. I find that I use my 110mm for about 30% of my work, the 150mm for another 30%, and a 240mm Fujinon-A for another 30%. But that's probably just me, clearly YMMV and all that.

Ole Tjugen
1-Jan-2008, 12:49
Personally I would supplement the set with a 65mm, a 120mm wide-angle, a 180mm and a 360mm. But that's me, and wouldn't necessarily be right for you (in fact I use 150mm, 165mm, 240mm and 270mm too).

I don't agree that 75mm and 90mm are too close - a few mm make a lot of difference in the wide range.

eddie
1-Jan-2008, 13:26
a lttle OT but when you decide what lenses you are getting rid of you can donate them to me:) lol

eddie

timparkin
1-Jan-2008, 14:12
Only you can decide of course. But I'll throw in my (much devalued) $0.02 USD just to try to give you something else to think about.

For my pack, the 75mm and the 90mm are too close together, while the 135mm and the 210mm are too far apart. So I'd replace the existing 90/135 combination with the 110mm SS-XL and a 150mm Sironar-S.

I'm only saying that of course because that's the combination that I have in my pack and that I've been using for four years now without even the smallest temptation to change. I find that I use my 110mm for about 30% of my work, the 150mm for another 30%, and a 240mm Fujinon-A for another 30%. But that's probably just me, clearly YMMV and all that.

I also have the same lenses (with the 80XL) so I go 80XL, 110XL, 150 S, 240A... It's a big jump between 150 and 240 but I prefer to have the flexibility at the normal to wide end than the long end.

Tim

JPlomley
1-Jan-2008, 14:31
OTOH, since I know your work, I'd definitely keep the 120. It's perfect for some of the real close in things you do, images that macro lenses were made to produce.

Agreed Ted. I get a lot of use out of the 120 Nikkor, but have run out of image circle at life-size at least half a dozen times. I think I am therefore going to replace it with the Rodenstock 120 Macro in the new year. I'd expect comparable sharpness. I've been extremely impressed with the Nikkor in this regard.

Doug Dolde
1-Jan-2008, 14:33
I have only the 110mm as my widest lens. Mostly it is wide enough but in certain places like the Grand Canyon it isn't wide enough. I would keep the 90mm.

JPlomley
1-Jan-2008, 14:42
Forgot to add this in the last post...

Eric Woodbury
1-Jan-2008, 14:52
I have my lenses spaced roughly by the square root of two.

58, 72, 110, 150, 210, 300, 450, etc. I did have a 90 and 121, but ditched them for the 110. For 57 I don't use the 58 as it doesn't cover and the 300 has never been a big favorite. The etc. doesn't get used much either. For 45, mostly use from 58 to 210. The new 45 will take the 300, but I can always use the 210 and crop. I'm putting together a travelling version of the 45 and it will be 58, 100, 150, 240.

Have a funnier new year.

JPlomley
1-Jan-2008, 14:54
Ted, found this one from your neck of the woods. My favorite location in NH recorded on the Arca Swiss with the 135 APO Sironar-S; 8 sec at f/32.3 on RVP-50 with a Singh Ray WT-Polarizer.

Bill_1856
1-Jan-2008, 18:08
If you need a 110 then get it. Otherwise, don't.

davidb
1-Jan-2008, 18:19
Buy the 110. Keep 75, 210, and 300

Then sell the 55, 90, 120, and 135

You'll have a bunch of cash left over for another trip and some more film.

Andrew O'Neill
1-Jan-2008, 18:41
You're going to get a bunch of people telling you what "they" would do...what would "you" do? Now, if I were you...I would. the 110XL covers 8x10.

roteague
1-Jan-2008, 18:57
In a heartbeat.

Ron Marshall
1-Jan-2008, 19:16
I just did somewhat the opposite of what you contemplate; I traded 110 and 150 for 90 and 135.

I often wanted just a bit wider focal length, so finally I made the change, to better match focal length to the subjects I shoot.

Ted Harris
1-Jan-2008, 20:14
I think I am therefore going to replace it with the Rodenstock 120 Macro in the new year. I'd expect comparable sharpness. I've been extremely impressed with the Nikkor in this regard.

I'm sure the Rodenstock 1120 Macro Sironar will equal the Nikon. OTOH, I don't think you will se much difference in terms of running out of coverage. The IC of the Rodenstock is only slightly larger than the Nikkor (277 v. 250 at 1:1). Thus, for macro work you might want to consider either the Rodenstock or Schneider 180 Macro. If you want the increased image clarity for 1:1 and larger reproduction ratios offered by a macro lens and also want that lens to do duty at infinity then you'll need to go to the 180.

BTW, nice images. Don't think I have seen the second one before.

LFdelux
1-Jan-2008, 20:56
55 APO Grandagon
75/4.5 Grandagon-N
90/4.5 Grandagon-N
135 APO Sironar-S
210 APO Sironar-S
300 APO Sironar-S
120 Nikkor AM-ED


Sir:
Great gear for studio bound, where one would expect a large lens stable. In trekking, the downside is that none of your lenses is ever exploited to its full potential.

I have two-lens trekking rig now: 110mm SS-XL & 210mm APO-Symmar. At home or closer to my vehicle a 300mm/9 Nikkor-M and am looking to add a 150mm Sironar-s cammed when I want handheld.

Here, more effective travelling light... Happy new year!

davidb
1-Jan-2008, 21:43
My travel kit is the 110SS and 210 Apo-Symmar

audioexcels
1-Jan-2008, 23:11
Ted, found this one from your neck of the woods. My favorite location in NH recorded on the Arca Swiss with the 135 APO Sironar-S; 8 sec at f/32.3 on RVP-50 with a Singh Ray WT-Polarizer.

Not to get off the NH beaten track any further, but going back to the non vs. single vs. multi coated lenses, I see images like this and I have to wonder if it is the scanner/post-processing or what because the "only" other images on the net that I have seen with this level of color depth and beauty are shots with modern multi-coated lenses. "Every" single or non coated shot looks like the color has been lifted and the image just doesn't have that same level of density and richness to it. It can be "very good"...not saying it looks bad at all, but just not at the same level. So either these people with nice APO Rodenstock lenses have top of the line scanners and professional workflows for a professional webshot, or there is something of truth to the multi-coated lenses.

If I had the similar lens lineup mentioned and was debating tossing the 90/135, I would use a Grandagon 115 and toss them both...and with the $500 difference between the Grandagon and the 110XL, I'd buy a regular Sironar 135 and not the APO version, and use the rest for film;)

audioexcels
1-Jan-2008, 23:11
My travel kit is the 110SS and 210 Apo-Symmar

Sounds perfect, especially if whole plate or 8X10 is your camera:):)

Frank Petronio
1-Jan-2008, 23:17
audioexcels -- it is the skill of the scanner/image prep. You can get a plastic lens Diana to have color depth and beauty too.

Eric Leppanen
1-Jan-2008, 23:56
Rather than breaking up an already nice lens set, why don't you travel light by packing only your favorites (75-135-210)?

From strictly a focal length perspective, I personally think 110-135 is too close, and I'd hate to suggest 110-150 since you have such a connection with your 135. If you don't use your 90 very much, perhaps you could replace your 75-90 with an 80XL, but then you'd have a fairly large gap between the 80 and 135.

On the other hand, if you can use the exceptionally large coverage of the 110XL, then you have a good justification for purchasing that lens while keeping everything else! :)

Personally I use 47-80-110-150-210-240-300-400, with the 80-110-150-240 being in my pack at all times, and the rest staying in the car for use as needed.

Carsten Wolff
2-Jan-2008, 05:10
If you use the 135mm most often (and it's a pretty small lens to start with) you might want to keep it. As much as people love the 110XL, it's not a silver bullet. If you want lightweight, check out Kerry Thalmann's site (eg 90mm Angulon, your 135 and the 210 or a 200mm Nikkor M), or if you got money to burn, you could go the 110 route with just that lens and the 210. Also perhaps look at Chris Perez' lens tests.
When I want to save weight, I only take the 2-3 lenses I use most often and leave the rest at home :). Often I just run around with my 90mm Angulon (instead of my 90mm Grandagon-N, which is a great lens btw), a 135mm Symmar-S and a 210. In 5x7, I often only grab my 108mm, a 165mm and a 10". Matter of personal choice, really. Bu I found that less is often more. A bit of cropping later can fill those gaps anyway if needed. That's what LF gives you after all, too. Just my 2c.

audioexcels
2-Jan-2008, 06:22
audioexcels -- it is the skill of the scanner/image prep. You can get a plastic lens Diana to have color depth and beauty too.

I figured this is what it is. Even an image I was looking at that has wonderful color, but not quite to that level of Ted's is done on an Epson V700 and shot with a Graphic Crown or Speed and the Ektar made for the camera...

Jay W
2-Jan-2008, 06:39
Have you considered the filters for the 110? I find it a real PITA to use 52mm filters on the back of the lens. Once I get the image sharp, I'm always worried that my focus check after remounting the lens won't be quite as sharp with a heavy ND or red filter. Also, this is just a slow way of working.

If you use normal filters on the front, they will touch the front element since it bows out past the threads. Instead of buying the recommended huge and pricey filters (82?) for the front, I popped the glass out of a 67mm filter and use it as a spacer with 67mm filters...at least I think they're 67s. There's _just_ enough space with the spacer that the filters don't rub the lens element, and I don't get dark corners with the lens stopped down.

So, just a little warning that the 110 is a bit expensive or quirky with regards to filters.

Jay

JPlomley
2-Jan-2008, 07:38
Not to get off the NH beaten track any further, but going back to the non vs. single vs. multi coated lenses, I see images like this and I have to wonder if it is the scanner/post-processing or what because the "only" other images on the net that I have seen with this level of color depth and beauty are shots with modern multi-coated lenses.

The original image was scanned on an Imacon 949 at 2,040 ppi (16-bit) and tweaked in Photoshop (3 stage sharpening with PhotoKit Sharpener, curves etc). On the saturation front, the original capture was on Velvia 50 which is one of the most saturated E6 emulsions available. Add in the WT-polarizer and you really do not need to saturate any further in PS (maybe 5-10 on select colors only). In fact, the chrome and the final print (on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl) compare favorably.


I find it a real PITA to use 52mm filters on the back of the lens./I]

Jay, I prefer to use a 67/77 SUR for mounting filters on the 75 Grandagon and would take the same approach with the 110XL. In fact, all of my lenses have SUR's on the front (Heliopan, I find the B+W's bind far too easily), even the 300mm (100/105 SUR). When I need to use a GND/Polarizer combination I use the Lee wide angle adapters in a single slot configuration with the polarizer 105mm mounting ring on the front. I have not experienced any vignetting with this configuration down to 75mm. For the 55 APO Grandagon, I can add a 86/105 SUR to the CF when I need to polarize (not recommended when there is sky in the image). There is no vignetting with this stacked combination, but there is a ~ 3 stop light loss. If I need a GND filter as well, I just tape it to the front of the polarizer. The 67mm Lee wide angle adapter and single filter slot vignettes on the 55mm, and of course you lose the CF which is essential for this lens when shooting chromes.


[I]The IC of the Rodenstock is only slightly larger than the Nikkor (277 v. 250 at 1:1).

Ted, my specs say 200mm IC at life-size magnification. I'll have to go back and double check that. A 180mm is out of the question for field work given the 360mm of bellows extension required for 1:1. It would mean having to swap the bellows and the added draw would be deleterious to the stability of the rig under field conditions.

Jack Flesher
2-Jan-2008, 11:50
You can cover a lot of territory with a 110 and a 210...

I have trimmed significantly to what I use regularly enough to justify keeping: My current kit is 75 SA, 110XL, 150 APO S, 150 G-Claron (uber tiny, love the look and it does great at 1:1), 190 Kodak portrait (for nostalgic look/portrait only), 210 Kowa and 305 G-Claron.

For the odd times I feel the need for a tweener focal, I simply move my feet a little. If that doesn't work (which occasionally is the case), I go wider and crop later. IMO the 110 is so good optically, even when cropped down to 135 FoV is still very good. I find the 110 uses about 3"x4" of the full frame to render the 135 FoV to give you an idea of the amount of total crop I'm talking about.

JPlomley
2-Jan-2008, 18:06
Geez Jack, I could have sworn I saw a FS ad you had placed a few months back for the 110XL. What made you change your mind?

Not to go too far off topic, but are you hosting a workshop sponsored by Leica? I thought I read something about this on one of the other hundred or so forums I belong to? If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the M8 and predictions for the R10. I'm currently using a Mamiya 7 for my B&W street work shooting XP2, Delta 400 Pro, and Neopan 1600. I just picked up some HP5 Plus to try reverse processing at ISO 1600 (dr5). However, I would rather keep the ISO low and open up the lens (difficult with the Mamiya optics as they all start at either f/4 or f/4.5. I'm thinking an M8 and 35/1.4 LUX would be a deadly combination.

Jack Flesher
2-Jan-2008, 19:17
Geez Jack, I could have sworn I saw a FS ad you had placed a few months back for the 110XL. What made you change your mind?

I was bidding on one, then saw a great Buy-it-now on another, so I bought it, then ended up winning the other auction so ended up with two ;)


Not to go too far off topic, but are you hosting a workshop sponsored by Leica? I thought I read something about this on one of the other hundred or so forums I belong to? If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the M8 and predictions for the R10. I'm currently using a Mamiya 7 for my B&W street work shooting XP2, Delta 400 Pro, and Neopan 1600. I just picked up some HP5 Plus to try reverse processing at ISO 1600 (dr5). However, I would rather keep the ISO low and open up the lens (difficult with the Mamiya optics as they all start at either f/4 or f/4.5. I'm thinking an M8 and 35/1.4 LUX would be a deadly combination.

Yes, we have a workshop and Leica is sponsoring it. BUT any camera make and type is welcome. (Details here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21)

As for the M8, it has its share of warts, but I still love it. Moreover, one of the warts --- a slight amount f IR leak onto the sensor --- actually turns out to be a huge BENEFIT for me and from the sound of it, proabably you too... Seems the additional IR makes for outstanding digital B&W conversions :)

As for glass, you should come over to our leica forum and do some reading. The 35 Lux is a phenomenal lens, but like most fast glass does suffer from focus shift as you stop down. This can be an issue when your main subject is relatively close to the camera, and as clean as the M8 files are, you can easily see the exact focus plane when you pull the image into the computer. Personally, I prefer the "look" from the older version 4 Cron (f2 max aperture) so that is my 35 choice, but the 35 Lux is a very tight second. However, focals run a bit weird on the M8 with its 1.3 crop --- For example, I find that my preferred focal lengths are the 28, 50 and then the 21 for most subjects, so the 35 does not get used much.

Anyway, in case your interested we still have room for Moab and the reps will have spare M8's for you to check out on the workshop and every piece of Leica M glass you can imagine will be there too. Both Guy and I shoot the M8 as do our two assistant instructors, and of the folks already signed up, 6 shoot with a Leica M --- my point is it will be a great opportunity to rub shoulders with other users and learn about and use the M8 before you buy ;)

Best,

JPlomley
2-Jan-2008, 19:35
Interesting, I never really considered a rangefinder for landscape work. Have always used them as a discreet reportage tool with incredibly accurate focussing capabilities for wide angle lenses shot wide open. My most used lens on the Mamiya is the 65mm, so given the crop factor of the M8, it looks as though I would be better off with the 28/2 Aspherical.

Funny you should mention the 35 cron v4. There is a fellow that just listed one on the rangefinder forum. I would have thought you would need the aspherical elements for that M8 sensor.

I'll check out the link and the Leica forum (I do get the Leica International Fotographie from time to time and have always been impressed with the articles. That new 75 Summarit seems to be getting excellent reviews).

Cheers,
Jeff

JPlomley
2-Jan-2008, 19:41
The 35 Lux is a phenomenal lens, but like most fast glass does suffer from focus shift as you stop down. This can be an issue when your main subject is relatively close to the camera

I read about this also being an issue with the 75mm SA and Grandagons on the Ken Rockwell site. If the ambient light is suitable, I will focus the 75mm at f/8, otherwise, my foreground elements have tended to go a bit soft. At first I thought it was an inadequate loupe, so ended up buying the Silvestri tilting loupe to brighten up the top of the groundglass when doing a rear base tilt. Made no difference to the final image, but focussing the top of the GG sure was easier than with the Schneider 4x.

Jack Flesher
2-Jan-2008, 19:52
Interesting, I never really considered a rangefinder for landscape work. Have always used them as a discreet reportage tool with incredibly accurate focussing capabilities for wide angle lenses shot wide open. My most used lens on the Mamiya is the 65mm, so given the crop factor of the M8, it looks as though I would be better off with the 28/2 Aspherical.


This shot was done with the M8 and 28 Asph on our Yosemite workshop (click for bigger):
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/mercedblend_thumb.jpg (http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=28&c=14)

:D,

JPlomley
2-Jan-2008, 20:01
Nice, and I guess since it is digital, getting the positioning for GND filters is no longer a guessing game as it typically would be for film RF's. But I don't know, how large can you really print from a 10 MP camera, even with Leica glass? Thats the reason I went LF (wel, the ability to make large prints, but also control perspective and optimize the plane of focus).

Jack Flesher
2-Jan-2008, 21:26
Nice, and I guess since it is digital, getting the positioning for GND filters is no longer a guessing game as it typically would be for film RF's. But I don't know, how large can you really print from a 10 MP camera, even with Leica glass? Thats the reason I went LF (wel, the ability to make large prints, but also control perspective and optimize the plane of focus).

I can print the M8 files to 16x24 and they look excellent. With digital, you don't need SND filters ;) A technique we taught in Yosemite was digital blending for that very purpose. The image above is a blend of two frames, one exposed for the sky, the other exposed for the foreground. The two are then optimally blended to maintain tonality throughout the image, and the composite then is processed for final color, contrast and saturation. When done, you end up with the image above.

Sky exposure:
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/mercedblend_sky_thumb.jpg (http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=231&c=14)

Foreground exposure:
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/mercedblend_foreground_thumb.jpg (http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=233&c=14)

Note that in my foreground exposure, the reflection of the sky in the water has lost its color, just as it would if a SND were used. Since I was digitally blending instead, I was able to preserve most of the reflected color from the sky exposure in the final composite. IMO the blend process makes a much more natural appearing final image than SND ever did.

Cheers,

Frank Petronio
2-Jan-2008, 23:44
If the M8 approached 4x5 quality then many of us would probably be shooting with one.

Roughly speaking, it's like medium-quality medium format. Damn impressive but not real close to what you can do with even a cheap 4x5 outfit.

JPlomley
3-Jan-2008, 07:20
Jack, I still prefer to use a GND filter. The less time I spend in front of the computer means more time in the field, which is the part I enjoy the most about Nature/Landscape photography. Somewhat akin to your exposure compositing, I used to do something similar when I was shooting with a 1DsMII. I would composite DOF. Focus the foreground, midground, and background and expose each at f/8, then layer in PS and mask off the OOF region in each layer. The advantage of course is that you can use the sweet spot of the lens for optimal resolution. But what a PITA it became for post-acquistion processing. Then I realized I could get all the DOF I would ever need by shooting 4x5. And the increase in image quality even from a "lowly" Imacon scan left the 1DsMII in the dust. Actually, come to think of it, since switching back to film and outsourcing all of my scanning, I spend FAR LESS TIME IN FRONT OF THE COMPUTER and more time IN THE FIELD.


I can print the M8 files to 16x24 and they look excellent

That is a pretty impressive claim for a 10 MP camera. I've done a lot of printing for my clients that shoot 10 MP (Nikon/Canon) and even with the best zoom lenses, 16 x 24 is pushing it, even up-rezzing with Genuine Fractals. I always suspected the glass was the problem and likely explains why the M8 does so well. However, I still believe the small footprint and focussing accuracy of the Leica M relegates it to reportage and the view camera to landscape. Horses for courses. Having said this, I would probably snap a landscape image or two just for fun if I get an M8. But for serious landscape work, it would be 4x5.

BradS
3-Jan-2008, 08:16
Would you replace a 90mm and 135mm with a 110XL?

Would I? No way. Especially if I had 135mm Sironar-S. The 135mm is my most used focal length on 4x5 with 210mm a close second and 90mm only a distant third.

Jack Flesher
3-Jan-2008, 08:41
If the M8 approached 4x5 quality then many of us would probably be shooting with one.

Roughly speaking, it's like medium-quality medium format. Damn impressive but not real close to what you can do with even a cheap 4x5 outfit.

totally agree Frank --- it's why I still shoot with 4x5 :) (And FWIW, I still own the Chamonix --- I think we had a bet?)

Bottom line is the M8 is about like quality drum-scanned 2-1/4. Frankly, the only digital solution I've found that beats scanned 4x5 is the Betterlight scanning back in high-rez mode, but it's not a very convenient capture medium relative to film, at least in the field. The 33/39 MP digital backs are impressive and close to 4x5, but the entry cost is prohibitive unless you shoot a lot of frames per year.

Cheers,

Jack Flesher
3-Jan-2008, 08:47
That is a pretty impressive claim for a 10 MP camera. I've done a lot of printing for my clients that shoot 10 MP (Nikon/Canon) and even with the best zoom lenses, 16 x 24 is pushing it, even up-rezzing with Genuine Fractals. I always suspected the glass was the problem and likely explains why the M8 does so well. However, I still believe the small footprint and focussing accuracy of the Leica M relegates it to reportage and the view camera to landscape. Horses for courses. Having said this, I would probably snap a landscape image or two just for fun if I get an M8. But for serious landscape work, it would be 4x5.

The M8 sensor does not have an AA filter in in front of it, and the comparable Nikon and Canon sensors do --- makes a HUGE difference in ability to print large with clarity. Lenses of course also matter a lot, and Leica are excellent, especially wide open.

The 4x5 is a better tool for serious landscape and it's why I own and shoot 4x5. But the M8 is just so much fun to use, I find myself using it more and more and everything else less and less for almost everything.

Baxter Bradford
3-Jan-2008, 13:47
I recently went for the 110XL to replace a 90mm S-A and an APO-Symmar 120mm. It is everything everyone raves about. An astonishing lens. No problem with filters, I use the Lee system. There is no need for the 86mm CF, but it must really be used with the 80mmXL when shooting E6.

I also use the 5x4 for landscape and an M8 for any other photography. The image quality is very impressive. I use 50mm, 28mm and 21mm Zeiss lenses with a 90mm CV getting sporadic use.

However I agree with Jack, it does have quirks and I have had to spend ages learning how to process the image files to get decent results. Leica User Forum has masses of information about how to alleviate issues and also money from your wallet....

roteague
3-Jan-2008, 16:39
But the M8 is just so much fun to use, I find myself using it more and more and everything else less and less for almost everything.


OT - It is always good to have something just for having fun with. I have a nice Nikon F6 that I absolutely love for that purpose. OT

JPlomley
3-Jan-2008, 18:18
However I agree with Jack, it does have quirks and I have had to spend ages learning how to process the image files to get decent results

Sounds like a beta product that I should steer clear from until the next generation DRF emerges. The last thing I need is additional frustration in a passion that is meant to alleviate stress. Any ideas on product life cycle for DRF's?

Frank Petronio
3-Jan-2008, 19:01
They speculate about that on the Leica forums quite a bit. My sense is that the M8 is making a leaner, more streamlined Leica company profitable, so I would expect them to release a less-buggy M8x or something in the next year, and probably take several years to develop (and hopefully perfect) the M9.

Whether that goes to a full-frame sensor or not is hot debated. I don't really care, I just wish the digital camera companies would make some better performing and faster prime lenses that worked well at a reasonable price.

davidb
3-Jan-2008, 19:53
How about a camera that isn't obsolete in 2-3 years?

Don Hutton
3-Jan-2008, 19:55
I just wish the digital camera companies would make some better performing and faster prime lenses that worked well at a reasonable price.
Geez Frank - Canon make a 50 F1.4 and an 85 F1.8 which are both outstanding performers and cost around $300 - how much more are you hoping for? You can, of course, drop in excess of $3000 for a new 50mm Summilux Asph which may be just a little better. Just depends on where you want to stop.

Sheldon N
3-Jan-2008, 20:43
I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share. ;)

A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

I'm going to run and hide now..... :p

roteague
3-Jan-2008, 22:14
I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share. ;)

A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

I'm going to run and hide now..... :p

Why? Not everyone cares. I'm sticking with film.

timparkin
4-Jan-2008, 02:28
I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share. ;)

A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

I'm going to run and hide now..... :p

This doesn't sound so strange to me.. I bought a 35L prime for my 5D and compared it with the 24-105 to see how much better it was. It didn't seem that much better but was visibly sharper. Until I realised I'd picked the wrong lens.. the 24-105 was actually better than the 35 prime.. I won't contribute about the Leica as I know very little about it. (all my other canon lenses were sold in order to fund my Ebony + lenses)

Tim

audioexcels
4-Jan-2008, 05:46
I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share. ;)

A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

I'm going to run and hide now..... :p

Shoot the M8 in RAW only. JPEG looks like garbage. Shoot the 35 at F2 or between F4-F5.6 (max) and not at F8-F16.

Report back your similar findings...and while you are in the field, find me a nice AS front standard;):)

audioexcels
4-Jan-2008, 05:50
totally agree Frank --- it's why I still shoot with 4x5 :) (And FWIW, I still own the Chamonix --- I think we had a bet?)

Bottom line is the M8 is about like quality drum-scanned 2-1/4. Frankly, the only digital solution I've found that beats scanned 4x5 is the Betterlight scanning back in high-rez mode, but it's not a very convenient capture medium relative to film, at least in the field. The 33/39 MP digital backs are impressive and close to 4x5, but the entry cost is prohibitive unless you shoot a lot of frames per year.

Cheers,

So it's true that these Betterlight backs can beat a 4X5 w/150 Sironar APO S shot with the best film possible, and scanned with the best drum scanner in the world?

Jack Flesher
4-Jan-2008, 09:44
I know this is horribly OT and will upset some... but I just have to share. ;)

A buddy of mine and I compared his Leica M8 and 35 'lux to my Canon 5D and 24-105L. We matched the FOV with the zoom and shot both at f/8 and infinity. I'll be darned if the Canon 24-105L wasn't sharper.

I'm going to run and hide now..... :p

No need to hide, just get a bit more educated... Leica M glass is optimized to be its sharpest at relatively close reportage shooting distances, like 1.5 meters for the 35's. Also, they are optimized to be sharpest wide open and tend to have their best operating aperture 2 stops down from wide open. By f8, ALL M lenses are suffering from VISIBLE diffraction. THe last factor is the lens and body being in synch --- IOW making sure what you thought you focused on was what you actually focused on.

So, assuming the mechanical focus connection is proper, try a repeat of your test, using the systems at 1.5 meters and f4. then get back to us with those results :D

Jack Flesher
4-Jan-2008, 09:46
So it's true that these Betterlight backs can beat a 4X5 w/150 Sironar APO S shot with the best film possible, and scanned with the best drum scanner in the world?

Yes, assuming "best film possible" is a color emulsion too :D But to be clear, I'm referring to the Super 6K HR version (or 8K), not the 4K.

drew.saunders
4-Jan-2008, 10:42
...
55 APO Grandagon
75/4.5 Grandagon-N
90/4.5 Grandagon-N
135 APO Sironar-S
210 APO Sironar-S
300 APO Sironar-S
120 Nikkor AM-ED

...In order to reduce weight, ...

If you just want to save weight, replacing the 210 with the 200/8 Nikkor M, and the 300 with either the 300/9 M or the Fuji 300/8.5 might save as much weight as dropping any one other lens. Do you use the 120 Nikkor only for macro, or for regular use as well? If you only use it for macro, can you live with the 135 as your close-up lens?

As long as we're spending your money ;) , how about the 80XL instead of the 75 and 90?

Personally, I don't like the perspective of a 90 or 135, so, for me, the decision to replace both of them with a 110XL would be easy. If the 135 is your most used lens, keep it.

Drew

Sheldon N
4-Jan-2008, 19:38
No need to hide, just get a bit more educated... Leica M glass is optimized to be its sharpest at relatively close reportage shooting distances, like 1.5 meters for the 35's. Also, they are optimized to be sharpest wide open and tend to have their best operating aperture 2 stops down from wide open. By f8, ALL M lenses are suffering from VISIBLE diffraction. THe last factor is the lens and body being in synch --- IOW making sure what you thought you focused on was what you actually focused on.

So, assuming the mechanical focus connection is proper, try a repeat of your test, using the systems at 1.5 meters and f4. then get back to us with those results :D

I'll have to do that. I did promise my friend a re-test, since he was near tears. :)

Keep in mind, there's no pretention that this was anything approaching a scientific test. He was just showing me his new toy and we couldn't resist firing a couple frames off in the back yard.

Of course at f/4 I'll need to use the 35L instead of the 24-105L. There wouldn't be any contest if you forced the Canon zoom to shoot wide open. Like Tim I've also found that the 24-105L is just as sharp as the 35L when stopped down.

We may have to match up his 75mm f/1.4 against the Canon 85mm f/1.2L. I doubt that you could find fault with either lens so it's sort of a moot point. :)

Ted Harris
4-Jan-2008, 19:57
To expand on what Jack said about the Betterlight 6K, it's performance is phenomenal but its applications are somewhat limited. You need to be prepared to double the size and weight of your kit if you re going to use the back in the field. You also need to be careful to choose subjects where there is NO movement or where movement doesn't matter. In the studio, working with product shots or art reproduction it's a different matter. I've got some recent shots where the detail is incredible, probably exceeds what I could do with 8x10.

audioexcels
4-Jan-2008, 22:35
Yes, assuming "best film possible" is a color emulsion too :D But to be clear, I'm referring to the Super 6K HR version (or 8K), not the 4K.


How much are the Super 6K HR and 8K backs? What format w/film are they closest compared to?

audioexcels
4-Jan-2008, 22:44
I'll have to do that. I did promise my friend a re-test, since he was near tears. :)

Keep in mind, there's no pretention that this was anything approaching a scientific test. He was just showing me his new toy and we couldn't resist firing a couple frames off in the back yard.

Of course at f/4 I'll need to use the 35L instead of the 24-105L. There wouldn't be any contest if you forced the Canon zoom to shoot wide open. Like Tim I've also found that the 24-105L is just as sharp as the 35L when stopped down.

We may have to match up his 75mm f/1.4 against the Canon 85mm f/1.2L. I doubt that you could find fault with either lens so it's sort of a moot point. :)

While you are at it, find a Zeiss 50mm Planar (good copy) or 60mm Makro. Should be the equivalent of the cropped Leica and be a much fairer competition. I don't know how any Canon lens can match the Contax/Zeiss better primes period. Maybe the 85mm F1.2, but that's it...but then that lens can go against the Zeiss 85mm equivalent. Also, get the Zeiss 35mm F1.4, 100/2 Planar, etc. and test these primes against the Leica equivalents. People will try and claim that rangefinder glass is sharper, but they don't realize the rangefinder has no mirror=massive window through the glass that gets removed from the SLR camera. I have seen no SLR, Leica/Contax, etc match a Leica/Contax Rangefinder even when using the very best glass on the SLR vs. the worst glass on the rangefinder. So it has "nothing" to do with the glass, IMHO, but the camera objectives themself.

So for a truly fair match, buy the Zeiss 60mm Makro or the 50mm Planar for a test against the Leica 35mm. Do the Zeiss 35mm F1.4 or 28mm F2 against the Leica 28mm and smaller lenses.

I think the Canon with Zeiss lenses will destroy that Leica, but again, I don't think having a Canon zoom or any of their primes except maybe the 85 1.2 would do justice to compare to the Leica or justice to that nice beautiful sensor on the 5D.

Cheers and happy shooting!

BTW...not saying the zoom is bad or any of the canon glass is bad, but to say that if you can manual focus through the 5D just fine, the Zeiss lenses are superior both objectively/scientifically and in print.

JPlomley
5-Jan-2008, 07:25
Decision made. I'll buy the 110XL and hold on to the 90mm/4.5 Grandagon-N and 135 APO Sironar-S until I evaluate how I get on with the 110mm FL. If I am gravitating mainly to the 110XL, I will sell the 90mm; as Ted mentioned, the 135 is just so compact and opticaly brilliant it is worth holding on to.

My apologies for de-railing the thread with the M8 query. Although I must say, I have enjoyed all of the discussions on the topic.

Ted Harris
5-Jan-2008, 07:38
audioexcels, the 6K back is $15K and the 8K is $18K. Remember you will also need a reasonably small and lightweight laptop.

Jack Flesher
5-Jan-2008, 07:55
Ted answered the pricing question.

As for format, all of the backs capture roughly 3" x 4" (72mm x 96mm IIRC). Anyway, I would say the regular 6K is equivalent to a perfectly captured sheet of 4x5 tranny. In 6K HR mode, it exceeds 4x5 and probably is pressing on 5x7*. The 8K in HR mode when used with the best lenses is as good as the best drum-scanned 8x10 I've ever seen. The 10K is in its own league, but even Betterlight will tell you there are precious few LF lenses that can take advantage of the resolution. (The 150 & 180 Rodenstock APO S's and Schneider APO L's seem to be the best current options. Betterlight is actually having a custom repro lens built especially for this camera.) More info here: http://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html

*To put this in perspective, this is the story of why I bought mine in the first place: Jim Collum was shooting in the Yosemite high country with his 6K in HR mode on his Ebony with a Schneider 150 APO. He was shooting across the road to turtle dome. On turtle dome there was a hiker sitting on a rock -- the distance would be around a half mile away. When we viewed the scan at 100%, you could discern the laces on the hiker's boots. Seriously, I am not exaggerating. One other thing about the Betterlight files is they have INCREDIBLE dynamic range --- about 10.5 stops usable. But, be warned, you have to be willing to haul around a lot of paraphernalia to use it in the field... In the end, I decided that level of detail wasn't worth the hassle for my uses.

Cheers,

Ted Harris
5-Jan-2008, 08:17
On turtle dome there was a hiker sitting on a rock -- the distance would be around a half mile away. When we viewed the scan at 100%, you could discern the laces on the hiker's boots. Seriously, I am not exaggerating. One other thing about the Betterlight files is they have INCREDIBLE dynamic range --- about 10.5 stops usable. But, be warned, you have to be willing to haul around a lot of paraphernalia to use it in the field
Cheers,

Jack underscores my earlier comment about the specialized use of the back. I'll also point out that, had there been any atmospheric disturbance at all, even a slight wind, Jim's results could have been quite different. That said, Jim has done some magnificent landscape work with the back. See particularly his article and images of Angkor Wat in View Camera a few years ago.

Armin Seeholzer
5-Jan-2008, 17:10
Hi I would never sell the 135mm lens and also not the 90mm lens.
I would maybe buy the 110 as adition and then test if it make sence to use it also or maybe you really find out you don't need the 110 or the 135mm I would never sell my 90! It is very often used and is still a standard for architectural!
Cheers Armin

JPlomley
5-Jan-2008, 17:23
I would maybe buy the 110 as adition and then test if it make sence to use it also or maybe you really find out you don't need the 110 or the 135mm I would never sell my 90!

Armin, as stated above, that is the plan. I am strictly a landscape photographer, so the verdict is still out on the 90mm. 110/90 are pretty close in FL to justify keeping both. I do agree re: the 90mm and architecture. Based on what I've seen, it seems to be an ideal FL for that application.

davidb
5-Jan-2008, 17:28
I just did a 24 hour road trip to Amarillo (yeeehaw) and my 110 never came off my camera. I love that lens.

JPlomley
6-Jan-2008, 11:54
Ted, my specs say 200mm IC at life-size magnification.

I double checked, and Ted you were correct. The IC of the 120mm Nikkor is 250mm at life-size. It says right in the spec sheet that came with the lens. I am so not worthy :o

john collins
6-Jan-2008, 12:18
The 110 is a real favorite wide angle lens on 4x5 for me. That said, a trial of the 110 would seem to be in order. If it works well for you an 80 might be the next trial. All of the lenses that you're considering are top notch.

JPlomley
6-Jan-2008, 14:13
That said, a trial of the 110 would seem to be in order

Is that an offer, or a suggestion :D

Hans Berkhout
6-Jan-2008, 14:46
I also have a 90 (8.0), 110XL the 135 Apo S-S and longer. The 110 gives me room for movements on the Deardorff, the 90 has saved me on occasion, even though limited to rise/fall. In the car I can have al the stuff with me, if I go out by foot into a familiar area I pretty well know which focal lengths I might need, usually only the 110 and 210.
Long strenous hike? only the 135 on a Wista DXII.
Althogh I've been tempted to simplify, sell, I've decided to keep all for the next few years.

john collins
6-Jan-2008, 15:52
A suggestion.;)

JPlomley
7-Jan-2008, 15:20
O.K. I tracked down a 110 SSXL and the seller is willing to take my 90mm Grandagon as a trade in towards the XL and has offered me $1,000. But I really wanted to try the 110XL before letting the 90mm Grandagon go. Any advice. Should I make a leap of faith and assume that the 110 XL is going to be at least as good as the 90mm?

davidb
7-Jan-2008, 15:55
you know what I think.

Jack Flesher
7-Jan-2008, 18:58
I'd definitely TRY the 110 before letting go of your 90 XL --- 110's are readily available, 90 XL's harder to come by...

davidb
7-Jan-2008, 19:04
There are 5 XL's on ebay right now.

There are 0 110's on ebay right now

BradS
26-Jul-2008, 09:22
MPEX had a 110XL a couple of days ago for $1295. KEH have one presently in EX+ condition for $1479.

JPlomley
26-Jul-2008, 09:59
Thanks Brad, bought a 110XL from Jim @ Midwest back in May.

Bernice Loui
26-Jul-2008, 14:26
I got one of the first 110mm XL that were imported to the US when they were first introduced. Paid a deposit, and waited for about one year before delivery! Shortly after trying out the 110, the 90mm was history. I just did not see the need for it and got a 72mm XL if the need something wider was required. To this day, the 110 remains one of my all time favorites for both 4x5 and 5x7.

Eric James
26-Jul-2008, 18:47
Personally I would supplement the set with a 65mm, a 120mm wide-angle, a 180mm and a 360mm. But that's me, and wouldn't necessarily be right for you (in fact I use 150mm, 165mm, 240mm and 270mm too).

I don't agree that 75mm and 90mm are too close - a few mm make a lot of difference in the wide range.

Somehow I've caught your bug. When it comes to spacing my focal lengths I'm not as afflicted as you Ole, but I believe that there is plenty of room between my 90mm and 135mm lenses to justify the 110mm.