What is the sharpest 90mm and 210mm?

[timberline12k]

I am thinking of getting into LF with a 4X5. I want to use the LF camera to photograph landscape, nature and architecture. I don't know if "sharpest" is the correct term, but I would like to produce images that are much sharper than I can get with my D700. I think selecting a 90mm and 210mm lens would provide the only two perspectives I should need.

I have read literature, but I would like user feedback (rather than brochures) on the type of lens that produces sharp or other desirable features. Some of the terms I have read include angulon, symmar, aspheric, etc.

Any recommendations on specific lens models would be appreciated.

[Frank Petronio]

All the modern (last 30 years) name-brand lenses are going to be "sharp" and pretty similar, at least amongst similar designs. You'll probably find more sample variation within a brand than any outright brands or models to avoid.

And even a mediocre example will be able to give you excellent images "superior" to your D700.

Really you just have to dive in and try a few. A $250-$350 210mm f/5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N in a black-rimmed Copal shutter (from about 15 years ago) -- or a similar Schneider Symmar-S -- is a really great starting point, giving you a lot of lens for the money.

If you really want to be sure of having the latest and greatest, then buy three copies of the best new lens -- like a 210/5.6 Schneider APO-Symmar-L -- and test them against each other. You probably won't be able to tell them apart, but you'll know that you have the best possible.

Good entry-level 90s are the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 90/6.8, but the Grandagon-N 90/4.5 is even better (albeit larger/heavier). Also Schneider 90/8 Super-Angulons (and it's faster 90/5.6 version).

Fuji and Nikkor also ~made~ excellent optics. I think Rodenstock (Linos) is still making lenses but only Schneider is actively developing new lenses for large format film cameras now.

The lenses I mentioned are VERY popular in the USA and probably the best "bang for the buck" used. I wouldn't hesitate to use any of them for the most demanding work, it really depends on condition, image circle, size/weight, filter size (nice if they all are the same size!), etc.

[Ron Marshall]

I have a Nikon 90mm f8 that I am very happy with, lots of room for movements and very sharp. Fairly light because it's f8. I don't find it is too dark to focus.

I think any of the modern multicoated 210mm f5.6 lenses will be fine. There may be a greater difference between samples than between brands.

See the lens chart on the front page of this site.

Check KEH for used prices.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[Robert Fisher]

David, unless you want bigger prints or just want to experiment, you will NOT get sharper prints.

[Gene McCluney]

Fuji and Nikkor also ~made~ excellent optics.

Unless you "know" something I don't, Fuji STILL MAKES excellent optics. They are just not officially imported into the USA, however they ARE imported by a few dealers, such as Badger Graphics.

[Frank Petronio]

No I didn't know that. Go Fuji!

[Ben Syverson]

But are those "new" Fuji lenses NOS, or are they actually still manufacturing them?

[Ron Marshall]

I'm sure Fuji is still making LF lenses; Phone Badger and ask:

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=28

[Walter Calahan]

Love Fuji glass. All modern lenses will fit your needs.

[Dan Fromm]

David, read this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=8805&highlight=confessions

[catshaver]

Lens sharpness is subjective. Once you find a lens that you think is killer, you need to use a film that will show it off, assuming of course that you have a rock stable tripod. Then, the enlarger lens needs to be up to snuff and the enlarger vibration free.

Lens sharpness in large format becomes an assumption after you appreciate the value in other variables, such as tonal scale and the perceived 3-dimensionality of a finely toned fiber print.

Having said all this, lens sharpness and lines-per-millimeter charts vary with each individual lens. I sold my brand new Rodenstock APO 150 5.6 Sironar S lens in favor of a 55 year-old Wollensak 135 Raptar covered in cleaning marks and beat up, that gives me better line quality, image weight (tonal rendition) and is jaw-droppingly sharp.

As far as a 90mm and 210mm sharp examples? I agree with Frank. Jump in and try a few. The Grandagons are great in 90mm, and my personal favorite in the 210 category, is the Ektar 203 7.7 - go to http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html and look at the very bottom of the page for independent test results for this lens. 120 lines per millimeter at f11, assuming of course that you could actually realize even half of this resolution on the final image.

[Ron Marshall]

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html[/url] and look at the very bottom of the page for independent test results for this lens. 120 lines per millimeter at f11, assuming of course that you could actually realize even half of this resolution on the final image.

That test result seems to be for an aerial image (measured at the film plane with an eyepiece) , versus on film resolution for the tests results listed in the tables.

[Ken Lee]

"Once you find a lens that you think is killer, you need to use a film that will show it off, assuming of course that you have a rock stable tripod. Then, the enlarger lens needs to be up to snuff and the enlarger vibration free".

Same thing if you scan your images and print digitally: You'll need a good scanner to get the best out of the negative. And you'll get into the whole game of mounting: fluid ? dry ? flatbed ? drum ?

...Or, you can just increase the size of your film and thus require less enlargement. Jim Galli showed, a while back, some images made on 11x14 film with a real junker of a lens. They far surpassed what could be attained with smaller film, no matter how good the lens.

In the words of Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com): "This $300 used 4 x 5 is sharper than a new $3,000 Hasselblad and worlds beyond a $5,000 Leica, Contax, Canon or Nikon".

[Doug Dolde]

Going from a D700 to 4x5 sounds like a recipe for frustration. Don't expect great results immediately; 4x5 has more of a learning curve than a computer-with-a-lens D700.

And I don't think film is inherently sharper than digital, in fact probably the opposite is true. You'll see the difference in sharpness only if you print larger than a certain size (which by the way I've no idea what that certain size is).

I sold my Arca Swiss 4x5 for a Leaf Aptus digital back which I'm using on a Contax 645. I find it superior to 4x5 transparency film in all respects. Of course it has a different look than film, but the Aptus is quite appealing to my eye.

Go for 4x5 film if you are into reduced dynamic range, carrying heavy gear, agonizing over f stop and shutter speed, and of course want to make really big prints. It is a fun process though shooting 4x5 film despite the negative aspects.

[Roger Vadim]

Don't expect great results immediately ...

And I don't think film is inherently sharper than digital, in fact probably the opposite is true. You'll see the difference in sharpness only if you print larger than a certain size

:eek: Heresy! Heresy! ;)

(but you might be right...)

[monkeymon]

Go for 4x5 film if you are into reduced dynamic range

I don't usually bother with this.. but what does this actually mean? I was under the assumption that digital has far inferior dynamic range compared to negative. And positive film would be about the same.

[Frank Petronio]

Doug is right, based on imaging area, even a Nikon D60 is way ahead of a similar sized portion of 4x5 film at capturing information.

I'd love a Leaf Aptus myself, and when you consider the generation steps and possibilities for problems with the analog workflow, it may well prove that a middle-of-the-road medium format digital back is a better results/more economical workflow.

But dropping even $10K on last season's MF digital back just hurts so much!

For less than $1000 you can shoot "state-of-art" 4x5 film with lenses and cameras capable of just as good results as those of the masters.

And you scan it on a $500 Epson and print on a $200 inkjet and get really nice, professional portfolio quality results. Or you can go spend several hundred on a single drum scan and large inkjet print.

[Doug Dolde]

Leaf has demos at "reasonable" prices.

http://www.leaf-photography.com/usa/

[Marko]

But dropping even $10K on last season's MF digital back just hurts so much!

For less than $1000 you can shoot "state-of-art" 4x5 film with lenses and cameras capable of just as good results as those of the masters.

Yes, but how many shots will it take to reach the remaining $9000 in film and processing costs?

If I am not mistaken in assuming $10 per processed E6 sheet, with no margin of error, no test shots and no bracketing, it would take 900 shots.

For a film camera, this is an ongoing (and increasing) cost, but for a digital back, once the point of equal cost is reached, all further shots are free.

[Frank Petronio]

That 28mp for $12K ain't impossible. For you!

[Gene McCluney]

Yes, but how many shots will it take to reach the remaining $9000 in film and processing costs?

If I am not mistaken in assuming $10 per processed E6 sheet, with no margin of error, no test shots and no bracketing, it would take 900 shots.

For a film camera, this is an ongoing (and increasing) cost, but for a digital back, once the point of equal cost is reached, all further shots are free.

Well, if you are a working Photographer, the film & processing costs are passed along to the client, and not a part of overhead.

If you are a personal creative photographer that shoots without assignment..then there are "ways" to shoot color cheaper, particiularly if you do your own processing, and of course b/w is way cheaper.

Another factor if comparing costs between digital and film: When you purchase your film gear it can last a lifetime (if you purchase the best) so the amortization is long. Digital gear has to be "updated" including the computers used to process the files every so many years, regardless of how much you earn from it.

[catshaver]

I think the original poster was asking for advice on 90mm and 210mm lenses

[Marko]

Well, if you are a working Photographer, the film & processing costs are passed along to the client, and not a part of overhead.

If you are a personal creative photographer that shoots without assignment..then there are "ways" to shoot color cheaper, particiularly if you do your own processing, and of course b/w is way cheaper.

Both very true. But either way, a digital back (or a digital body, depending on the format) cost-wise still replaces both the film body and the film itself, including processing. A professional gets to deduct/amortize it and to pass the remaining cost to the client while a personal photographer has to weigh in which will cost him/her less over a certain period of time.


Another factor if comparing costs between digital and film: When you purchase your film gear it can last a lifetime (if you purchase the best) so the amortization is long. Digital gear has to be "updated" including the computers used to process the files every so many years, regardless of how much you earn from it.

It all depends on the volume and on the time period between the updates (why quotation marks?), but the math is essentially very simple. The cost of film is directly proportional to the number of shots you take, while the cost of digital is inversely proportional for the life of the body/back.

[timberline12k]

I think the original poster was asking for advice on 90mm and 210mm lenses

It is interesting reading, but I am trying to identify 2 (or 1) lenses I should start with. I plan to limit my LF usage to landscapes (mountains, sunsets, prairies etc.), nature (small streams, trees, etc.) and architecture (indoor church, etc.).

I was suprised by the quality/sharpness discussion because I had based my initial interest on 4X5 LF after looking at photos like this one: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/qtluong/example.html
I recognize that was on a 5X7, but the availablility of 4X5 film appears to be better. I could not tell what lens was used on that photo.

In any case, what lens would produce similar quality photos, not withstanding the skill level of the photographer?

[Oren Grad]

In any case, what lens would produce similar quality photos, not withstanding the skill level of the photographer?

Assuming careful technique on the part of the photographer, there are many, many, many large format lenses that can make pictures that would "parse" in the same way as Tuan's example that you linked, with comparable quality.

[timberline12k]

Would a 90mm or 210mm produce a similar perspective on a 4X5?

[Gem Singer]

A 90mm lens on 4X5 is a similar perspective to a 120mm lens on the 5X7 format.

A 210mm lens on 4X5 is a similar perspective to a 250mm lens on the 5X7 format.

The two formats have different aspect ratios. 5X7 is a longer rectangle. 4X5 is more of a squarer rectangle (difficult to put that description into words).

[Frank Petronio]

On 4x5 a 90 is moderate wide-angle, about like a 28mm on 35mm film but not the same because the aspect ratios of the film are different. It's the most popular/best selling wide lens for 4x5. It is probably the most used lens by architectural photographers, as going wider usually introduces so much difference in the near/far relationship and distortion that super-wides often don't describe the space very well. (But architectural photographers end up needing super-wides sooner or later because many clients insist on "getting it all in the shot" even if it looks like crap.)

The 210 on 4x5 is slightly long, suitable for torso-length portraits, product photography, architectural details, close-ups in nature, and "normal" views -- sunsets and the like. It is probably the most popular lens of all in 4x5 because it can isolate the main subject and most 210s have plenty of coverage.

You're smart to start with those two lenses as they are plentiful, consistent, inexpensive...

But I wouldn't overthink these things. You'll learn more from an hour of hands-on photography than weeks of noodling online. Look for someone to sell you a nice outfit with a basic name-brand lens and camera just to get going, and after you get a few shots under your belt you'll start to form preferences.

It's not like the 35mm or digital world, where if you get a Leica or a D700/Mk2Ds3 you have the best all-around camera platform on the market. With large format there are lots of excellent platforms to launch from, and even the cheaper, less popular large format cameras have their advantages and charms.

5x7 is great, try it after 4x5. In smaller than 16x20 prints you would be hard pressed to tell which format was used, again the entire workflow matters. You can shoot larger film - 5x7, 8x10, etc. - but maybe then you can't afford to buy 2gb drum scans at $250 per. That's no biggee to me, but if you are going for the ultimate, you may never find a solution.

[timberline12k]

Any thoughts on these two lenses?

210mm Nikon 5.6
90mm 6.8 Rodenstock

I found some used ones.

Which one would you purchase first?

[Gem Singer]

The Nikkor f5.6 210W would make a great first lens.

[Frank Petronio]

Sticking to the same brand is, well, just nice.

With the Rodenstocks, their Sironar N 210/5.6 and the Grandagon N 90/6.8 are both 67mm filter threads, which is very handy.

[catshaver]

I think the Rodenstock 90 6.8 is a good lens at this focal length, and if I were in the market for another 90mm lens, I would buy this one (or its twin, the Calumet). Personally, I'm finding it hard to compose and focus my Super Angulon 90 f8 indoors in natural light. The wider maximum aperture on the Rodenstock is a plus.

[Mike Putnam]

I have a Nikon 90 8.0 that I love. I've produced lots of 50 inch prints with it and it has proven to be sharp and consistent.

Mike Putnam Photography (http://www.mikeputnamphoto.com/)

[Gordon Moat]

I picked up a Rodenstock Grandagon-N 90mm f6.8 recently. I like that the 67mm filter size leaves it a reasonably sized lens that also can use the same filters my Nikkor 180mm f5.6 can use. Absolutely no complaints on the quality of the lens. While I thought I would want an f4.5 or f5.6 90mm, in reality the f6.8 is plenty bright enough to use easily on my 4x5.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Ole Tjugen]

Once more, I'll link to my "zoomified" picture shot on 5x7" slide film with a 165mm Angulon.

The Angulon is not famous for being the sharpest lens, and indeed there is a little bit of softness in the corners if you zoom in very far. Also somehow the film is more grainy than normal - don't know why, but it is.

But anyway it's sharp enough that you can put your nose right up to a 100x140cm (40x55") print and still see only details, not grain or pixels: http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

[sgelb]

Go for 4x5 film if you are into reduced dynamic range

this is so wrong its not even funny. shoot something with ektar 100 c41 120 film and then shoot it with a digital back. digital is a pain in the ass and everyone i talk to knows it. its pixelated bullshit at large enlargements, the skin tones are always some wierd tone and everything needs a lot of retouching..

I promise the medium format film will blow you away in feel, quality, sharpness! then when u hit it with a 4x5 neg, you will be seriously amazed..

[sgelb]

Once more, I'll link to my "zoomified" picture shot on 5x7" slide film with a 165mm Angulon.

The Angulon is not famous for being the sharpest lens, and indeed there is a little bit of softness in the corners if you zoom in very far. Also somehow the film is more grainy than normal - don't know why, but it is.

But anyway it's sharp enough that you can put your nose right up to a 100x140cm (40x55") print and still see only details, not grain or pixels: http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

ole thats image is a thing of beauty .... maybe one day ill get a 165mm angulon..

to the guy who started this thread. I get similar results to this with any schneider lens using modern tranny film scanned on my V750-M. any scan over 300MB you can make huge prints. on a MF digital image you will see a LOT of pixels at such an enlargement, even with the newest 65MP back.. have a look on Luminous Landscape, there was a test on there..

[Marko]

on a MF digital image you will see a LOT of pixels at such an enlargement, even with the newest 65MP back.

Well, yes, that would be the idea, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

But... what does this have to do with someone's choice of lenses (see the opening question of the thread)?

[timberline12k]

Thanks for everyone's advice. I purchased two used lenses at KEH in EX+ shape that were in my price range.

210mm f/5.6 APO Sironar-S
90mm f/4.5 Caltar-II N

They should be delivered today. If anyone uses these lenses on a 4X5 do you have any reflections on how sharp they are?

[Gem Singer]

Reflections?

Be careful not to cut yourself on the sharp glass.

Seriously, these lenses are manufactured by Schneider and Rodenstock. They do not make un-sharp lenses.

A problem could occur if the previous owners abused the lenses, or the shutters. The degree of sharpness will depend on the condition of the lens.

[sgelb]

i think you will not be disappointed... although the caltar-II N is rodenstock too right?

[timberline12k]

Correct.

The Caltar-II Ns are private label manufactured in the Rodenstock factory. I did not really see the need to pay a couple hundred more for the 90 Rodenstock. I was planning to buy Caltars for both 90 and 210, but the used 210 Rodenstock had a good discount and it was a Sironar-S (if that makes any difference?). I thought having one of each would be good to compare build and reproduction quality. From what I saw last night during my inspection, the only difference is cosmetic graphics.

My camera (Chamonix 045-n 1) and lensboards should arrive this weekend. Now I will have to figure out how to attach the lense to the lensboards. Are there any good videos online?

[Chuck Pere]

Looks like you have a great pair of lenses to start with.

Just curious. Has anyone here who is using a modern lens in good condition from the big 4 makers ever had a photograph fail because of bad lens sharpness?

[venchka]

Looks like you have a great pair of lenses to start with.

Just curious. Has anyone here who is using a modern lens in good condition from the big 4 makers ever had a photograph fail because of bad lens sharpness?

I can't blame any failures on lenses. New or 100+ years old.

[D. Bryant]

Looks like you have a great pair of lenses to start with.

Just curious. Has anyone here who is using a modern lens in good condition from the big 4 makers ever had a photograph fail because of bad lens sharpness?

That depends on how demanding or picky you are. I do know individuals who will test different copies of the same lens in order to cherry pick the optimum copy.

Some modern lenses do perform better than others. Whether you can see that in your work depends on a lot of variables and how meticulous you are with each stage of the image creating workflow.

So yes the potential is there for less than perfect performance even with a modern lens. I've used some lenses that are close to 100 years old that worked very well as long as you took measures to control lens flare.

Don Bryant

[Marko]

Looks like you have a great pair of lenses to start with.

Just curious. Has anyone here who is using a modern lens in good condition from the big 4 makers ever had a photograph fail because of bad lens sharpness?

Most lenses are better than most photographers. Those very few to whom this does not apply don't waste time in online fora. ;)