PDA

View Full Version : Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 vs Schneider Super-Angulon 90mm f/8 MC [large pics, be aware]



shadowleaves
6-Dec-2009, 02:18
Guess which is which? You be the judge!

Both shot with Shen-Hao TFC617A camera. One was shot 10s after the other. both lense fitted on Linhof 99x96 lensboards. Focus checked by ground glass before shooting. All setting at the same: f/22, ISO 125, shutter speed was around 1/60s i think.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/4162628534_6db17bbfa2_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2701/4162628586_ecd12a8db7_o.jpg

Aender Brepsom
6-Dec-2009, 02:53
I couldn't tell which lens was used for each picture, but I prefer the second one. Is it the Nikon?

Arne Croell
6-Dec-2009, 02:54
Ok, I'll bite. Of course, f/22 is already a pretty good equalizer (f/32 being the great equalizer). Even then, the 2nd picture has slightly better resolution and contrast in the corners and at the edges to my eye (less falloff as well). Since the Nikkor has the nominally larger image circle, I would assume the 2nd is the Nikkor and the first the SA f/8. Personally, I have never used the f/8 Angulon, only the f/8 Nikkor occasionally.

Mike1234
6-Dec-2009, 05:53
I don't know which is which but the second image is better in every way. I don't know what other variables are involved... slight variations in aperture, camera vibrations, damage to glass coatings unseen to naked eye, manufacturing variables, etc. There is also a very slight difference in density which could throw off the apperance of textural detail.

Nice test though.

jb7
6-Dec-2009, 06:58
Different lighting in both-
I don't have either, so pointless guessing, but the second would appear to have better off-axis resolution-
check out the car in the bottom left, for example-

I wonder how much difference the is between different samples of the same lens?

imagedowser
6-Dec-2009, 07:20
I prefer the second. Sharpness into the corners tames the distortion there... would be interesting to see the Fujinon 90 SW f8 added in an = test since it covers close to the SA. Mike's right of course, but we would have to gather two or better yet, three samples of each.... I have a very clean SA and Fuji....if some trusting soul has another Nikon.... RF Forum did this with 50mm lenses, was very informative, many more lenses tho ... Could even use same side of the same holder to eliminate that variable and tank or holder dev to control that set of variables....

jeroldharter
6-Dec-2009, 07:54
I vote for #2 also. However, neither looks sharp to me. I suspect that has something to do with scanning which would be identical for each.

shadowleaves
6-Dec-2009, 10:03
Ok, here's the answer: second is Nikkor. Seems that everyone won the guess...:) Sharpness in the center is pretty good for both lense in my opinion. But I was still surprised to see that the Nikkor is so much better than the Super-Angulon in the corner....

shadowleaves
6-Dec-2009, 10:08
Different lighting in both-
I don't have either, so pointless guessing, but the second would appear to have better off-axis resolution-
check out the car in the bottom left, for example-

I wonder how much difference the is between different samples of the same lens?

I handled 3 SA 90/8 MCs in the past and this one (145xxxxx) was slightly better than the other two (144xxxxx and 141xxxxx) in the corners; in the middle they were pretty much the same. I only have handled one Nikkor (691xxxxx) so far so I've no way to tell the sample variation for Nikkor....

shadowleaves
6-Dec-2009, 10:12
I vote for #2 also. However, neither looks sharp to me. I suspect that has something to do with scanning which would be identical for each.

These are very large scannings, 1600 dpi on Imacon Flextight, over 10000dpi wide, and I believe it is approaching the diffraction limit at f/22 at this resolution (not there yet, but very close). If you scroll the image to the middle you'll see the better resolution part; and scroll to the bottom right corner you'll see other examples of Nikkor's better resolution (leaves of the trees and the doors of Best Buy).

Arne Croell
6-Dec-2009, 10:53
But I was still surprised to see that the Nikkor is so much better than the Super-Angulon in the corner....
Well, Schneider produced it until the 1990's and added the MC coating at some point, but originally the f/8 SA was designed in the 1950's, whereas the Nikkor came out in the early 1980's. Thats thirty years difference, plus the SA has 6 lens elements and the Nikkor has 8. I would expect a much closer outcome whith the Nikkor vs. the present Schneider successor, the SA Classic f/6.8, which is a comparatively new 8-element construction.
Still it was an interesting comparison, thanks for sharing!

Robert Hughes
6-Dec-2009, 11:31
Why put up such enormous images? There's no way any of us could see the whole picture, and you just jammed up my computer for 5 minutes waiting for the download to complete. A blowup of the lower left hand corner was sufficient to demonstrate your comparison.

shadowleaves
6-Dec-2009, 11:45
Why put up such enormous images? There's no way any of us could see the whole picture, and you just jammed up my computer for 5 minutes waiting for the download to complete. A blowup of the lower left hand corner was sufficient to demonstrate your comparison.

sorry, but it's too late to change them to links or delete the post...i put "large pics be aware" in the title when i posted them though...i thought the full pics are usually for people who wants to see the entire images rather than blown-up corners.

shadowleaves
6-Dec-2009, 11:52
Well, Schneider produced it until the 1990's and added the MC coating at some point, but originally the f/8 SA was designed in the 1950's, whereas the Nikkor came out in the early 1980's. Thats thirty years difference, plus the SA has 6 lens elements and the Nikkor has 8. I would expect a much closer outcome whith the Nikkor vs. the present Schneider successor, the SA Classic f/6.8, which is a comparatively new 8-element construction.
Still it was an interesting comparison, thanks for sharing!

You're welcome! I agree that this is probably due to the difference between 6-element and 8-element. SA Classic is quite heavy and expensive as a f/6.8 lens though. I'm not sure how many people would choose it instead of Nikkor 90/4.5 or Rodenstock 90/4.5 or SA 90/5.6 (non-XL version)...

Mike1234
6-Dec-2009, 12:10
As others have stated it would be nice to see three examples of each from different manufacturing batches.

EDIT: Oops... you already mentioned the Schneider is the best of three you've owned. It still would be nice to compare with a couple more Nikkor f/8's.

EDIT #2: I may have to sell my 90 f/8 SA and buy a 90 Nikkor f/8... but then my 135 Apo Symmar would't match the kit so I'd have to sell that too and buy a Nikkor 135-W. Then every lens from 90-300 would be Nikkors. :)

David Karp
6-Dec-2009, 12:18
Which brings up the interesting question: Is there any idea which of the big 4 had (have) the best quality control? In other words, is there any manufacturer whose LF lenses demonstrate less sample to sample variation?

fuegocito
6-Dec-2009, 18:15
to add fuel to the fire a bit, this is a test I did with Fujinon 105 f/8SW, Nikon 90mm f/8SW and Super Angulon 90mm f/8 while back. I can't remember the exposure but I think I either shot it at F/22 or f/32 on 810 film. This is 100% of the near edge of the film. If anyone want to see the original scans, or the center crop comparison I can upload those too.

Mike1234
6-Dec-2009, 19:00
to add fuel to the fire a bit, this is a test I did with Fujinon 105 f/8SW, Nikon 90mm f/8SW and Super Angulon 90mm f/8 while back. I can't remember the exposure but I think I either shot it at F/22 or f/32 on 810 film. This is 100% of the near edge of the film. If anyone want to see the original scans, or the center crop comparison I can upload those too.

I can't see enough difference between any of those to make a choice.

fuegocito
6-Dec-2009, 19:22
I can't see enough difference between any of those to make a choice.

If you think that is hard, try to differentiate from the center crops...

Rob

Mike1234
6-Dec-2009, 19:25
If you think that is hard, try to differentiate from the center crops...

If anything I'd say the upper two are a bit better but only due to differences in contrast, not sharpness... probably due to lighting change. And I could say the same for the Nikon image in the first comparison you posted.

fuegocito
6-Dec-2009, 19:31
If anything I'd say the upper two are a bit better but only due to differences in contrast, not sharpness... probably due to lighting change. And I could say the same for the Nikon image in the first comparison you posted.

also bear in mind that the edge crop is on an 810 film, anything smaller one will be using far less of the image circle.

Mike1234
6-Dec-2009, 19:40
also bear in mind that the edge crop is on an 810 film, anything smaller one will be using far less of the image circle.

Wait a tick... you're saying these lense cover 8x10 or you're just cropping to the outermost areas on which an image is recorded?

fuegocito
6-Dec-2009, 20:46
Wait a tick... you're saying these lense cover 8x10 or you're just cropping to the outermost areas on which an image is recorded?

No, non of these lenses cover the entire 8x10 frame. I started with a single spot on the SA and found the area on the other two since they other two have larger IC.

Here they are in alphabetical order;

shadowleaves
6-Dec-2009, 21:29
No, non of these lenses cover the entire 8x10 frame. I started with a single spot on the SA and found the area on the other two since they other two have larger IC.

Here they are in alphabetical order;

The lower resolution of SA 90/8 in the corners in my original post, I bet, was due to its strong field curvature, as I've seen in many pics taken with that lens. My experience with SA90/8 is that some items (usually grass/leaves on the ground) which are much closer than where the perfectly flat focus panel should be, often ended up being much sharper than the infinity on the corners, even though the lens was in fact focused to infinity. Nikkor-SW 90/8, in contrast, has a much flatter image field, and therefore is less prone to the curvature problem.

In my pics, both lense were focused at infinity, and the car and tree leaves on the bottom left and right corners were fairly far from the camera, as I was taking pics from a highrise building. Therefore, the resolution on these objects (the car and tree leaves) would be seriously affected if a lens had strong field curvature, which was indeed the case for SA 90/8.

In your example, however, the leaves on the ground were very close to your camera. as a result, the resolution was much less prone to the field curvature of SA 90/8 - in fact SA 90/8 might even gained an advantage compared to the Nikkor in your case due to its field curvature.

Taking all these together, I'm not surprised to see roughly the same performance from SA and Nikkor in your test...

TJV
3-Oct-2011, 01:36
I'm late to the party on this thread (by over two years!) and found it while searching for info on diffraction limits of my Schneider SA f8. I haven't had the chance to print or scan any of the images I've taken with mine yet, but have been wondering if I've been using it at optimum aperture. I pretty much only shoot at f22 out of habit but have read several posts that say f16 is far sharper at the plane of focus if fine detail in that area is critical. Would this be true?

Jack Dahlgren
3-Oct-2011, 03:29
I'm late to the party on this thread (by over two years!) and found it while searching for info on diffraction limits of my Schneider SA f8. I haven't had the chance to print or scan any of the images I've taken with mine yet, but have been wondering if I've been using it at optimum aperture. I pretty much only shoot at f22 out of habit but have read several posts that say f16 is far sharper at the plane of focus if fine detail in that area is critical. Would this be true?

It could very well be true. Try it and see.

GPS
3-Oct-2011, 04:33
Yet another example of the amateurish attempts to decide sharpness of a lens, nothing more than that.
Wooden field cameras of this kind don't have the rigidity necessary to perform sharpness tests. To take a lens with its lens board out the front standard and to put there a new lens is enough to change slightly either the standard tilt or the focus. Let alone the fact that the two lenses don't have the same FFL and if you need to refocus there it is - you introduce another source of imprecision again. Not to speak either about another film holder being put on the camera, a different film bulge in it etc. etc.

Just try to take 2 pictures with the same lens (taken and put back on the front standard, refocused) and see for yourself if they are the same...
Even better - make a double exposure on one film in this way and see for yourself if the sharpness didn't change.
The OP's lens test is technically worthless.

I Am Luna
3-Oct-2011, 07:47
Yet another example of the amateurish attempts to decide sharpness of a lens, nothing more than that.
Were you expecting otherwise from an internet forum?

GPS
3-Oct-2011, 07:51
Not really, just to make the point...:)

Bob McCarthy
3-Oct-2011, 08:34
GPS, I think your not perfectly on the mark. With a well maintained camera, on a still day, with a decent ground glass, and careful focus, the OP's test has some validity.

Now unit variation may have an impact on the test, but the effort was not entirely wasted.

Sure you can use an optical bench, but that not very real world either. The benefit of the Nikon 90 (to me) is the larger image circle and that its a bit sharper in the outer parimeter.

Hell theres lots of variables, film holder for example...

But I and other have bought lenses based upon a impromptu test shot.

Yes, I've owned both.

bob

GPS
3-Oct-2011, 08:43
GPS, I think your not perfectly on the mark. With a well maintained camera, on a still day, with a decent ground glass, and careful focus, the OP's test has some validity.
...
bob

Kidding yourself. There was a test made to see the spread of focus of a photographer trying to "precisely" focus his LF camera. The focus was in 70% (if I remember correctly) of cases different... And that is just the focus. The wooden cameras are not made to test lenses and compare their resolution in serious tests, however you dream about it. Never mind, amateurs love this kind of statements - "I tested lenses and found out..."

GPS
3-Oct-2011, 08:49
GPS, I think your not perfectly on the mark. With a well maintained camera, on a still day, with a decent ground glass, and careful focus, the OP's test has some validity.

...
bob

BTW, what has "a still day" to do with the validity of the test? You mean, if the day is not still, it could change the test's results? Then the forces on the front standard when you change lenses have even more effect on it than - the stillness of the day...:rolleyes:

Bob McCarthy
3-Oct-2011, 09:39
I guess you never shoot a camera outdoors.

There is a lot more than resolution that can be determined by test shots,

Using tranparency film, how about fall off, how about CA, flatness of image plane.

Black/white hard edges can be looked at for flare.

Wooden field camera will do fine as a test bed.

Resolution is the least important factor to me unless its inadequate, and oh yea, dof plus stopping down at middle apertures homogenize many of the lens characteristics.

The test the OP describes is not expected to differentiate between 60 lpm vs. 40 lpm, but answer the question "is the lens adequate and functional".

bob

GPS
3-Oct-2011, 10:02
I guess you never shoot a camera outdoors.

There is a lot more than resolution that can be determined by test shots,

Using tranparency film, how about fall off, how about CA, flatness of image plane.

Black/white hard edges can be looked at for flare.

Wooden field camera will do fine as a test bed.

Resolution is the least important factor to me unless its inadequate, and oh yea, dof plus stopping down at middle apertures homogenize many of the lens characteristics.

The test the OP describes is not expected to differentiate between 60 lpm vs. 40 lpm, but answer the question "is the lens adequate and functional".

bob

Look Bob, the OP speaks about test of sharpness. Now, if you want to speak about CA, fall off blah blah blah serve yourself. I said a wooden camera with the methods he used cannot be taken seriously for lens sharpness test. Have a still day for your lens test. :rolleyes:

Bob McCarthy
3-Oct-2011, 10:58
Just to make sure we were on the same page, I reread the thread. The OP put up two images, described the conditions they were shot under, what equipment was used, and some info about the process (focused between shots). Did not even divulge which was which. Others spoke out about liking the second image best, and the discussion went in a number of directions after that.

You're the one questioning the validity of the exercise, labeling people amateurs, and IMO making haughty comments.

You read too many books!

bob

Bob Salomon
3-Oct-2011, 11:24
The driveway directional info appears sharper and has better contrast on the bottom image. The upper portions of both appear pretty muddy to me.

GPS
3-Oct-2011, 11:42
...
You read too many books!

bob

Bob, I like that one. :) The only problem with books is they take space and are heavy when moving. Fortunately they later started with CDs. The Machinery's handbook (2600 ? pages) is now entirely on a CD. But not the super beauty Atlas of mathematical functions (Oldham, 760 p) - that one must be tasted in reality to see its beauty. Not to speak about other works on the shelf...

Bob McCarthy
3-Oct-2011, 12:00
I agree,

Digital storage is very powerful. It's tough to beat an ipad for walkabout with virtually the library of congress at your fingertips.

But nothing beats a beautifully illustrated, fine rag paper, artfully bound book of a relevent subject.

bravo,

take care,

bob

GPS
3-Oct-2011, 12:03
I agree,

Digital storage is very powerful. It's tough to beat an ipad for walkabout with virtually the library of congress at your fingertips.

But nothing beats a beautifully illustrated, fine rag paper, artfully bound book of a relevent subject.

bravo,

take care,

bob

I knew we would agree about the sharpness of the two lenses...;) Best regards.

TJV
4-Oct-2011, 03:06
I'm late to the party on this thread (by over two years!) and found it while searching for info on diffraction limits of my Schneider SA f8. I haven't had the chance to print or scan any of the images I've taken with mine yet, but have been wondering if I've been using it at optimum aperture. I pretty much only shoot at f22 out of habit but have read several posts that say f16 is far sharper at the plane of focus if fine detail in that area is critical. Would this be true?

So... After that heated debate... Does anyone who has experience using the SA comment on the above? DOF aside, as I mainly shoot focused in the middle distance and am covered either way, is field curvature and diffraction noticeably worse at f22 than f16, at print sizes of 30x37.5" prints?

GPS
4-Oct-2011, 03:32
I'll help you. Have you ever heard debates about field curvature and diffraction noticeably worse between f22 and f16 aperture on 90mm LF lenses? ;)

TJV
4-Oct-2011, 04:20
Honestly, I'd just appreciate a straight answer. I'm well aware of the mundane nature of the question – I make a living out of photography, although LF is purely for pleasure – I've just read several reports that the SA's performance "significantly drops" past F16. For the type of work I do it's important to know how to predict what "significantly" actually means, especially since I'm on the road and can't process and scan for quite some time. LF and movements is relatively new to me and exciting for it, just hope I'm up to the task of getting what I want out of it.

TJV
4-Oct-2011, 05:09
Cheers.

GPS
4-Oct-2011, 05:25
Best regards.

Bob McCarthy
4-Oct-2011, 09:34
I would suggest concern about defraction is a non-event in large format. It does have some validity in digital with the current (amazingly) small pixel pitch.

It is far more important to get what you want in focus or covered by depth of field than to worry about loosing a negligable amount of resolution when any loss in resolution will likely not be visable in the final print.

The idea of the F64 group was sharp appearing prints unlike their contemporary photographers who often shot wide open so other lens issues soften the image.

Irony, eh

As a test I would suggest burning an extra sheet of film at F64 of a scene you set up.

bob



So... After that heated debate... Does anyone who has experience using the SA comment on the above? DOF aside, as I mainly shoot focused in the middle distance and am covered either way, is field curvature and diffraction noticeably worse at f22 than f16, at print sizes of 30x37.5" prints?

TJV
4-Oct-2011, 12:08
Thanks Bob,
I'm used to shooting 35mm and MF where f16 usually looks mushy, so wasn't sure how 4x5" would handle f22 given the larger image area plus movements. My Mamiya 7 lenses are particularly good at f11 in the middle distances but any smaller than that and details suffer considerably, redering increased DOF a moot point. I've been shooting mainly at f22 on 4x5" to try and approximate the DOF I'd get with the same FOV when using MF. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Tim


I would suggest concern about defraction is a non-event in large format. It does have some validity in digital with the current (amazingly) small pixel pitch.

It is far more important to get what you want in focus or covered by depth of field than to worry about loosing a negligable amount of resolution when any loss in resolution will likely not be visable in the final print.

The idea of the F64 group was sharp appearing prints unlike their contemporary photographers who often shot wide open so other lens issues soften the image.

Irony, eh

As a test I would suggest burning an extra sheet of film at F64 of a scene you set up.

bob

Bob McCarthy
4-Oct-2011, 12:19
You betcha, it has to do with the very small enlargement ratio we enjoy with our cameras.

It is estimated that a 20-20-20 eyeball can resolve 7 lpmm in the best of conditions.

So a 2x enlargement requires roughly 15 lpmm which is almost a coke bottle bottom.

35mm is an 8 x enlargement so approaching 60lpmm required

digital C is even more

So we loaf and can use lenses biased to other characteristics, ie coverage...

Digitals top out at F4/f5.6 typically where defraction equals requirement with the very latest sensors.

BTW, 20-20-20 is 20-20 in a 20 year old. Most people can barely get to 5lpmm. Now my lasic'd eyes are pretty darn good except up real close.

bob

Corran
4-Oct-2011, 12:30
Digitals top out at F4/f5.6 typically where defraction equals requirement with the very latest sensors.

I'm fairly certain that only the 18mp crop-sensor digital cameras get in to diffraction problems at f/5.6, while full frame cameras with higher MP counts are okay at f/8 or even f/11 (and even f/16 on the D700 12mp camera I don't see diffraction on most lenses).

Bob McCarthy
4-Oct-2011, 12:33
Thanks Bob,
I'm used to shooting 35mm and MF where f16 usually looks mushy, so wasn't sure how 4x5" would handle f22 given the larger image area plus movements. My Mamiya 7 lenses are particularly good at f11 in the middle distances but any smaller than that and details suffer considerably, redering increased DOF a moot point. I've been shooting mainly at f22 on 4x5" to try and approximate the DOF I'd get with the same FOV when using MF. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Tim

BTW, f11 in MF is the equivalent of f22 in LF after printing to paper

Oren Grad
4-Oct-2011, 12:36
Thanks Bob,
I'm used to shooting 35mm and MF where f16 usually looks mushy, so wasn't sure how 4x5" would handle f22 given the larger image area plus movements. My Mamiya 7 lenses are particularly good at f11 in the middle distances but any smaller than that and details suffer considerably, redering increased DOF a moot point. I've been shooting mainly at f22 on 4x5" to try and approximate the DOF I'd get with the same FOV when using MF. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Tim

Tim, not to worry, it's a perfectly reasonable question. I remember when I had a Mamiya 6 set, that the lenses (50 and 75) did very badly at f/16, with the visible deterioration more than you'd expect from just looking at the mathematics of idealized diffraction.

In general, I do see deterioration in 4x5 negatives as I stop down much beyond f/22. I'll happily stop down to f/64 on big negatives intended for contact printing, but for negatives intended for enlargement I might think twice. So to be confident that you understand the behavior of your equipment, it's probably worth the trouble to expose a few sheets at small apertures and judge for yourself.

Bob McCarthy
4-Oct-2011, 12:39
I'm fairly certain that only the 18mp crop-sensor digital cameras get in to diffraction problems at f/5.6, while full frame cameras with higher MP counts are okay at f/8 or even f/11 (and even f/16 on the D700 12mp camera I don't see diffraction on most lenses).

The latest stuff I'm refering to are Sony's latest 20+ mpxl (look at NEX 7)wonder children and the expected 30+ Mpxl cameras the majors are releasing in this season. Sensors are the equivalent to the MF digi back we're all up in arms about over at Lum Lanscape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjpWaG6Lnhg

Amazing to me when the 12 mpxl cameras are now the large pixel sensor types.

My first digital at work was 11 microns and it was crappy. Useful for web was about all.

Moving target, but film is still better..

bob

Corran
4-Oct-2011, 13:01
Ah, well yes 20+ APS-C cameras are going to be worse, and I've heard Nikon's next camera may be 36mp on FX...but anyway, that's why I buy primes for my digital!!

Brian C. Miller
4-Oct-2011, 13:49
I'm late to the party on this thread (by over two years!) and found it while searching for info on diffraction limits of my Schneider SA f8. I haven't had the chance to print or scan any of the images I've taken with mine yet, but have been wondering if I've been using it at optimum aperture. I pretty much only shoot at f22 out of habit but have read several posts that say f16 is far sharper at the plane of focus if fine detail in that area is critical. Would this be true?

Just do some tests for own information. Get a resolution chart, and run some tests. You may find that your lens has a real sweet spot. Remember to put charts in the center, and also at the edges. You don't have to figure out the exact LP/mm, just figure out where your lens is sharpest, and how it handles things towards the edges.

That's all.

TJV
5-Oct-2011, 03:16
Thanks all. I might do the test target thing regardless of diffraction testing as I've swapped my ground glass and fresnel and need to test focus accuracy. Good times ahoy...