The great, the good and the so-so lenses

[NoBob]

Just wondering if anyone could point out some great, good and so-so 90mm, 150mm and 240mm lenses.


For film:
90mm, 150mm and 240mm

For digital:
90mm, 150mm and 240mm

[Ken Lee]

According to a which criteria ?

* Price/Availability

* Sharpness/Coverage/Color Correction/Flat Field/Distance/Macro/Maximum Aperture

* Size/Weight/Filter Size

* Blur Rendition/Aperture

* Shutter/Barrel

* Size(s) of film/sensor you intend to shoot.

* Subjects you intend to shoot: Portrait, Landscape, Product Shots, Still-Life, Architecture, etc.

Someone might recommend their favorite lens, but tell you nothing about why. Another person might tout a lens because of 5 of the above criteria, but overlook price altogether, and price may be one of your important considerations. Another will recommend a vintage lens, but it appears on the used market only once a year, and you need something yesterday... etc. :)

[NoBob]

For any of those Ken. Am looking for more "It's great because..." Just want to hear people's thoughts on 90mm, 150mm, 240mm lenses.

[Len Middleton]

NoBob,

Presumably you have read the current thread of "What's in your 4x5 kit?" or words to that effect...

Might provide some insight into what you you are looking for and potentially provide some of the direction that Ken was suggesting.

Len

[Ken Lee]

Here's an example of someone who explains quite nicely, why he likes, what he recommends:

See Kerry Thalmann's Future Classics (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm) which is by now, itself a classic.

If you intend to shoot architecture, you care less about portability, and more about coverage.

If you intend to shoot portraits, you might care more about blur rendition or the "look" of vintage lenses.

If you intend to trek with your camera, you might care more about portability.

If you need to shoot close, you may care most about macro and near-macro performance.

If you shoot in color, you may care most about getting a modern lens design, with the best color correction.

If you don't care, but are just curious, then... Have a nice day :)

[imagedowser]

Sounds like you want to be told what to think about lenses... Most, if not all the folks you are seeking opinions from, have studied and practiced photography to come to their ideas and beliefs about lenses and their use. There is only direct experience and what it teaches.... Do you really want someone to make a recommendation and then have to defend it to you? That's what "It's great because..." means, you know....

[David Karp]

OK, I'll try (all for film):

"Good" vs. "Great" is in the eye of the beholder. I classify these in the category of "They do just what I need or want, so I am quite happy with them."

90mm f/8 Nikkor SW - Smaller than the big 90s, with the same image circle. Uses 67mm filters instead of 82mm or larger. Very sharp.

150mm f/5.6 Fujinon NW - Small, uses 52mm filters. Sharp, with a pretty big image circle (224mm). Not as big an image circle as a Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S, but more coverage than the other modern 150mm lenses. Also a great bargain, given the excellent performance.

240mm f/9 Fujinon A - Small, also uses 52mm filters. Mine is a single coated version that had a small nick in the rear element, so I picked it up pretty inexpensively. No problem due to the nick. I like the lens, but not as much as I thought I would. I seem to use a 210mm more when I have the choice.

All used for black and white the vast majority of the time. Used for landscape and architecture. I care about size and weight. I also care about a good deal, since this is my hobby and funds are not unlimited. The Nikkor is probably the one that people love the most. I got a very good deal on mine. I think the 150 Fuji is an underrated gem.

[Mark Sawyer]

They're all great, because you can never live up to the full potential of the worst one you can find... :)

[jeroldharter]

I suppose that my opinion of great lenses are the lenses I have chosen to buy and use:


Caltar 75mm
Caltar 90 mm
Nikkor Macro 120 mm
Rodenstock Apo Sironar N 135 mm (image circle a bit too small for me so I don't use it much)
Schneider Apo Symmar 150 mm
Caltar 210 mm
Rodenstock Apo Sironar W 210 mm
Schneider G-Claron 210 mm
Schneider G-Claron 240 mm
Schneider G-Claron 305mm
Nikkor M 300 mm
Fujinon C 450 mm
Fujinon C 600 mm

[Bill_1856]

Almost ANY post WW2 Kodak Ektar, CP Goerz, Voigtlander, Nikkor, Schneider, or Rodenstock lens will be good. Any of these new enough to be in a Copal shutter should be excellent.

[Ken Lee]

They're all great, because you can never live up to the full potential of the worst one you can find... :)

Very nicely stated !

Lens design for Large Format cameras was already rather advanced by the beginning of the 20th century. While improvements have appeared - wider coverage, better color correction and coating - resolution has not jumped dramatically, because it was up there already.

For example, under most conditions, my 1930's Braunschweig Heliar, an uncoated lens in an ancient shutter, does just as well as my Rodenstock APO Sironar-S. Perhaps under high magnification, towards the extremes of the image circle, a pair of color slides would reveal a difference - but I shoot only B&W, and the resolution is already so good, my scanner couldn't even pick up the difference, even if it were there to see.

Christopher Perez, who collaborated with Kerry Thalmann in lens testing, has shared some intriguing comparisons (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index1.html) between vintage and modern lenses on his web site. In many cases, the differences are hard to spot.

So in the end, we just determine the best combination of features for our needs and requirements, and really can't go wrong.

[Carsten Wolff]

No, Bob :)
I can't think of a single so-so LF lens, but I know many so-so photographers :)

[aduncanson]

Almost ANY post WW2 Kodak Ektar, CP Goerz, Voigtlander, Nikkor, Schneider, or Rodenstock lens will be good. Any of these new enough to be in a Copal shutter should be excellent.

Many here would wonder at the omission of Fuji from this list. Perhaps it was inadvertent.

[Steve Hamley]

So so lenses? The ones Edward Weston used!

Cheers, Steve

[Armin Seeholzer]

If you like sharpness then I recomand the Rodenstock Sironar S or Sinaron SE which is the same just for Sinar named.
But my Schneider APO Symmar 210mm is also very sexy and sharp;--)))

Today's lenses will not be your limiting factor, its much more the stable tripod!

Cheers Armin

P.S. and for portraits there is the Imagon and also the Universal Heliar and all the other great SF lenses of the past!

[NoBob]

Thanks all for the comments and links. When I go shopping for LF lenses, and come across one in a shop, I can come back here to see if it's mentioned (as well as searching this site and googling it of course)...

I appreciate it's not what you have but what you do with it, but I suppose I'm looking for 90, 150 and 210 sharp lenses with good monorail movement coverage for use on commercial architectural work (including 20 storey buildings shot from across the road).

Looks like this one would fit the bill:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/kit.html
Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 APO Sironar-S - $700 Need a little extra coverage for movements? This 75 degree plasmat is truley surprising. It matched an outstanding 72 degree plasmat in the Schneider 150mm APO Symmar in terms of size, weight, image quality. These guys have done their homework! Combine this lens with nice 90 and 210mm lenses and you'd have one rightous field kit.

Like hearing about the other lenses mentioned here though...

[CarstenW]

Sounds like you want to be told what to think about lenses...

Actually no, he is asking you for your opinion, he is not asking you for his opinion. It is a perfectly valid approach to ask a group of people for their (justified) opinions, and then look for similarities in usage to your own to help guide your choice.

[cjbroadbent]

Worst (definition) I have in order: 90mm Angulon, 120mm Super Angulon.
Best (definition) in order: 80mm Super Symmar XL, 120mm Symmar.

[imagedowser]

CarstenW, I think it's important to encourage him to experience directly, "Do not seek to walk in the footsteps of the men of old, seek what they sought." His quest has been taken many times, others have already posted many directions for him to seek.... all education, is self education. Respectfully, Bill

[Robert Hughes]

To back up imagedowser, there is a tendency of photographic hobbyists to equate equipment with personal worth. This attitude probably goes back to the very beginnings of the medium, and each new user has to learn for themselves what everybody else already knows. A great photographer can make a great photo with just about anything.
http://www.aperture.org/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/9/7/97-e1-806enlarge.jpg

[CarstenW]

While it is true that each of us needs to make our own decisions and find our own path, the bewildering array of options in LF does not make this an attractive proposition. A little help goes a long way, and in the end, he will make his own decisions.

I just hope that if 10 people all shout "the 110 XL is awesome" he doesn't run out and get it, because there are so many other great lenses out there for much less. I just picked up a 90/5.6 SA MC Linhof for 400 Euro. Is the 110 XL 3x the lens? And so on for other lenses.

[Frank Petronio]

You can't go wrong with either the Rodenstocks Sironar-N MC or Schneider Symmar-S MC for good standard lenses. Look for later model examples in black rimmed Copal shutters. Condition matters -- look out for edge separation, dings and scratches, oil on the aperture blades, slow shutter speeds -- all of which should be obvious.

They are not exotic, but being plentiful means they are not too expensive either.

I'm not saying the other lenses are bad, but a couple of generations of LF photographers have been using these German lenses and I've never heard anyone complain about them. They are just good lenses that don't impose anything on you, they reduce one decision out of the complex equation of making a large format photo.

After you get some experience you can experiment. But even if you buy something exotic, you may well come back to these lenses in the end.

[NoBob]

Thanks for more useful comments, but

> photographic hobbyist.
That's not me...

> A great photographer can make a great photo with just about anything.
Didn't I say that, in a roundabout way ("I appreciate it's not what you have but what you do with it")?

> A little help goes a long way, and in the end, he will make his own decisions.
I will.

> they reduce one decision out of the complex equation of making a large format photo.
I like that...

[Mark Sawyer]

One man's "reduce one decision" is another man's "lose one way of seeing". ;)

[Jack Dahlgren]

One man's "reduce one decision" is another man's "lose one way of seeing". ;)

I don't see it as a loss, rather a conscious decision to simplify. The option to consider the multitude of possibilities still exists. I personally enjoy my very basic camera because it is so basic that it doesn't get in the way of thinking about what I'm photographing.

There is enough to consider that I don't feel I need every possibility available at all times. There is power in simplification.