Mike Johnson/The Best Lenses

[sully75]

Hello All,

I've thought a big about this post from Mike Johnson:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/04/open-mike-on-clutter-and-some-cameras-for-sale.html

"The best 4x5 lens...I mean the best. In my oh-so-very-far-from-humble opinion. The awesome, sharp-as-sh*t glorioski überlens, the Rodenstock Hosanna Hosanna Apo-Sironar-S 135mm ƒ/5.6. $1,400 new. You could live the rest of your life on this lens, food, one woman, any 4x5, and a lean-to made of saplings. Oooh-kay. It's late and I'd better be getting some rest now. Like new, in box, with papers and caps. $795 + shipping. SOLD"

Just wondering, what are your opinions about other "perfect" lenses? That's a little wide for my taste. Also a little expensive (I know, I know). But if you were dreaming about lenses, which lenses would you dream about?

For my own purposes, I'm less interested in older lenses, more in super versatile but still really beautiful modern lenses. But things that are affordable, and still great, would be nice to hear about too.

It's a vague question, but I'm ok with people rambling about particular favorites.

Thanks
Paul

[sully75]

and I guess talking about the greatest user old lenses would be interesting too. knock yourselves out.

[Bill_1856]

A set of coated DAGORs -- 120, 150, and 210 mm in modern reliable shutters. The iceing on the cake would be a 14" Kern/Schneider Dagor.

[Jan Pedersen]

A set of coated DAGORs -- 120, 150, and 210 mm in modern reliable shutters. The iceing on the cake would be a 14" Kern/Schneider Dagor.

Just what my doctor ordered and i listened!

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Funny that the referenced blog by MJ was about reducing his unused clutter. He prattles on with such superlatives about something he can let go that easily?

OTOH, I readily agree that I could spend the rest of my LF with one good "normal" lens-- but perhaps only because I have other formats that handle the wide and long ends better than LF.

I'd pick something with more image circle if limited to one lens. A 210mm apochromatic Plasmat like my Caltar IIN would do just fine.

And, perhaps like Mike, I could part with it for the right price. Knowing that if I did-- or if (gasp!) I dropped it onto a rock tomorrow-- I could replace it readily as easily as any other ubiquitous commodity item, for about what I paid for it ($185).

[Michael Graves]

Me? I'm happy with the lens that's on my camera at the time. Although I confess an affinity to older Tessar designs. Preferably single-coated.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I really like my 480 mm Xenar on my 8x10 and yes I also like it on my 4x5, its fully open a bit soft but it has a very nice out of focus transition and comes in this to the quality of my beloved Universal Heliar!
If I would like to get the killing sharpness then I take my Sinaron SE 240mm its even sharper then all woman;--))

Cheers Armin

[Mark Sampson]

From your fourth paragraph, I'd suggest the 203/7.7 Ektar (or its equivalent, the 203/7.5 Graflex Optar). Covers 5x7 (versatile), beautiful tone rendition (subjective, I admit), very sharp, 'modern' (post WWII, so coated), small and light, not expensive, and fairly common.

[Ari]

Fujinon-W 210, older version.
Uber-sharp and a 352mm image circle.

[ic-racer]

Fujinon-W 210, older version.
Uber-sharp and a 352mm image circle.

Shhh...;)

[cdholden]

Just what my doctor ordered and i listened!

The Docter would prescribe a Germinar.

[Dan Fromm]

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

[sully75]

Dan,

I think it's entirely ok on a photography site to talk about some dream lenses. Currently I'm pretty pleased with the results from my mismatched crap. If anything, I'd like to pair down the stable to stuff that really works for me.

Ok by you?
P

[Dan Fromm]

Paul, I quit dreaming, at least about lenses, after I learned that "good enough" means just that. It seems that everyone has to learn this for himself.

I went through a small pile of lenses before ending up with a mismatched set of who know what that are mainly at least good enough. Read about my adventures at http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

Stop dreaming, start acquiring.

Cheers,

Dan

[sully75]

wow. that's exactly the approach I don't want to take.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Fujinon-W 210, older version.
Uber-sharp and a 352mm image circle.

Sure. And the little bigger W 250/6,7 that I bought like new in this forum...
Both make my life a bit more interesting.

[D. Bryant]

Hello All,

I've thought a big about this post from Mike Johnson:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/04/open-mike-on-clutter-and-some-cameras-for-sale.html

"The best 4x5 lens...I mean the best. In my oh-so-very-far-from-humble opinion. The awesome, sharp-as-sh*t glorioski überlens, the Rodenstock Hosanna Hosanna Apo-Sironar-S 135mm ƒ/5.6. $1,400 new. You could live the rest of your life on this lens, food, one woman, any 4x5, and a lean-to made of saplings. Oooh-kay. It's late and I'd better be getting some rest now. Like new, in box, with papers and caps. $795 + shipping. SOLD"

Just wondering, what are your opinions about other "perfect" lenses? That's a little wide for my taste. Also a little expensive (I know, I know). But if you were dreaming about lenses, which lenses would you dream about?

For my own purposes, I'm less interested in older lenses, more in super versatile but still really beautiful modern lenses. But things that are affordable, and still great, would be nice to hear about too.

It's a vague question, but I'm ok with people rambling about particular favorites.

Thanks
Paul

MJ has been writing about the same topics for years. Normal lenses is just one of his repeats. Take what he writes with a grain of salt. His columns can be an entertaining read and can be very polished but after 20 plus years I've learned to not take anything he writes too seriously.

[mdm]

The only reason he writes anything is to bring his please donate radio button to your attention.

[jnantz]

150mm computar symmetrigon sharp and huge image circle
wollensak triple convertible ( 1a ) beautiful wide open and sharp as a tack stopped down ( giant image circle )

[rdenney]

wow. that's exactly the approach I don't want to take.

Here's the approach you should take:

First, describe how you do photography. What subjects do you choose, what camera positions, what perspective projections, what camera movements, what desired rendering, what sort of film, how you'll display it, what display quality you expect. Write that down in series of scenarios, such as: "I make pictures on transparency film of buildings from a close position with an exaggerated sense of perspective, but always with verticals vertical" or "I make Velvia pictures of flowers with a softly blurred background plus a smooth transition from focused to unfocused, but expect the image to be ultra-sharp in the focus plane" or "I photograph landscape subjects on FP4 from a long distance and use long focal lengths to isolate the subject" or "I photograph cars on Astia for the auto industry that must be as sharp as can be rendered by a 133-line screen in process color on a two-page spread in a magazine" or "I make landscape photos on color film for dye-transfer printing that I expect to provide critical color accuracy as a record of the actual color of the subject" or "I make near-field color photos of trees and leaves that require considerable camera movements for fine manipulation of the focus plane." Then, write down the stories how how the images are displayed. "I make 30x40" inkjet prints for gallery display and for sales, and expect them to provide a high MTF at the maximum resolution of the viewer's unaided eye" might be an example, to go along with the dye transfer or magazine process color examples above. Don't forget to include in your stories how you will transport the camera, such as "I never take the camera more than 20 feet from the car" or "I backpack with the camera for 20 miles a day."

Then, write down what the equipment has to do to make those stories possible. If the story of prints is what can be printed using an Epson 3800, then the requirement for a lens used with 4x5 would be 30-35 line-pairs/mm at reasonable MTF. Sharpness beyond that will not be visible on a print that size, unless you expect the viewer to have a magnifier (and then they'll find the limit of what the Epson can do). You'll end up with lens requirements that look something like this:

-The lens shall a minimum of 35 line pairs/mm at f/16.
-The lens shall provide ___ mm of image circle at the minimum resolution.
-The lens shall provide a smooth rendering of out-of-focus areas. (Yes, this is subjective, but then you have to evaluate the tools of art in subjective terms--the mistake is not knowing what you want to evaluate.)
-The lens shall provide a maximum aperture of f/5.6.
-The lens shall weigh no more than ___.
-The lens shall fit in a backpack pocket no larger than ___.

Each of these should emerge directly from some explicit statement in the stories. That way, you know that your requirements are driven by what you'll actually do.

Then, evaluate the lenses on the market that fulfill all the requirements.

For example, many come here and say, "What is the very, very, very, very best lens on the market?" and they get vague answers, such as "for what purpose?"

But if you came on the forum and said, "I require a lens that provides 60 lp/mm at an MTF of 60% for the central 2/3rds of the image, with a focal length of 90mm, and an image circle of at least 210mm. It does not need to provide smooth out-of-focus rendering because I don't intend to let anything get that far outside the depth of field. Weight and size is not an issue, nor is maximum aperture. What are my choices for X dollars?" That sort of question will receive very specific answers because the requirements are carefully laid out.

Too much work, you say? If so, then one must ask--how much time does one spend poring over lens tests and reading about how the APO-Sironar-S is that much better than the APO-Sironar-N. If that time was spent thinking about what one intends to do instead of just "wanting the very very very best", the result might fulfill all expectations and cost quite a bit less. Photographers new to large format who cannot yet articulate all those scenarios should just buy something cheap and popular so they can learn what they will do with the camera. Once they know what they need, they can write specific requirements. If the cheap lens doesn't fulfill those requirements, they can sell it for what they paid for it (as in, free rent) and buy what does fulfill those requirements. My first 90 was a Graflex WA, and I learned I need a 90 that has lots of coverage. My current 90 is a Super Angulon MC f/5.6. That Optar WA is still worth more than what I paid for it.

I am unlikely to ever print larger than 16x20, but I expect those prints to have rich tonality and a sense of detail beyond what I can get with smaller formats. But that print size is actually not demanding of the lenses at all. So, instead of moving to MJ's desert island with one $1400 lens, I have six lenses that cover all of my personal scenarios, and they are all good enough.

I mean, if you require a 90mm lens for a given photograph, then that 135 just plain sucks, no matter how sharp it is.

Rick "this is called systems engineering, and it's a way to buy what will actually meet your needs without depending on luck" Denney

[anglophone1]

The only reason he writes anything is to bring his please donate radio button to your attention.

So you work for free, do you?

[MIke Sherck]

If there were a "perfect" lens, we'd all have one.

As best I can tell, we don't.

;) Mike

[mdm]

So you work for free, do you?

I write a blog for free and have done for many years. I have no probem with advertising on a site such as his, I would willingly give him a small loan through Kiva.com if he had a business proposition. Aparrently Luminous Landscape runs as a business, they seem to sell stuff rather than beg for dimes. The constant scrounging got to me, I gave up on him after my naive beginner stage.

[sully75]

huh. I like what the guy writes, occasionally buy something through Amazon through his site, have never really noticed him asking for handouts, not sure he ever does. He sells prints sometimes? I generally like the guy's taste in photography and cameras. He also points out some pretty amazing shit on amazon (8 volume August Sander set for $90). I've never felt coerced into buying anything.

Generally I'm pretty surprised the guy can keep doing what he's doing because he rarely does ask for anything. I'm not sure what your issues are with the guy.

Geesh. Thought it was a pretty low-stress question.

[sully75]

ps some people get off on doing extensive lens tests and stuff like that, I'm pretty happy to have someone else tell me what a great lens is and then get that and take pictures with it.

[domaz]

huh. I like what the guy writes

Agreed- I read his blog. Sometimes I like what he writes, sometimes not. They ask for donations like most other blogs I read. So what. So to put it in 21st century terms: What's with all the haters?

[Robert Hughes]

+1 for Rick Denny's post above.

Top notch lenses are great, but so are those humble tessars and triplets clogging our lens drawers. If I can't get a good shot with a tessar, I probably can't get it with one of those Apo-Sironar überlenses either.

[Michael E]

But if you were dreaming about lenses, which lenses would you dream about?

I just fulfilled a dream and exchanged my favorite lens, a 121/8 Super Angulon, against a smaller lens, a 120/6.8 Angulon. Now I can fold my 4x5" Tachihara with the lens attached and have even less bulk and weight to carry. Perfect.

Michael

[DrTang]

for me..Zeiss hammered it down with the Plannar