I should have wrote: According to my memory of the MTF charts, the N has higher resolution than -S, but that was outside center. This was according to in Bigler 150mm chart. Here is for 210mm. http://bigler.blog.free.fr/public/im...210f22-MTF.jpgOriginally Posted by Bob Salomon
Do not start looking for a "silver bullet" of lenses and development, as it will not show up in print!!!
Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk
Why not dig up Rodenstock’s own comparison curves?
Because Rodenstock's MTF curves represent a magnification of 1:20 for its N series and 1:10 for its S series. They're not directly comparable with each other or, in some cases, relevant to the subject distances some users typically encounter.
My seat of the pants decision was to spring for the APO Sironar S at the shorter 135mm focal length, as I use it closer to the edge of it's image circle (4x5). At 210mm, I'm using the N and have been completely happy with it.
FWIW (not much!)
Gosh. Probably few of us print large enough or crisply enough to bring out any real distinction between various 210's. When I need sheer enlarging muscle, I shoot 8x10 instead; and when I need sheer detail I print optically onto Supergloss. The whole topic of peak MTF gets overblown where the sheer scale of large format film real estate is involved. Yes, it's another helpful tool when deciding between a worthy lens and a dog, or between lenses of significantly different design even from the same manufacturer. It's also valuable with respect to distinguishing performance head-on versus tangential performance, something generally overlooked in these discussions. But at a certain point, things start getting silly.
If you have the budget for an Apo Sironar S, actually need the improved edge performance at a somewhat wider stops than I ever personally myself use, and can put up with the extra weight like in a studio application, then go for it. But I doubt that in most cases anyone will ever see the difference in actual result. There are just too many other variables to contend with after the shot. Some might appreciate brighter viewing; others, like me, generally prefer greater portability. To each his own. There are plenty of excellent lenses to choose from.
Just get one. You’ll never see any difference in 4x5!
Previously discussed beyond nauseam...
See post# 34 on this current discussion.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...mm-f8-SW/page4
"Rodenstock, Schneider were the LF view camera lens brands back in the days when sheet film color transparencies were THE high quality image production method. Nikkor was trying to gain_expand their photographic market share as Nikon-Nikkor had already held a good share of the 35mm film camera market, Nikon wanted more by expanding into the LF view camera market. What did happen, Rodenstock, Schneider remained the preferred lens brands as they worked excellent. Nikon was not much different optically, they did not have the marketing (much as they tried), brand recognition and long standing reputation among LF view camera users from that time (keep in mind, majority of 4x5 images from that time were made using monorail, in studio, high expectations images-work produced on color transparency film). Fujinon did not market in ways like Nikon or had the brand recognition as Schneider or Rodenstock.
~All four were essentially much the same, it came down to cost, lens availability and a long list of other factors_not image quality differences as if there were any significant image quality differences, there would be about zero possibility for any LF view camera lens brand to sell any significant numbers of lenses.
Fast forward to the here and now of what remains of the LF view camera world. Monorails have been over run by lightweight field folders, small light weight lenses and all related are in high demand commanding a market value premium, alternative image making processes have grown lots. Folks new to LF view camera today often have a history with 35mm film or digital as their points of reference and image making history. This history of Foto hardware is often carried over into their first steps into making-crafting LF view camera sheet film images. Reality, none of this should carried over into LF view camera image making without careful consideration due to the significant differences in hardware and often image making techniques."
Bottom line, pick any 210mm f5.6 in a proven GOOD, Reliable shutter (likely Copal) from Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon-Nikkor and move on to image making.
Know this APO Sironar, APO Symmar stuff is NOT gonna make THAT much difference in the film image.. Been there done these. Know and understand higher contrast is NOT always a better lens. As for sharpness, the great LF view camera lens equalizer is f22.
Sinaron, Caltar (later versions) are re-branded Rodenstock. In the case of Sinaron, these are reported to be checked then distributed in the Sinar sales network_much identical to the "box stock" Rodenstock offering.
FYI, fave LF view camera lenses are from 1950's designed and produced by Kodak single coated, in barrel, zero fancy marketing hype yet produces images like this:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...n-a-LF-wedding
Bernice
Your history has big holes in it.
Back in 76 EPOI was the US distributor of Sinar as well as Nikon. I was with EPOI back then. We primarily “sold” Schneider lenses as our competitor, Berkey Photo Marketing was the Rodenstock distributor.
During that year Nikon introduced their view camera lenses and Sinar sent us their initial test impressions of the lenses. It was not very good and we kept on going with Schneider in our division while the Nikon camera division floundered with the view camera lenses.
The reason I wrote “sold” was because the head of the Sinar division was running his off the books special where he gave away a Schneider Symmar with each camera he personally sold to dealers.
Fuji at this time was distributed by a small company in Rochester run by a fellow named Nat Goldstein. He also made his own lenses and didn’t put much effort into the Fuji lenses and Fuji themselves didn’t even try to sell them in the USA.
So Rodenstock and Schneider were the market. Nikon and Fuji were the off brand lenses.
Good on the history Bob, regardless of the history, "So Rodenstock and Schneider were the market. Nikon and Fuji were the off brand lenses."
Yes-No maybe so? Will any lens alone "make" any given LF view camera image... think all long time and deeply experienced with LF view camera image makers know the answer to this.
Bernice
Here around the same era Bob, you probably know of Adoph Gasser and might even have known their pro desk salesmen, who swore by Fuji over either Schneider or Rodenstock, but had relatively high opinions of them all, including Nikon, and even stocked a full selection of each. At trade shows, an actual Fuji rep did have a booth; but they never marketed aggressively compared to the German firms. All water under the bridge anyway at this point. The only two lenses I ever bought from Gasser were a 210 Symmar S, which certainly wasn't as insanely sharp or near-apo as my later lenses; but to this day I long for the gentler color and background rendering of that thing. I pretty much wore it out anyway. Did a lot of rough mountaineering with it back then. The other lens was a 355 MC Kern Dagor, marketed by Schneider, but not made by them - it's own kind of critter, and better suited to 8x10 use. My own track record with Rodenstock is entirely on the darkroom end of things.
My brother for awhile sold Linhof, Rollei, and LF and MF lenses in Southern Cal. He was of the opinion that Rodenstock and Fuji had overtaken Schneider in terms of quality control back then. You've formerly told me why. And if Nikon was ever behind (which might not be true at all, given that statement came from a competitor), they certainly caught up fast, and even introduced their own niche items. Schneider behaved like a stuck record in just offering big studio plasmats, and missed the boat while Fuji and Nikon began appealing to the outdoor crowd with significantly more petite lenses like Fuji A's and Nikkor M's, which are certainly optically superb.
Just too many kinds of candy in the candy store as far as I'm concerned. One can't have them all. Lots and lots of tempting choices for one starting out, however. Doesn't surprise me that they get confused. I certainly was during my own first visit to the view camera counter, during its heyday. But my older brother had already given me some good tips.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks