Macro shootout II: Super Angulon 120mm/8 vs. Nikkor AM-120mm/5.6

[Matt Blaze]

Here's another informal lens comparison at macro range, this time putting a 120mm/8 Super Angulon (Linhof select) against a Nikkor AM 120mm/5.6 macro lens.

See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33117 for a discussion of the point of all this. Summary: The point is not to show off how much better a macro or process lens is for the ideal conditions for which its designed, the point is only to compare the lenses I happen to have available under the conditions under which I tend to shoot. In particular, 3d tabletop work at between about .5x and 2x magnification, which is at the margins of the designs for both general purpose and macro lenses.

In this case, the subject is a Diebold mechanical vault timelock, shot at 1.5x with a 4x5 Sinar P onto a BetterLight 6000x8000 digital scanning back. Moderate movements were used to control focus and perspective. The plane of focus was on the mainspring at the top of the subject. No post-capture sharpening was performed. There's a slight perspective change between the two images due to the slightly different nodal point locations of the two lenses, but I re-focused reasonably carefully for each lens. Both shots were at f/22.

Here's the full frame Nikkor AM-120mm/5.6 image (at f/22), downsized to 650x488:
http://www.crypto.com/private/test/timelock-AM120-650.jpg

And here's the Super Angulon 120mm/8 image (at f/22), downsized to 650x488:
http://www.crypto.com/private/test/timelock-SA120-650.jpg

The edge of the image circle is visible in the lower right of the Nikkor shot, but otherwise both images are pretty similar at this low resolution.

But, as expected, a closer look gives the edge to the Nikkor. Here's a 650 pixel square crop (at 100% resolution) of the Nikkor shot:
http://www.crypto.com/private/test/timelock-AM120-crop.jpg

And from the Super Angulon; note the overall softness and edge chromatic aberration:
http://www.crypto.com/private/test/timelock-SA120-crop.jpg

Anyway, no big surprises here, but take it for what it's worth as a practical example.

[sparq]

Wow, the SA and the scanning back don't go along well in this magnification. Is there any chance of getting better results with film?

[Matt Blaze]

Wow, the SA and the scanning back don't go along well in this magnification. Is there any chance of getting better results with film?

I can't really see why there would be. The betterlight backs are said to do pretty well with extreme angles and don't do worse with chromatic aberration than film, since they have three color sensors that sample in the same place for each pixel (by scanning). That's also been my experience so far.

-matt

[Frank Bagbey]

Thanks for the tests. This is the kind of stuff I love. I am sure others are the same way. Nothing beats actual tests like these compared to someone's intuition or expectations or what the manufacturer says. Thanks again.

[Frank Bagbey]

On second thought...I think there is too much difference on the Schneider lens. Did you check your findings? How about doing the test over? I cannot believe the Schneider lens did not measure up, so to speak.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

First, I really appreciate your effort with these tests too. They are so much more fun than MTF charts.
As you use the same focal length with the same subject, there should be no "extreme angle". In this case you use only a very small part of the useable image circle of the SA lens and it's probably the center.
If you shoot this or a similar test again, can you try a wider aperture, e.g. f/11 or f/16. f/22 at 1:1 is really f/45. This in it self degrades the result of both lenses (to the same degree).

[Bob Salomon]

Now you should try it with digital lenses. You will find even further improvements.

[Matt Blaze]

On second thought...I think there is too much difference on the Schneider lens. Did you check your findings? How about doing the test over? I cannot believe the Schneider lens did not measure up, so to speak.

Frank,

I was pretty careful, but of course could have made some mistakes. However, this is consistent with what I've seen in the past with this lens at high magnification. It's possible that my SA 120 is out of alignment or a lemon, but it performs quite well at normal general photography distances. It just does not do well at all in macro use.

-matt

[Matt Blaze]

Now you should try it with digital lenses. You will find even further improvements.

Well, as I've said I'm not interested in trying to show off lens performance under optimal conditions (and am not equipped to do that properly in any case), but rather to help me make more informed choices about how the lenses I have perform under the conditions I shoot.

But if you want to send over some more lenses, I won't argue...

-matt

[Joerg Krusche]

Matt,

I assume you are aware that to a certain degree you are comparing apples with oranges .. a macro specialist for 1:1 (Nikon) with a limited picture angle vs a wide angle with performance optimized at infinity (Schneider SA)... so if you do a macro shoot out .. what do you expect ?

BTW .. I agree that the Nikon is a very good lens.

Best,

Joerg

[Bob Salomon]

Well, as I've said I'm not interested in trying to show off lens performance under optimal conditions (and am not equipped to do that properly in any case), but rather to help me make more informed choices about how the lenses I have perform under the conditions I shoot.

But if you want to send over some more lenses, I won't argue...

-matt

Are you in Philly or San Francisco? There are dealers in both areas that could get you a digital to try.

[Matt Blaze]

Matt,

I assume you are aware that to a certain degree you are comparing apples with oranges .. a macro specialist for 1:1 (Nikon) with a limited picture angle vs a wide angle with performance optimized at infinity (Schneider SA)... so if you do a macro shoot out .. what do you expect ?

BTW .. I agree that the Nikon is a very good lens.

Best,

Joerg

Yes, as I said, not at all unexpected. However, I have heard these things said over and over, almost as articles of faith, but have seen very few actual head-to-head examples that would help someone see what kind of difference to expect under actually shooting conditions. Such comparisons are not at all difficult to do, and so I am surprised that so few actual examples are published.

Sorry if you don't find it useful.


-matt

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Matt,

"the smallest bit of doing stands higher than the loudest talking" if I remember Nietzsche correctly, so I'm happy to see someone DOING sth and even SHARING it with others.

You will always earn criticism, but go your way and don't deviate from your path, there will be lots of people who appreciate that, even if they remain silent.

Cheers, Klaus

[Matt Blaze]

Matt,

"the smallest bit of doing stands higher than the loudest talking" if I remember Nietzsche correctly, so I'm happy to see someone DOING sth and even SHARING it with others.

You will always earn criticism, but go your way and don't deviate from your path, there will be lots of people who appreciate that, even if they remain silent.

Cheers, Klaus

Thanks Klaus. I'm not bothered by the comments here, and I tried to make clear what the limitations of what I'm trying to do are. Mainly, though, it's disappointing that there aren't more concrete examples of the differences between lenses published. Its much easier to decide whether its worth investigating getting a new lens if for a specialized application by looking at actual photographs!

[BOB BERESFORD]

Good point. The Linhof select lenses are always very sharp, But 120SW will be corrected for infinity, and shift, so chroma aberration is inevitable with a close test like Mat's. But can anyone say how good the Nikon AM 120 is at infinity....sharp and flair control etc? If good enough it's time I was using mine for landscape !

Another point for macro discussion....has anyone tried enlarger lenses for it?! I'm planning to. Obviously they are sharp....flat field and corrected for close focus . Easy enough to get a shutter behind - many things can be mounted into a Copal 3 one way or other. But will there be light fall off problems that ruin the flash calculations ?...any worse than the usual falloff problems under flash ?

Also, who was aware that with tricks like that you can use any macro lens ( eg a 50mm micro nikkor for 35mm ) on LF because at close focus a very large image circle is thrown ? Have actually used a 200mm Nikkor micro, custom mounted onto Pentax 6 x 7 and it was fine.
Let's hear some more radical thoughts and results ? Bob

[jb7]

There is one easy modification you could make to your test-
I don't know this Super Angulon,
but I believe it is mounted in a Copal 0 ?

If so, you could try reversing the elements-
the threads are the same size, each side-

I haven't read the other article,
but I haven't seen any mention of reversing the lens here...

joseph