Repromaster lens @ infinity ?

[Dave Dawson]

I have just got a 135mm and 210mm Repromaster lens which I intend to mainly use for still life in a make-shift studio. I appreciate that these lens's are designed to give best performance at near 1:1 magnification and at f22 BUT I would like to try them at infinity (at least the 210mm) outdoors....What appriciable loss in image qaulity would there be using a 5x4 format?

Thanks in advance....Cheers Dave

[vinny]

I have a 210 f9 repromaster that I've used for landscapes on 4x5 and 8x10. It's very, very sharp in every situation I've come across.

[Wimpler]

Keep in mind there are different version of the 210mm f9 repromaster, which are completely different design. I'll have to take a closer look to give more details.

Most people seem to be quite happy with the performance at infinity.

[Pete Watkins]

I tried to e-mail you but you won't accept e-mails.l
Pete

[Dave Dawson]

I tried to e-mail you but you won't accept e-mails.l
Pete

If that is directed at me...Others have !

Cheers Dave

[Wimpler]

Hmm... The two lenses I own are a Repromaster 213mm f9,25 and a Repromaster 210mm f8. These are very different from eachother in construction/size/lens design (the 213mm f9,25 being much larger).

Is your lens either of these or still another?

[Gene McCluney]

Almost ALL lenses designed for 1:1 will work well at infinity, for the subjects we normally shoot at (or near) infinity distance. The main concern would be coverage. Lenses will cover a larger piece of film at 1:1 than at infinity for a given focal length.

[Dan Fromm]

Almost ALL lenses designed for 1:1 will work well at infinity, for the subjects we normally shoot at (or near) infinity distance. Why do you believe that?

[Gene McCluney]

Why do you believe that?


I believe that from my own personal experience. Unless you are going to photograph flat art that has to resolve equally sharp right out to the very edge, then almost all process lenses will do a fine job at infinity with "REAL WORLD" subjects such as rural scenics, product shots, portraits, etc, as long as you don't try to stretch the coverage and use a lens on a larger format than its intended use.

[Dan Fromm]

Gene, thanks for the reply. I wish you'd written "process lenses" instead of "lenses designed for 1:1" in the first place.

I don't fully agree with you. I have one well-respected process lens that seems to be a dog a distance, am less enthusiastic about the 150/9 G-Claron I had than I am about my 150/9 Rodenstock and TTH process lenses, and am wildly unenthusiastic about, e.g., using a 135/4.5 Tominon as a general purpose taking lens. The problem with rules like the one you stated is that exceptions aren't rare enough.

I once asked Norman Rothschild why Popular Photography magazine never published a test of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor. He replied that it was a fine macro lens but didn't meet the magazine's minimum performance standards at infinity. PP, Modern Photography too, had a policy of not publishing tests of lenses that failed test.

Cheers,

Dan