I need one last lens...

[Policar]

I've just started shooting 4x5 (so far so difficult) and have already realized I need (or at least want) a longer lens than I have; it will mostly be for deep focus landscapes. My current kit is:

90mm f6.8 Grandagon-N (too wide and too dim; I don't find it very useful--yet)
135mm Apo-Sironar-S (wonderful! but too much fall-off)
180mm Apo-Sironar-S (wonderful!)

I want a 240mm Apo-Sironar-S because the other lenses of this brand are just great. While they're only medium sharp, the color rendition is so perfect. I've never seen better-corrected lenses, and this baffles me because they only have six elements, but whatever. They produce the most beautiful colors and nice microcontrast and the out of focus areas are perfectly corrected.

I considered a 240mm Apo-Sironar-S, but they seem to sell used for about $1000, way more than twice what I spent for the others individually. I've heard the Fuji f9 lens is great, but I'm wary to switch brands after having finally found good lenses. The 240mm Caltar II-N is apparently made by Rodenstock, would that be a good choice? I know it's "big" but it's not too big for me.

Will this match up to the Apo-Sironar-S? What I care about, most of all, is color rendition, microcontrast, and just that beautiful perfect look. I figure I'll get less coverage and less sharp edges, but on 4x5 will that even matter? Or should I splurge for the 240mm Sironar-S and never second guess the lens when I use it? Obviously that would be my top choice.

[Mark Stahlke]

I want a 240mm Apo-Sironar-S...
...and never second guess the lens when I use it
This looks like the answer to your question. I'm sure you'll get fine results with any of the 240mm lenses but you'll always wonder. I think you should get the lens you want and not look back.

[Scotty230358]

I would agree with Mark. If the AOP Sironar meets all your expectations then go for it.

[rdenney]

The Caltar II-N is an APO Sironar N. The newer S model is a new design with wider coverage. Maybe if you look real close at a very large print you might find a noticeable difference in performance within the coverage range, but if you did, you'd be more observant than many. I think you'll find that with a 240mm lens, coverage is not an issue, unless you use a telephoto design (and those mostly start at 270mm).

And if you bought a used APO-Sironar-N (whether or not labeled as a Caltar or Sinaron), and it didn't meet your expectations, you could probably sell it for what you paid for it. If it works out, you've save hundreds of dollars. If it doesn't, you're out pennies at most.

Large-format plasmats like the Sironar may only have six elements, but they are not constrained by the requirement to clear a mirror box, nor are they expected to have f/2.8 maximum aperture, so they can be optimized more easily. Their near symmetry helps eliminate geometric distortion almost automatically, so that resolves another issue that constraints designs for shorter lenses that have to fit in front of a mirror box.

Rick "who observes the same boost in performance from double-biogon designs like the Grandagon and Super Angulon, too" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

Rick, what is a "double biogon?"

I ask because I have a couple of Biogons lying around, also a Super Angulon (and two clones), a jes' plain Grandagon and an Apo-Grandy. I just don't see how a pair of Biogons makes one SA or one Grandy or one Apo-Grandy. I also don't see what good half a Biogon is. FWIW, I have half a Grandagon in the drawer and its useless as is.

[rdenney]

Rick, what is a "double biogon?"

Maybe I'm labeling it wrong, but I got it from Kingslake's description of the first Super Angulon, which took two biogons (of course, there were a couple of designs that went by that name and I don't remember which one he was referring to) and opposed them to correct for distortion. I'll have to dig the book up again and check my usage.

Rick "Kingslake is around here somewhere..." Denney

[Two23]

I want a 240mm Apo-Sironar-S because the other lenses of this brand are just great. While they're only medium sharp, the color rendition is so perfect. I've never seen better-corrected lenses, and this baffles me because they only have six elements, but whatever. They produce the most beautiful colors and nice microcontrast and the out of focus areas are perfectly corrected.




Generally speaking, the fewer elements a lens has the more apt it is to have good conrast. And, less flare.


Kent in SD

[Richard K.]

I want a 240mm Apo-Sironar-S because the other lenses of this brand are just great.
I considered a 240mm Apo-Sironar-S, but they seem to sell used for about $1000

Or should I splurge for the 240mm Sironar-S and never second guess the lens when I use it? Obviously that would be my top choice.

Seeing as the excellent 240mm Apo Sironar S sells for $2319.95 at a famous mid-continent store we use and just under $2000 at a famous NYC store, $1000 doesn't seem out of line to me! I paid $1600 for my copy (LN in box) but that seems to be my modus operandi: buy high and sell low...:)
Just by coincidence I may be selling mine in the near future (I need something to cover 10x12 in that focal length) so keep your eye open - BUT I very much doubt I'll offer it for less than$1000 so I guess eBay will decide its current worth...:eek:

[GPS]

...
My current kit is:

90mm f6.8 Grandagon-N (too wide and too dim; I don't find it very useful--yet)
135mm Apo-Sironar-S (wonderful! but too much fall-off)
180mm Apo-Sironar-S (wonderful!)

I want a 240mm Apo-Sironar-S because the other lenses of this brand are just great. While they're only medium sharp, ...



Only medium sharp - is that your opinion about Apo-Sironar -S lenses? :rolleyes:

[neil poulsen]

GPS: I think he means that the "other" lenses may only be medium sharp.

POLICAR: I like your focal lengths. (I started with similar focal lengths of 121mm Super Angulon and 180mm.) I especially like the 180. For me, 210mm is a little long. Further, I think that a 240mm, in addition to the 180mm, serves a useful purpose. For example, the 180mm is a little short for portraiture. But, the 240mm makes a good portrait lens.

You will have no problem with coverage using a 240mm Plasmat on a 4x5.

[GPS]

GPS: I think he means that the "other" lenses may only be medium sharp.

...

Neil, meaning like - the other lenses of this brand (Rodenstock?) are only medium sharp? It doesn't make more sense to me either...:(

[Policar]

Thanks, everyone. So far I like these focal lengths, too, except 90mm is a bit wide (although I used 24mm on 135 all the time so I am confident I will grow into it). 180mm is great, natural but not boring.

Maybe my focusing technique is "medium bad;" I'm just very impressed by color rendition and contrast but resolution looks normal, unspectacular to me.

The Sironar-S is nearly three times the price of the Caltar at 240mm. If I'm only using the center of the frame (i.e. 4x5), will I notice a difference? Obviously if money weren't an issue it would be an easy choice but I don't have a lot right now. There's something nice about having a matched set, but there's also something nice about saving like $600. I think I'll probably try the Caltar if I can get a good deal on it.

[Joe Forks]

>>>>I need one last lens...

Famous last words! Try not to box yourself in like that. When you move up to 810 you might wish for a 240 that will cover the format in a nice compact package. Check the Germinar 240 in copal 1 if you can find one.

[Ole Tjugen]

It's funny, this thing with individual tastes. I have several modern lenses, but somehow i rarely remember I have them nor what they are. So when I reach for a lens, it's about 90% chance I'll use either an old Angulon or an old Symmar. Both do the job I require of them, with all the sharpness and contrast I need. I'll use Super Angulons for wider views (all the way down to 47mm), and a G-Claron 355mm if I think the 360mm Symmar is too heavy to carry around.

My Rodenstock lenses tend to be pre-WWII (or even pre-WWI), and were never among the sharpest lenses even when they were brand new. ;)

[venchka]

KEH has a trio of 250mm Fujinon-W lenses in the $200-$300 neighborhood. You will have 15 days to try them out.

[MARIO CARA]

APO RODAGON 240/9 could be your choice; only four elements.

[h2oman]

I'm kind of a rookie compared to the others here, but it seems that if one is going to own a limited number of lenses, it makes more sense to increase the "distance" between focal lengths as you go to longer lenses. For example, in your case it might make more sense to go 135-180-300 if you want a lens that gives a more compressed look and are going to own a limited number of lenses.

Just a thought...

[Policar]

Thanks all, I'm tempted to stick with Rodenstock because so far so good. I think whether you like soft of sharp lenses has a lot to do with if you shoot color and if you're a beginner. I shoot color and am a beginner so I like a sharp, deep focus look.

300mm may be a better choice, but I want something for portraiture, too, and my bellows don't extend past 300mm very much. But if the price is right...

[MARIO CARA]

I Wrote Apo Rodagon 240/9 But I Mean Apo Ronar 240/9

[GPS]

Thanks, everyone. So far I like these focal lengths, too, except 90mm is a bit wide (although I used 24mm on 135 all the time so I am confident I will grow into it). 180mm is great, natural but not boring.

Maybe my focusing technique is "medium bad;" I'm just very impressed by color rendition and contrast but resolution looks normal, unspectacular to me.

...

Your allusions to the 135 photography with comparisons let me think that you're perhaps still a little bit kidding yourself. A 24x36 slide will naturally look as having a better resolution as the same scene on a 4x5 slide but it's just a lot of illusion. You have much more elements together on a small slide so it somehow fools us to see it as more contrasty or having better resolution. If you take a close up of something with a fine and contrasty structure you'll be surprised how much better "resolution" you'll suddenly see...:)
When it comes to the resolution - be sure that you loose more of it by not perfect parallelism of camera's standards, not perfect film registration, not perfect film flatness in the film holder or not perfect focusing (to name just a few of a long list of possible causes) than by differences between this and that modern lens.

[Policar]

I didn't mean to imply the lens is anything less than very sharp; I haven't used it enough to have an educated opinion. It's just that what impressed me about it wasn't sharpness so much as color rendition and micro-contrast (and no visible longitudinal chromatic abberation in out of focus areas, my SLR lenses totally do this, green on one side and magenta on the other). I could care less if a cheaper lens is as sharp if it doesn't give the same "look" and isn't as good with color film.

Unfortunately for me, lens prices go way up around 240mm or 300mm--so I'm trying to find a way to get something as similar as possible without paying four figures.

[slrlounge]

This looks like the answer to your question. I'm sure you'll get fine results with any of the 240mm lenses but you'll always wonder. I think you should get the lens you want and not look back.

This is an amazing lens for landscapes. I never go out on a photo excusion without one!

Gluck!

-Chris
Lin and Jirsa (http://www.linandjirsa.com) Photography (http://www.slrlounge.com)

[Jack Dahlgren]

I didn't mean to imply the lens is anything less than very sharp; I haven't used it enough to have an educated opinion. It's just that what impressed me about it wasn't sharpness so much as color rendition and micro-contrast (and no visible longitudinal chromatic abberation in out of focus areas, my SLR lenses totally do this, green on one side and magenta on the other). I could care less if a cheaper lens is as sharp if it doesn't give the same "look" and isn't as good with color film.

Unfortunately for me, lens prices go way up around 240mm or 300mm--so I'm trying to find a way to get something as similar as possible without paying four figures.

The differences between brands of modern LF lenses are minimal. Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock ... I doubt that many would be able to identify the lens by looking at a print from any of these. Largely you pay for coverage in these lenses.

Have you read this?:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

[Policar]

Good point. I'll get the less expensive lens. Coverage should not be an issue and I don't plan to go to 8x10 any time soon. If it's not good enough, I'll know soon.

Or I could go with my original plan and put a threaded macro lens (close up filter) on the 180mm. Could I do that and then extend the bellows further to focus on infinity?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Good point. I'll get the less expensive lens. Coverage should not be an issue and I don't plan to go to 8x10 any time soon. If it's not good enough, I'll know soon.

Or I could go with my original plan and put a threaded macro lens (close up filter) on the 180mm. Could I do that and then extend the bellows further to focus on infinity?

That in my opinion would bring in CA problems, but you can try anything.

[rdenney]

The Sironar-S is nearly three times the price of the Caltar at 240mm. If I'm only using the center of the frame (i.e. 4x5), will I notice a difference?

I don't have your eyes, so I can't tell you what you will notice. But I am confident that the differences between the Sironar N and the Sironar S, other than coverage, are extremely subtle at best. The color rendition of the S might be a touch more accurate, which is important probably only in product shoots. I doubt I could tell the difference in real prints of a real subject, and even if there was a difference, I'm sure I could not assert that one was better than the other.

And on the subject of resolution, remember that the ultimate performance of the lens exist only on the focus plane, and then only when focused at the optimal distance (maybe 25:1 or 50:1) and at the optimal aperture. And then the result can be affected by the accuracy of the camera, the flatness of the film, the resolution of the film itself, the rigidity of the tripod, and the rigidity of the subject. When any of those real-world factors intrudes, the ultimate performance of the lens is no longer important. The trick with large format that all of us had to learn when we were new to view cameras is that one manages apparent sharpness by tilting the focus plane and applying depth of field. A 4x5 image at f/45 might be just fine as an image, but diffraction will prevent it from displaying the ultimate performance of the lens, even if the camera and subject can stay still for the required seconds imposed by that small aperture. But one may have to live with that to get the required depth of field.

Rick "noting that larger format lenses don't resolve as finely as small format lenses, but they resolve pretty well over many times the image area" Denney

[Policar]

Thanks! That was my thinking, too. The better lens is corrected for good performance at f16, but how often will I shoot at f16 with such a long lens? Just past f22 there's already the loss of sharpness from diffraction with the 180mm, so why pay more for performance I won't use? Now I just need to decide for sure on 300mm vs. 240mm.

That said, I am lucky enough to have good eyes (20/15 vision and better when wearing glasses--and perfect color vision) so little flaws stand out as obvious to me.

I was kidding about the macro filter, btw, but now I might try it just to see what happens. Thanks for the help.

[venchka]

One of the 250mm Fujinon-W lenses at KEH is the 1:6.7 version. For $300 and change it's worth a look. Besides, you never know when you may want to go larger.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I
don't have your eyes, so I can't tell you what you will notice. But I am confident that the differences between the Sironar N and the Sironar S, other than coverage, are extremely subtle at best. The color rendition of the S might be a touch more accurate, which is important probably only in product shoots. I doubt I could tell the difference in real prints of a real subject, and even if there was a difference, I'm sure I could not assert that one was better than the other.

Rick at full open the Sironar S is sharper and this is visible with any good loup 4-6x up to f 11 its sharper also to the corners at f 16 it starts to only the outer corners are sharper at f 22 they are almost at the same level!

Cheers Armin

[Policar]

Thanks Armin, have you tried the sironar-s wide open, by the way? At what stop does it become acceptable in terms of contrast and corner sharpness? How is the "bokeh"? It seems very good to me around f11-f16 with no green/magenta tint at all.

I will probably use f16 or smaller and near-to the center of the frame 95% of the time with this lens. With the shorter focal lengths I'm likely to use f11 and more of the frame, so I'm glad I spent the extra money there. I'll probably get the Caltar if it's nearly the same by f22, though. The Fuji looks as good, but not significantly less expensive, and if a brand works for me I stick with it until it doesn't.

[Armin Seeholzer]

My Sinaron SE ( same as Sirnonar S ) is sharp at f 8 for the full 4x5 inch neg on 8x10 I have to stop down to f 16 for the outer parts of the corners!
But you need a good camera with got film registration and a good film holder to!

MFG Armin

[Policar]

Thanks, I may try some portraiture at f8 with the 180mm sironar-s. First I need to figure out how to correct for imperfections in film registration. But I figure the corners won't matter as much since they should be out of focus and the image circle will be increased by focusing close so after they're sorted out f8 should be good! That would be awesome for sharp shallow-focus portraiture. How is the "bokeh," by the way?

I now see that the main difference between the "S" and "N" is the use of ED glass. While many claim this makes no difference (and who am I to argue with those who have more experience than I do), it's the lack of secondary latitudinal chromatic aberration (is that what it's called) with the sironar-s that so impresses me, and it seems like this is directly the result of ED glass (according to PR material). And, damn it, if I'm going to go through the effort of shooting lf I'd better get something for it.

[Peter Gomena]

"I need one last lens"

Written on a photographer's tombstone.

Peter Gomena

[mdm]

If you are going to stick with 4x5, get a 240mm APO Ronar. Much cheaper than a 240mm Sironar S, smaller and sharper, as well as extremely well corrected. With better bokeh to boot. I consider my 240mm Ronar to be a better lens (but different) than my 135mm Sironar S. Kerry Thallman has a mint late Ronar for sale but you should be able to get a Ex+ Ronar from KEH for $350, in Copal 1. The Fujinon A is smaller, has more coverage, is more versatile, but the Ronar is better at what it does. The sharpest lens you will ever own, with the best bokeh too.

David

[Peter Gomena]

I don't own a 240mm lens, and probably never will because I have a 210 and a 305. I wish I had need and means to own one, because they produce a very interesting look in comparison to a 210. To me, a 210 is plain vanilla. A 240 is a larger piece of glass in a larger shutter and produces much more interesting out-of-focus effects and a really neat perspective for portraits and tabletop/still life work. We had a Schneider at the studio I used to work for, and I wished I owned it.

Peter Gomena

[Armin Seeholzer]

Much cheaper than a 240mm Sironar S, smaller and sharper, as well as extremely well corrected. With better bokeh to boot.

I'm also a big fan of APO Ronars if own a 300/360/480er but they are not as sharp as an Sironar S or Sinaron SE up to f 22 from f 32 there is no dif anymore, because of difraction limits the lenses!

Cheers Armin

[John Kasaian]

Is "medium sharp" something like "jumbo shrimp?":D

[Policar]

Is "medium sharp" something like "jumbo shrimp?":D

Similar, but different.

Anyhow, I've decided to wait and put my money toward a better tripod first....but I feel like I have some good choices in the 240-300mm range now. Thanks for all the help, everyone.

[bobwysiwyg]

I'm looking/waiting for one that will talk me through perfect exposure and composition for every shot. :rolleyes: