PDA

View Full Version : Rsuggestions for a smallish 150 lens



Hollis
1-Feb-2013, 09:37
I shoot a wista 45sp and one of the best attributes of it is that I can keep a 150 on the camera and fold it up and have it ready without having to dig through a bag to find my lens. It's quite essential for my type of photography being spontaneous and quick on the move. That being said, my 150 is a Schneider symmar S in copal 0 and honestly, I'm not in love with it. Was wondering if anyone had some suggestions as to another 150mm 5.6 that is on the smaller side but hopefully a bit sharper than the one I have now. Ok, lemme know...

E. von Hoegh
1-Feb-2013, 09:40
I shoot a wista 45sp and one of the best attributes of it is that I can keep a 150 on the camera and fold it up and have it ready without having to dig through a bag to find my lens. It's quite essential for my type of photography being spontaneous and quick on the move. That being said, my 150 is a Schneider symmar S in copal 0 and honestly, I'm not in love with it. Was wondering if anyone had some suggestions as to another 150mm 5.6 that is on the smaller side but hopefully a bit sharper than the one I have now. Ok, lemme know...

How on earth can you quibble with the sharpness of a Symmar-S? You could have a bad example, but it's much more likely the cause of unsharpness is not the lens but something else. You won't find a significantly sharper 150.

C. D. Keth
1-Feb-2013, 09:51
You should see if your lens is perhaps missing a shim. There's not going to be anything significantly sharper. Any modern 150 from a big maker will be essentially as sharp as another. Of you want REALLY small, you could get a G-claron but for your normal lens I don't think the reduced focusing and composing brightness is worth it.

David Karp
1-Feb-2013, 09:53
I have a 150 mm Fujinon W that takes 52mm filters. It is a very nice lens. Another option would be a 150mm Caltar II-N, which is made by Rodenstock.

IanG
1-Feb-2013, 09:54
I have a 150mm Sironar N which is superb, but it's no better than my Symmar S lenses, so I agree with above.

Ian

EdSawyer
1-Feb-2013, 10:03
I have a nice Apo Symmar which is a nice step up from the Symmar S, that I could offer. It's in a DB board but would drop right into your existing Copal 0 shutter. (it came out of a copal 0 shutter originally.) Details: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?99517-FS-Apo-Symmar-150mm-f-5-6-lens-in-Sinar-DB-mount-275

E. von Hoegh
1-Feb-2013, 10:23
If you replace the lens without determining the source of the unsharpness, you'll be out the money and still have fuzzy negatives.

My alltime favorite tiny 150mm/6" is a Goerz Dagor.

Drew Wiley
1-Feb-2013, 10:54
For critical use like big enlargements or use with roll film backs, most more modern lenses are in fact noticably sharper than Symmar S or the old dagors. G-Claron has a nice combination of tiny size and excellent optics, but is not a bright, so might be a little slower to focus. Fuji W's are well priced on the used market and fairly amazing in the recent multicoated versions. You've also got the upgraded
Schneiders and Apo-Sironar S lenses (already mentioned). The dagors are prized for a somewhat different reason, a kinda nuanced look due to only four air/glass interfaces. I think every single lens
I now own is sharper than the Symmar S I started with way back when - but that doesn't mean it was
a slouch by any means! I sold it only because it had served me faithfully thru all kinds of harsh terrain
and simply got worn out.

dave_whatever
1-Feb-2013, 11:07
If you can run to a sironar-s (or sinaron-se) they are a fair bit more compact than the symmar-s. 49mm filters instead of 58mm for a start.

Noah A
1-Feb-2013, 11:16
There's certainly a difference between the latest lens designs and those from a generation or two ago. Of course for many shooters who do contact prints or small 2-4x enlargements, the difference won't be extreme.

But yeah, for the large color prints I do I have noticed quite a difference between lenses like the Symmar S and Sironar-N and the latest Apo-Symmar and Apo-Sironar-S.

I'd strongly recommend you check out a 150 Apo-Sironar-S. Mine folded into the Wista VX I used to shoot with, and it's really sharp even in 40x50in. and larger prints.

Bernice Loui
1-Feb-2013, 11:24
Are modern lenses actually "shaper" or just higher contrast?

About 20 years ago when making images with many, many boxes of Agfa chrome RS100 in 13x18, I got tired of the high contrast modern plasmant look and ditch all of them and completely switched to older designs that were equally sharp in resolution but had far better contrast range and separation. It does come down to personal preference more than just the design of the lens.

A good lens shade does make a difference in contrast and flare control. Multi coated or not any lens can be made to flare severely, dependent on how it is used.

While there is a matter of personal preference to this, don't simply believe newer or most modern is always better. There are a lot of factors that figure into the choice of optics and it goes far beyond "sharpness".

The question of sharpness also depends on the f number used. A smaller aperture is not always better, there is usually an optimum for a specific image in mind. Know that using apertures smaller than f32 is going to significantly reduce resolution regardless of the lens design due to diffraction. The resulting resolution is a combination of film/film flatness/camera alignment/lens performance and a host of other factors.

Then we have out of focus rendition which varies greatly for a given lens design.

Know how best to use the tools for a given image in mind.


Bernice

E. von Hoegh
1-Feb-2013, 11:28
For critical use like big enlargements or use with roll film backs, most more modern lenses are in fact noticably sharper than Symmar S or the old dagors. G-Claron has a nice combination of tiny size and excellent optics, but is not a bright, so might be a little slower to focus. Fuji W's are well priced on the used market and fairly amazing in the recent multicoated versions. You've also got the upgraded
Schneiders and Apo-Sironar S lenses (already mentioned). The dagors are prized for a somewhat different reason, a kinda nuanced look due to only four air/glass interfaces. I think every single lens
I now own is sharper than the Symmar S I started with way back when - but that doesn't mean it was
a slouch by any means! I sold it only because it had served me faithfully thru all kinds of harsh terrain
and simply got worn out.

Drew, I use a convertible Symmar on 4x5 and 6x7 rollfilm. It and a 6" Dagor are about neck and neck for sharpness, that is, excellent. I couldn't see any significant difference between it and a Symmar-S (which wasn't cammed for my Linhof) so traded off the -S version. The main difference between the latest versions and the -S is in chromatic correction, and appears mainly toward the edges. So the difference is there.

But my point for the OP is that one should check things like GG registration, focussing technique, enlarger alignment and so on before condemning any lens. I've made some 24" x 30" prints from 4x5 with my old lenses, and they do the job quite well - nobody would look at the prints and say "that lens isn't sharp".

Fotoguy20d
1-Feb-2013, 11:38
I have a Symmar S, G-Claron and a slightly battered Fujinon (newer version) in that focal length. The G Claron is nice for being able to fold up inside a Toyo 45CF (I havent tried with the other two but I dont think they'd make it. I havent shot with the Fujinon (got it very cheap on ebay and figured it was worth the cost just for the shutter) but the G-Claron is sharper, and I think has very slightly better color rendition, than the Symmar. The loss of speed with it doesnt both me (much).

Dan

Bernice Loui
1-Feb-2013, 11:40
+1

It is very possible the lens in question is a dud.. This has happened to me more than once over the years.

Regardless, all the other factors as mention must be checked before ditching the lens in question as it is so easy have a problem else where and blame the lens.


Bernice


Drew, I use a convertible Symmar on 4x5 and 6x7 rollfilm. It and a 6" Dagor are about neck and neck for sharpness, that is, excellent. I couldn't see any significant difference between it and a Symmar-S (which wasn't cammed for my Linhof) so traded off the -S version. The main difference between the latest versions and the -S is in chromatic correction, and appears mainly toward the edges. So the difference is there.

But my point for the OP is that one should check things like GG registration, focussing technique, enlarger alignment and so on before condemning any lens. I've made some 24" x 30" prints from 4x5 with my old lenses, and they do the job quite well - nobody would look at the prints and say "that lens isn't sharp".

Drew Wiley
1-Feb-2013, 12:01
Per my remarks, I wasn't guessing whatsoever. General taking lenses have improved with respect to
both sharpness and coating, and apo-ness in recent decades (though there are a few exceptions, including some remarkable process lenses from the era, as well as the color purity of the last dagors). I can easily detect the difference in my own work. But nonetheless, if I took one of my vintage big Ciba prints made with the Symmar S using old-school Ektachrome 64 4x5 film, and my old Componon S enlarging lens, it would still look crisp to the public - sharper in fact than these new inkjet atrocities
people are getting accustomed to. But put it side by side with what I can do now, and the difference
would be obvious - better & bigger film, better taking lenses, better enlarging lenses, better technique.

Kevin Crisp
1-Feb-2013, 12:47
I am not aware of any evidence that 'general taking lenses' have improved in sharpness since the 1980's. And I have to say the same about coating improvements. My first my set of lenses for 4X5's were Symmar-S (MC) lenses (sadly, all stolen) and they were tremendously sharp. What 'modern' lens has coating better than a Schneider 30 year old MC?

If you shoot a good sample 1950's Symmar convertible (without issues like fogging) against an APO version, no difference in sharpness is apparent even in huge enlargements. The more modern lens is slightly more contrasty, but the difference is slight if you control the other variables.

The -S Symmar was and is a great lens. If the user finds it insufficiently sharp, it is either a dud sample or something else is wrong.

Drew Wiley
1-Feb-2013, 13:23
Here are some of the lens series I now use, all of which are sharper, more contrasty, and more "apo"
than the old Symmar S series : G-Claron, Fujinon A, Fujinon C, Nikkor M. In addition, I sometimes use Fujinon W's that are superior in every respect. People used to comment how crisp my prints were;
but now they look so-so to me. When I switched from a 210 Symmar S to a 250/6.7 Fuji w, the improvement was immediately apparent. Then the 250 G-Claron and 240 Fuji A turned out to be even
sharper (4x5 - 8x10 is a litte different subject). My proof: my eyes, my prints, what really counts! But the Symmar S is still a fine lens to acquire on the used market, esp for a beginner looking for quality at bargain pricing. The acid test is trying to enlarge itty-bitty 6x9 negs and make them look and feel
as if they were taken with LF sheet film - no way I'd choose the Symmar S for that kind of use.

Kevin Crisp
1-Feb-2013, 14:51
If your proof is your eyes then you're all set. But when lenses that are decades old are cited as proof of significant recent improvement I think your argument has been rather seriously undermined. I think sample to sample variation will invalidate these anecdotal conclusions.

Hollis
1-Feb-2013, 15:24
Thanks for all the info that helps me out a bit. I think. I'm thinking that I either have a less than stellar copy of a lens or I'm overly picky, the latter being the more likely. As for shooting at smaller apertures, I don't think I've been above f16 on this lens ever. I shoot everyday people (not models) outdoors in natural light so, speed is critical for me (both in shutter speed, lens speed and setup for my gear) so, I don't really have the luxury of taking the time to attach a lens hood or mess with filters (haven't used one in years and years actually) or even use a dark cloth - it's all very run and gun and would probably make most of you cringe but my technique is what it is for better or worse. You don't get to the point of shooting 50 sheets in 15 minutes when you are constantly fidgeting with gadgets and things. Thanks again!

vinny
1-Feb-2013, 15:49
I had a new 150 symmar-s just before they switched to the current L series. It wasn't very sharp right out of the box. I now have fujinon w's and a 135mm sironar-s. They are sharper and the sironar-s is sharper than the nikkor i had as well and visible on the film, before enlargement. I wouldn't have sold the others which where much less expensive.

Drew Wiley
1-Feb-2013, 16:35
Kevin - quite a few things have improved in the last few decades. Optics are one of them. Quality control is another. And there are quite a few folks on this very forum who could tell you the same thing. So when a Sinar representative tells me in person THIRTY YEARS AGO that the the G-Claron is optically superior in every respect (except max aperture) to the Symmar S, was he referring to batch variation? All this might seem new news to you, but it is old, old hat to many of us. More recently, there have been some mfg restrictions due to either regional banning of radioactive isotopes in glass,
or certain formulas becoming cost prohibitive, but overall, quality has gone uphill in most specifics.

Bernice Loui
2-Feb-2013, 10:22
"You don't get to the point of shooting 50 sheets in 15 minutes when you are constantly fidgeting with gadgets and things."

If the front or back of the camera shifts a fraction of a millimeter critical focus can be lost. If the tripod or set up is less than stable, the resulting movement will cause what appears to be out of focus images..

Consider doing a carefully set up and slow test on the lens before ruling out as being less than "sharp". The lens may not be the root cause of not sharp, the problem could be else where.


Bernice



Thanks for all the info that helps me out a bit. I think. I'm thinking that I either have a less than stellar copy of a lens or I'm overly picky, the latter being the more likely. As for shooting at smaller apertures, I don't think I've been above f16 on this lens ever. I shoot everyday people (not models) outdoors in natural light so, speed is critical for me (both in shutter speed, lens speed and setup for my gear) so, I don't really have the luxury of taking the time to attach a lens hood or mess with filters (haven't used one in years and years actually) or even use a dark cloth - it's all very run and gun and would probably make most of you cringe but my technique is what it is for better or worse. You don't get to the point of shooting 50 sheets in 15 minutes when you are constantly fidgeting with gadgets and things. Thanks again!

Peter Gomena
2-Feb-2013, 11:55
+1

I couldn't have said it better.

Slamming 50 holders in 15 minutes is going to cause something to go out of whack. Subject movement, vibration, tiny bumps and movements to the camera, all will conspire to soften focus. Depending on how close you are to your subject, f/16 does not offer a lot of depth of field, either. Do you use a loupe to check focus? Is your tripod too light for your camera?

I, too, own an '80s Symmar-S 150. Purchased it used. It has a whole bunch of bubbles around the cement at the edges of the glass, making it a less than perfect specimen. My pictures are sharp.

Hollis
2-Feb-2013, 12:40
Tripod is adequate albeit lighter than my large one at home - there is just no way to carry the heavy heavy ones oversease with me. As for slamming holders around, agreed, things do shift but I am checking and rechecking focus, with a very nice loupe, every 15 sheets or so. As for shooting slow tests, I have done this and shot locked down and sandbagged to rule out as many variables as possible. I've also shot it with strobe and am never ecstatic about the sharpness. It's an older copy and has some pretty wicked schneideritis developing that seems to have gotten worse since the last time I looked critically at it.

E. von Hoegh
2-Feb-2013, 13:24
Tripod is adequate albeit lighter than my large one at home - there is just no way to carry the heavy heavy ones oversease with me. As for slamming holders around, agreed, things do shift but I am checking and rechecking focus, with a very nice loupe, every 15 sheets or so. As for shooting slow tests, I have done this and shot locked down and sandbagged to rule out as many variables as possible. I've also shot it with strobe and am never ecstatic about the sharpness. It's an older copy and has some pretty wicked schneideritis developing that seems to have gotten worse since the last time I looked critically at it.

Do you get sharp negatives with other lenses? Have you checked the GG registration? Is your loupe properly focussed on the groundglass? I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but unless you rule out these things...
Schneideritus is the paint bubbling up on the edges of the elements, it has nothing to do with the cement and if it affects anything it will be contrast.
I regularly use 100+ year old Dagors, I have no sharpness issues that can be traced to the lenses.

john borrelli
2-Feb-2013, 19:47
If you really want small there is also a Schneider 150mm Xenar lens. It is a 4 element tessar but with a 5.6 maximum aperture it should be brighter than a g claron. These are fairly modern lenses that can be found in all black copals. They don't have the coverage of a plasmat. They tested well at f22 on the LF lens tests but I have not used one. The Schneider 210mm f6.1 is another one of these designs.

john borrelli
2-Feb-2013, 19:54
Forgot to mention that these Xenars are not "multi-coated".

Leigh
2-Feb-2013, 20:01
I have a recent Rodenstock 150/5.6 Sironar-N in a modern Copal 0 if you're interested.
Tiny lens, 49mm filter, 51mm OAL, 220g. 214mm IC.

Excellent lens. Replaced it with an Apo-Sironar-S 150/5.6.

PM if you're interested.

- Leigh

Armin Seeholzer
3-Feb-2013, 04:05
G-Glaron 150mm is the smallest I know! I have one almost new from the last batch from Schneider, bevor they stopped production.
I would sell it, its very sharp.
Its not a f5,6 but f9 but sharp sharp sharp!

Cheers Armin

gary mulder
3-Feb-2013, 06:38
shooting 50 sheets in 15 minutes

checking and rechecking focus, with a very nice loupe, every 15 sheets

Lets say checking focus takes 1 minute. Three times doing 50 shots. Than you are left with taking one shot every 14 seconds. You don't need a sharper lens you need a motordrive.

Hollis
10-Feb-2013, 20:33
Anyone know anything about a 150 5.6 XENAR? Any good? Nice and small and there is one for sale locally.

David Karp
10-Feb-2013, 21:12
The 150 f/5.6 Xenar is a Tessar type, 4 elements in 3 groups. Should be very sharp. Single coated. Will have a smaller image circle than a plasmat design 150.

lbenac
10-Feb-2013, 23:20
Anyone know anything about a 150 5.6 XENAR? Any good? Nice and small and there is one for sale locally.

I have one along with a Xenar 210/6.1 and love the combo.
Alternative are also Caltar-II N 150/5.6 (Sironar-N) and G-Claron 150/9

Hollis
11-Feb-2013, 08:26
Thanks - going to pick up one for $200 today.

IanG
11-Feb-2013, 09:08
Thanks - going to pick up one for $200 today.

Well these are the best of the modern Tessar & type lenses. I've been using one and stopped down to f22 it's as good as my 150mm Sironar N, the downside is less coverage and only room for slight movements but they are small and light.

Ian

Bernice Loui
11-Feb-2013, 09:56
Xenar, and tessars in general quite under rated in many ways. They are small, usually don't cost very much, do not have a large image circle (about 60 degrees).

Yet, they remain my favorites. Stopped down past f8/f11 they are plenty sharp. At f22 they equal the modern plasmat. provided the lens in question is not a dud.
There is one thing a good tessar does that modern plasmats do not, they generally have smoother out of focus transition than the plasmat and other modern designs. If the tessar is in one of the older shutters or barrel with a truly round aperture, the out of focus transition is better still.

Don;t be fooled by high contrast that may appear to make the lens sharper than it really might be.

For images where everything is to be rendered SHARP, modern lenses are good, in images where not all of the image is sharp, older designs IMO, are better. If one considers that stopping down to f16/f32 results in similar sharpness and not obsessing about imagecircle/coverage the tessar design is a pretty nice trade off.


Bernice

Hollis
11-Feb-2013, 21:14
FWIW, I think I found out why my images were coming in less than sharp. Looks like the neutral marking for my front standard on my Wista SP is actually off by about 5 deg. so, when I was zeroing it out, I was in fact actually tilting the front standard ever so slightly. Seems like this would explain why everyones feet in my images would go soft.

C. D. Keth
11-Feb-2013, 23:00
That would certainly do it, Hollis. You ought to (if you haven't already) set up parallel to a wall with some newspaper tacked up and check the other witness marks. I'm not super crazy about parallelism but it's surprising how far off some of the cameras' factory markings can be.

jonreid
12-Feb-2013, 02:14
I have a 150 f6.3 Computar Symmetrigon which is quite small with the hood removed. Nice and sharp and just covers 5x7.

Professional
12-Feb-2013, 17:24
I will hold my Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm APO f5.6 for a while until i can get another 150 version that could be better or sharper, the replies here making it more difficult or confused, not only 1 option but many, but for now this 150mm is not my top priority lens anyway.

Hollis
12-Feb-2013, 19:29
Yeah, we should put this thread to bed.