Best Non-Digital LF Lens with Digital Backs

[pdmoylan]

Posts from international forums suggest that there are severe limitations to using traditional LF lenses with Digital Backs. Have any forum participants tested different options and identified top performers for digital capture?

[Daniel Stone]

A guy I've assisted for has had great results with his APO-Symmar 150mm, and also with a 135mm APO-Sironar S.

Not as "sharp" as the digital-designed lenses of similar focal-length's, but the added image circle is the primary reason for using them vs the digital-designed ones.

-Dan

[pdmoylan]

Thanks for the input Dan. Very helpful.

[goamules]

I'd be interested to know more about this. I assumed sharpness was sharpness, and that a lens would act the same regardless of what it was projecting onto. How is a lens designed differently for digital?

[pdmoylan]

One can find technical information offered both by Rodenstock and Schneider. I have found two Eurozone blog sites with pros who offer made-for-digital lens suggestions, and their experience with various newer products. It appears that most of these lenses have radical reduction of lateral chromatic aberation, very strictive movements, and with maximum useful apertures of F11.

I had hoped to find a silverbullet series of well corrected traditional lenses which could serve the purpose. From what I have read, many suffer from color fringing and strange color streaking when movements are used. I am not well versed to offer any technical information.

[Robert Jonathan]

I'd be interested to know more about this. I assumed sharpness was sharpness, and that a lens would act the same regardless of what it was projecting onto. How is a lens designed differently for digital?

Your assumption seems reasonable, but in fact, is very, very wrong. :)

The Rodenstock HR series of lenses, and some of the Schneider Digitar lenses are the sharpest lenses available to normal people like us, but don't expect to shoot 4x5 with them.

They make the best 4x5 lenses look like soda bottles. The APO-Symmars and Sironar-S lenses should perform okay, but the digital lenses are designed to be at their best at large apertures (f/4-f/11), which is optimum when you're shooting digital.

Shoot the film lenses wide open with digital, and you're in Chromatic Abberation city. The digital lenses have NONE.

Actually some of the Digitars will cover 4x5, like the 120mm, even though the documentation says it doesn't, but the Rodenstocks have much smaller image circles for the most part.

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/Digitar.pdf

[rdenney]

The digital lenses are also designed to have high MTF at spatial frequencies more appropriate to digital sensors, to provide a stronger edge effect for edges that will be resolved by the sensor.

And they come in short focal lengths needed by the small sensors (small when compared with sheet film), which requires a bit of retrofocus design to for mechanical convenience and to minimize fall-off, which is a bigger problem with sensors that have deep wells for the sensor sites.

They take advantage of the low-dispersion glass and possible aspheric designs, which are common in higher-end small-format lenses but have not been common in large-format lenses. And they give up coverage.

All that said, a conventional large-format lens that will provide 8x enlargement at a given quality with film will provide 8x enlargement at the same quality with a digital back, not counting the effects of the film and the sensor. When the sensor is no bigger than 645 medium format, though, larger enlargement ratios will be needed to make prints of a given size, and thus more demands are made on the lenses. A 16x20 print that only requires a 4x enlargement with 4x5 will require an 8x enlargement with the bigger digital backs (not including the scanning backs, which are truly large format). Lens faults will get enlarged twice as much.

Also because of the greater enlargement ratios, diffraction will get enlarged twice as much, and so the lens will be used at a larger aperture, which places additional demands on lens performance.

And one final psychological difference. When making a photo on film, one views the negative on a light table with perhaps a 4x loupe, and maybe a 10x loupe to check focus. Then, one looks at the enlarged image at print size. Then, digital cameras came out and we started looking at images on computer monitors with a 1:1 relationship between sensels and pixels. That is often some significant multiple of any useful print size. Lens flaws that would never have bothered us at print size glowed in the dark at actual pixels on a computer monitor. When I bought my first digital camera, I immediately felt the need to replace my lenses. And as we demand better and better lenses (meaning we're willing to pay more and more), digital sensors get denser and denser, and so we are looking at them on the computer monitor at higher and higher enlargement ratios that are less realistic than ever of any print we might actually make. Digital cameras sell lenses.

Rick "noting the fabulously high prices of high-end small-format lenses that have had to improve greatly for all the same reasons" Denney

[mdm]

What about a modern apo ronar 150mm and 240mm in shutter. They are very sharp and well corrected, and seem sharp even wide open at f9. I think my 240mm ronar is sharper than my 210 sironar s, specially wide open and closer than infinity. Probably dark on a tiny groundglass though. There is a 100mm Sironar N for sale on the FS board for a very reasonable price, it should be the equal of most anything.

[Robert Jonathan]

You'd have to do a test for yourself to find out if a Sironar N is optimum with digital, vs. digital lenses.

However, the smallest aperture I would shoot with a 645 or 36x48mm sensor is f/8. Are you telling me that a Sironar N shot wide open, or at f/8 will give me optimum sharpness and be free of chromatic abberation with an 80MP sensor with rather small pixels?

Don't think so...

[rdenney]

You'd have to do a test for yourself to find out if a Sironar N is optimum with digital, vs. digital lenses.

However, the smallest aperture I would shoot with a 645 or 36x48mm sensor is f/8. Are you telling me that a Sironar N shot wide open, or at f/8 will give me optimum sharpness and be free of chromatic abberation with an 80MP sensor with rather small pixels?

Don't think so...

You must be shooting flat test targets. The three-dimensions subjects I shoot need more depth of field than f/8 provides.

Rick "who'll take diffraction over grossly unfocused any day" Denney

[Greg Miller]

I'd be interested to know more about this. I assumed sharpness was sharpness, and that a lens would act the same regardless of what it was projecting onto. How is a lens designed differently for digital?

One big difference is altering how light gets to the wells nearing the perimeter of the sensor. The wells collect photons best when light enters them straight on, rather than at an angle.

Think of shooting ping pong balls into a tube. You will be more successful when shooting the balls at the tube straight, rather than at an angle.

For wells in the middle of the senor, light tends to enter straight on. But as you move away from the center of the sensor, light enters at more and more acute angles. The design of digital lenses attempts to minimize the angle of entry as much as possible.

[rdenney]

One big difference is altering how light gets to the wells nearing the perimeter of the sensor. The wells collect photons best when light enters them straight on, rather than at an angle.

Think of shooting ping pong balls into a tube. You will be more successful when shooting the balls at the tube straight, rather than at an angle.

For wells in the middle of the senor, light tends to enter straight on. But as you move away from the center of the sensor, light enters at more and more acute angles. The design of digital lenses attempts to minimize the angle of entry as much as possible.

Yes, this is one of the reasons why the digital lenses have more of a retrofocus design. But I wonder if this effect is overstated. There were many who stated that only the digital design lenses would avoid obscene falloff on digital sensors, but I have used a variety of pre-digital lenses on my Canon 5D without seeing any worse falloff than I would have seen on film. Those lenses run the gamut from a Russian 16mm fisheye to a 14mm rectilinear Sigma that definitely predates the move to digital. Sure, these are strongly retrofocus because of avoiding the mirror box, but they certainly were not made specifically to deal with this issue.

It might be an issue with a very short view camera lens used at the edge of its coverage, like, say, a 47mm Super Angulon (pre-XL), which was designed decades before digital sensors. It is only slightly retrofocus, and even on film there is a 3-4-stop falloff in the corners at the edge of its coverage at f/22. The light rays are definitely approaching that image surface at an extremely shallow angles. But that lens has a focal length about 40% of its image circle, which is far beyond the coverage of any of the digital lenses.

Rick "suspecting much of this has been talk without test" Denney

[engl]

There is a very real problem when using digital sensors together with non-retrofocus wide lenses, and that is color shift. Instead of going though one color filter then hitting a sensel, the light rays go though two color filters before hitting the sensel. This results in odd color casts outside the center of the image.

Schneider made a Super Angulon, more or less no retrofocus at all, for Leica. Ken Rockwell has a demonstration what happens when that lens is used with a digital Leica M9:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/21mm-f4.htm


There were many who stated that only the digital design lenses would avoid obscene falloff on digital sensors, but I have used a variety of pre-digital lenses on my Canon 5D without seeing any worse falloff than I would have seen on film. Those lenses run the gamut from a Russian 16mm fisheye to a 14mm rectilinear Sigma that definitely predates the move to digital. Sure, these are strongly retrofocus because of avoiding the mirror box, but they certainly were not made specifically to deal with this issue.


Anyone claiming that a lens has to be "designed for digital" to avoid vignetting is of course wrong. But, digital sensors work better with light coming straight on, so any "designed for digital" wide is going to be retrofocus to avoid color shifts.

[Adamphotoman]

As the pixel size decreases in size the lens needs to resolve better. Fine grained film requires a lens to resolve to what the film is capable of. The newer smaller chips have need of finer resolving power as they are essentially, finer grained with smaller pixel sizes.
Even with the Betterlight scanning backs when you go from a Super 6K to an 8K and then to a 10K the lenses need to be better and better to resolve the smaller pixel sizes; which go from 12 microns to 9 microns and to 6 microns in size. The Super 6 K may not see much difference between an Apo Symmar and an Apo Sironar S but a Super 10K sure does. The 180mm Digital Apo Sironar and the 180 Apo Sironar S that I tested were similar in performance so the extra $ for the digital lens was not merited. Add that the digital had less coverage for movements and the case is closed.
Smaller 645 or 3X3 inch chip sizes need better lenses. You might see the difference on film too but it would depend on the film's capability.
Most colour emulsions are stacked in layers. Theoretically the focus or the magnification of each of the RGB layers would want to be stacked as well. With digital scan backs and Bayer sensors the RGB magnifications are on the same flat plane. Better coatings on the back elements help stop internal ghosting and reflections.

[rdenney]

As the pixel size decreases in size the lens needs to resolve better. Fine grained film requires a lens to resolve to what the film is capable of. The newer smaller chips have need of finer resolving power as they are essentially, finer grained with smaller pixel sizes.

This is commonly stated but it is only true if 1.) resolution is the goal and 2.) one desires the system to be limited by the sensor. If the lens in question provided sufficient resolution for film of the same format size, then it will provide that resolution with a digital back, even if the digital back is able to see the flaws in the lens (I'm excepting the more narrow considerations of very short lenses described in previous posts). Again, one only notices the flaws a 6-micron sensel sees if one is enlarging to the point where those flaws become a problem. Those limits would exist for that lens for film as much as for a digital sensor.

The issue is not that digital sensors have smaller sensels, but rather that they are smaller overall, and require greater enlargement for a given print size.

I have frequently used film that resolved better than the lens in use and still been perfectly satisfied with the results. It is no different with digital sensors.

Rick "who measures need in terms of desired prints" Denney

[Steve M Hostetter]

I used a 115mm Rodenstock and the image got muddy (out of focus) as you shifted on distant objects but did better on closer subjects..
I used a 165mm Schneider and it gave much better results even when shifted.

[Ed Kelsey]

I think a Super Symmar HM 120mm would be good enough. They problem will be with wider angles.

[Noah A]

Yes, this is one of the reasons why the digital lenses have more of a retrofocus design. But I wonder if this effect is overstated. There were many who stated that only the digital design lenses would avoid obscene falloff on digital sensors, but I have used a variety of pre-digital lenses on my Canon 5D without seeing any worse falloff than I would have seen on film. Those lenses run the gamut from a Russian 16mm fisheye to a 14mm rectilinear Sigma that definitely predates the move to digital. Sure, these are strongly retrofocus because of avoiding the mirror box, but they certainly were not made specifically to deal with this issue....


I've never used LF lenses on digital, but I did try out a Leica M9 for a while, and it was a nightmare in terms of edge color shifts with wide lenses. With the 28mm and wider lenses, the edges would have a strong color shift. It was (somewhat) fixed with firmware trickery, but it was a real problem.

The M9 has microlenses on the CCD, as do some digital backs. Those particular backs, if I'm not mistaken, aren't recommended for shift lenses or technical cameras because of asymmetric color shifts and possible sharpness issues when light hits the microlenses at extreme angles. Digital backs with CCDs without microlenses are recommended if you're using lens shifts. Even in that case, software fixes may be required to get rid of color casts with wide lenses or large lens movements.

I would suspect that current longer lenses could work decently well on digital. Lenses like the Apo Sironar S for example. I know the 135mm, 150mm and 210mm versions are extremely sharp and because of the longer flange distance, I doubt the edges will suffer even if you use some movements. You'll have to focus very carefully and avoid stopping down too far to avoid losing too much sharpness to diffraction.

[engl]

This is commonly stated but it is only true if 1.) resolution is the goal and 2.) one desires the system to be limited by the sensor. If the lens in question provided sufficient resolution for film of the same format size, then it will provide that resolution with a digital back, even if the digital back is able to see the flaws in the lens (I'm excepting the more narrow considerations of very short lenses described in previous posts). Again, one only notices the flaws a 6-micron sensel sees if one is enlarging to the point where those flaws become a problem. Those limits would exist for that lens for film as much as for a digital sensor.

The issue is not that digital sensors have smaller sensels, but rather that they are smaller overall, and require greater enlargement for a given print size.

I have frequently used film that resolved better than the lens in use and still been perfectly satisfied with the results. It is no different with digital sensors.

Rick "who measures need in terms of desired prints" Denney

For people buying 40k$ digital backs and 10k$ lenses, I think it is pretty safe to assume that resolution and massive print size potential is the goal. There is no "need" of a sharper lens in the sense that a soft lens will result in a blank photo, but a top of the line lens is needed to see the resolution potential that you paid 40k$ for.

It is no stranger than all the people here who will tell you that you need a sturdy tripod for LF.

[engl]

It might be an issue with a very short view camera lens used at the edge of its coverage, like, say, a 47mm Super Angulon (pre-XL), which was designed decades before digital sensors. It is only slightly retrofocus, and even on film there is a 3-4-stop falloff in the corners at the edge of its coverage at f/22. The light rays are definitely approaching that image surface at an extremely shallow angles. But that lens has a focal length about 40% of its image circle, which is far beyond the coverage of any of the digital lenses.


The HR Digaron-S 23/5.6 has a 70mm image circle, in other words, a focal length of about 33% of its image circle. It covers 112 degrees, while the SA 47/5.6 covers 105 degrees.

Edit: and none of them are close to the Canon TS-E 17mm, with an 67mm image circle (focal length is 25% of its image circle), and 125 degrees coverage.

[rdenney]

For people buying 40k$ digital backs and 10k$ lenses

I don't think that describes the full range of this subject. Used digital backs that are easily adapted to large-format cameras are available for far less than that amount.

But that wasn't the point in any case. The point was to think of the whole system as a system, based on the photographer's objectives. I suspect there are many commercial photographers using high-end digital backs whose output will never exceed the size of a double-page spread in a magazine, printed in process color with a 133-line screen. If a 210mm Fubaron was adequate for doing commercial work on film, it will probably be adequate for doing the same commercial work on a digital back. There are some special issues with very short lenses that have extreme coverage angles, but those have been fully discussed in this thread.

But when we look at that digital image on the computer monitor five or ten times the size we would ever considering printing it, lens flaws we see are much more conspicuous.

Rick "who can think of many real scenarios where someone spending a few thousand can put a digital something-or-other on their view camera" Denney

[Adamphotoman]

Which sensor sizes are you talking about? smaller sensors on the 4X5 or scan back size?

The Betterlight is closer to 3X4 inches or 72 mm X 96 mm. Some of those 4X5 digital lenses will cover.

From the 25 plus lenses that I have tested in the last year using the Betterlight/ Zig align/ Equalight/ and focus verification and a 40megapixel Phase ----only the Apo Sironar S lenses were sharp all the time. Wider apertures were needed to prevent noise. f:8 was very good. A whole lot of fine detail shows up.

Apo Ronars are best at f:22 but this is hard to achieve without lots of light and since diffraction sets in at f:16...well they are on the edge & I am on the fence...

Apo Sironar N lenses really want to be shot at f:22 to but they perform well at f:16. Not wider. Great for infinity but not so good for table top.

Nikkor Apo 120AMED not the sharpest knife in the drawer...

Shneider Apo Macro HM truly amazing for the application that they were intended.

Old glass...while not sharp very very beautiful!!!!

So it all depends what you shoot and what you need.

And since digital printers are quite forgiving, you won't be able to tell the difference on smaller prints matt papers and canvas anyway...

g

[Robert Jonathan]

Which sensor sizes are you talking about? smaller sensors on the 4X5 or scan back size?

The Betterlight is closer to 3X4 inches or 72 mm X 96 mm. Some of those 4X5 digital lenses will cover.

From the 25 plus lenses that I have tested in the last year using the Betterlight/ Zig align/ Equalight/ and focus verification and a 40megapixel Phase ----only the Apo Sironar S lenses were sharp all the time. Wider apertures were needed to prevent noise. f:8 was very good. A whole lot of fine detail shows up.

Apo Ronars are best at f:22 but this is hard to achieve without lots of light and since diffraction sets in at f:16...well they are on the edge & I am on the fence...

Apo Sironar N lenses really want to be shot at f:22 to but they perform well at f:16. Not wider. Great for infinity but not so good for table top.

Nikkor Apo 120AMED not the sharpest knife in the drawer...

Shneider Apo Macro HM truly amazing for the application that they were intended.

Old glass...while not sharp very very beautiful!!!!

So it all depends what you shoot and what you need.

And since digital printers are quite forgiving, you won't be able to tell the difference on smaller prints matt papers and canvas anyway...

g

That's some good info Adam, thanks.

Regarding your comments on the Rodenstock 180 sironar digital macro vs. the regular sironar macro, I'm kind of guessing that Rodenstock first rolled out a line of "Sironar Digital" lenses, and then they ended up testing the ones that really stood out.

The lenses that really stood out were placed and renamed as the "HR Digaron-W" line of lenses, and the ones that really, really, really stood out were named as the "HR Digaron-S" line of lenses, which are the best that they have, though, they tend to have the smallest image circle of them all.

I suppose this is why the 180 digital macro isn't all that different from the non-digital macro. It was never rebadged as an HR lens.

One lens that I can recall as being rebadged is the 90mm f/5.6 Sironar digital. It is the SAME lens as the 90mm f/5.6 HR Digaron-W that they sell now, at a very high price.

[Adamphotoman]

Please Lets get back to the origin of the thread here. I can talk a whole lot about testing (digital) lenses but the post is:

[[[Re: Best Non-Digital LF Lens with Digital Backs]]]

Okay off the topic for a moment and then quickly back! There are differences with the digital lenses. Lots of slow incremental changes taking place...on an on going basis...bit by bit (pun intended)...

But for now I believe in the Apo Sironar S lenses. And I suggest that a lot of other folks do too because these are the lenses that demand higher resell values except for the Macros which are rare and higher priced, and then there are the digital lenses which are higher priced still...

I don't want to bash other manufacturers; but from our testing there is a whole lot less sample variation with the Apo Sironar S's... Now we are just talking normal not wide angle...or telephoto designs.

Again it depends on what you shoot and what you want to do.

I make 30 foot prints. I see the difference.

If you are shooting film or smaller res digital Scan backs most lenses will meet your needs.

The smaller chip sets on 4X5 shift cameras are quite another issue.

If you don't think that the smaller chips don't need higher res lenses, well, think about this.
Olympus Super high grade digital lenses [expensive] are needed with the 1/2 sized sensors to be close to equal to
the cropped sensor Nikon and Canon cameras. Why is that?




for Robert Jonathan
Please re read.
i didn't actually talk about some of the lenses that you mentioned... Don't take offence please, I don't...

Cheers Grant,
Yeah yeah my handle is Adamphotoman... My middle name is Adam so that is cool

[Robert Jonathan]

Grant, no offense taken.

I now realize you weren't talking about the macro lenses, but what I said above still applies to the lenses you DID happen to mention.

[genotypewriter]

I've never used LF lenses on digital, but I did try out a Leica The M9 has microlenses on the CCD, as do some digital backs. Those particular backs, if I'm not mistaken, aren't recommended for shift lenses or technical cameras because of asymmetric color shifts and possible sharpness issues when light hits the microlenses at extreme angles. Digital backs with CCDs without microlenses are recommended if you're using lens shifts. Even in that case, software fixes may be required to get rid of color casts with wide lenses or large lens movements.I can't think of any current digital sensors that don't have micro lenses. Some of them even have gap-less microlenses (e.g. Canon 50D).

The problem with the M9 is the offset microlenses which is a design that's not optimal because it's an interchangeable lens camera. So, all sorts of crazy radial sensor artifacts can be seen on M9 images.

The Fuji X100, which also has offset microlenses (but an APS-C sensor) seems to be fairing much better because it's a fixed lens camera and the manufacturers are in better control.

G

[Bob Salomon]

"One lens that I can recall as being rebadged is the 90mm f/5.6 Sironar digital. It is the SAME lens as the 90mm f/5.6 HR Digaron-W that they sell now, at a very high price."

First there were the Apo Sironar Digital and the Apo Sironar Digital HR lenses.

Rodenstock decided, a couple of years after these were introduced that the names were too long and the HR designation had some people thinking that the Apo Sironar Digital was not a high resolution lens. So they decided to rename the two series as new production took place. So:

The Apo Sironar Digital lenses were renamed HR Digaron W
The Apo Sironar Digital HR lenses were renamed HR Digaron S

The Apo Sironar Digital's name was not changed.

These are all different lenses then the analog film lenses.

[rdenney]

If you don't think that the smaller chips don't need higher res lenses, well, think about this.
Olympus Super high grade digital lenses [expensive] are needed with the 1/2 sized sensors to be close to equal to
the cropped sensor Nikon and Canon cameras. Why is that?

How about this: The sensors are small, and therefore the enlargement ratios are huge.

But if you are making 30-foot prints (viewed up close?), then you know that already.

On the other hand, those Olympus lenses don't have to cover much real estate.

The notion that I'm resisting is that there is something about digital that invalidates pre-digital lenses. With a few exceptions, there is nothing about digital that invalidates previous lens designs. The digital lenses take advantage of some significant improvements in lens design and manufacturing that has occurred over the last couple of decades, and they also take advantage of the willingness of digital users to pay more for the lenses. But the old lenses (with those few exceptions) do everything they ever did, and support the same enlargement ratios in the digital world that they supported in the film world, and maybe even a bit better.

I use many, many lenses that far pre-date any available digital camera, and they are still top performers. Focusing them accurately is a separate challenge.

So, in response to the original question, the best non-digital lenses for use with digital backs are the best non-digital lenses for use with film.

Rick "the old that is strong does not wither" Denney

[Noah A]

I can't think of any current digital sensors that don't have micro lenses. Some of them even have gap-less microlenses (e.g. Canon 50D).

The problem with the M9 is the offset microlenses which is a design that's not optimal because it's an interchangeable lens camera. So, all sorts of crazy radial sensor artifacts can be seen on M9 images.

The Fuji X100, which also has offset microlenses (but an APS-C sensor) seems to be fairing much better because it's a fixed lens camera and the manufacturers are in better control.

G

I may be mistaken, but I believe some of the Phase One and Leaf backs don't use microlenses on the sensor. Before I switched back to film I had considered an MF digital kit. And after speaking with folks at a reputable Phase One dealer, I found out that only certain backs were good for shift lenses or technical cameras. I know the P20, P25, P45 and P65 backs are good for shift, as are most (if not all) of the Leaf backs.

In any event, whether it's a total lack of microlenses that affects shift performance or a difference between standard and offset microlenses, without getting too far OT I just wanted to raise the issue to make sure the OP was aware of a possible complication.

[8x10 user]

This one is easy... Use a high grade enlarging lens... They are designed for large apertures.

Apo-El-Nikkor anyone? You will have trouble reaching as much sharpness with any digital lenses. I've heard that many of the digital lenses are re-branded enlarger lenses from the same companies. Ask Sinar George if you need more information.

[Bob Salomon]

This one is easy... Use a high grade enlarging lens... They are designed for large apertures.

Apo-El-Nikkor anyone? You will have trouble reaching as much sharpness with any digital lenses. I've heard that many of the digital lenses are re-branded enlarger lenses from the same companies. Ask Sinar George if you need more information.

Quite simply, you heard wrong. Check the literature here:

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf

For what you were saying you can check the literature here:

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230.pdf

[Adamphotoman]

Hey All,
Listen to Bob S. He knows what he is talking about.

My need was to get the best possible images with the Betterlight Super 6K. I had a chance to test out a 60 megabyte Phase back as well.

The 8K and 10k Betterlight scan backs will show the difference between good lenses and superlative lenses. Digital lenses were not really required on the Super6K and so the Apo Sironar S [Non-Digital LF Lens] fit the bill perfectly.

But the smaller single shot chips do require better lenses. Ever wonder why the new Hasselblad is using Fuji lenses? It is because the lenses are being changed updated to fit the new needs.
Grant

[pdmoylan]

Can we generalize and say that any modern APO LF lens (designed in the late 80s forward) will function very well with any digital back? Since we are talking strictly about focal lengths of say 100mm - 360mm (should we include APO Grandagons of 45, 55mm etc?), to produce excellent images using digital backs on say a 4x5 technical camera and for FLs wider than 100mm, (with incorporating movements successfully), we would need the Sironar Digital APO W series or comparable from Schneider (Phase lenses?)

Shall we enlist Mr Thalman and Mr Perez to embark upon a new testing venture with this sight as initial location? Such published tests would perhaps motivate manufacturers to produce ever more critically sharp lenses along the lines of our needs.

[Bob Salomon]

Can we generalize and say that any modern APO LF lens (designed in the late 80s forward) will function very well with any digital back? Since we are talking strictly about focal lengths of say 100mm - 360mm (should we include APO Grandagons of 45, 55mm etc?), to produce excellent images using digital backs on say a 4x5 technical camera and for FLs wider than 100mm, (with incorporating movements successfully), we would need the Sironar Digital APO W series or comparable from Schneider (Phase lenses?)

Shall we enlist Mr Thalman and Mr Perez to embark upon a new testing venture with this sight as initial location? Such published tests would perhaps motivate manufacturers to produce ever more critically sharp lenses along the lines of our needs.

No, if that was the case the lens manufacturers would not be adding newer digital series of lenses specifically for that use that are different then current film lenses.
Photographing test charts at various times would not impress lens manufacturers as the results can not be properly duplicated and the lenses are not made to photograph flat test charts. Rodenstock and Schneider both provide MTF, color, distortion curves for their lenses which are derived scientifically and show what the lenses will do in actual use for the purpose they are designed for. Flat wall charts can not do that.

[Adamphotoman]

It all depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it.
For instance;
Theoretically an Apo Ronar is better for shooting flat art. It may act like a flat field lens when stopped down to f:22: however, if you shoot with a light hungry Betterlight Super 8 K, then it is almost impossible to get enough light to shoot at f:22. Anyway, diffraction stars to degrade the image at F16. Dark noise is also a a problem.
In this case an Apo Sironar S can be used at f:8, be flatter field and have more sharpness and less dark noise.

maybe the Ronar was better for copy with film but the S is superior with the scanning back. Absolutely no contest...
G

[carverlux]

I have many of the "'APO"-marked but non-digital LF lenses of plasmat design. I also have Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital lenses from 55mm through 150mm. I use a 37x49 P25 back often on Hasselblads and from time to time, on a Sinar p2 with a rapid-change sliding back.

First, Bob S.'s comments about Rodenstock digital lenses are spot on. Using the Apo-Sironar-S and Apo-Sironar-Digital of the same focal length on my P25 yielded very different results. It is clear even on a print as smaller as 6x which lens had been optically optimized for digital capture. The objective difference in resolution and contrast transfer is palpable.

Second, many of the "'APO"-marked but non-digital LF lenses are not very usable with digital backs. In medium- to high-contrast situations, chromatic aberration is very clearly evident. Although CA in some lenses somewhat recedes with stopping down it never really goes away. My experience with both Rodenstock and Schneider lenses in these ranges are the same - they cannot be considered "APO" when used with a digitial back.

So to answer the OP's question, my best experience with non-digital LF lenses with a digital back are truly apochromatic apo lenses, regardless of brand. I have used TTH Series IX, CP Goerz Artar's, Rodenstock Apo-Ronar's, Schneider G-Claron's and CZ Apo-Tessars with excellent results, even wide open. For me, the determining factor between any of these is actually not their lack of chromatic aberration, linear distortion or even resolution and color rendition. It is their OOF behavior.

Of all of the excellent truly apochromatic choices listed above, my personal favorites are the Artars and Dagor-style G-Claron's. The TTH IX is a real sleeper if you can find one. But if you cannot live with a f/9.0 or smaller aperture, then your option may well be limited to the current digital offerings from either Rodenstock or Schneider.

Good luck.
carver

[Adamphotoman]

The smaller chip one shot backs really need and deserve digital lenses. Digital lenses are definitely superior to Apo Analogue lenses with those backs;
however,
few digital lenses were developed for the much larger scanning back. When we tested a Digital Sironar 180 and the Apo Sironar S 180 on the Super 8k and Super 10k backs there was only a slight difference. For the cost increase we deemed it to be the law of diminishing returns. Canvas prints showed no difference. Since the image circle was smaller on the digital lens we opted for the S [[[for the scanning back]]]

The question was Re: Best Non-Digital LF Lens with Digital Backs

Now if you are talking about the smaller chip sets you really should try the lenses specially made for the smaller chip sets.

[Bob Salomon]

The smaller chip one shot backs really need and deserve digital lenses. Digital lenses are definitely superior to Apo Analogue lenses with those backs;
however,
few digital lenses were developed for the much larger scanning back. When we tested a Digital Sironar 180 and the Apo Sironar S 180 on the Super 8k and Super 10k backs there was only a slight difference. For the cost increase we deemed it to be the law of diminishing returns. Canvas prints showed no difference. Since the image circle was smaller on the digital lens we opted for the S [[[for the scanning back]]]

The question was Re: Best Non-Digital LF Lens with Digital Backs

Now if you are talking about the smaller chip sets you really should try the lenses specially made for the smaller chip sets.

But your answer doesn't really tell us what you really compared.

Rodenstock made the 180mm Apo Sironar Digital and the 180mm Apo Sironar Digital HR. You don't mention which one you actually tested.
Note: Rodenstock has changed the names of their digital lenses and today they are HR Digaron-S or HR Digaron-W. The S are what the Apo Sironar Digital HR are now labled and the W was the Apo Sironar Digital. Both names are still currently available with some of the lenses.

[Adamphotoman]

Sorry Bob,
The Apo Sironar Digital and the Apo Sironar S
Both 180

[Don Dudenbostel]

Here are some samples shot on my Technikardan 23 with a Hasselblad CFV39 back. The two lenses used were a 47mm Super Angulon XL with no center filter and a 35mm Apo Grandagon digital (Sinaron). Both were shot at roughly F22. There was only slight sharpening and no chromatic aberration correction. I did shoot a scene correction exposure through a white translucent piece of plastic and apply it in the conversion from raw to Tif. This correction corrects for vignetting and color shift from wide angles. There was a good roughly 10mm of fall applied to the front standard to minimize the ceiling.

The Apo 35 is the only digital lens I have and have a mixed bag of Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji and Nikkor lenses and have never had to apply any chromatic aberration correction for any of them. Resolution is excellent and even illumination is not a problem. Keep in mind that if a lens did have chromatic aberrations they are generally seen in the outer zone of the lens more than the center. these lenses are designed to cover 4x5 as a rule so using them with a digital you are using only the center sweet spot.

My reasoning for using conventional lenses has centered around the usable image circle. I shoot architecture and products in studio for my clients and use a good bit of movements on my camera. Digital lenses as a rule do not have adequate image circles for my work. Honestly I'm not certain any additional sharpness would be of any value. In my experience I've found the primary issue with sharpness is the ability to focus accurately and more so vibration in the camera induced by movement in the cable release during time exposures. Digital takes much more care in focusing vs film.

The following crop images are at 100% which at screen resolution is roughly a 100 inch image. Chromatic aberrations are most evident in the edges and around metalic objects. I see none here.
This set was shot with the 35mm Apo.

[Don Dudenbostel]

This sample os shot with the 47mm Super Angulon XL. Again no chromatic aberration correction and minimal sharpening. Only a scene correction exposure was applied in Phocus during conversion to Tif. Minimal adjustment to both images.

[Don Dudenbostel]

JPG compression degrades the image so much plus the limitations of size are a factor here but I think you can see there are no issues with these lenses. The actual Tif images are much sharper than the jpg's.

These are the typical results from my lenses. Here are the lenses I use on the CFV39 / Technikardan.

35mm Apo Grandagon digital
47mm Super Angulon XL
58mm Super Angulon XL
75mm Grandagon 6.8
100mm Nikkor W
135mm Fujinon 2nd generation
150mm G Claron
180mm Nikkor W
210mm Symmar S
240mm G Claron
270mm Nikkor ED (tele)
300mm Nikkor M
360mm Nikkor ED (Tele)
120mm Nikkor ED AM Macro

[Don Dudenbostel]

I should also add that thirteen years ago I was using a Dycomed scanning back on 4x5 and using Schneides Symmar S lenses with no issues. Since then I've been using Nikon and in the past seven years Canon 1Ds and 1DsII cameras with L series primes and zooms. I mainly use primes vs zooms. Without question I can honestly say the above listed lenses smoke the Canon L lenses particularly with regard to chromatic aberrations. The wides above really make my 24tse, 24 f1.4, 16-35, 35f1.4 and 50f1.4 look like dogs.

[rdenney]

I should also add that thirteen years ago I was using a Dycomed scanning back on 4x5 and using Schneides Symmar S lenses with no issues. Since then I've been using Nikon and in the past seven years Canon 1Ds and 1DsII cameras with L series primes and zooms. I mainly use primes vs zooms. Without question I can honestly say the above listed lenses smoke the Canon L lenses particularly with regard to chromatic aberrations. The wides above really make my 24tse, 24 f1.4, 16-35, 35f1.4 and 50f1.4 look like dogs.

Is your 24tse the new version? I've seen reports and testing to indicate that it does not suffer from lateral color, though I can attest from personal experience that the first model does. But the 24TSE Mk. I was made for film cameras many years ago, while the recent Mk. II was made to measure up to the latest 22-MP sensors. It's also more than twice as expensive, and priced in the same class as the digital lenses for view cameras.

Rick "noting that lateral color is easy to correct except for lenses with movements" Denney

[Don Dudenbostel]

The 24 tse, 24 1.4 and 16-35 are the older versions. Distortion is another issue with the older Canon L glass.

When I got into MF digital I was skeptical whether my regular lenses were good enough until I tried them.

I also use the back on my Hasselblad V bodies with the CF series Zeiss lenses. With the exception of the 40 CF FLE there are virtually no chromatic aberration issues with any of the lenses I use. The 40 does display some but it's easily corrected in Phocus.

There was a very interesting article in one of the early Victor magazines put out by Hasselblad. They compared the new Fuji made H series lenses and the Zeiss V lenses with regard to how they would perform on a digital back. The Fuji lenses were designed with digital in mind and the V were designs well before anyone thought of digital. In the end the V lenses stacked up quite well agains the H lenses. In my experience too the older designs work extremely well with high res digital backs just as do the standard view camera lenses.

I think you have to consider a couple of factors when you discuss lens performance. One in particular is how large will I reproduce my images. Pixel peeping tells everything about the lens but how often do any of us reproduce at that size. My CFV39 images at 72 dpi are 100 inches wide and I doubt I will ever print that large other than rare occasions for trade show displays. What's realistic to expect out of a lens with regard to my final output and expectations? I think this is more important than what is the absolute sharpest lens made. It means little id all you print is 16x20's.

Each of us have different expectations and idea as to what is the best. To me it's much more than numbers that a manufacturer publishes. I'm an old film guy of nearly five decades and shot the majority of my product and interior work on 4x5-11x14 transparency film. To me the beauty of film based photography is much like the beauty of motion picture vs video tape. Film has subtle transitions of tone and detail. On film it has never been about absolute sharpness but has been a blend of tonal distribution, color, dynamic range and sharpness. Digital capture seems to have become skewed away from this balance or at least the ideal balance has drifted from what we viewed as ideal a few years ago. I guess what I'm getting at is I feel a lot of these subtle transitions that made film so beautiful are being lost with digital. In part I think it is due to overly sharp, over saturated and over manipulated images.

[Brian Ellis]

"I guess what I'm getting at is I feel a lot of these subtle transitions that made film so beautiful are being lost with digital. In part I think it is due to overly sharp, over saturated and over manipulated images."

Aren't the latter two characteristics that you mention a problem with the people making the prints rather than with "digital?"

[rdenney]

I guess what I'm getting at is I feel a lot of these subtle transitions that made film so beautiful are being lost with digital. In part I think it is due to overly sharp, over saturated and over manipulated images.

Look into the new 24TSE if you need a good wide for digital commercial work in small format. It is, by all reports, a vast improvement over the old one. But it isn't cheap. I decided to return to large-format work rather than spend more on a single lens than the cost of my entire recent LF spending spree.

Digital tools provide enormous power--more power than traditional analog tools--for achieving a specific vision of the photographer. Problem is, a lot of photographers visualize images that are over-sharpened, over-saturated, and over-manipulated. Powerful tools can be used to powerful excess.

Rick "control is hard; vision harder" Denney

[Don Dudenbostel]

"I guess what I'm getting at is I feel a lot of these subtle transitions that made film so beautiful are being lost with digital. In part I think it is due to overly sharp, over saturated and over manipulated images."

Aren't the latter two characteristics that you mention a problem with the people making the prints rather than with "digital?"

I think the problem is on the capture end and more due to over manipulation vs the medium itself. The ability to examine a file at huge sizes (100%) and edit tiny details to death has lead to this look. I guess this is what we call the digital look. I say it's on the capture end because I don't see this as much with images that originated on film.

[Adamphotoman]

The thread is a changing,

I work very hard at making images look correct. I copy paintings for a living and we need to match all the subtleties. Most sensors see colour through a biassed eye. Most sensors ramp up colour to make pretty pictures. Proper In Camera profiles are needed to twist colour back into shape. A scanned transparency has more room for error. Both the flavour of the film and processing and scanning will change colour.

A good image is still a good image. There are great digital and great analogue images and then there are terrible ones and everything in between...in both camps...
Just as there can be poor printing from negatives and transparencies, there can be poor output and file handling from digital capture.

Each of our needs are different and what we are willing to accept can be different too. Purpose/clients/etc.

Grant