Rate my Lenses...please

[DaveAlbano]

Please evaluate my lenses and tell me the quality of the glass (1-5 scale, 5 being best), additional comments are encouraged. I shoot B&W Tri-x 320 (70%) and Readyload Kodak VC Slide 100 (30%).

1. Schneider Super-Angulon, 90mm F8
2. Fujinon W 150mm F5.6
3. Nikkor W 210mm F5.6 (keep)
4. Fujinon T 400mm F8

I have the funds for "better" glass, just not sure if I get "better" results with the following. i.e would you make the transition from what I have to the following...

1. Schneider SA-XL 72mm 5.6 (replace SA 90)
2. Rodenstock APO Sironar-N 150mm F5.6 (replace Fuji W 150)
3. Nikkor T 360/500/720 (replace Fuji Telephoto)

I read a lot about the "XL" from Schneider and Sironar-N from Rodenstock as being "must have". Any advice?

[Ralph Barker]

I think a lot depends on the motivation for "upgrading" each individual lens, Dave.

On the 90mm, for example, do you want a wider lens, or a brighter one?

On the 150mm, are you after better resolution? I'm not sure that you'd see much difference between the Fuji and the Rodenstck Sironar-N, but you mig.

On the tele, I assume you are aware that Nikon is no longer making LF lenses. So, you're looking at either remaining stock or used on the Nikkor-Ts. I've seen a few 360s pop up, and a couple of 500mm rear elements recently. But, I've been (casually) looking for a 720mm rear element for several years with no luck.

You may find this info helpful:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[David A. Goldfarb]

A 72-75mm lens isn't a replacement for a 90mm lens. They are each useful in their own right.

[Alan Davenport]

There's nothing wrong with any of the lenses you already have. Stop obsessing and go take some pictures.

[paulr]

My rating for your lenses is 687.
(margin of error plus or minus 22)

[Rob_5419]

I read a lot about the "XL" from Schneider and Sironar-N from Rodenstock as being "must have". Any advice?

I can't really tell any difference between the Sironar N series versus the Nikkor W series. I'm as blind as not being able to tell the difference between the Sironar N series; the Nikkor W series and the Sironar S series in black and white photography. (The Nikkor W is definitely cooler in colour contrast/temperature rendition).

For colour photography, I like my Sironar S. I can't tell why in any precise scientific terms other than a warm glowy chromy feeling. As far as resolution goes, I can't tell the difference between any of them at 20x24" enlargement sizes.

Since you shoot 70% black & white, if you're happy with a 90mm being the widest lens you have, that's okay.

Have you thought of changing film to explore the limits of your results? Your film selection is more limiting than your lens' resolutions. You would probably get better results from shooting with finer grained film, like Fuji Acros, Adox 25, Rollei R3 than with Tri-X, and Fuji Velvia or even Fuji 160C sheet film instead of the grainier Kodak variety. $0.02.

[Walter Calahan]

6.8 on the pinhole scale.

Grin

[IanG]

Save your money on upgrading, they are all excellent lenses. Changing any of them won't help you take better images.

You might want to get a wider lens than the 90mm, but the 75mm SA's are superb and cost a lot less than the 72mm SA-XL, and there are some excellent 65mm's as well.

Ian

[Armin Seeholzer]

I would only ad the 72 XL if you can aford it!

Everything is totaly fine in my opinion. Armin

[Salty]

It's not always the quality of the glass you have. Having the experience and the right technique matters. There are a number of photographers on this site who can take a "mud sucker" and make wonderful negatives.