210mm f/5.6 - Rodenstock or Nikkor?

[StuartR]

So basically, this is a bit nonsensical as the images look nearly identical. That is partially the point. The differences might show more with color film or with areas of lots of bokeh. But basically, in one test the Rodenstock was sharper, in the other, the Schneider. I think the variations are highly dependent on your focusing on the day, film sag, and any number of other factors. This is not to say that it is impossible to say which is better, only to say that a single test is generally not enough...better to spend time with it and see which you prefer. I am still in that process with the 210mm APO Symmar and Sironar S. I mostly shoot with the APO Symmar L as I have had it for 15 years and know that I consistently get good results out of it.
Regarding these tests, you have to take my word for it...the Schneider is sharper with the rocks, and the Rodenstock is slightly better with the cityscape. I think it is as likely as anything that it was the slight different in focus than the lenses themselves. I might say the Rodenstock has slightly higher inherent contrast. The Schneider seems to have a larger image circle (it works on 8x10 for me).

[Pere Casals]

about lppmm tests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_U...ion_test_chart

USAF 1951 test is a easy way to numerically rate resolving power of a lens in the center or in the corners. It says how many black-white line pairs per mm (Lppmm or Lp/mm) a lens can place on film in the way those lines can be discerned in practice. It is not a perfect test by far but it's very simple, in fact it has a militar origin, to know how well aerial cameras were performing:




LF has an insane amount of image quality, but if still wanting to compare lenses those tests provide a simplified way to compare.

[Salmo22]

So basically, this is a bit nonsensical as the images look nearly identical. That is partially the point. The differences might show more with color film or with areas of lots of bokeh. But basically, in one test the Rodenstock was sharper, in the other, the Schneider. I think the variations are highly dependent on your focusing on the day, film sag, and any number of other factors. This is not to say that it is impossible to say which is better, only to say that a single test is generally not enough...better to spend time with it and see which you prefer. I am still in that process with the 210mm APO Symmar and Sironar S. I mostly shoot with the APO Symmar L as I have had it for 15 years and know that I consistently get good results out of it.
Regarding these tests, you have to take my word for it...the Schneider is sharper with the rocks, and the Rodenstock is slightly better with the cityscape. I think it is as likely as anything that it was the slight different in focus than the lenses themselves. I might say the Rodenstock has slightly higher inherent contrast. The Schneider seems to have a larger image circle (it works on 8x10 for me).

For all practical purposes, those examples look identical to me. I certainly take your word for it on which lens was slightly sharper on a particular image, but they are darn close. I also agree that there are other factors to consider or that could have an impact upon the results. When it comes to making photographs with my 4x5, bokeh is not something that I don't seek in my images and I rarely shoot color. As I noted earlier, I shoot primarily at f/22, f/32, and occasionally at f/45. I also use my swings and tilts to increase my DoF. So, shooting with a wide aperture is counter to what I'm trying to achieve. I like having an f/5.6 lens to help my old eyes compose and focus, but that is all. More than anything, I wholeheartedly concur with your comment that I'll need to "spend time with it and see which you prefer". Thank you.

[Salmo22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_U...ion_test_chart

USAF 1951 test is a easy way to numerically rate resolving power of a lens in the center or in the corners. It says how many black-white line pairs per mm (Lppmm or Lp/mm) a lens can place on film in the way those lines can be discerned in practice. It is not a perfect test by far but it's very simple, in fact it has a militar origin, to know how well aerial cameras were performing:




LF has an insane amount of image quality, but if still wanting to compare lenses those tests provide a simplified way to compare.

I appreciate your helping me better understand lppmm. As a side note, I've been to that exact satellite calibration target at Edwards AFB. Not to calibrate any camera gear, but to photograph that B-58 and the B-52's that languish a few hundred yards to the east. The have a similar target in the desert near Fort Huachuca in Arizona. I suspect they don't use them much anymore as they have let them deteriorate over time.

[Bob Salomon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_U...ion_test_chart

USAF 1951 test is a easy way to numerically rate resolving power of a lens in the center or in the corners. It says how many black-white line pairs per mm (Lppmm or Lp/mm) a lens can place on film in the way those lines can be discerned in practice. It is not a perfect test by far but it's very simple, in fact it has a militar origin, to know how well aerial cameras were performing:




LF has an insane amount of image quality, but if still wanting to compare lenses those tests provide a simplified way to compare.

Except the best it can test is flat copy objects, not 3 dimensional scenes. For all practical use aerial photographs are taken from altitude and are flat field compared to what you will shoot on the ground,

And shooting the test chart never gives consistent results. Pete could loan you his lens and test result and you could not duplicate his results!

[Pere Casals]

Except the best it can test is flat copy objects, not 3 dimensional scenes. For all practical use aerial photographs are taken from altitude and are flat field compared to what you will shoot on the ground,

And shooting the test chart never gives consistent results. Pete could loan you his lens and test result and you could not duplicate his results!

Yes, of course... tests usually describe performance in the plane of focus, this also decribes how the lens will perform with distant objects, say a mountain in a landscape focused in the "infinity".


For near subjects the thing is quite more complex, sadly through focus MTF graphs are not usually provided.


http://cinematechnic.com/optics/super-baltar

Amazingly it looks that only cinematographers and focus pullers (1st AC, first assistant camera) are concerned about that.

[Dan Fromm]

Reading this discussion made my head spin, so I went back to the first post in it.

A review of my notes finds me making most images at f/22 or f/32, with the occasional deviation to f/45.
<big snip>
What 210mm f/5.6 lens to you own/use and why?

Jeff, all of the lenses mentioned here perform so nearly equivalently at the apertures you use that there's no rational basis for choosing among them except weight, price and condition.

FWIW, I have and have used 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl (Dagor clone), 210/7.7 Beryl S (normal Beryl with aperture limited to f/7.7), Fuji 210/5.6 W and 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR-II. The Fuji is quite good but too heavy for me. The Konica is very sharp but a bit flary, also could be lighter. The two Boyers are sharp enough and have very good contrast. Since the f/6.8's cells go in a #1 and the f/7.7's don't go in any shutter known, I've standardized on the f/6.8. At f/16 and f/22, the apertures I use most, flare aside all of these lenses equally good.

I understand your desire to have the very best, think it is misguided. Good enough is good enough, and all of the lenses mentioned in this discussion, including mine, are at least good enough.

Many people on this forum obsess about having the best. I was guilty of this but have given it up. I was nuts, think my fellow obsessives are too. Please read: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ic-bullet.html

[Bernice Loui]

Dan's advice is excellent.. seriously consider it.

Images made at f22 to f45 using nearly any good example from the big four are going to be far more similar than different. Pick any of the big four with a good-reliable shutter and move on.

As for the obsession with the "best" lens, the "best" lens will not make a given image "better" at those taking apertures (f22 to f45) as there are a pile of many, many other factors that will have far more impact on the finished print.

At taking apertures of f4.5 to no more than f11, then the differences can be quite variable from lens type to specific lens sample.



Bernice

Reading this discussion made my head spin, so I went back to the first post in it.



Jeff, all of the lenses mentioned here perform so nearly equivalently at the apertures you use that there's no rational basis for choosing among them except weight, price and condition.

FWIW, I have and have used 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl (Dagor clone), 210/7.7 Beryl S (normal Beryl with aperture limited to f/7.7), Fuji 210/5.6 W and 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR-II. The Fuji is quite good but too heavy for me. The Konica is very sharp but a bit flary, also could be lighter. The two Boyers are sharp enough and have very good contrast. Since the f/6.8's cells go in a #1 and the f/7.7's don't go in any shutter known, I've standardized on the f/6.8. At f/16 and f/22, the apertures I use most, flare aside all of these lenses equally good.

I understand your desire to have the very best, think it is misguided. Good enough is good enough, and all of the lenses mentioned in this discussion, including mine, are at least good enough.

Many people on this forum obsess about having the best. I'm was guilty of this but have given it up. I was nuts, think my fellow obsessives are too. Please read: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ic-bullet.html

[Peter De Smidt]

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

[Salmo22]

Reading this discussion made my head spin, so I went back to the first post in it.



Jeff, all of the lenses mentioned here perform so nearly equivalently at the apertures you use that there's no rational basis for choosing among them except weight, price and condition.

FWIW, I have and have used 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl (Dagor clone), 210/7.7 Beryl S (normal Beryl with aperture limited to f/7.7), Fuji 210/5.6 W and 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR-II. The Fuji is quite good but too heavy for me. The Konica is very sharp but a bit flary, also could be lighter. The two Boyers are sharp enough and have very good contrast. Since the f/6.8's cells go in a #1 and the f/7.7's don't go in any shutter known, I've standardized on the f/6.8. At f/16 and f/22, the apertures I use most, flare aside all of these lenses equally good.

I understand your desire to have the very best, think it is misguided. Good enough is good enough, and all of the lenses mentioned in this discussion, including mine, are at least good enough.

Many people on this forum obsess about having the best. I was guilty of this but have given it up. I was nuts, think my fellow obsessives are too. Please read: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ic-bullet.html

Dan, you are a holy man. That is just what I needed to hear and read. In a past life I shot competitive benchrest rifle competitions all over the western USA. Instead of calling it the 'magic bullet', although that would have been appropo, we called it 'follow the leader'. Whomever won the match was overwhelmed with questions as to what scope, action, bullet, primer, powder, etc that he/she used to win. If I could obtain the same equipment, I would win just like him/her. After several years of frustration, I learned that I needed to improve my shooting technique to win, which I did. My equipment was not the answer I thought it would be. Thank you.