Rodenstock VS Fuji VS Schneider VS Nikon, Um who cares

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Today as I was looking at the first results of my new (to me) Rolleiflex 2.8F (Zeiss version) and comparing it to my C.V. Bessa III with its modern Fujinon lens, I can echo what Jim is saying here from my own observations. These lenses, though both are small and 80mm on medium format, are worlds apart in the way they render... and I'm also talking about at f/8, not just wide apertures. The contrast and tonality produced by each is so very, very different. I would guess that the difference in LF lenses is not as great, but it must be there.

Contrast, tonality and color rendering is one thing I forgot to cover in my original post. But with modern lenses there shouldn't be differences that big. All my modern lenses look damn close in this area. Now a lens from 1950's-1960's VS a modern lens, that is a different story. Probably a more detectable difference in this area.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Folks,

Some of you own way too many lenses...

I have three lenses, I had four, and I buy Schneider for 8X10. My 4X5 lenses were Rodenstock. I never did see a difference in sharpness between the two manufacturers, but I surely did see a difference in their contrast, and for a short while, I owned Fujinon 300, where I quickly turfed it because it produced too much contrast. I have never been a fan of Japanese large format glass because of the higher than expected contrast levels.

Lenses are not just about weight, size, shutters, image circles, nor are they just about being the sharpest on the planet. What matters most to me happens to be the character of the lens, its ability to perform, and its ability to produce flawless tonality, whether the MTF says it is superb or not, and if it is, that chart just happens to look good on the lens's resume. I would still carry a lens anywhere, once I cherished the lens for its inherent characteristics, even if it weighed ten kilograms.

jim k

My Fuji 300 8.5 C definitely is a strong contrast lens, which I don't really mind in a long lens. The Nikon 360 8 tele is not too bad though, and actually probably needs to be underexposed by 1/3 of a stop to increase contrast a little because of the long focal length. My 75 4.5 and 180 5.6 Nikons also don't have excessive contrast in my opinion.

Now my Rodenstock 90 6.8 150 5.6 and 210 5.6 are quite contrasty and are almost as bad as the Fuji 300. I use a Acra-Swiss lens hood all the time with all lenses.

Edit: I also want to mention that a lens that is quite contrasty can be a problem at times with a film like vevia 50 it can help a film like astia 100F.

[jim kitchen]

I think among modern, multi-coated lenses the differences are negligible....

Dear Paul,

You are probably correct, but it bothered me enough that I had to change my processing to accommodate the lens, which I could see in the finished image...

That was something I was unprepared to do, nor did I have the time to remember, while capturing an image in the field. It was a sharp lens, though. My reference to Rodenstock lenses while using my 4X5 produced more contrast than my 4X5 Schneider glass, which happened to be a feature that I desired many years ago, compared to not, and while using the smaller negative.

jim k

[John NYC]

My Fuji 300 8.5 C definitely is a strong contrast lens, which I don't really mind in a long lens. The Nikon 360 8 tele is not too bad though, and actually probably needs to be underexposed by 1/3 of a stop to increase contrast a little because of the long focal length. My 75 4.5 and 180 5.6 Nikons also don't have excessive contrast in my opinion.

Now my Rodenstock 90 6.8 150 5.6 and 210 5.6 are quite contrasty and are almost as bad as the Fuji 300. I use a Acra-Swiss lens hood all the time with all lenses.

Edit: I also want to mention that a lens that is quite contrasty can be a problem at times with a film like vevia 50 it can help a film like astia 100F.

Hang on. In your response to my post above, you are saying the contrast differences in modern lenses are basically too small to care about and in this post you are comparing and contrasting modern lenses like there are differences big enough that have cause you problems.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Hang on. In your response to my post above, you are saying the contrast differences in modern lenses are basically too small to care about and in this post you are comparing and contrasting modern lenses like there are differences big enough that have cause you problems.

Well to go so far as to say it may have caused me problems is going a bit far. I'm just saying the differences are there but they are small. Stuff you really ain't going to notice at first glance and even after scrutinizing nothing to get worked about. If one of my lenses was causing me problems I would have sold it, and I ain't selling any of my lenses.

With the 360 I underexpose a little because it's a tele and I did the same thing with my 200mm Pentax 6x7 lens. Telephoto lenses bring out the haze in the sky more than a wide angle or normal lens and it washes out the image a tad in my opinion. This is the reason I don't mind a tad more contrast that the Fuji 300 has.

I also was trying to point out that in my opinion Rodenstock lenses are just as contrasty as Japan glass. Some feel Schneider is the least contrasty of the Big Four and they are probably right but I just looked through Jack Dykinga's large format book shot with Schneider glass and they also look quite contrasty to me. Hell my single coated Canon 24mm FD 2.8 lens has strong contrast.

Contrast can be increased or decreased in processing or printing but I can't add a bigger image circle to a lens or make a big lens smaller. If a lens like a Fuji 240A has a bit too much contrast on some shots then tone it down a little in the printing stage, but having a 240mm in a copal 0 and a 52mm front in a small and light package is sweet.

Two examples of how I bought a lens:

Rodenstock 65 4.5 grandadon: I wanted a 65mm and all the big aperture ones have the same image circle but the Rodenstock has a smaller front [58] and is a little smaller. Some people also stated that the light falloff is better on the grandagon so a better chance I wouldn't need a center filter and if I did the center filter for the lens is a 58-77 and I standardize on 77mm filters. I would not need 86mm filters which are expensive and can be hard to find. The 4.5 aperture is icing on the cake.

Nikon 180 5.6 W: I wanted a plasmat for this focal length and they differ little in a focal length like this between the Big Four. I just looked for the best deal. The rodenstock didn't come up at all. A Fuji in good condition came up but sold before I could buy it. A Nikon and Schneider came up at about the same time but the Nikon was $100 cheaper and I didn't feel the Schneider was worth the price difference so I picked up the Nikon and have been very happy with it.

[jeroldharter]

...
Hey jeroldharter, I was just being a smartass, I am one most of the time, life is too short and I like to have a little fun. Plus I thought you where poking a little at me with your post which doesn't bother me any so I poked back a little. All the people I know and myself always give each other crap and I wouldn't have it any other way. Messing with strangers is fun too you know. Plus I had a little buzz from this BadBoy CHEERS :-) ;-) Rust "The snotty" Never "Attitude adjustment needed" Sleeps

No problem.

[John NYC]

Well to go so far as to say it may have caused me problems is going a bit far. I'm just saying the differences are there but they are small. Stuff you really ain't going to notice at first glance and even after scrutinizing nothing to get worked about. If one of my lenses was causing me problems I would have sold it, and I ain't selling any of my lenses.

It is really person dependent whether these small differences matter to one or not. They do exist in my view.

While it is easy to add contrast in post processing or printing, it is much harder to reduce it effectively in my experience.

[Bob Salomon]

It is really person dependent whether these small differences matter to one or not. They do exist in my view.

While it is easy to add contrast in post processing or printing, it is much harder to reduce it effectively in my experience.

Reduce the developing time. Or, if you are controlling the lighting, change the ratio.

[John NYC]

Reduce the developing time.

That will reduce overall contrast alright, but won't change a lens that has a lot of local contrast emphasis into one that doesn't.