"The big two" - Please tell me about your japanese lenses!

[Bernice Loui]

+ Agree, and the beginnings of another totally pointless war of words.

Done these lens test and a LOT more back in the day. As for which "brand" is preferred, that is much a matter of individual opinion and preferences.

There ARE differences of color rendition and contrast between brands... Fact today, this is just no longer that important due to how LF color is done, how color prints are made and market-image maker expectations. There is also no "real" ability to properly support high quality E6/C41 processing and that entire chain of LF color transparency or color negative film production today.

Wanna get into a proper discussion about color rendition, it MUST include lighting color temperature, quality of light, film's color rendition, color balance due to film processing, film's viewing light color temperature and a LOT more... to simply believe lens alone tells the whole story of how color is rendered is absurd as the entire process is a LOT more complex than just lens-optic alone.

~And no, I'm NOT going to get into any discussion or debate over this as that time and era when this was all done to a very high level is essentially extinct.... and totally pointless to go any further with this.

*Regardless, the statement of the big four, Fujinon-Rodenstock-Nikon-Schneider being essentially interchangeable in their LF optical performance remains.*

**What MUST be understood by folks just entering the world of LF, this LF stuff was majority high quality image centric. There were very few if any "hobby-home-photographers" doing LF work. Majority were commercial-advertising-industrial, then the arts folks, with the remainder as others. The LF optics manufactures understood this market and cranked out designs to meet this market need. Second market fact, LF optics are based on fundamental optics formulations without the need for back focus length correction as required for fixed box camera. This significantly alters the demands on optics designs in good ways. It is also why LF optics are often so different than optics designed for fixed mount box camera.**

**Monorail cameras where in the majority back then**


Bernice

I didn’t mention resolution, I said that it was easy to detect differences in color, contrast, etc. between manufacturers.

[BrianShaw]

“... to simply believe lens alone tells the whole story of how color is rendered is absurd as the entire process is a LOT more complex than just lens-optic alone.“

Or camera alone, or film alone, or almost anything alone.

[Bob Salomon]

“ Regarding contrast, I found that all MC plasmats have exactly the same:”

When were you able to try “all”? Are you a dealer? A major studio”? Did you test them “all” at one time, on one film emulsion, on one subject?

Or did you read spec sheets?

[jp]

Hi,

Which Japanese lens do you already own or appeals
to you?

Thank you, kind regards,

Ig

I have a 210 Fujinar S 4.5. It's a 210 tessar design that's nearly as good as it gets for single coated tessars in reliable shutters, (probably Nikon 200 is better if budget is not a concern). Plenty of blades on the aperture, reliable, X-sync.


img310 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickr

"as good as" is entirely subjective since many of us use LF for different purposes and styles.

[BrianShaw]

I have a 210 Fujinar S 4.5. It's a 210 tessar design that's nearly as good as it gets for single coated tessars in reliable shutters, (probably Nikon 200 is better if budget is not a concern). Plenty of blades on the aperture, reliable, X-sync.


img310 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickr

"as good as" is entirely subjective since many of us use LF for different purposes and styles.

Have you ever had an opportunity to compare it to a Kodak Commercial Ektar?

[Tin Can]

As you so well illustrate in your flickr click through, especially img297c

I have a 210 Fujinar S 4.5. It's a 210 tessar design that's nearly as good as it gets for single coated tessars in reliable shutters, (probably Nikon 200 is better if budget is not a concern). Plenty of blades on the aperture, reliable, X-sync.


img310 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickr

"as good as" is entirely subjective since many of us use LF for different purposes and styles.

[Pere Casals]

“ Regarding contrast, I found that all MC plasmats have exactly the same:”

When were you able to try “all”? Are you a dealer? A major studio”? Did you test them “all” at one time, on one film emulsion, on one subject?

Or did you read spec sheets?

Bob, I measured it, this is quite easy, with MC in practice all flare comes from light bouncing in the bellows, not from reflexions in the glass.

MC is so perfect that Nikon/Canon/Etc make Pro DSLR zooms with 18 groups and they are perfectly contrasty:



4 MC groups (Plasmat) are always absolutely contrasty, I've checked about 8 MC Plasmats and I found all to be totally contrasty with no exception, what is true is that a too large circle may generate insane amounts of flare. The in camera flare makes irrelevant MC flare.

A difference between modern plasmats can be Out Of Focus rendition, every lens has a character in the OOF.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I measured it, this is quite easy, with MC in practice all flare comes from light bouncing in the bellows, not from reflexions in the glass.

MC is so perfect that Nikon/Canon/Etc make Pro DSLR zooms with 18 groups and they are perfectly contrasty:



4 MC groups (Plasmat) are always absolutely contrasty, I've checked about 8 MC Plasmats and I found all to be totally contrasty with no exception, what is true is that a too large circle may generate insane amounts of flare. The in camera flare makes irrelevant MC flare.

A difference between modern plasmats can be Out Of Focus rendition, every lens has a character in the OOF.

So no practical experience? Only theoretical suppositions?

Your way of comparing is like saying all mustards must taste the same as they all have similar ingredients!

[Pere Casals]

So no practical experience? Only theoretical suppositions?

Your way of comparing is like saying all mustards must taste the same as they all have similar ingredients!

Also practical experience, side by sides, and technical measurements. Bob, let me reiterate, I find no differences in the contrast of modern MC plasmats.

[Drew Wiley]

Color rendering differences with analogous design modern LF lenses from the big four? Sheer bunk. I have a far better trained color eye than most people. I specialized in color consultation at one time, and taught pro color matchers. Yeah, certain designs are a bit purer and more contrasty than others, or better apo corrected; but not a single one of you would be able to identify which brand lens I made a print from based on hue characteristics per se. Out of all my current lenses, one and only one lens is perceptibly a bit warmer, which is a Kern Dagor. And I've probably tested these things a thousand times better than any camera dealer could possibly do it! That's the kind of thing stacks and stacks of large format chromes allow one to do over the years, as well as many many prints in an entirely different league than any camera store employee even begins to understand, technique-wise. There are some evident differences in certain current premium 35mm lenses, but that's a topic for a different forum than this one. And if someone like Bernice implies that there's somehow apathy over such things today, them thar is fightin' words to me.