Which are the fancy lenses??

[AdamD]

WOW...this thread really took "fancy lenses" to the limits!! I love this forum!!!

Here's what I got out of this, in summary....

There are indeed a few fancy lenses out there and often what makes them fancy is/are some specific feature such as unusually large image circle which lends them well to 4x5 and 5x7 dual role. That would be a good reason to make that particular lens a primary anchor point in you kit such as the 115mm Rodenstock. Other factors include fast lenses and lenses that can be used in more that one way such as a convertible lens.

Other than that, there are no obviously anchor point lenses that screem, "Make me your primary lens and build a kit around me."

I was looking for the most efficient path to building a lens kit. One that I could plan out ahead, and just wait for the "deal" to show up and not have to think about it. Someone in this thread suggested I over think things. NO I DON'T.....yeah denial is the first sign on unmanageability..... yeah you called me out!!

So in the end, there's no obviously path of least resistance, it's just a path that has to be followed.

I'm ok with that. But this thread has been very helpful.

Love the ideas in here too!!

[Dan Fromm]

Adam, you're still overthinking nearly everything.

For most of us, the first camera was the wrong camera. Using the first camera taught us what the replacement had to do.

For most of us, finding the the "best" lens kit -- a very personal thing -- has been a matter of trial and error.

You remind me of philosophers thinking about empirical reality. These people gaze into their navels, sorry, use introspection combined with a complete lack of knowledge about empirical reality. As we say, ex nihil, nihil. Just buy some gear, use it, and learn what suits you.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, or why the most modern multi-coated LF uber contrast lenses are not always best.

As previously mentioned, back in the Ciba-Ilford Chrome print days, one of the ways to aid in excessive contrast was to use older lenses with lower contrast rendition.

Not all was intersted in lowering contrast of these prints, there were those who exploited high contrast images extremely well.


Bernice

I have found the saving grace of old uncoated, plain lenses is that some new B/W films have a long toe, so a lens with lower contrast seems to match this, and with color films with excessive saturation, these can help tame it... So these can be useful tools, and matched to different materials...

So for lens selection, I think the question of "what" lens could be asked "why" this lens...

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Correct in many ways that is not appreciated today. Vast majority of LF film image makers back in the day were working photographers trying to put food on the table and a roof over their head & studio. To survive means producing images to a level of quality that was market acceptable in a demanding market. Much of this was done in studio, on 4x5 film with a monorail camera and the KEY ingredient was lighting combined with artistic and technical skill. Modern lenses were the norm and were considered essentially interchangeable between the big four brands. Camera HAD to be ease to use and completely stable for the camera movements required to make the image. Essentially, lens and camera were greatly secondary to lighting, set up, film used and image production.

Support systems were the "pro" camera stores where sheet film was always ready in the help yourself fridge and E6 processing labs that did all they could to support their working photographer base trying to make a living.

Been thinking of posting this a while ago, now there is a better reason to. These are pages from a late 90's KEH sales flyer. Note Linhof and Sinar have their separate pages and used market price of their offerings. Linhof and Sinar were THE sheet film cameras to have and own. Followed by used LF lenses and field folders and other LF camera brands. Field folders where a niche market LF camera back then as were small LF lenses that have become so highly desirable today. KEH would not often deal in odd barrel lenses like Heilar, APO Lanthar, APO process lenses and such as their market value and desirability was very limited back in those days.










Bernice

Almost all large format gear was made for and sold to professionals. That’s the reason why nowadays there is a large supply heavy bulky monorail cameras. Most of the time they were carried by assistants. A amateur now is interested in light, small and easy to carry cameras and compact lenses. Small lenses were never a great interrest for professionals. So there are not many made. Plain economics of demand and supply dictate prices. Heavy bulky sironar f 5,6 240mm no problem. A fujinon-A f 9 240mm on the other hand…..

[Bernice Loui]

OK, fine. We have been here done this before.

Any of your APO Lanthars have yellowing of the glass?
In addition to Lanthanum glass used, early APO Lanthars had optical glass with Thorium oxide making them slightly radioactive. As with a long list of camera optics from that era, optical glass with Thorium oxide was used due to the lower dispersion they offered back then. Use of this family of optical glass fell out of fashion.

As for the 300mm f4.5 APO Lanthar, these were usually in a Compound# 5 shutter. BIG lens. Far fewer were in barrel. They were not that difficult to get back in the late 70's and early 80's before they became a cult lens much like the Heilar. It was not difficult to cull a collection of Heliars in barrel for $50 per lens and matching APO Lanthars in shutter back in the day for not much more (been there, done this). Working photographers back then were simply not interested in these lenses as they were using modern plasmas from the big four to make a living.

Due to the cult brand name status of APO Lanthar and Heilar, theses lens names have been applied to modern digital camera lenses that are not directly related to the lenses that were the origins of these lens names.

https://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-H.../dp/B01GH0B58M

https://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-A.../dp/B074H1M8TR


Much about foisting Foto hardware to those seeking "Fancy Lenses"...


Bernice

Disagree with Bernice. The APO Lanthars have a certain strange property I don't quite understand - they seem to make the shadow areas really open and airy, kind of like Steve mentions with older lenses above, but retain a good contrast throughout the image rather than the haziness I tend to dislike about older uncoated or just lower contrast lenses. Oh and they are really sharp at wider apertures as well as stopped down. I certainly am not selling mine...and would love to find a 30cm one to round out my collection. Oh well, that's not likely to happen! I need to get my 21cm onto my 5x7...

[JMO]

WOW...this thread really took "fancy lenses" to the limits!! I love this forum!!!

Here's what I got out of this, in summary....

There are indeed a few fancy lenses out there and often what makes them fancy is/are some specific feature such as unusually large image circle which lends them well to 4x5 and 5x7 dual role. That would be a good reason to make that particular lens a primary anchor point in you kit such as the 115mm Rodenstock. Other factors include fast lenses and lenses that can be used in more that one way such as a convertible lens.

Other than that, there are no obviously anchor point lenses that screem, "Make me your primary lens and build a kit around me."

I was looking for the most efficient path to building a lens kit. One that I could plan out ahead, and just wait for the "deal" to show up and not have to think about it. Someone in this thread suggested I over think things. NO I DON'T.....yeah denial is the first sign on unmanageability..... yeah you called me out!!

So in the end, there's no obviously path of least resistance, it's just a path that has to be followed.

I'm ok with that. But this thread has been very helpful.

Love the ideas in here too!!

To the OP: I didn't see anyone above here refer you to this review resource by Kerry Thalmann on "modern" LF lenses, that I have found helpful toward making decisions on what goes into my kit back pack. Though it hasn't been updated in a number of years, since there have been essentially no new LF lenses made and marketed for many years this review is up-to-date with what's available to those beginners currently seeking to dive in and enjoy LF photography.

[Luis-F-S]

I like the concept that the fancy lenses are the ones you can’t afford. That said, my 810 lenses are:
First lens 12” dagor
Second lens 6.5” WA dagor
Third lens 19” Artar
Fourth lens 24”artar
Fifth lens 9 1/2” Dagor

4x5 lenses
First lens 210 modern or 8 1/4” dagor
Second lens 120 SA or 4 3/8 WA dagor
Third lens 12” dagor
Fourth lens 90 SA or equivalent from one of the big 4

I've also got modern lenses from the 58 XL to the 300 Sironar N.

One of the first LF lenses I bought was the 14" MC GD Dagor. Yes, the expensive one. Bought it new for about 1/4 of what they go for now. Never use it, always use the 12" Dagor instead.


Luis

[Corran]

Any of your APO Lanthars have yellowing of the glass?

You mean the free warming filter?
Of course I mostly shoot b&w, but on the occasional transparency the slight warmth is a benefit, especially on some films like Provia.

[Luis-F-S]

To the OP: I didn't see anyone above here refer you to this review resource by Kerry Thalmann on "modern"...lenses......

Too much research will only confuse you!!

[Bernice Loui]

Heh.. Sort of. Number of the APO Lanthars from years ago had yellowing of the glass. This altered color balance for color transparency film and other color films. This was one of the "flaws" Fotograpers did not like about APO Lanthars and similar lenses from a different era.

These cult lenses DO have a certain "smoothness" to their image rendition at larger apertures, except they are not the only lenses with this personality.


Bernice

You mean the free warming filter?
Of course I mostly shoot b&w, but on the occasional transparency the slight warmth is a benefit, especially on some films like Provia.