Rodenstock VS Fuji VS Schneider VS Nikon, Um who cares

[Rust Never Sleeps]

I have the following lenses:

Nikon
75 4.5
120 8
180 5.6
360 8

Rodenstock
65 4.5
90 6.8
150 5.6
210 5.6

Fuji
300 8.5

As I was getting into large format I looked at lens charts, web opinions, reviews, talked to camera shop employees. All in a effort to educate myself about who makes the best lenses and which lenses are the best. Of course the opinions where all over the place so instead I worried about size, weight, price, image circle, shutter size, filter size instead of getting worked up about who makes the damn lens.

Now that I have shot LF for a couple of years and looked over a healthy amount of transparencies I have realized the people that stated there is not a big enough difference between manufactures to get all worked up about it where right.

Of all the lenses I have all are stellar so long as I get the focus and exposure right with the camera being on a stable platform and none of my movements are off. Not a single one would I label a lemon or a dud. Being a fanboy for a certain company is silly and one of the greatest pluses for large format is all the great lenses available for the photographer from 4 great companies.

And certain gems come from all of the big four
to list a few:

Fuji 240 A and 250 cm-w
Nikon 360 tele and 120 w
Schneider XL lenses
Rodenstock 45, 55 grandagon and 150 sironar s

[paulr]

Yup, I came to the same conclusions. But back when I bought my lenses, I fully indulged the ritual of treating it like the biggest decision of my life. I talked tech reps into comas, and quinted at MTF charts til I was half blind.

A year later, after much experience with Brand A, I inspected a friend's negs made with Brand B. No way anyone could tell which images came from which lens.

Looking at my own, I noticed that the biggest difference was between my sharpest negs and my average negs. Which meant that most of the time, I wasn't coming close to what the lens was capable of. Subject matter outside the focal plane, wind, vibration, user error ... all conspire more often than not to give results that don't measure up to the lab results.

The fierceness of the discussion, alas, will never go away. Photographers will continue to be geeks, and glass will continue to be expensive.

[munz6869]

Agreed also - my chronic inexpertise and sloppy procedures will have infinitely more effect on the final picture than the sharpness/distortion/brand of the lens. Not to mention the cheap orange filters I keep sticking in front of them...

That said, I do appreciate a new or freshly CLA'd shutter though....

Marc!

[jeroldharter]

If they are all about the same, what makes you say that some are gems?

[Rust Never Sleeps]

If they are all about the same, what makes you say that some are gems?

Cute response, but I'll take a shot at your silly question.

By "Gems" I obviously meant unique lenses that deal with features more so than performance. A couple of examples:

The Fuji 240A is the longest lens in a copal 0 shutter. It is small, light, but has a F9 max aperture which may be a problem for some people. It is a sharp lens but not much more or less more the the standard 210 plasmats from the big four.

The Fuji 250 CM-W: Not many options in this focal length but Fuji give us this lens that is a plasmat at 250mm but in a copal 1 and a 67mm front for filters. Not a small lens but for plasmat at this length certainly not big like a 300mm Sironar S.

The Nikon 360 tele: I have this lens because if I got I standard 360 Tessar design I would have to get a long rail extension and a long bellows for my Arca-Swiss just for this focal length. With this lens I use the medium rail extension I have for a 300 tessar and my standard bellows work just fine.

The Nikon 120 W: The smallest of the 120mm wide angles. 77mm front, biggest image circle of the 120's. Nice price compared to a 110 XL from Schneider. Not any better or worse that the other 120mm wide angle designs as far as sharpness is concerned.

Schneider XL lenses: These lenses are completely unique to Schneider. Small but big coverage for some and huge and big coverage for other lenses in this series. 47mm Xl widest lens for 4x5. Many need center filters while others don't. They are expensive.

Rodenstock 45 and 55 grandagon: unique focal length for large format. The 45 won't cover 4x5 but will 6x12 pano. The 55 grandagon is the only lens for LF in this focal length. The lenses aren't too big.

Rodenstock 150 Sirorar S: The smallest 150 plasmat but the biggest image circle. Other than that not any better or worse than any other 150 plasmat

Nikon 90 F8: Has a image circle just as big as the bigger 4.5 brother, but a smaller and lighter lens. The biggest image circle of any modern 6.8-8 wide angle 90mm. Again other than that not any better or worse than any other 90mm .

As I said in my first post lens selection should be more about size, weight, price, image circle, shutter size, filter size then getting worked up about lens MTF charts. Am I making any sense to you yet jeroldharter or are you still confused because paulr and munz6869 got what I was trying to get across??

[roteague]

I've pretty well standardized on Schneider lenses. Mostly because of the XL series (I only own 1, but am looking to buy a second one next year). But, I'm sure the others brands are just as well made.

[Scotty230358]

I have a variety lenses from Fuji, Rodenstock and Schneider. They all perform admirably and there is no discernible difference in sharpness. My maximum image size is 16 inches on the long side and any softness is down to my technique. Any lack of contrast is also down to me. Briefly:-

75mm Fujinon SWD f5.6 - sharp and surprisingly easy to focus. The image circle is probably not large enough for extreme movements but then again I only use modest rise and tilt in most of my work. Also it does not seem to need a centre filter. I have not noticed any fall off at the edges.

90mm Super Angulon f6.8 - In terms of sharpness and contrast the results are indistinguishable from the Fujinon.

125mm Fujinon W - A really nice modest wide angle that delivers the goods. Image circle (IIRC) is about 220mm. Again does all that I need.

120 Berlin Series III Dagor f6.8. I bought this lens before I bought the 125 Fujinon. Probably got seduced by the fact it was a Dagor at a very reasonable price. It is tiny and very light but I think its the worst performer of all my lenses. Not a lemon but lets say there is a "hint of citrus". It does not seem to snap into focus on my ground glass like my more modern lenses. I have not used it enough to make my mind up whether its worth keeping.

150mm Symmar S f5.6 - Nice and sharp and contrasty but I have run out of coverage with it.

180mm Symmar S f5.6 - Purchased it as a replacement for an old 180/305 Schneider convertible that whilst sharp was not that contrasty. A very good lens. It gets more use than my 150.

240mm Rodenstock APO Ronar - An older single coated lens that gets a lot of use. Although marketed as a process lens it performs admirably at infinity. More than enough coverage for my needs and turns out really nice images. Another plus is that it s a tiny lens that weighs next to nothing.

250mm Fujinon W f6.3 - bought this on a whim because the price was very good (under £200) and the photographs I saw taken with it were excellent. A good back up lens in case the older shutter on the Ronar packs in.

300mm Rodenstock APO Ronar F9 - the longest lens I own but performs as well as the others. Again compact and light weight with more than enough coverage. The only down side is that it comes with a Compur Electronic shutter that will be next to impossible to repair if it dies. It also uses obscure batteries that are expensive to buy but there are solutions available. If the worst happens the lens will go straight into a Copal No. 1 shutter.

So my point is that I have lenses from 3 of 4 major manufacturers of modern lenses and sharpness and contrast wise they are all so alike as to be virtually indistinguishable. As I say the only lens I am unsure about is my Dagor. I have no idea who old it is but I don't think my particular example will be as good as my modern stuff.

[Heroique]

...I have lenses from 3 of 4 major manufacturers of modern lenses and sharpness and contrast wise they are all so alike as to be virtually indistinguishable...

I have a 110-150-240 kit.

My 150 g-claron distinguishes itself from the other two – in a peculiar way.

It’s the tiny “runt of the litter,” but it makes up in “fun” what it lacks in coverage and other features. Indeed, this tiny-gem-of-a-lens has taught me to see the world like it does. (Very clever ... it knows this will get me to pull it out of the bag sooner than its peers.) Yes, it has me whipped – even though the 110 and 240 are just as sharp & certainly more glamorous. Let’s just say the 150 g-claron possesses one of those “intangibles” difficult to describe, but there all the same…

;)

[Brian C. Miller]

Since I got into photography with pennies, I bought a Super Graphic. Then I found out the problem with the ground glass, and after all that was fixed, I tested the lens.

Bicycle spokes at two blocks, and quite clearly on Techpan. You don't see them until the negative is enlarged to 16x20, and you still need a loupe. So for a very long time, I didn't buy another lens. Seriously, why bother? When a 135mm Wollensack does that, why "upgrade?"

Now I also have an 8x10, and I have Fuji and Nikon lenses. Will I buy a German lens just because? Um, no. The most important factor is the operator, me.

[rdenney]

Yup, I came to the same conclusions. But back when I bought my lenses, I fully indulged the ritual of treating it like the biggest decision of my life.

I've always made my large-format lenses the smallest decisions of my life. I'm too cheap to make it a big decision.

The most I've ever paid was $600, and that was for a 90/5.6 Super Angulon about 20 years ago when they were still very much the current model. That was about half price.

Of my dozen-plus large-format lenses, only three or four cost more than $200.

Rick "who has the best that (a little) money can buy" Denney

[JamesFromSydney]

Hah. The first LF lens I bought was a 135mm Apo-Sironar-S (used, thankfully), thinking I had to get a really great lens or why bother at all?

Of course, it performed flawlessly, but then I bought a Crown Graphic with a 135mm Xenar (single coated) and realized even that was more than what I needed, so I sold the first lens and do all my 4x5 shooting with that and a since-acquired 210mm Xenar.

The limiting factor in my photography is not my gear...

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Bicycle spokes at two blocks, and quite clearly on Techpan. You don't see them until the negative is enlarged to 16x20, and you still need a loupe. So for a very long time, I didn't buy another lens. Seriously, why bother? When a 135mm Wollensak does that, why "upgrade?"

My Supergraphic has one of the my two Raptar 135mm f/4.7 lenses mounted because the cam I've got precisely focuses with it and it's incredibly sharp at f/22.

But 60 year old Rapax shutters are something of a PITA, first because the shutter speed increments are different than modern speeds (increments of 10, not 2), second because they tend to run slow (problematic mostly when shooting color transparency), and third because the lens cell threads don't interchange with Compur/Copal/Prontors (used lenses are so cheap that thread adapters aren't worth the expense or trouble).

So I also bought a used 15 year old Caltar IIN 135mm f/5.6 that has a bit more coverage, and a shutter that's bang-on. (Don't use it with the SG because it's not exactly a 135mm and the cam I've got doesn't work accurately).

[jp]

I tend to agree that a good CLA is more important than the brand of the lens for general LF shooting. I haven't paid over $200 yet for normal sharp LF lenses. I like the lens that comes with my speed graphic too. I wish it had normal filter threads, but that's no big deal.

I am willing to pay a little extra for a brighter lens, just to make focusing without a darkcloth easier, so that's the differentiator for me.

If you get into soft focus, pricing becomes a little less rational, and research shows they do indeed vary greatly between manufacturers, and in non-quantitative ways. There's still some <$200 stuff, but the real variety typically requires a bigger checkbook unfortunately unless you do estate sales, lawn sales, etc...

[Sal Santamaura]

If they are all about the same, what makes you say that some are gems?


Cute response, but I'll take a shot at your silly question...Am I making any sense to you yet jeroldharter or are you still confused because paulr and munz6869 got what I was trying to get across??That's an absolutely snotty response to a perfectly reasonable question, one which I would have asked myself had Jerold not already done so.

Attitude adjustment required, "Rust." Yet another instance where not using a real name seems to embolden poor behavior. :(

[jeroldharter]

Cute response, but I'll take a shot at your silly question...
...Am I making any sense to you yet jeroldharter or are you still confused because paulr and munz6869 got what I was trying to get across??

I wasn't trying to be difficult. I thought your answer (except the part about me) was helpful.

[jim kitchen]

Folks,

Some of you own way too many lenses... :)

I have three lenses, I had four, and I buy Schneider for 8X10. My 4X5 lenses were Rodenstock. I never did see a difference in sharpness between the two manufacturers, but I surely did see a difference in their contrast, and for a short while, I owned Fujinon 300, where I quickly turfed it because it produced too much contrast. I have never been a fan of Japanese large format glass because of the higher than expected contrast levels.

Lenses are not just about weight, size, shutters, image circles, nor are they just about being the sharpest on the planet. What matters most to me happens to be the character of the lens, its ability to perform, and its ability to produce flawless tonality, whether the MTF says it is superb or not, and if it is, that chart just happens to look good on the lens's resume. I would still carry a lens anywhere, once I cherished the lens for its inherent characteristics, even if it weighed ten kilograms.

jim k

[Joe Forks]

A quote, from a link, on another thread..... man I just love this quote, and I laughed out loud, because I am drinking the koolaid when it comes to some of these soft focus lenses, now I just need deeper pockets....

"Old boy, this is not a lens; it is a MAGIC chunk of glass." — John W. Giles

[John NYC]

Folks,

Lenses are not just about weight, size, shutters, image circles, nor are they just about being the sharpest on the planet. What matters most to me happens to be the character of the lens, its ability to perform, and its ability to produce flawless tonality, whether the MTF says it is superb or not, and if it is, that chart just happens to look good on the lens's resume.

jim k

Today as I was looking at the first results of my new (to me) Rolleiflex 2.8F (Zeiss version) and comparing it to my C.V. Bessa III with its modern Fujinon lens, I can echo what Jim is saying here from my own observations. These lenses, though both are small and 80mm on medium format, are worlds apart in the way they render... and I'm also talking about at f/8, not just wide apertures. The contrast and tonality produced by each is so very, very different. I would guess that the difference in LF lenses is not as great, but it must be there.

[paulr]

The contrast and tonality produced by each is so very, very different. I would guess that the difference in LF lenses is not as great, but it must be there.

I think among modern, multi-coated lenses the differences are negligible. There may be some significant differences in rendering out of focus areas between, say, a mostly symmetrical plasmat and a postmodern design like the schneider XLs (just guessing ...)

As far as differences in tonality, that's really a question of flare more than anything else. Modest amounts of overall flare give that solf glow that people love in vintage optics (you can also get it with zoom lenses on an slr, if the light is right!). Otherwise, I'm not at all convinced of tonal fingerprints of lenses.

I think we tend to attribute characteristics to our lenses that have more to do with the quality of light in our favorite pictures. It's amazing what happens when you start testing lenses side-by-side to evaluate tonal differences. Many of the presumed differences vanish, especially in lower contrast scenes.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

That's an absolutely snotty response to a perfectly reasonable question, one which I would have asked myself had Jerold not already done so.

Attitude adjustment required, "Rust." Yet another instance where not using a real name seems to embolden poor behavior.

Actually if we where talking face to face I would have said the same thing, but jeroldharter would have realized I was just being a smartass. Yet another instance of the problem with Internet communication, people read comments without the human emotion behind it. And why take Internet posts so damn serious, life is way too short and precious.

I guess I should have added a couple of these :) :p ;) :D


I wasn't trying to be difficult. I thought your answer (except the part about me) was helpful.

Hey jeroldharter, I was just being a smartass, I am one most of the time, life is too short and I like to have a little fun. Plus I thought you where poking a little at me with your post which doesn't bother me any so I poked back a little. All the people I know and myself always give each other crap and I wouldn't have it any other way. Messing with strangers is fun too you know. Plus I had a little buzz from this BadBoy (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/423/50570) CHEERS :-) ;-) Rust "The snotty" Never "Attitude adjustment needed" Sleeps

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Today as I was looking at the first results of my new (to me) Rolleiflex 2.8F (Zeiss version) and comparing it to my C.V. Bessa III with its modern Fujinon lens, I can echo what Jim is saying here from my own observations. These lenses, though both are small and 80mm on medium format, are worlds apart in the way they render... and I'm also talking about at f/8, not just wide apertures. The contrast and tonality produced by each is so very, very different. I would guess that the difference in LF lenses is not as great, but it must be there.

Contrast, tonality and color rendering is one thing I forgot to cover in my original post. But with modern lenses there shouldn't be differences that big. All my modern lenses look damn close in this area. Now a lens from 1950's-1960's VS a modern lens, that is a different story. Probably a more detectable difference in this area.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Folks,

Some of you own way too many lenses... :)

I have three lenses, I had four, and I buy Schneider for 8X10. My 4X5 lenses were Rodenstock. I never did see a difference in sharpness between the two manufacturers, but I surely did see a difference in their contrast, and for a short while, I owned Fujinon 300, where I quickly turfed it because it produced too much contrast. I have never been a fan of Japanese large format glass because of the higher than expected contrast levels.

Lenses are not just about weight, size, shutters, image circles, nor are they just about being the sharpest on the planet. What matters most to me happens to be the character of the lens, its ability to perform, and its ability to produce flawless tonality, whether the MTF says it is superb or not, and if it is, that chart just happens to look good on the lens's resume. I would still carry a lens anywhere, once I cherished the lens for its inherent characteristics, even if it weighed ten kilograms.

jim k

My Fuji 300 8.5 C definitely is a strong contrast lens, which I don't really mind in a long lens. The Nikon 360 8 tele is not too bad though, and actually probably needs to be underexposed by 1/3 of a stop to increase contrast a little because of the long focal length. My 75 4.5 and 180 5.6 Nikons also don't have excessive contrast in my opinion.

Now my Rodenstock 90 6.8 150 5.6 and 210 5.6 are quite contrasty and are almost as bad as the Fuji 300. I use a Acra-Swiss lens hood all the time with all lenses.

Edit: I also want to mention that a lens that is quite contrasty can be a problem at times with a film like vevia 50 it can help a film like astia 100F.

[jim kitchen]

I think among modern, multi-coated lenses the differences are negligible....

Dear Paul,

You are probably correct, but it bothered me enough that I had to change my processing to accommodate the lens, which I could see in the finished image... :)

That was something I was unprepared to do, nor did I have the time to remember, while capturing an image in the field. It was a sharp lens, though. My reference to Rodenstock lenses while using my 4X5 produced more contrast than my 4X5 Schneider glass, which happened to be a feature that I desired many years ago, compared to not, and while using the smaller negative.

jim k

[John NYC]

My Fuji 300 8.5 C definitely is a strong contrast lens, which I don't really mind in a long lens. The Nikon 360 8 tele is not too bad though, and actually probably needs to be underexposed by 1/3 of a stop to increase contrast a little because of the long focal length. My 75 4.5 and 180 5.6 Nikons also don't have excessive contrast in my opinion.

Now my Rodenstock 90 6.8 150 5.6 and 210 5.6 are quite contrasty and are almost as bad as the Fuji 300. I use a Acra-Swiss lens hood all the time with all lenses.

Edit: I also want to mention that a lens that is quite contrasty can be a problem at times with a film like vevia 50 it can help a film like astia 100F.

Hang on. In your response to my post above, you are saying the contrast differences in modern lenses are basically too small to care about and in this post you are comparing and contrasting modern lenses like there are differences big enough that have cause you problems.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Hang on. In your response to my post above, you are saying the contrast differences in modern lenses are basically too small to care about and in this post you are comparing and contrasting modern lenses like there are differences big enough that have cause you problems.

Well to go so far as to say it may have caused me problems is going a bit far. I'm just saying the differences are there but they are small. Stuff you really ain't going to notice at first glance and even after scrutinizing nothing to get worked about. If one of my lenses was causing me problems I would have sold it, and I ain't selling any of my lenses.

With the 360 I underexpose a little because it's a tele and I did the same thing with my 200mm Pentax 6x7 lens. Telephoto lenses bring out the haze in the sky more than a wide angle or normal lens and it washes out the image a tad in my opinion. This is the reason I don't mind a tad more contrast that the Fuji 300 has.

I also was trying to point out that in my opinion Rodenstock lenses are just as contrasty as Japan glass. Some feel Schneider is the least contrasty of the Big Four and they are probably right but I just looked through Jack Dykinga's large format book shot with Schneider glass and they also look quite contrasty to me. Hell my single coated Canon 24mm FD 2.8 lens has strong contrast.

Contrast can be increased or decreased in processing or printing but I can't add a bigger image circle to a lens or make a big lens smaller. If a lens like a Fuji 240A has a bit too much contrast on some shots then tone it down a little in the printing stage, but having a 240mm in a copal 0 and a 52mm front in a small and light package is sweet.

Two examples of how I bought a lens:

Rodenstock 65 4.5 grandadon: I wanted a 65mm and all the big aperture ones have the same image circle but the Rodenstock has a smaller front [58] and is a little smaller. Some people also stated that the light falloff is better on the grandagon so a better chance I wouldn't need a center filter and if I did the center filter for the lens is a 58-77 and I standardize on 77mm filters. I would not need 86mm filters which are expensive and can be hard to find. The 4.5 aperture is icing on the cake.

Nikon 180 5.6 W: I wanted a plasmat for this focal length and they differ little in a focal length like this between the Big Four. I just looked for the best deal. The rodenstock didn't come up at all. A Fuji in good condition came up but sold before I could buy it. A Nikon and Schneider came up at about the same time but the Nikon was $100 cheaper and I didn't feel the Schneider was worth the price difference so I picked up the Nikon and have been very happy with it.

[jeroldharter]

...
Hey jeroldharter, I was just being a smartass, I am one most of the time, life is too short and I like to have a little fun. Plus I thought you where poking a little at me with your post which doesn't bother me any so I poked back a little. All the people I know and myself always give each other crap and I wouldn't have it any other way. Messing with strangers is fun too you know. Plus I had a little buzz from this BadBoy (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/423/50570) CHEERS :-) ;-) Rust "The snotty" Never "Attitude adjustment needed" Sleeps

No problem.

[John NYC]

Well to go so far as to say it may have caused me problems is going a bit far. I'm just saying the differences are there but they are small. Stuff you really ain't going to notice at first glance and even after scrutinizing nothing to get worked about. If one of my lenses was causing me problems I would have sold it, and I ain't selling any of my lenses.


It is really person dependent whether these small differences matter to one or not. They do exist in my view.

While it is easy to add contrast in post processing or printing, it is much harder to reduce it effectively in my experience.

[Bob Salomon]

It is really person dependent whether these small differences matter to one or not. They do exist in my view.

While it is easy to add contrast in post processing or printing, it is much harder to reduce it effectively in my experience.

Reduce the developing time. Or, if you are controlling the lighting, change the ratio.

[John NYC]

Reduce the developing time.

That will reduce overall contrast alright, but won't change a lens that has a lot of local contrast emphasis into one that doesn't.