I'm only half-serious, so even apples-to-oranges comparisons are more than welcome.Originally Posted by David Karp
Or none at all, if it's inconvenient. This is a subjective area.
I'm only half-serious, so even apples-to-oranges comparisons are more than welcome.
Or none at all, if it's inconvenient. This is a subjective area.
Ken,
I knew you were kidding - that's why I compared the lens sizes instead of photos.
Scanning and digital printing are not my thing. So far, I just scan to proof. For that reason, I don't have a lot of scans to use as examples. So, that being said, here is what I have.
The first two photos are tests I did when I bought the Caltar Pro. One wide open at f/6.1, the other at f/22 (I think). The out of focus areas are nice on the wide open shot, but not so nice to my eye with the stopped down shot. These are both on 4x5 Arista 400 Professional (HP5+).
The third photo is a quick scan of a photo of my Dad and his grandkids. I used the 210 Caltar II-N on this one, at f/5.6. This photo was on 5x7 Arista.EduUltra 200 (Fomapan 200). I like the out of focus areas much better than those on the Caltar Pro. I know this is very subjective, and I can't really explain why. However, I notice that I have had this same feeling regarding other photos I have taken with the II-N.
Despite this, I really like the Caltar Pro. It is small and light, and very sharp. I don't see any need for a 200mm Nikkor M having this lens in my lineup. Most of the time, I go for sharpness across the image, to the extent possible.
I looked through my shots with the 200 Nikkor-M to see if I had one that was fairly open and medium distance with oof background, and found just one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/4207400085/
Looks fine to me, but I just have that one lens in that focal length for LF.
Drew
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/
David -
I see what you mean.
Oops - I never tested at small f/stops. Oh well.
it's hard to beat those Sironars, for everything except size and weight. Here's one made at roughly f/11 with 210 Macro Sironar-N.
i think the one at f/22 looks nice. it just isn't as blurry.
the foliage in the top right corner looks a little ni-sen at f/6.1, but i'm not sure if it's the photo or jpg artifacts.
the grass in the lower right corner of the caltar ii-n at f/5.6 shows bright rings, but it's not obtrusive because it's dark and at the bottom of the frame.
some areas in the middle and lower right have hexagonal bright rings, and some of the curved branches in the lower half are ni-sen. since there's so much going on, it's not obtrusive in this photo, either.
Thanks to Ken for such nice words, but after thinking on this for a bit I have to say that in my mind, compact and bokeh are mutually exclusive. Perhaps a 1940 - ish Kodak 203mm f7.7 pre-coatings would win the prize. But for me I would ever forfeit the grams and choose a Heliar if it's Bokeh I'm after. Cake and eat it too I suppose. I have a lovely old Bausch & Lomb 8 1/4" f4 Plasmat that the US Gov't paid way too much for in the 1950's that I've always meant to play with wide open and have not. It would hold a stack of papers securely in a hurricane though in it's #4 shutter.
Brother Ken, your candor made me smile broadly !
Knowing enough Japanese to know that "ni" is 2, I'm guessing ni-sen is unwanted double lines or something like that?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/
One thing I have seen is that lenses with a slight bit of undercorrected spherical aberration make a smoother rendition of out-of-focus details than do lenses that are fully corrected. The conventional wisdom is that this occurs behind the subject.
To me, an ideal lens for sharp portraiture occurs when stopping the lens down does not correct the spherical aberration so fast that the bokeh develops ugly artifacts such as bright edges or double lines. I have conducted tests of lenses for smaller format, but not for large format.
I think my favorite design is a classic Sonnar. But given that we don't really have that design available to us in large format, I would probably prefer a tessar design if my intention was to use a modern lens. When used wide open, these are not fully corrected, unless their maximum aperture is pretty limited. The fast ones tend to be pretty quick, too, and that helps a lot in the bokeh department. Sometimes, more blur helps more than smoother blur.
One example in this focal length is the Ilex Paragon 8-1/2" lens. It is a tessar design with an f/4.5 maximum aperture and the background blur is quite pleasing--moreso that I would expect from a well-corrected plasmat (like my otherwise stunning Sinaron/Sironar at 210mm). Another example, but not tested for this effect yet, is a Caltar Type Y 240mm f/6.8, which is also a tessar design.
The Ilex Paragon is mounted in an Ilex No. 4 shutter, so it is not small and light. But it is shorter front to back than plasmats of the same focal lenth, and the extra bulk is in diameter rather than length.
Rick "who prefers a faded edge rendering at wide apertures" Denney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks