Worth buying Schneider lenses new?

[Sizam]

Up till now I've bought my Schneider lenses new from a dealer:
90,120,210 for 4x5
210 XL for 8x10

I want to buy a 480mm (for 8x10) but I'm wondering if there are actual improvements in the optics vs lenses from the early 1990's. I'm not looking for 'massive improvements' but if anything has been done to add even that 'last little bit' of optical performance then its worth it, if they just use different materials or its to get a warranty then its not.

I know with my Canon lenses that over time they improve the optics/mechanics even if they don't release a new version but those lenses are obviously more complicated.

I'll be shooting with the intent to do high resolution scanning and huge prints, I want _detail_.

Thanks.

[Ole Tjugen]

Within the central 30° of a 480mm lens - i.e. a 480mm lens used on 8x10" - there have been no significant improvements in resolution since Steinheil invented the Aplanat in 1866. The sharpest 8x10" negative I have ever seen was shot with a Meyer Aristoplan 270mm made a century ago.

No, I don't believe there have been any significant improvements since the 1990's.

[cdholden]

I understood that wavelengths for red/green/blue don't focus in the same place on older lenses, but newer ones are getting better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromat says that apochromatic lenses "are designed" to do this.
Is it that "they are there" or just getting closer?

[Sizam]

Sorry Ole, thats all wrong on every level.

cdholden:
Yea, APO and Multicoating are certainly massive improvements but they're already in the lenses from the early 1990's. I'm looking at a couple that are 'APO-SYMMAR MC', as far as I can tell, mechanically they're the same.

[BarryS]

At this point, I think it rarely makes sense to buy new LF lenses. I'm sure you can find the current Apo Symmar L used, but I wouldn't hesitate buying a Symmar-S lens--a couple of generations older. Considering that the lens costs $4000 new (!), I think there are *many* less expensive alternatives that will deliver equal quality. Are you sure you want to jump from 210mm to a huge honkin' 480mm plasmat? You can pick up shorter plasmat like a 360mm for very little since they were common studio lenses and most LFers want light field equipment these days.

Edit: Don't be so quick to dismiss Ole's advice, he's got more than a few lenses in his cabinet and a lot of experience.

[Dave_B]

Sorry Ole, thats all wrong on every level.

cdholden:
Yea, APO and Multicoating are certainly massive improvements but they're already in the lenses from the early 1990's. I'm looking at a couple that are 'APO-SYMMAR MC', as far as I can tell, mechanically they're the same.

Calling Ole out on a lens knowledge slam-down may not be the most prudent thing to do. He has a pretty solid scientific background coupled with a lot of practical knowledge and experience with LF lenses. He is well-respected on this and other LF forums. You may come to regret this but the rest of us will enjoy the fight. Good luck.

p.s. I would also suggest you not pick a fight with Dan Fromm either unless you really enjoy getting your head handed to you.

[Sizam]

Unless other people want to jump on this bandwagon:

"there have been no significant improvements in resolution since Steinheil invented the Aplanat in 1866"

Can we move on?

[Rodney Polden]

Well, Sizam, Ole's original qualifying phrase, referring to: "Within the central 30° of a 480mm lens - i.e. a 480mm lens used on 8x10", may actually be the part you are skipping over that makes his comment accurate.

[Ole Tjugen]

"there have been no significant improvements in resolution since Steinheil invented the Aplanat in 1866"

... within the central 30°. There have been multiple advances in field flatness, coverage, chromatic aberrations, anti-reflection treatments and so on - but the maximum resolution is still no better than the best Aplanats. ;)

[erie patsellis]

I'd have to agree with Ole as well, the central 30 degrees is the stickler. It is my understanding that more modern lenses actually trade resolution in the center to gain in the edges (no free lunch). If my experience with my 19" RD Apo Artar is any guide, there's likely very little improvement on-axis to be had, yes, they are that sharp.

Consider Ole and Dan the Richard K.(those of us that used to use or still use Usenet will know of whom I speak) of the forums, though if you really enjoy arguing semantics, R.K. could likely send you with your tail between your legs as well, and in such a polite way that you'll be thanking him profusely as well

btw, have you ever actually seen or held a 480mm plasmat? my 360 is huge, I can't imagine what the 480 is like.

[Tim Povlick]

Personally, I think buying new is the correct approach for several reasons. You have purchased new, some nice lenses and may not be aware of the downside going used. I've purchased a fair amount of glass used and in several items been a bit disappointed. A 110-XL comes to mind that had fogging in the front element. Luckily, Schneider covered this as a warranty repair no questions asked. In another case a lens front element had a scratch in it that the seller should have mentioned. (he did give me 7 days to try lens - which I kept anyway). Also, some of the shutters may be a little more then broken in by the time you get them. Owing to the above and because I intend to use these lenses for several more decades I've opted to go new from now on. I have a Schneider 480 that I newly purchased and think it's a wonderful lens. On 8x10 it does reach out there. I've tested on a high resolution chart that had 4000 lines (across the width and height) and it passed this one easy, no contest. In the corners the lens was still sharp.

As far as improvements since 1990's I am not sure. I would suspect this would be influenced by the designer, if the newer lenses are designed by some hot-shot designer maybe it could have the edge. I would assume these lens are designed via Zemax and in the decade since the 90's this program has improved which would expectantly lead to better designs (in the hand of a good designer of course). I would also assume the designs are tweaked to match the batch characteristics of the glass as each run is made; not sure if they did this in the 90's but you would think so.

Sounds like you are a resolution junkie like me. I scan my own film using an Aztek Premier drum scanner and the 480 has never disappointed (only when wind shake kills it). Attached is an overall image taken with aforementioned lens and a zoomed in portion of the image near the Pacific Ocean. The exposure was way off (under) but the Premier pulled it out.

Regards,

_..--
TiM

[Kevin Crisp]

Sizam: "APO" is not a massive improvement in the Schneider line as compared with the previous generation. I don't think this one is even arguable. You might find the resolution numbers in the Perez et al testing interesting -- if resolution is part of what you consider desirable and apparently it is. The APO's are not sharper across the board or even generally, it depends on the sample. Some lenses made 40 years after others are not as sharp. I won't argue that back to 1866, but within the central portion and at a typical 8X10 taking aperture Ole's point is not to be dismissed out of hand. The little Kodak 203 Ektar can blow the doors off many modern lenses, but you probably don't want to hear that.

Multicoating (as in the later -S series lenses) is a significant step forward but only so when the application calls for shooting with the sun or some other blinding highlight in the framing. As someone who uses many Symmar lenses from the originals to APO series I can't consider the step up from a clean single coating to multicoating "massive." I have shot a 1950's Symmar at a resolution chart side by side with an APO version (150mm lenses) and in large prints (and negatives under high magnification) the difference was not detectable. I don't think you could tell the difference side by side with very large enlargements unless in some very challenging flare inducing situation.

If you want to spend your money on a new one for whatever feeling of confidence it gives you then go for it. I am sure it would be a great lens. Personally, unless I needed precisely the 480mm focal length, I'd go with the 450 Fujinon-C, which is smaller, cheaper, and superb.

[RJ-]

Up till now I've bought my Schneider lenses new from a dealer:
90,120,210 for 4x5
210 XL for 8x10

I want to buy a 480mm (for 8x10) but I'm wondering if there are actual improvements in the optics vs lenses from the early 1990's. I'm not looking for 'massive improvements' but if anything has been done to add even that 'last little bit' of optical performance then its worth it, if they just use different materials or its to get a warranty then its not.

I know with my Canon lenses that over time they improve the optics/mechanics even if they don't release a new version but those lenses are obviously more complicated.

I'll be shooting with the intent to do high resolution scanning and huge prints, I want _detail_.

Thanks.

Hi there,

If you can settle for a 450mm focal length, there are a substantial number of these on the market. Perhaps a vintage lens is not what you're after, however there perhaps is an advantage for definition in the peripheral image field for plasmats and dialytes over tessar type equivalents for your chosen focal length.

Although not directly relevant to 8x10" format, the lenses listed here (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate/web/3-01-which-whole-plate-lens-to-start-off-with) under manufacturer headings might be relevant to you. Perhaps if Rodenstock released a 480mm Sironar S (low dispersion glass), this would be the choice to go for. Until then...

You might like to research the Docter Wetzlar Optic 450mm lens (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate/web/3-82-docter-wetzlar-optic-apo-germinar-450mm-f9): it has a greater image circle than the 480mm plasmat monster offering from Schneider and is a fraction the size of the Schneider. I've scribbled some thoughts in the link holding some reservation about choosing a plasmat type for this kind of focal length as Erie has echoed.

With respect to peripheral field defintion beyond the first 30 degrees, the Docter Wetzlar Optic 450mm (symmetrical dialyte type) uses a Trimmring spacer ring to correct for infinity focus (somewhat unique across the manufacturers in this respect). The MTF charts are included in the link for comparision if you wish to compare its performance against the Schneider plasmat type.

Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)

[Sizam]

Great, now these are some good points. Nope, I haven't held a 480mm plasmat but the 210mm I have is the size of a truck headlight so I figured it couldn't get any worse, the weight difference at the Schneider site isn't that big... I considered 360mm but I'm thinking in terms of 35mm (which is what I've used for years) and I was aiming for ~24mm (210mm is close) and 85mm (135mm even better). But that appears to be in the 600-800mm range and I'm getting the felling I'm missing something because 600-800mm seems like an extreme on 8x10 from what I read.

I don't mind buying used, I'm a huge fan of it in fact, every bit of my extensive digital 35mm set is bought used with one or two exceptions (friggn 1DsIII). Its just been with LF that there are SO many options out there that it was easier to buy new with the assumption that 'if its newer its better' and Schneider was one of the best so: Schneider + new = awesome. But damn I'd like to save a couple grand.

I need to find a rental house in the area that has large 8x10 lenses I think.

EDIT:

The little Kodak 203 Ektar can blow the doors off many modern lenses, but you probably don't want to hear that.

Its not that I'm looking for an excuse to _have_ to buy an expensive new lens, I think its a misconception that just because one brings up new lenses they want to justify spending lots of money on it therefore older stuff is bad. There is just sooo much older stuff with so many opinions and feelings and passion that its hard to get concrete information where its harder to say that a newer issue of a specific lens is worse, or perhaps due to inconsistency you don't always get what you expect from one vintage lens to the next.

[Oren Grad]

Schneider has stated that the main reason they bothered designing the Apo-Symmar L series was that environmental regulations forced the phase-out of some glass types used in the Apo-Symmars. With the redesign, some of the shorter focal lengths in the Apo-Symmar L series have gained coverage compared to their predecessors, but the 480 has not. In fact, if you try to download the technical data on the 480 L from either the Schneider Kreuznach or the Schneider US sites, you'll find that it is, in fact, just the data for the 480 Apo-Symmar (non-L). Either that's an oversight, or the specifications for the 480 in particular have not changed at all.

PS: OK, the repetition of the 480 non-L data for the 480 L may be an error. My Schneider full-line brochures show at least slightly different mechanical specifications for the 480 L and non-L, with the L being slightly larger/heavier. Rated coverage remains the same.

[Sizam]

Yea I think the gist here is I don't need to buy a new lens and at the least I can purchase a 480 Schneider from the early 90's at a substantial savings. And I don't think I could have arrived at that decision comfortably with out all this data so thanks :)

[Nick_3536]

What camera are you using? A 210mm won't stress a camera like a biggin.

[Sizam]

What camera are you using? A 210mm won't stress a camera like a biggin.

A Canham 8x10 Wood field camera.

[Frank Petronio]

Just a thought, but shooting out of doors with a big 480 is almost another magnitude of scale over a normal 8x10 set up. Wouldn't it make sense to pick up one of the $900 or so used 1990s Schneiders or Rodenstocks simply to see if you really want to manage building camera set-ups STABLE enough to take advantage of those fine optics?

Because the money might be better spent on rigging -- a super duper tripod, wind screen, second tripod, sandbags, etc. it really isn't the sort of lens you can hang on a wooden 8x10 with a light #3 tripod and expect optimal results -- are you using a Sinar or something you can "build"?

[Don7x17]

480mm Schneider?

For a few dollars and mm more, you can get a truly superb 550mm Fine Art XXL from Schneider. Even comes with its own box. And you can have Schneider engrave your name on the outer black ring.

[Frank Petronio]

Oh a woodie indeed! Well then why worry about a few lines per millimeter? The front standard will sink faster than the lens is sharp ;-)

[Darren Kruger]

I need to find a rental house in the area that has large 8x10 lenses I think.

Keeble & Schucat have a Nikkor f/9 450mm along with a Nikkor f/9 300mm and a Sinaron f/5.6 300mm listed on their site.

Pro Camera up in SF has a wider selection of 8x10 lenses for rent, from a 165 Super Angulon up to a Fuji C 600mm. They list a 480mm f8.4 Schneider Symmar-S in case you want to check to see if that focal length suits how you shoot.

-Darren

[Don7x17]

Just a thought, but shooting out of doors with a big 480 is almost another magnitude of scale over a normal 8x10 set up. Wouldn't it make sense to pick up one of the $900 or so used 1990s Schneiders or Rodenstocks simply to see if you really want to manage building camera set-ups STABLE enough to take advantage of those fine optics?

Because the money might be better spent on rigging -- a super duper tripod, wind screen, second tripod, sandbags, etc. it really isn't the sort of lens you can hang on a wooden 8x10 with a light #3 tripod and expect optimal results -- are you using a Sinar or something you can "build"?

I can't deny that for this user, looking at a good Fuji 450 would easily solve his weight problem. (new or used).

But you don't need to worry about putting a big lens on a Canham. Its not going to fold nor deflect. remember that Keith uses enough Aircraft Alumimum for the supporting structure - its not all wood. It'll take the abuse of a large lens. You might want something supporting the front (regardless of lens) - look at the Kirk arm for this, or a monopod will work well.

A bigger problem for all cameras is bellows movement due to wind resulting in camera shake whether canham, sinar or other. Spilling the wind around a 12x20 camera with a huge lens, using a giant golf umbrella, solves this problem.

And I have found the Arca Swiss might be a more portable field instrument than lugging a Sinar around in its case with round rail protuding. Put it on a 30mm rail section for portability. (and the Arca builds just as nicely from 6x9 through 8x10., and Thalman has built a 7x17 back for his). Both are nice systems, as is the Canham 8x10 camera itself (and Keith builds these so you can put different backs on the 8x10 -- including 5x7, 4x10 and 11x14(although you'd be better off with the extra extension that a 11x14 base itself provides)

I do agree with two tripods when I have the 1000mm rail on the Arca 8x10 so I can use the 1100 or 1200T for detail in the distant landscape (like small details in the inner canyon of the Grand Canyon).

YMMV.

[Don7x17]

Oh a woodie indeed! Well then why worry about a few lines per millimeter? The front standard will sink faster than the lens is sharp ;-)

Actually the 550XXL works quite well on a woodie canham without loss of sharpness. The front standard does not move or deflect.
Give it a try.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Hmm, sharpness. Well at 480mm there is e.g. the Apo-Ronar which doesn't have huge coverage, but it for sure has a bite when it comes to sharpness. You can get a used one for purely experimental reasons for around $100 or so. I know that this is not what you are looking for, but it will probably meet your criteria for sharpness and contrast.
The same goes for the previously mentioned Fujinon C 450mm.
Both of these lenses are much smaller than a Plasmat-type 480mm, and have smaller full openings, but as these are "long focal lengths" this doesn't affect composing etc. with rapid light fall in the way any wide-angle behaves on the ground glass.

I also must chime in with Frank P. about the weight issue. If you are going to use this lens outside, you ought to find out if the camera and tripod can cope with it whenever there is even a tiny breeze. Given that sharpness and thus contrast is of importance to you I take it you use a compendium to shade of what shouldn't affect your pictures. The area of that setup can easily be the size of a normal TV screen, so everything needs to be strong and heavy in order to be perfectly still when exposing.
You didn't mention (at least in this thread) what camera you are using, but there are only few cameras which can hold this lens at that extention. E.g. Sinar P/P2 with the special 8x10" front and back standarts plus 2 camera bases on a huge tripod. Some equivialent Linhof and Arca cameras comes to mind.

//Björn

[Frank Petronio]

I remember seeing a big-time car photographer's 8x10 set-up out in the Eastern Sierras; similar type of thing to what we are talking here, long lens to bring the mountain background up to the car. It looked like a machine gun bunker -- sandbags, largest Gitzo, double plate so the camera had two attachment points, etc.

Overkill I guess, but it made an impression.

[Tim Povlick]

A Canham 8x10 Wood field camera.

That's the camera I hang my 480 from. I keep the standards slightly loose when composing and can move the lens for tilt and shift. It's really cool to see everything come into focus with little movement required. As stated wind is a factor.

_ ..--
TiM

[Kevin Crisp]

One of your earlier posts said you wanted to the architectural and landscape work. If you are going to be out in the field with it, then I highly recommend the 450 Fuji-C. It is in a Copal 1 shutter.

[Sizam]

Its sounding like the Canham can take a 480mm (or larger) which is what it seemed like when I bought it and I'm glad you guys confirm it. As for a tripod don't worry bout that, I use a Gitzo GT5560GT (8.5') with each section only half extended (except the last section) for maximum stability and then only a leveling base at the top, no actual head which is just another spot for unwanted movement. Wind is a factor but I'll find some ways to minimize it, you always gotta figure out some way.

Also I've already shot some with the 210 XL which is 2010g, the 480 is 1850g so its actually lighter then the lens I'm already using. I'll head up to the SF area to try some other larger 8x10 lenses.

Yes, architecture and *scapes is what this'll be used for.

[Sizam]

That's the camera I hang my 480 from. I keep the standards slightly loose when composing and can move the lens for tilt and shift. It's really cool to see everything come into focus with little movement required. As stated wind is a factor.

_ ..--
TiM

So you use a huge 480mm lens on your Canham as well no problems?

[Brian Ellis]

"Shutterbug" magazine (I use the term loosely) carried an interview with the president of Schneider U.S.A. about ten years ago. He talked about the differences/improvements between the Schneider Symmar S and the APO Symmars (this was before the later Ls came out). He acknowledged that the improvements were more incremental than earth-shattering. I couldn't tell just how meaningfull the improvements were but knowing little, not being overly worried about money, and wanting to make the technically best photographs possible, I thought it was wise to buy the latest version just in case there might be an noticeable difference in at least some prints. If I were doing it again I'd do the same thing, this time with the APO-Ls.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Many others have mentioned the Fujinon C 450mm. 2/3 of a stop "darker", half the diameter and 1/7 of the weight (i.e. 270 grammes, which is the same as the Symmar-L ... 150mm). It covers about the same IC as the current Symmar-L and I'm quite certain it's at least equally good in terms of performance. (It's possible that the Fujinon is better, but I don't think that anyone can see the difference if these two lenses was "competing" side by side in the field.)
Cost? $1050 at Badgergraphic. (Where the Symmar-L 480 costs $3430.)

The Symmar-L will certainly look more impressive if you don't know what the final result will be, but...

//Björn

[Sizam]

So the only advantage the Schneider has over the Fujinon 450 is that its 2/3 of a stop brighter? Brightness of the screen is important but how important it is vs 7x the weight...
OTOH I do plan on shooting in low light situations but now I'm wondering if the extra weight is worth the 2/3 fstop.

Frick.

[Sizam]

You might want something supporting the front (regardless of lens) - look at the Kirk arm for this, or a monopod will work well.

What is a 'kirk arm', I use a kirk (well, RSS actually) rail bracket on the camera itself (with two attachments)?

http://reallyrightstuff.com/mmRRS/Images/thumb/MPR1.gif

[jim kitchen]

I own Schneider glass, such as the 150XL, the 210XL, the 300L, the 480L, and the soon to arrive 800 Apo Tele Xenar, along with my 8X10. I carry these lenses within my backpack, and I chose these lenses because of their outstanding ability to reproduce detail... I still own an assortment of Rodenstock lenses for my 4X5, and I do not have any issues with those lenses either. I bought the 210XL and the 800 Apo new, and the balance of my lenses without regret from individuals within in this forum.

As a side note, while being introduced to this forum, and reading several excellent articles, I became influenced by "get the smaller lighter sharper, it will do the job lens," where this textual influence convinced me to try an assortment of lighter smaller lenses for my 8X10, but I soon realized after acquiring these assorted lenses that this compromise was unacceptable to me for several reasons. I can identify the reasons as varying contrast, totally different bokeh, different lens condition, and different manufacturers, where all these differences would make some image makers extremely pleased by their inherent complex different personalities, I became truly annoyed at their inconsistent behaviour.

The text's influence initially caused me to reconsider the total weight of my equipment upon my back, when I really should have paid attention to the weight of the lens on the front of the camera. My lens group's incremental weight above the smaller lenses, which approximates seven or eight kilograms (roughly 17lbs), is a non issue because I am accustomed to the extra weight upon my back, while I hike. I also discovered that the extra weight of the larger lens on the front standard had a valuable stabilizing effect upon the camera resulting from the lens's incremental mass, and now I do not regret carrying the larger heavier lenses at all. That thought may change when I am several years older, and when I begin to worry about getting out of bed in the morning and, or just even waking up.

I do wish that I had a mule every once in a blue moon, while traversing a steeper switchback... :)

I happen to enjoy the larger heavier Schneider lenses and their image quality, and although I know the heavier lenses will never totally redirect my unbeatable rival the wind, I will continue to watch the camera's bubble level, waiting for that moment to trigger the shutter when the wind decides to pause momentarily.

jim k

[Steve Hamley]

Just a few comments from the very interesting posts in this thread:

Where is Richard Knoppow since the Usenet transmorgrified into the Spamnet? I was half thinking he might show up here or APUG. If you're out there RK, you're invited over.

Anyone buying used lenses for critical use (as opposed to amusement) should count on cleaning both the glass and shutter (if it has one) in the buying price. Like RK above, I've long considered old lens haze as bad as a jammed shutter, and why many people are underwhelmed by vintage glass.

Frank, no problem with big lenses. You don't need braces, sandbags, second tripods, or funny attachments. If you do, you have the wrong camera. Set up your Linhof 8x10 Color Kardan with the 2-inch rails and the 9-inch lensboards that are apparently 1/4 inch thick on the tripod Linhof recommends for it, pop that little piece of glass on it and shoot.

Cheers,

Steve

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - I don't follow your logic. How can heavier lenses equal more stability? On many view cameras the front standard is the weakest link in terms of stability. There would be less vibration with lighter lenses, especially with longer bellows extensions. As far as
performance is concerned, I'd stack the lighter weight Fujis up against the heavier
plasmats any day. Been there, done that. And the image color is virtually indistinguishable.

[Tim Povlick]

So you use a huge 480mm lens on your Canham as well no problems?

No problems for the camera. I originally asked Keith about using a XXL and he said others were using it on his cameras. The camera itself doesn't seem to notice the weight, the focus control on front standard is very smooth with lens in place. The main concern is shaking due to wind; an umbrella helps.

To me the overall weight is a non-issue as I also carry a 210XL out in the field. I just get acclimated to the backpack. Knowing I will get crisp images is it's own reward.

_ .. --
TiM

[Don7x17]

What is a 'kirk arm', I use a kirk (well, RSS actually) rail bracket on the camera itself (with two attachments)?

http://reallyrightstuff.com/mmRRS/Images/thumb/MPR1.gif

(Its an arm that attaches to the tripod leg and extends up to the view camera to provide another stability point -- contact Rod Klukas at Photomark. You'll need your tripod leg diameter, etc.

[Don7x17]

No problems for the camera. I originally asked Keith about using a XXL and he said others were using it on his cameras. The camera itself doesn't seem to notice the weight, the focus control on front standard is very smooth with lens in place. The main concern is shaking due to wind; an umbrella helps.

To me the overall weight is a non-issue as I also carry a 210XL out in the field. I just get acclimated to the backpack. Knowing I will get crisp images is it's own reward.

_ .. --
TiM


No problem using the 550XXL fine art on the Canham 12x20 (or on the arca swiss). Absolutely no deflection or change in the front.

[erie patsellis]

Just a few comments from the very interesting posts in this thread:

Where is Richard Knoppow since the Usenet transmorgrified into the Spamnet? I was half thinking he might show up here or APUG. If you're out there RK, you're invited over.

I still see him pop up on rec.photo.equipment.darkroom or one of the rec.photo newsgroups from time to time


Anyone buying used lenses for critical use (as opposed to amusement) should count on cleaning both the glass and shutter (if it has one) in the buying price. Like RK above, I've long considered old lens haze as bad as a jammed shutter, and why many people are underwhelmed by vintage glass.
The first 19" Artar I got had some haze (a plain ApoArtar, my second was an RD), I was pretty underwhelmed, but a good cleaning (with dishsoap and hot water, followed by a methanol drag) turned ho-hum into HOLY CRAP!!! The Artars and enlarging Ektars were purposely built to be easily disassembled to clean.

[Don7x17]

So the only advantage the Schneider has over the Fujinon 450 is that its 2/3 of a stop brighter? Brightness of the screen is important but how important it is vs 7x the weight...
OTOH I do plan on shooting in low light situations but now I'm wondering if the extra weight is worth the 2/3 fstop.

Frick.

Make a good darkcloth that does not leak light and you'll never know the difference. I regularly focus a f22 XXL lens and have no problems.

One of the best tips I ever got on focusing was from Sexton - make your own darkcloth from black ultrasuede and white ripstop nylon. Try it - you won't see any leaks.

[Steve Hamley]

The first 19" Artar I got had some haze (a plain ApoArtar, my second was an RD), I was pretty underwhelmed, but a good cleaning (with dishsoap and hot water, followed by a methanol drag) turned ho-hum into HOLY CRAP!!! The Artars and enlarging Ektars were purposely built to be easily disassembled to clean.

Same here. I have a late 270mm G-Claron in black Copal that I bought and for some reason it had appreciable haze. I was not impressed and was going to sell it, but had some other stuff going to Adam Dau at S.K. Grimes and thought what the heck, I'll throw it in the box. I had about the same reaction you did when I used it after cleaning.

Cheers,

Steve

[D. Bryant]

Where is Richard Knoppow since the Usenet transmorgrified into the Spamnet? I was half thinking he might show up here or APUG. If you're out there RK, you're invited over.

Richard runs the the Pure Silver List and occasionally posts to the alternative process mail list.

I don't think he cares for the LF forum or APUG because of the format.

Don Bryant

[Bjorn Nilsson]

So the only advantage the Schneider has over the Fujinon 450 is that its 2/3 of a stop brighter? Brightness of the screen is important but how important it is vs 7x the weight...
OTOH I do plan on shooting in low light situations but now I'm wondering if the extra weight is worth the 2/3 fstop.

Frick.

Brightness of screen is different when you are dealing with long focal lengths vs. short focal lenghts. On 4x5" any 90mm produces a hotspot and when using a 47mm that hotspot is very small. The remedy is usually a fresnel lens behind the ground glass, which helps much more than using huge f/4.5 lenses instead of smaller f/8 equivialents.
With longer focal lenghts this problem disappears. (Still 4x5") I don't see any noticable difference between my Heliar 21cm f/4.5 and my Fujinon A 240mm f/9. They are both rather bright, given the 2 full stop difference. The same goes for my Apo-Ronar 480mm f/9. As the lens(es) in these cases are further away from the ground glass, there is a smaller difference in the infalling angle of light, which in turn makes the image look more evenly lit.
And I recon that you still will stop down to at least f/22 when you do the exposure, so it's only during setup you will lack that 2/3 stop.
Now, should you get the Fujinon and find out that it doesn't meet your criteria, these lenses are very popular and easy to sell on without much loss. (I.e. a cheap rent.) But do give it a chance first, while telling yourself that this is a little marvel and it will probably give you wonderful pictures.

//Björn

[Steve Hamley]

Don B.,

Got a link for those lists?

Don7,

Ditto on the ultrasuede. You probably don't need the white ripstop except to keep cool. I got a piece of this with my 8x20 Korona and thought "Why would you buy anything else?"

Cheers,

Steve

[Eric Leppanen]

Many others have mentioned the Fujinon C 450mm... It covers about the same IC as the current Symmar-L and I'm quite certain it's at least equally good in terms of performance. (It's possible that the Fujinon is better, but I don't think that anyone can see the difference if these two lenses was "competing" side by side in the field.)Have you ever actually compared these two lenses side-by-side in the field?

I have. When viewing 8x10 transparencies with a 10x loupe, the 480 APO Symmar L produced images with more contrast than the Fuji 450C (so did the Nikon 450M). For some folks, this is not a big deal (some B&W shooters just push their film a bit to compensate); for others this is a consideration.

Center resolution between the two lenses appeared comparable, but the edge resolution advantage clearly lay with the L. Also, the image circles of the two lenses are not the same. The Schneider IC spec seemed conservative, in practice I never ran out of IC with it. The 480 APO Symmar L has a larger rear element than the previous 480 APO Symmar; how much a coverage difference this makes I do not know. I have run out of IC with the Fuji 450C enough times that I no longer use that lens with 8x10. I frequently shoot architecture and from canyon bottoms, and use up IC real fast.

Lastly, the Fuji C is optimized for 1:5 to infinity, the APO Symmar L 1:3 to infinity. Close ups shot with the L appeared slightly sharper to me.

Whether these differences are enough to justify going with a far more expensive, much bulkier lens is of course a highly debatable point. Obviously few people buy 480 APO Symmar L's these days; I bought mine because I got a close-out deal on it, and after a couple years or so I got tired of lugging it around in the field and sold it in favor of a Nikon 450M. But there are differences between these lenses, and at times I still have pangs of regret over parting with my 480 L.

[Andrew O'Neill]

But you don't need to worry about putting a big lens on a Canham. Its not going to fold nor deflect. remember that Keith uses enough Aircraft Alumimum for the supporting structure - its not all wood. It'll take the abuse of a large lens.

I have the 8x10 Light Weight version and it can hold some pretty big glass with no problems.

[jim kitchen]

Jim - I don't follow your logic. How can heavier lenses equal more stability? On many view cameras the front standard is the weakest link in terms of stability. There would be less vibration with lighter lenses, especially with longer bellows extensions. As far as
performance is concerned, I'd stack the lighter weight Fujis up against the heavier
plasmats any day. Been there, done that. And the image color is virtually indistinguishable.

Dear Drew,

My logic follows two simple physics principles, where the principles describe an object's potential energy and an object's center of gravity. Briefly, a dense material or dense mass owns a higher potential energy threshold within an object, causing the object to demand more energy if the object should be moved from a static position. A heavier object, such as the lens, will influence the combined object's center of gravity by lowering the center of gravity to a deeper level, below the combined unit.

Some view cameras do have a weaker front standard, but my camera does not, so I am not afraid to have the camera support a heavy lens. Unfortunately, your less vibration statement is not correct, since a smaller lens will become part of a larger vibrating camera frame very quickly, because a smaller lens has a lighter mass, an inherent smaller potential energy, and a weak effect upon the complete unit's center of gravity. Also, it was not my intent to discuss the lens quality of one manufacturer versus another. People like Japanese glass and I just happen to like German glass. Actually heavy German glass...

Physics aside, a strong wind is like a Smith in Wesson in a card game. It beats four aces.

I hope this explanation helps you with my previous statements... :)


jim k

[Tim Povlick]

Where can one view the MTF / distortion etc. charts for the Fujinon glass? I have searched but did not find.

_ .. --
Tim

[Arne Croell]

Where can one view the MTF / distortion etc. charts for the Fujinon glass? I have searched but did not find.

_ .. --
Tim
Fuji (and Nikon) never published MTF curves for their LF lenses.

[Tim Povlick]

Fuji (and Nikon) never published MTF curves for their LF lenses.

Thanks for the response Arne.

Best Regards,

Tim

[Sizam]

A couple of you have mentioned or alluded to using a Schneider 800mm or 1100mm lens, do you have any samples shot with these lenses? I get the impression that the 'compression' effects from LF lenses are different then 35mm, ie even though 135mm (35) ~ 900mm (LF) the amount of compression isn't the same.

[Ole Tjugen]

The "compression effect" depends only on the relative position of lens and subject, so it should be the same for 35mm and 8x10" given the same angle of view.

I don't have any examples, since most of my lenses are old and the rest are short. But I'll mention that my personal choise in the 4x0mm range is a 420mm C-Claron - because I got hold of a nice one in shutter. If I want longer than that I'm off to the curio cabinet to fetch a 640mm Suter Aplanat Ser. B No. 6, or the 450/550/650/750 cells of an Aplanat casket set. Or maybe - if the camera I want to use is strong enough - the 500mm f:5.5 Schneider Göttingen Aero-Xenar: Great lens in both senses of the word, but won't fit in any known shutter. :)

[Sizam]

Thanks,
I wish there were more options in the >900mm range then :p

EDIT:

Waiiit a second, that doesn't make sense to me. That would mean that if I were to put a 4x5 back onto my 8x10 camera the resulting photo would have more of a compression effect to it due to a smaller angle of view...

[Kevin Crisp]

The compression from the long lens is the same if the focal length is the same. But when you go to a (MUCH) larger negative then it doesn't seem like it because you have so much surrounding subject context that you wouldn't have on the smaller piece of film. Put another way, if you put a 1000 mm lens on a 35mm camera and on an 8X10 and shoot from the same position, and then crop out everything except a little 24X36mm rectangle on the 8X10 sheet of film, the two photos will look the same. The smaller image might be sharper, but that is another can of worms. Focal length is focal length.

I would also like to point out that a great many people find that "their favorite focal lengths" for 35mm photography are much different than what they settle on for their favorites with LF. That, I suppose, is a bit more difficult to explain. It certainly has been true for me, though.

[Sizam]

Ok,
That fits into my world view :)

[Don7x17]

A couple of you have mentioned or alluded to using a Schneider 800mm or 1100mm lens, do you have any samples shot with these lenses? I get the impression that the 'compression' effects from LF lenses are different then 35mm, ie even though 135mm (35) ~ 900mm (LF) the amount of compression isn't the same.

The 1100 is the Schneider Fine Art XXL 1100mm. What sort of sample were you wanting? (an 1100 on a 12x20 doesn't has the same "compression" as a 4x5 negative made with same lens. You'd achieve the same effect by cutting a 4x5 section out of that 12x20 negative....

[Sizam]

Yup,
I totally understand now, no need to provide a sample.

[D. Bryant]

Don B.,

Got a link for those lists?

Don7,

Ditto on the ultrasuede. You probably don't need the white ripstop except to keep cool. I got a piece of this with my 8x20 Korona and thought "Why would you buy anything else?"

Cheers,

Steve

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process-l/

[Rodney Polden]

The compression from the long lens is the same if the focal length is the same. But when you go to a (MUCH) larger negative then it doesn't seem like it because you have so much surrounding subject context that you wouldn't have on the smaller piece of film. Put another way, if you put a 1000 mm lens on a 35mm camera and on an 8X10 and shoot from the same position, and then crop out everything except a little 24X36mm rectangle on the 8X10 sheet of film, the two photos will look the same. The smaller image might be sharper, but that is another can of worms. Focal length is focal length.

....and another way of saying it, that avoids all the (to some people confusing) references to large format vs small format, and how the image is cropped, and what focal length is used etc....... is:

***From any given viewpoint (i.e. physical location of the lens), the appearance (i.e. "compression effect", perspective, "rendering" or whatever name you wish to give to it) of an object will be the same***

When the lens is 20 feet from (for example) a face, the face will look one way (regardless of lens focal length, which only affects image size on the negative, not shape).

When the lens is 20 inches from the same face, the face will look another way, regardless of the lens.

There is a commonly held idea that the lens "distorts" the face - this is not accurate. Only viewpoint (nearer or farther away etc) changes the appearance. The only exception to this statement is that, of course, if you use extreme movements of the camera back for instance, you can introduce "distortion" by enlarging one part of the scene relative to another part...... but that's not from the effects of the lens.

Mostly we are accustomed to seeing a face at say six feet, and using as a portrait lens a focal length that gives an image of the face more or less "filling" our film format at that distance. When we use a wide-angle and go in close to the face to "fill" the viewfinder once again, we then think the wide-angle has "distorted" the face. Or maybe we back off from the subject to thirty feet, use a long focal length lens, and then think the lens has "compressed" the subjects's features.

It was not the lens that created whatever difference we see in the shape or rendering of the face - only our changed viewpoint. All that the choice of lens focal length changed was the size (magnification) of the image of the face on the film.

When your eyeball is a few inches from the subject, the shape of the face (relative size of nose to size of ears, for instance) is very different from the view when the eye is many feet away.

Position is EVERYTHING. Focal length only changes magnification.

'Hope this helps clarify some of your choices, Sizam.