Which Modern 360mm Lens?

[Ron Marshall]

Aside from image circle and max. aperture, are there any important differences between the modern 360mm lenses from the big four: Fuji W 360/6.3; Fuji CMW 360/6.5; Nikon W 360/6.5; Schneider APO Symmar 360/6.8, Rodenstock Sironar N 360/3.8?

For portraits on 5x7 and 8x10.

[Kirk Fry]

They are all too sharp??? What about a 14 in Commercial Ektar? Or one of the Kodak Portrait lenses? Or, good god, one of those mushy things Galli uses. KFry

[8x10 user]

The Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar-S lens is considered by many to be the sharpest lens from the "big four". Although many people like the look produced by classic lenses.

[Ron Marshall]

They are all too sharp??? What about a 14 in Commercial Ektar? Or one of the Kodak Portrait lenses? Or, good god, one of those mushy things Galli uses. KFry

How different would the image from a modern lens be from that of a Commercial Ektar, if they were both shot wide open?

[Drew Wiley]

In addition to the huge 5.6 plastmats, you should also include lenses like the G-Claron
and Fuji-A, which although out of production and originally intended for closeup work,
have proven extemely versatile and are fully modern in design. There are also quite a
few graphics lenses in this focal length which have been successfully adapted to camera use and are certainly equal to the plastmats in terms of resolution, though with
smaller maximum apertures. Generally, the look of all these "modern" modern lenses is
somewhat different than the old classics like the dagor or commercial Ektar, but it all
depends what you need.

[Ken Lee]

There are also barrel-mounted lenses (no shutter) which you can use if you're equipped appropriately. I have a wonderful 360 APO-Nikkor lens, in barrel, that is superb for close work and portraits. It's rather small. Like vintage barrel lenses whose apertures are virtually round, it has a 12-bladed diaphragm.

[William McEwen]

Ron, I'm very happy with my Schneider G-Claron 355mm.

[Mark Sampson]

To address your original question: It's unlikely that you'd see important differences between the 'big 4'. Their design and construction standards are very similar- extremely high. Your intended application doesn't come anywhere close to the performance limits of those lenses- even if you're enlarging to 30x40". The chief difference between the modern multicoated plasmats and 'classics' like the 14" Ektar will be in contrast, not resolution. That's without getting into extremely personal ideas about out-of focus rendition, etc. So you could hardly go wrong with any of them.

[Ron Marshall]

In addition to the huge 5.6 plastmats, you should also include lenses like the G-Claron
and Fuji-A, which although out of production and originally intended for closeup work,
have proven extemely versatile and are fully modern in design. There are also quite a
few graphics lenses in this focal length which have been successfully adapted to camera use and are certainly equal to the plastmats in terms of resolution, though with
smaller maximum apertures. Generally, the look of all these "modern" modern lenses is
somewhat different than the old classics like the dagor or commercial Ektar, but it all
depends what you need.

I'm looking for a lens with a large aperture to shoot wide open, so something between 5.6 and 6.8.

[Ron Marshall]

There are also barrel-mounted lenses (no shutter) which you can use if you're equipped appropriately. I have a wonderful 360 APO-Nikkor lens, in barrel, that is superb for close work and portraits. It's rather small. Like vintage barrel lenses whose apertures are virtually round, it has a 12-bladed diaphragm.

If I can't find what I want in shutter I might go for a barrel lens (with Sinar shutter, or get it mounted).

I have only modern lenses. I have seen images from Heliars and soft-focus and Pretzvals, and they all have a distinctive signature.

But I am curious how subtle the difference would be between the image from something not so recent, such as a Commercial Ektar 360/6.3 and modern lens such as a Fuji 360/6.3?

[Don Hutton]

Ron

I've shot a lot of portraits with a Rodenstock Sironar 360mm (f6.8 I think) - mine is an oldish Linhof selected copy and it is a great lens - very shllow DOF wide open with very smooth in and out of focus transition. Stopped down it is amazingly sharp. A few years ago I shot 7 modern 360s on 8x10 of the same scene with a res target included. I thought I had screwed something up when I saw the results and shot it again - and again this old Sironar was the pick of them! It has one other very useful feature - the rear element is small enough to use on a Linhof Tech style board (most are too big). I recently sold my 8x10 and no longer need this - if you want to try it out, drop me a line.

[Ron Marshall]

Ron

I've shot a lot of portraits with a Rodenstock Sironar 360mm (f6.8 I think) - mine is an oldish Linhof selected copy and it is a great lens - very shllow DOF wide open with very smooth in and out of focus transition. Stopped down it is amazingly sharp. A few years ago I shot 7 modern 360s on 8x10 of the same scene with a res target included. I thought I had screwed something up when I saw the results and shot it again - and again this old Sironar was the pick of them! It has one other very useful feature - the rear element is small enough to use on a Linhof Tech style board (most are too big). I recently sold my 8x10 and no longer need this - if you want to try it out, drop me a line.

Thanks Don for the info and the offer, I may yet take you up on it.

[Drew Wiley]

Many older lenses have multi-bladed apertures which give a more pleasing selective
focus, which combined with single coatings (or none) give softer contrast. Modern
lenses have a more "analytic" look. But you're not going to find anything with a very
shallow depth of field unless its a 4.5 Tessar in a #5 shutter (excluding "soft focus"
lenses). On the other hand, a modern plasmat would probably be better corrected wide open, provided the movements are limited and you're only using the center
of the image circle.

[Ron Marshall]

Many older lenses have multi-bladed apertures which give a more pleasing selective
focus, which combined with single coatings (or none) give softer contrast. Modern
lenses have a more "analytic" look. But you're not going to find anything with a very
shallow depth of field unless its a 4.5 Tessar in a #5 shutter (excluding "soft focus"
lenses). On the other hand, a modern plasmat would probably be better corrected wide open, provided the movements are limited and you're only using the center
of the image circle.

f6.3 on 5x7 will be shallow enough DOF for my purposes.

I'm just curious if I would be loosing anything by going for a modern lens instead of a somewhat older version. I would prefer a modern shutter if the rendition will be substantially the same.

[Kirk Fry]

The out of focus part of a Commercial Ektar is very creamy. The Ilex shutter has about a zillion aperture blades which works much better than the modern 5 bladed copal shutters for the out of focus image. We are talking portraits here. You really have to do a bake off and compare the results side by side. Try to borrow or rent the target lenses. KFry

[Steve Hamley]

Try the 14" Commercial Ektar - it didn't seem to hold Yousuf Karsh back.

But I am intrigued by Don's lens - I like the older plain Sironars. I assume single coated?

Cheers, Steve

[Frank Petronio]

Another vote for a 14" Comm. Ektar - sharp yet smooth. I'd also go for a Sironar in an older Linhof Compur multi-blade shutter, so long as the elements aren't separating as older Rodenstocks can tend to do.

[jeroldharter]

A bit beside the point, but I just picked up a late model Schneider 360/5.6 with Copal 3. Have not tested it yet. But what a beast. Some of these lenses are as much a work of art as they are capable of capturing a work of art. It is a stunning piece of equipment.

[Ron Marshall]

A bit beside the point, but I just picked up a late model Schneider 360/5.6 with Copal 3. Have not tested it yet. But what a beast. Some of these lenses are as much a work of art as they are capable of capturing a work of art. It is a stunning piece of equipment.

Jerold, is that a convertible. I wasn't aware that an f5.6 version was made in a single focal length (at least not in shutter). How recent is it?

Have fun with it, should be great for portraits.

[John Kasaian]

If you want to shoot a super fast 14" lens wide open and still be sharp, look for a lens off an aerial camera----it's going to be heavy and unable to fit in a conventional shutter (perhaps you can mount it in front of a focal plane shutter scavenged from a dying Speed Graphic) but by the sound of what you're asking, it may fill the bill.

While not 14 ", I regularly shoot a Nikon M, 300mm f/9 wide open (f/9) with excellent results (my example dosen't have much in the way of wiggle room on 8x10 however)

What can I say about a 14" Commercial Ektar? Not enough! They are superb lenses IMHO.

[jeroldharter]

Jerold, is that a convertible. I wasn't aware that an f5.6 version was made in a single focal length (at least not in shutter). How recent is it?

Have fun with it, should be great for portraits.

My fault. It is a 6.8.

[Ron Marshall]

My fault. It is a 6.8.

Well, that is pretty much what I am looking for. Enjoy!