Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

  1. #51
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,768

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    Germinars were rather rare in this country, Arne. But it's easier to produce a high degree of correction at f/9 max aperture than in f/5.6 equivalents, whether your Germinar, or G-Clarons, or Fuji A's, or Nikkor M's, or various process lenses. Rendering or "look" is a more subjective topic. The 210 Fuji L was appreciated by portrait photographers, and I preferred my old 210 Symmar S for that kind of work, though it was not as crisp or contrasty as any of my current lenses, which I mainly use for landscapes.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,565

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    As I recall, Sexton had a preference for Nikkor M lenses because they are small as well as contrasty. The 200M, being a multi-coated tessar, is naturally going to give higher contrast than 210 plasmats with more elements;
    Flare depends way more on the number of groups than on the number of elements, a group more or less has no impact with MC lenses, what has an impact is the size of the image circle.

    The Nikon M has an smaller circle, and if no compendium shade is used then Nikon W throws more light to the belows inside. If bellows are too compressed or too extended then a lot of light can bounce from the bellows to the sheet.


    I don't think that M design is more contrasty than the W, but a large circle may require the shade.



    Quote Originally Posted by hiend61 View Post
    I have used All the Nikkor T ED lenses and Apo Tele Xenar 600/800.
    My conclussions:

    Nikkor T ED 270 and 360 are simply superb with perfect contrast. 500 and 600 very good just need a bit more contrast to be perfect. 720 and 800 good, images are good but need more contast. a bit of purple CA. 1200 good if you can have your camera steady. Purple CA.

    Apo Tele Xenar 600/800 Are superb. Perfect contrast. Just two problems, 1,-they need long distance objects to perform at their best and 2,-They are very expensive.

    This is a first hand review confirming the Apo Tele Xenar excellence, interesting because not many Apo Tele Xenars 600/800 were at work, and I guess that even less samples were used for slides.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    276

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Flare depends way more on the number of groups than on the number of elements, a group more or less has no impact with MC lenses, what has an impact is the size of the image circle.

    The Nikon M has an smaller circle, and if no compendium shade is used then Nikon W throws more light to the belows inside. If bellows are too compressed or too extended then a lot of light can bounce from the bellows to the sheet.


    I don't think that M design is more contrasty than the W, but a large circle may require the shade.






    This is a first hand review confirming the Apo Tele Xenar excellence, interesting because not many Apo Tele Xenars 600/800 were at work, and I guess that even less samples were used for slides.
    Yes Pere, I use color slide film. Mostly Velvia 50 and Provia 100. When Kodachrome 64 in 120 format was available in Spain I used this wonderful film with a Sinar Zoom film holder, in 6x9 and 6x12 formats.

    https://jjpascuallargeformatphoto.com/

  4. #54
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,768

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    Pere - it's not just the size of the image circle that affects contrast. Flare is easy to control with proper shading. Lens construction is also a factor. Let's take an apples to apples comparison referencing all late multi-coated elements. A Dagor design has only 4 air/glass interfaces. My Kern MC dagors actually had too much contrast for some color chrome work. Tessars are a close second with 6 interfaces, with Nikkor M's being late MC versions of these. Plasmats are a little less contrasty or hue pure due to considerably more interfaces, no matter who made them. This is simply fact. Few photographers are good enough color printers to take advantage of this distinction, but it exits, and is plainly stated in Nikon's own literature concerning their M lenses. These distinctions are minor but real. I mostly use plasmats myself due to their versatility and large image circles; but in certain instances I need something especially color precise. In terms of black and white work, everyone with experience with top end dagors or late tessars recognizes their superiority rendering subtle micotonality.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Buford, GA
    Posts
    13,610

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    [QUOTE=Drew Wiley;1515044]Germinars were rather rare in this country, Arne. But it's easier to produce a high degree of correction at f/9 max aperture than in f/5.6 equivalents, whether your Germinar, or G-Clarons, or Fuji A's, or Nikkor M's, or various process lenses. Rendering or "look" is a more subjective topic. The 210 Fuji L was appreciated by portrait photographers, and I preferred my old 210 Symmar S for that kind of work, though it was not as crisp or contrasty as any of my current lenses, which I mainly use for landscapes.[/QUOTE

    Germinars were not rare, they were on lots of vertical process cameras as they were a wide angle process lens. But they did not fit directly into shutters as many Apo Ronars would.

    That is why they were not sold in the US photo market. After making adapters to fit into shutters we just could not have a competitive price vs other manufacturers. Besides, we sold a lot of shutter mounted Apo Ronars!

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,565

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Plasmats are a little less contrasty and hue pure due to considerably more interfaces, no matter who made them. This is simply fact. These distinctions are minor but real.
    Drew, this is true in single coated lenses, but in the late 1970s Fuji EBC multicoatings were yet able to transmit 99.8% of the light.

    To generate flare a ray needs two reflections, of the 0.2% that is bounced back in a surface only 0.2% will be bounced forward again in the first surface the ray finds, probability is 0.002*0.002 = 4/1,000,000 If you want I make the operations for the full assembly, but MC virtually eliminates flare.

    Today a Pro DSLR zoom (Nikon 70-200 VR) has 21 elements in 15 groups, and no problem !!! Even with 15 gropus a MC lens has flare under control.

    But then many times 70% of the light in the circle illuminates the glowing bellows, and even with a compendium shade a remarkable fraction of light reaching the film is bounced back, making bellows glow again. Nor the film or the bellows are optic grade surfaces.


    Let's make the calculations for a plasmat:

    The worst case for flare is the one generated by the last #8 surface. A ray reflected back there can be reflected forward in 7 surfaces before it reaches the exterior, so probability is 0.002 * 0.002 * 7, this is 28/1,000,000.

    So total optic flare for an MC plasmat is:

    4/1,000,000 * 7 +
    4/1,000,000 * 6 +
    4/1,000,000 * 5 +
    4/1,000,000 * 4 +
    4/1,000,000 * 3 +
    4/1,000,000 * 2 +
    4/1,000,000 * 1

    this is:

    4/1,000,000 * 28 = 112 /1,000,000


    Total 0,011%

    Drew... this is nothing in photogtraphy


    Any problem with those calculations ?

  7. #57
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,768

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    I specifically mentioned late MC lenses as a basis for comparison class, Pere. I'm not guessing whatsoever. This is the kind of work I do. I use these various lenses and understand their actual rendering differences when printing, especially in color. Merely crunching percents doesn't tell you anywhere near the whole story. It's not just about flare. But unfortunately, the basis by which people are most likely to judge such things today is via the relatively poor standard of inkjet printing, which might be highly convenient, but still is an adolescent class of media with a lot of serious inherent color repro problems. I simply don't have time to even begin to explain to you the details; but maybe over time, as you get more experience fine-tuning color printing, you'll begin to appreciate such distinctions for yourself and not be so obsessed with mere math familiar to just about everyone. And it's not pertinent to this particular thread anyway. And in that respect, I will say that I've never acquired a substandard LF lens in my life from any of the big four manufacturers. Every single one of them has been superb, though certain ones excel at certain tasks more than others.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,565

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    Drew, let's simplify, we were (off-topic) talking about flare in MC 3 groups vs 4 groups.

    What I say is that modern (since 1980) MC LF lenses don't have flare generated from internal lens reflections in the optic surfaces. Flare we may notice comes from bellows

  9. #59
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,768

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    You sound like a stuck record, Pere. Read Nikon's own LF lens brochures if you don't believe me. M lenses were designed for particularly high color accuracy, and the modernized, optimized tessar construction was their logical path to doing that. Their engineers knew what they were doing. There was some trade-off in overall image circle. The even contrastier dagor design infamously required a lot of hand-tuning, matching the elements. That's why, at the end, Kern offered only one multi-coated focal length of Dagor. And by contrast, I'm NOT referring just to flare control, either overall or internal. It pertains to both the rendering of microtonality and the ability to resolve certain subtle hues from one another. And the Kern 14 inch MC Dagor had the most accurate color rendering of any lens I've ever seen, in ANY format. Nikkor M's are a close second.

  10. #60

    Re: 210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

    I have a rodenstock (caltar ii-n) and I'm pretty happy with it... mega sharp!

Similar Threads

  1. Opinions on Nikkor W 210mm f/5.6 vs. Rodenstock APO Sironar S 210mm f/5.6
    By Jamal Morris in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 9-Dec-1999, 16:54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •