Dialyte Blur: Apo-Nikkors, Apo-Artars, Apo-Ronars ?

[Ken Lee]

My 360mm APO Nikkor barrel lens, seems to render blurry disks very evenly, both in front of, and behind, the plane of focus. It is also quite sharp, when in-focus.

Can anyone share some images - made with lenses of a similar design - which show either blurry disks, or out-of-focus regions ?

Call me crazy if you like :rolleyes:

[monkeymon]

I have noticed the same thing, dialytes are just the best lenses there is. I just tested my 480mm apo-ronar and it's just as good as my ektar 203mm. The "bokeh" is just great, really even as you have noticed also. It's allso scary sharp on 8x10, and it's not even coated.

Still have one dialyte to be tested, uncoated 135mm f4.5 jaconar.

But i don't know what is blurry disk? Something to do with the all mighty bokeh?

I would be interested on seeing dialyte images of all sorts, especially fast dialytes like f3.5 wide open. Are they sharp wide open? better than tessars?

[Dan Fromm]

Guys, please be cautious when generalizing. One of the worst lenses I've ever had was a 130/6.8 Goerz Doppel Anastigmat that turned out to be a dialyte.

Go to www.dioptrique.info and look around. Eric hasn't yet, I think, done calculations for modern dialyte type process lenses but he has done a couple of Kodak and Goerz dialytes of various maximum apertures. Look for lenses with the formula 11/11, and look at their calculated curves and spot diagrams. Few of these lenses are outstanding.

Then do the same for heliar types, 21/2, and don't miss the 1939 Apo Saphir.

Dialytes, indeed! To be fair, not all process lenses are equally good.

So you'll know that I'm not a completely unreasoning fanatic, I have and sometimes even use 150/9 Apo Ronar; 305/9, 420/9, and 480/9 Apo Nikkors, all 11/11. These lenses are all outstanding on 2x3 from wide open down to f/16, then get worse. I like the Apo Nikkors that I just got a 610/9; would rather have had a 600/9 tessar type, but they're very uncommon and the 610's price was right.

My Apo Saphirs (135/10, 180/10, 240/10, 300/10, 360/10) are very good wide open but worse than the Apo Nikkors, match the Apo Nikkors from f/16 down.

My 14 in. Apo Process Lustrar f/10 Ser. II is a dialyte and is relatively horrible; unusable wider than f/22, IMO. The VM says these beasts are very good. There are dialytes and then there are dialytes.

From which I conclude that the only way to tell how good the lens in hand might be is to use it. Design type isn't always a good guide, and neither are make and model.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ken Lee]

"But i don't know what is blurry disk? Something to do with the all mighty bokeh?"

See figures 6 and 9, in Understanding Bokeh (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml), by Harold Merklinger.
According to the author, who has authored a number of articles on optics (http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/), "The rounded corners can be expected to result in smooth, soft out-of-focus images".

My quick-and-dirty method of examining blur rendition, is to evaluate the "blurry disk", to see if it has pronounced rings or other distortions. Wide open, the distortions are easiest to see.

[Ken Lee]

"Go to www.dioptrique.info and look around".

My knowledge of French is basic and non-technical, so even though I know that mise au point means "focus", I am unable to navigate the site. Il ya trop d'images, on pourrait dire. (There are too many images, one could say).

I have noticed that my 450mm Fujinon-C yields a very uniform disk, with no visible ring. Accoding to forum member Michael Briggs (http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/003Rd1), "For the cross-section diagram, I guess that the Fuji-C might be an variation of the dialyte design, converted to an asymmetrical design for improved performance at infinity".

So thanks Dan for your words to the wise: "From which I conclude that the only way to tell how good the lens in hand might be is to use it. Design type isn't always a good guide, and neither are make and model".

I really thought I was done, but it looks like I may just have to spend a little more time and money, trying different instruments. My music teachers would be proud.

[Turner Reich]

Ken, I have a 300 and a 360, what is a blurry disk? I have some insert filter holders that go in the slots of these lenses also.

Thanks

[Ken Lee]

Ken, I have a 300 and a 360, what is a blurry disk? I have some insert filter holders that go in the slots of these lenses also.

Thanks
See figures 6 and 9, in Understanding Bokeh (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml), by Harold Merklinger.
According to the author, who has written a number of articles on optics, "The rounded corners can be expected to result in smooth, soft out-of-focus images".

My quick-and-dirty method of examining blur rendition, is to evaluate the "blurry disk", to see if it has pronounced rings or other distortions. Wide open, the distortions are easiest to see.

[monkeymon]

Guys, please be cautious when generalizing. One of the worst lenses I've ever had was a 130/6.8 Goerz Doppel Anastigmat that turned out to be a dialyte.

I know all of them are not superb, same goes for all lens designs.. there are good and bad ones. Thats the exact reason I would be intrested to hear about fast dialytes, like 135mm f3.5 Eurynar.

Is it a good lens? Is it sharp wide open? I have liked my dialytes, and might be intrested on getting a fast one and get it coated if it's sharper then let's say ektar 127mm, wide open.


Here's a test shot gone bad, a crop from 8x10 negative using apo ronar 480 f9 wide open. It's all bokeh :)... maybe you can see something in it. I usually do a self portrait as a test shot, because i like to use the opportunity to also test different light set-ups. Just missed the focus and the development went horribly wrong.

apo ronar 480mm f9 8x10 crop (http://www.taidejakonsti.fi/muutos/TEMP/nelio_snadi.jpg)

[Ken Lee]

"It's all bokeh"

Excellent !

The blurry disk in the eye looks very even to me. There's a nice one in the hair also.

Here's (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/tr.html) a shot made with a barrel-mounted 250mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar on 4x5, stopped down to f/8, which shows some blurry disks. Needless to say, a lens with a 5 or 6-sided diaphragm, would have rendered different "disks" in the background.

I'm been having a hard time finding anything better than my f/4.5 Tessars, stopped-down to f/8 (just enough to give sufficient depth of field for a normal-looking portrait, and just enough to eliminate the aberrations). I was hoping that the dialytes might be even nicer.

[Ken Lee]

Here (http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html) is an article with which I agree. He gives a nice explanation of "Blurry Disk", also known as a "Circle of Confusion".

He provides many nice illustrations, including this one (which I borrow with respect and appreciation):


http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/CirclesOfConfusion.png

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Ken, the guy hasn't done his homework and, alas, uses less than conventional terminology. You may be overdoing willing suspension of disbelief.

He doesn't think about off-axis aberrations, focuses on on-axis defocus blur. There's more to bokum (rhymes wiith hokum) than that. You really should improve your French and study Eric's site.

He doesn't mention the effects of the aperture's shape, a subject on which many bokenuts get very worked up.

And he misuses a perfectly good concept, circle of confusion.

[monkeymon]

Yeah, it seems a bit simplified. The bad bokeh donut shapes comes from mirror tele lenses... and i think every lens out there produces the same shape "blurr disk". Personally, i don't like these ultra bokeh things.. they seem distracting and gimmicky.

Ken lee posted a nice image, i was all to busy looking the subjects to notice the blurred backround, isn't this the point of the blurr?

Sometimes it might work, here's a really busy backround, with tessar f3.5 210mm wide open:

http://www.taidejakonsti.fi/muutos/TEMP/krapula_snadi.jpg

Hangover... the background is part of the photo, otherwise it would be all too distracting.

And sometimes you just might wan't the background to just be softer, but still easily readable. So the main subject is pronounced and still connected to the surroundings.

What i have seen on dialytes, is that the blurred part seems to hold the shape pretty well, that is what i like about them. And also the sharpness of the focused part. My main interest is the size of the 4 element lens (smaller than symmars) and the sharpness, if they are sharp at speeds like f3.5.

[Dan Fromm]

monkeymon, the dialytes that Ken was talking about are f/9 process lenses. The EKCo dialytes that people rave about, for example the 203/7.7 Ektar, are much slower than you want. And in fact the 203/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat that was sold as an Ektar after EKCo started coating was sold as a process lens; I have one threaded at the front to screw into a prism.

I think, could well be mistaken, that most of the faster dialytes made came from Goerz; Celor, Dogmar, Tenastigmat, Syntor, nameless like the one I had, ...

[Ken Lee]

"Um, Ken, the guy hasn't done his homework and, alas, uses less than conventional terminology. You may be overdoing willing suspension of disbelief."

I'm happy to stand corrected, and appreciate any further instruction and suggestions !

This photo was made with a 360mm APO Nikkor on 5x7. The lens was not wide open, but stopped down according to taste. Because the diaphragm has so many blades, it's virtually round at all settings.


http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/f022.jpg
Tete a Tete Daffodils, 2009

[monkeymon]

Dan, I have ektar 203mm and i like it, it's actually why i got intrested on dialytes. Apo-ronar was the cheapest 480mm i could find, and it happened to be dialyte allso. This is the reason why i started thinking about a faster dialyte for more universal use.

Allso because there seems to be really few of them, why is that? I have only seen one fast dialyte, the euranyr 135mm f3.5.

My apo-ronar has allso a really nice aperture shape, it's no wonder these lenses have them.. they stop down to f290. Is there something about proses lenses that require a really good quality aperture?

Heres (http://www.taidejakonsti.fi/muutos/TEMP/pytty.jpg) something with ektar 203mm wide open, bit of movements to isolate the crack.

[Dan Fromm]

Monkeymon, not all process lenses have apertures with many many blades. I don't have any G-Clarons now. I could be mistaken but I recall that they had diaphragms with five blades; my one Apo-Gerogon, a 210/5.6, has six blades. I don't think there's a safe rule about type of lens or vintage of lens and number of diaphragm blades.

That process lenses are well-corrected may be true, though.

Thanks for reminding me about the Eurynar. I also forgot Meyer's Helioplan.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

There is a good reason why the Dialyte is a popular design: Each cell has four surfaces and four distances that can be adjusted for the purposes, as well as two glass types. This gives the lens designer almost complete freedom to optimise the lens for practically any application.

The resuly of this is that it is impossible to guess how a Dialyte will perform for a given task - except by trying it or buying one especially designed to do that task.

[Ernest Purdum]

Ole's comment is very appropriate and I'd like to add that condition could be a factor. Evaluating a lens type on the basis of a small sample could lead to over-generalization.

If the diaphragm shape of a process lens is significant (as it is in half-tone printing), most have Waterhouse slots into whatever shape you like can be inserted.

[monkeymon]

If the diaphragm shape of a process lens is significant (as it is in half-tone printing), most have Waterhouse slots into whatever shape you like can be inserted.

Why is that? Most of these proses lenses have normal iris and a slot for waterhouses stops. All i could think is that you get the perfect circle that way.. but then i saw a square waterhouse stop. What is the actuall benefit of something like a square aperture? I doubt they were designed for bokeh nuts to go nuts on square highlights.

[aduncanson]

I can't help but think that a significant disservice was done to dismiss the link that Ken cited, http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html , so very quickly. Certainly, it is a less than comprehensive treatise on the subject, but it also would greatly advance the understanding of the many photographers who seem to think that good bokeh comes exclusively from using a large aperture, or having a perfectly round diaphragm. In fact, it demystifies the subject quite a bit by illustrating the origin and giving examples of one of the important, but more subtle, forms of bokeh. If all who posted on the subject had the understanding available on that site, our threads on bokeh could be fewer, shorter, more enlightening and maybe less contentious.

I am not one to shy away quickly when the talk turns technical, but I do think that this may be a case where better is the enemy of good enough. I would be surprised if I were to become a much better photographer by "improving my French" so that I could fully understand the contributions of off-axis lens aberrations to bokeh.

[Arne Croell]

Why is that? Most of these proses lenses have normal iris and a slot for waterhouses stops. All i could think is that you get the perfect circle that way.. but then i saw a square waterhouse stop. What is the actuall benefit of something like a square aperture? I doubt they were designed for bokeh nuts to go nuts on square highlights.
Its for changing the shape of the dots in the halftone printing process - remember, these lenses were used in process cameras, among other things for making halftone printing plates from continuous tone originals.

[Dan Fromm]

aduncanson wrote "I would be surprised if I were to become a much better photographer by "improving my French" so that I could fully understand the contributions of off-axis lens aberrations to bokeh."

Well, if you don't want to understand Petzval lenses' off-axis "swirly" bokum, fine. But if you do an explanation of defocus blur won't help you much.

[Ken Lee]

I acquired a 240mm APO Nikkor, and it's off to Grimes for mounting on a Technika board. We'll see how it stacks up against the others when it returns.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm interested in this because I have quite a variety of Apo-Nikkors, all with multiple
blade apertures. I use them for enlarging lenses and they're superb. Unfotunately
process lenses have relatively small maximum apertures so it's difficult to get shallow
depth of field. Not really a substitute for the old portrait lenses in this respect. But I
do have a 720 which might render a shallow enough field in certain cases if I find a suitable shutter or have Grimes install one.

[Ken Lee]

According to this online depth of field calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html), the depth of field is pretty shallow with a 360 at f/9. You must want something really shallow.

Some may like to emphasize only a part of a subject's face, but others (myself included) prefer to keep the subject in focus (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/tr.html), and let the background be blurred. Hence my interest in 210-250 mm lenses, which do so nicely for portraits on 4x5.

The 240 APO Nikkor is quite small.

[Diane Maher]

I have an APO-Nikkor and was wondering about the Waterhouse stops included in the box. It looks to me like they are all the same diameter. I don't have this lens in a shutter, so how would I go about using it with the stops?

[Clarence Rhymer]

Hello Diane,

As a wild guess, could it be that you have a set of filter holders?

Cheers,
Clarence

[Diane Maher]

I just looked in the box and yes, there are what appear to be filter holders, though I didn't know that is what they were. :o

However, there is a separate set of what appears to be five Waterhouse stops, with a much smaller hole in them but the hole is the same size on all of them. I bought this box set off eBay a few years ago. It was described as a Japanese tea set (I think). The whole thing (lens, filter holders, and stops) along with the unfilled out warranty card are all in a velvet-lined wooden box with a Nikon label on the outside of the box. It's a 455 mm APO Nikkor f/9.

[Ernest Purdum]

At least you have templates for making stops the sizes you need. Maybe, some of them could be enlarged to a needed size.

[Ken Lee]

"I don't have this lens in a shutter, so how would I go about using it with the stops?"

For the price of having one lens mounted in a shutter, you can get a Sinar shutter, which will let you shoot barrel lenses. You can get a used Sinar P for less than the cost of a brand new field camera.

[Ken Lee]

Wide open at f/9 - and at all apertures - my APO-Nikkors have a very smooth rendering of "blurry disks".

Wide open at f/4.5, my Tessars show a little aberration, but when you stop them down to f/8 - f/11, they basically match the APO-Nikkors.

Wide open at f/4.5, the Heliars have even more aberration, which causes a slight halo effect - but like the Tessars, it all goes away by around f/8 - f/11.

Wide open at f/9, my Fujinon A lenses roughly match the APO Nikkors. At smaller stops, they show the influence of their non-round shutters, the 240 with 5 blades, and the 300 with 7 blades.

What conclusions can be drawn from this ?

Are process lenses like the Nikkor and Fujinon made only as wide as f/9, because from experience, designers know that wider apertures are effectively "useless", IE prone to aberrations ?

It's nice to have a bright lens (like a Tessar or Heliar) for purposes of focusing, but if you're always going to stop it down to f/9, what's the point ? The lenses have to be twice as wide, and therefore roughly 4x as heavy.

[Drew Wiley]

My apo-Nikkors are actually sharper than any of my taking lenses (including Fuji A and
G-Clarons) at reasonably close distances and provided all these lenses are one stop
down from max aperture. Well stopped down, they're about the same due to the limits
of diffraction. Can't imagine using any of these wide open, althoug I've tried it on
occasion.

[Bob Salomon]

"Are process lenses like the Nikkor and Fujinon made only as wide as f/9, because from experience, designers know that wider apertures are effectively "useless", IE prone to aberrations ?"

Process lenses, shorter then 600mm, were designed to be used at f22 only for their intended purpose. Longer ones were optimized for f32.

[Jim Galli]

While not my most used lens type I have used (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/PorcelainCoffeepot/ThePorcelainCoffeepotPictures.html) a couple of dialyte's that I thought were stand outs. The Cooke Aviar is in a class by itself. The Meyer also lovely but I sold it and kept the Cooke's. On the page referenced the meniscus is of course a meniscus, and the Beach is a glorified Tessar.

Both of those lenses were made before coatings. 8 air glass interfaces was I believe why Cooke and Meyer both held the maximum aperture to f6. Goerz opened them to f4.5 but an uncoated f4.5 lens with 8 surfaces is pretty messy. Coatings after WWII changed their personality forever. Most would say for the better, but I've seen what an Aviar can do.

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/img191.jpg
Hydrangea, August 2009
240mm APO Nikkor in Barrel, Sinar P
4x5 TMY, Pyrocat HD

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/img051b.jpg
Tulips, January 2010
Sinar P, 240mm APO Nikkor
5x7 FP4+, Pyrocat HD

[Jon Wilson]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img051b.jpg
Tulips, January 2010
Sinar P, 240mm APO Nikkor
5x7 FP4+, Pyrocat HD


Truly beautiful Ken.

[Ken Lee]

Thanks Jon !

I've just purchased a 150mm APO Nikkor, to get in closer, with less bellows extension. It's off to Grimes for mounting.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I'm very fond of my Dialytes. I favor the old-style Apo-Ronars, since those were offered for the Sinar Norma. I have the 150, 240, 300, 360, 420, 600, and 760 focal lengths. Quite useful and all render lovely images. I'm glad I have them around to use.

[Ken Lee]

Sounds wonderful. I mounted my 150 in cardboard, couldn't wait to use it.

Do you shoot those long lenses on the Norma ? Care to post any ?

[Daniel Unkefer]

Sounds wonderful. Do you shoot those long lenses on the Norma ?

Hi Ken,

Yes I have been collecting a Norma system for thirty years now. I put the cameras away a while back, but now I am getting interested in using them again. And I'm buying pieces and parts again, it's a fun thing to do.

I am planning to get out in the spring and deploy a Norma or two. And Yes, I will be posting some images here, right now I have some scanner and dev tank issues I am working out. Shouldn't be long. 5x7 B&W is something new for me, I have always used 4x5 8x10 and roll film in my Normas.

I've seen your work and I like it. Do you use the large format for portraiture? That is something I have done alot of myself, in the past.

The Apo Ronars ROCK.

[Ken Lee]

I have not tried any of the Dialytes for portraits. I will have to try them. Thanks for the recommendation !

[Lightbender]

Are the Goerz Dogmars Dialytes?
Most reviews I have read of the dogmar are not good.
I had a coated one for a while. 165mm f4.5.
I was quite happy with it. But ive never seen another.

[Dan Fromm]

Yes. Goerz' trade names Celor, Syntor, Kalostigmat, Kalosat, Tenastigmat, Tenaxiar, Dogmar, no-name, and Artar are all dialytes. I had a no-name 130/6.8 Goerz that was a dialyte and was just awful.

[jb7]

Isn't the Fujinon-W 210mm (older single coated version) a Dialyte?
I've used it for portraits on 4x5, and like it a lot-

Suppose I should have checked before posting...

[Dan Fromm]

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm

[jb7]

More likely a plasmat then-
I'm easily confused, should never post before noon...

[Ken Lee]

Christopher Perez describes (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/nice_lenses.html) the 450mm Fujinon C as a "Four element, four group airspaced 'Celor' design".

That doesn't quite make sense to me, so perhaps another of us, should have waited for the auspicious hour before posting :)

[Jim Galli]

The Fuji 450 is a dialyt. The 210 is a plasmat. The 150 6.3 is a Tessar.

I think we large format folk strain at a gnat somewhat. Virtually all of our lens designs have excellent bokeh compared to the crappy little lenses the digi folks are fussing over. They really DO have a bokeh problem with their 9 element lenses and aspheric glass. I look at some of the stuff the DSLR crowd calls bokeh and run for the barf bag.

So I bought the big Celor on Ebay the other night. 16 1/2" should be a nice old lens.

[Jim Galli]

Here's one (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=45762) that folks have resisted so far. Mad by the folks that made the lovely Port - Land lens. I would gamble that it was a no-name goerz product. Goerz was in bed with Spencer at one point. It seemed to be the flare king on the ground glass. Did I mention that in the ad? Maybe that's why no one ever bought it.