PDA

View Full Version : do Schneider, Rodenstock, or Fujinon still make LF lenses?



dh003i
7-Sep-2010, 16:16
There was a discussion on dpreview about how MF is dying, I brought up large format and the advantages of larger formats.

Which makes me wonder, are Schneider, Rodenstock, or Fujinon still making LF lenses in production? Any research going on for them?

PS: Or Nikon...but I read on LF.info that they stopped producing lenses several years ago.

Drew Wiley
7-Sep-2010, 16:22
All of the above. LF lens production is alive and well.

dh003i
7-Sep-2010, 16:26
Are they still doing research on making better lenses for 4x5 and 8x10? e.g., while most good ones perform at the diffraction limit at f/32, I don't think they're performing at the diffraction limit at f/11 or f/22 (136 or 68 lp/mm, respectively; although some get close to 68 lp/mm at f/22).

Bob Salomon
7-Sep-2010, 16:26
See:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/main/products/lenses-for-analog-photography/

For the Rodenstock analog lens line.

Drew Wiley
7-Sep-2010, 16:28
PS - used Nikon LF lenses are still common; but mfg has indeed stopped. As far as MF
equip goes, some mfg have indeed dropped out or have started emphasizing digital
backs, but the MF category is hardly going extinct. Take what you hear with a grain of
salt. But even is certain mfg have dropped out, used equip is abundant and cheap.
There's no logical reason to worry about either LF or MF film cameras. Still plenty of
people using them.

dh003i
7-Sep-2010, 16:31
Thanks, good to know that production (and research?) in large-format lenses is still going on.

I use a Nikkor 90/4.5, G-Claron 305/9, and Xenotar 135/3.5, and they're all great so I'm not worried for myself, just for the future of LF in general (as used equipment can't last forever, and eventually smaller formats will get closer and closer to diffraction limits). But I plan on using my lenses until I can't anymore.

domaz
7-Sep-2010, 16:54
B&H has a whole category (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=40&N=4289357686) dedicated to LF lenses. Even if you filter out all the digitar lenses there are a fair number of lenses there. Be prepared to choke if you are accustomed to used prices though.

eric black
7-Sep-2010, 17:33
Cooke is still in production as well.

dh003i
7-Sep-2010, 18:57
Thanks all.

Mark Sampson
7-Sep-2010, 18:59
I suppose Congo/Osaka is still in business too.

Drew Wiley
7-Sep-2010, 19:10
The aim of your second question is a little difficult to understand. Virtually any LF lens made by any of the four major mfg, or several other mfg, within the last forty
years will capture more detail on the film than you'll know what to do with. This is
because of the sheer size of the film. While lens resolution has indeed progressively improved, you'll soon discover that in LF there are even more important considerations to lens design, such as the effective image circle and performance with swings and tilts, factors which are rarely encountered in smaller formats.
It's like comparing an elephant to an ant - guess who can stomp who.

dh003i
7-Sep-2010, 20:33
Oh I'm well aware that large format lenses are basically perfect at f/32 and beyond, and very good already by f22. The 3 I have meet these requirements.

I was asking about developments and R&D because I know smaller format lenses do seem to be getting sharper, and are aiming towards achieving the diffraction limit at say larger apertures (smaller f-stop numbers).

Drew Wiley
7-Sep-2010, 20:58
Some LF photographers use graphics lenses like Apo-Nikkors, which are optimized
around f/11, but were originally designed for flat field use. But unless one deliberately wants a shallow depth of field, it is far more common to use smaller
f-stops to obtain adequate depth of field. With 4X5, for example, f/22-32 seems to
be the best compromise for normal to longer than normal focal lengths, and around
f/45-64 for 8x10. But steady progress has been made in improving sharpness near
the usable edges of the image circle at larger stops. I believe the current Apo Sironar S is an example of this. And the constraints of digital capture have mandated certain improvements in design, though at the expense of a large image
circle. But there's a practical limit to what people are willing to pay, especially
when the lenses already in production are so damn good.

Brian Stein
7-Sep-2010, 23:47
I was asking about developments and R&D because I know smaller format lenses do seem to be getting sharper, and are aiming towards achieving the diffraction limit at say larger apertures (smaller f-stop numbers).

I think this is driven by small sensor physics; given that large format avoids many of these constraints because its LARGE its not that big a deal for us.

For example the pre-WWI series V protar will return 54 lpm in the centre and 23 at the edges at f/18 [http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html] (its widest aperture) and will almost cover 8x10 open. A contact print is going to give more info than you can see. Other "old" lenses are extremely good when your enlargement ratio is so small (eg 1930s kodak anastigmat 203mm 54lpm at the edges at f/11 and will cover 5x7: 2 fold mag to 8x10 still leaves plenty of resolution).
Now a wee sensor requiring mucho enlargement is going to have to get a lot of lpm to start with to match that end result. When your current lenses are outstanding and the market small, why spend money on R&D?

Frank Petronio
7-Sep-2010, 23:49
Just make your own like this guy did in his home workshop:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94672

You're in Rochester, go knock over one of those Kraut and Brat-eating Kodak retirees to pump for information before they kick the bucket, and I bet you could find the old Wollensak lens grinding gear out in Tyron "Park" (landfill).

More seriously, all the technology used to make modern large format lenses will still be around even if the actual lenses cease production. The military, aerospace, and industrial applications will still require expensive, high-end optics, forever. And even if they don't really need them, your tax dollars will continue to fund their development, forever.

It's all moot. Does anyone know of a single photographer who knows what they are doing -- does decent work -- who has purchased a retail-priced large format lens? The only people I know who do this are the dabblers who won't stick with it - God bless them too, because we love buying their barely used gear.

Bob Salomon
8-Sep-2010, 01:45
" The military, aerospace, and industrial applications will still require expensive, high-end optics, "

Most of the lenses that we sell in this market, especially in quantity, are digital large format lenses like the 60mm Apo Sironar Digital HR and its new name the HR Digaron-S.

Drew Wiley
8-Sep-2010, 09:20
There's an outfit here in town which specializes in high-end optics, including for 9 inch
aerial film. They'll make you anything you want. There's a reason all their orders come from govt agencies, incl NASA, DEA, NSA. Do you have a hundred grand to spend on your dream lens? Otherwise, for us mere mortals, LF lens production has taken advantage of all the other options available, incl computerized lens designs, specialized
glass, even aspheric optics. But one thing I've never seen is a hybrid asperic using
plastic elements, which is getting more common in off-brand small format lens design, but basically taboo in terms of long-term quality or durability. Some lens series are
changing for another reason - ecological concerns about some components of glass
mfg. Then tiny little sensors being put in little miniature view cameras causes another
design issue, but different from what most of us are concerned with in true LF, and
not a big deal unless we are shooting a roll-film back. Then there's the retro thing,
like Cooke Optics replicating the old Smith-and-Pinkham look in a modern lens. All
kinds of things going on.

Bob Salomon
8-Sep-2010, 12:09
Qioptiq does that also. Of course you know their main lens division as Rodenstock Precision Optics. But they, like their copetition, are also into that market, that way. Also industrial and commercial special production runs. And not just for cameras, postal scanners that read the sort the mail, Xray systems, they invented the lens used in the original Philips CD player, etc.

As for plastic (acrylic) aspherical lenses, they have been on every point and shoot zoom lens pocket camera since the mid 80's. possibly earlier.


There's an outfit here in town which specializes in high-end optics, including for 9 inch
aerial film. They'll make you anything you want. There's a reason all their orders come from govt agencies, incl NASA, DEA, NSA. Do you have a hundred grand to spend on your dream lens? Otherwise, for us mere mortals, LF lens production has taken advantage of all the other options available, incl computerized lens designs, specialized
glass, even aspheric optics. But one thing I've never seen is a hybrid asperic using
plastic elements, which is getting more common in off-brand small format lens design, but basically taboo in terms of long-term quality or durability. Some lens series are
changing for another reason - ecological concerns about some components of glass
mfg. Then tiny little sensors being put in little miniature view cameras causes another
design issue, but different from what most of us are concerned with in true LF, and
not a big deal unless we are shooting a roll-film back. Then there's the retro thing,
like Cooke Optics replicating the old Smith-and-Pinkham look in a modern lens. All
kinds of things going on.

Arne Croell
8-Sep-2010, 14:24
The last newly developed LF lens for 4x5 and larger came out a little less than 2 years ago: http://www.schneideroptics.com/news/110308_Apo-Tele-Xenar.htm

Given the long production life spans of LF lenses that is quite recent.

Brian Ellis
8-Sep-2010, 15:55
Of the so-called "Big Four" - Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fuji - AFAIK only Schneider has brought any new versions of their LF lenses to market in recent years. As Arne mentions, Schneider updated many of its older lenses a couple years ago when they introduced the "L" line. As you know Nikon is out of the LF business and I'm not aware that Rodenstock or Fuji have updated any of their lenses in a couple decades or more. So I doubt that any significant R&D with LF lenses other than digital lenses is going on except maybe with Schneider. But even Schneider's updates over the last fifty or so years - e.g. from Symmar to Symmar S to APO Symmar to APO Symmar L - have been more incremental than revolutionary. A Symmar S is still a very fine lens, maybe a Symmar is too but I've never used one.

But why would you care about R&D? Excellent photographs were made with LF lenses in the 1930s and earlier. Other than introducing coating, which was a major leap forward, improvements over the years in LF lenses seem to have been in areas like making lenses smaller or lighter or expanding the useful image circle rather giant leaps in optical quality. At least that's my impression, someone here like Bob S who's in the business might correct me.

engl
11-Sep-2010, 13:38
It would be nice, in theory, to increase lens performance so that they could approach the diffraction limit at bigger apertures. It would probably be most useful for wide lenses.

In reality, I wonder for what percentage of shots it would really matter. Not only would you have to shoot at those apertures (often not possible due to DOF), you would also need more accurate focus, tighter holder/back/film tolerances, sharp film, drum scanning/high quality enlarger, and a big enough print for the detail to matter.

Richard K.
11-Sep-2010, 13:55
The last newly developed LF lens for 4x5 and larger came out a little less than 2 years ago: http://www.schneideroptics.com/news/110308_Apo-Tele-Xenar.htm

And that is a darn good lens even with the partial misnomer "tele"...tiny in size but covers my 7x11 and 5x12 beautifully...