Film and lens test

[ScottPhotoCo]

I thought I'd share some film play from the past couple of days. Comments/thoughts welcome. This is a film and lens test. I recently acquired a vintage Schneider - Krouznach 360mm f5.5 lens as well as some Fuji Acros 100 4x5 film. As I wanted to test both I thought I'd combine them into a single test. Here are the results. I also shot one image with a Kodak Commercial Ektar 10" f6.3 for comparison. Details for each shot are on the image.

My observations:

The Ektar lens definitely sharper. It is a newer lens so this makes sense. I have no idea how old the Schneider - Krouznach 360mm lens is but it is definitely older. I do think that the Schneider - Krouznach 360mm f5.5 will be great for portraits and hope to try that soon.

I like both the Tmax 400 and the Fuji Acros for different reasons. The TMax has great smoothness in the transitions and I like that. The Across overall feels really great with more contrast. I will have to explore more to find what works best for my style and process.

This is not a Fuji vs Kodak battle. I like both films. Before people get worked up about the possible variances in processing, lens length or anything else, this was just a test for ME that I thought I'd share to see if it may help anyone else with their film adventures.



TEST_FilmLens_121512 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

[Dan Fromm]

What do your trial shots tell most of us? I ask because, based on discussions here, very few of us shoot with the lens near wide open.

Also, why should a newer lens be sharper than an older one? And why do you think your Schneider lens (which one is it? Schneider made more than one 360/5.5.) is newer than your Commercial Ektar? If the Schneider is a Tele-Arton it is a newer design than the Commercial Ektar. If it is a Tele-Xenar, it is a newer design type (possibly not computed as recently) and is a tele lens. Back when both lenses were new, tele lenses weren't as sharp as non-teles.

So, again, what have you learned that's new and that we can act on?

[Teodor Oprean]

I like the look of the images produced by the Ektar lens.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Thank you for your thoughts and comments Mr. Fromm. Good questions, all. I will attempt to address them with my limited knowledge.

First, I am relatively new to large format photography, but I love it. The flexibility, the variables and the process all help to feed my creative spark and as an advertising professional for over 20 years that spark is very important and valuable to me.

1. I cannot answer your question about shooting wide open or stopped down. I simply chose to start wide open because I figured that it would be the worst case senario and things would only get sharper from there. Personally, I appreciate the control of shallower depth of field as I can have the viewer see the image I create in a way that shows my perspective. Some I like narrow, some I like sharp across the board. The given (I believe) is that stopped down will only get sharper so I began on that theory. I may be proven wrong. But, that's how I learn.

2. I didn't assume that an older lens should be sharper than a newer one. Simply an observation based on my first test shots.

3. As far as the age of the lens, again, as I haven't been able to find anything as of yet about the manufacture of this lens, based on the type of shutter and look of the lens, I started with the theory that this is an older lens. I purchased it from a member of this board recently and this is the first time I've had the opportunity to shoot with it. I will attached a photo below in the event that anyone here may be able to share additional information about this lens.

4. As far as what I have learned and what you may be able to act on, well, that's entirely up to you. You seem like an intelligent and knowledgable man so this information may add nothing to your needs or growth as a photographer. For others like me, who are learning as much as possible through both trial and error as well as the incredibly knowledgable people here, there is yet one more tidbit of knowledge based on very simple observations of how the film looks as well as knowing how certain combinations will work together to create specifics as I conceive and attempt to create images in the future.

Thank you again for sharing your wisdom, comments and thoughts. I find them very valuable as I continue to learn more in my quest to bring my visions to life.

Respectfully.

Tim

What do your trial shots tell most of us? I ask because, based on discussions here, very few of us shoot with the lens near wide open.

Also, why should a newer lens be sharper than an older one? And why do you think your Schneider lens (which one is it? Schneider made more than one 360/5.5.) is newer than your Commercial Ektar? If the Schneider is a Tele-Arton it is a newer design than the Commercial Ektar. If it is a Tele-Xenar, it is a newer design type (possibly not computed as recently) and is a tele lens. Back when both lenses were new, tele lenses weren't as sharp as non-teles.

So, again, what have you learned that's new and that we can act on?

[ScottPhotoCo]

I like the look of the images produced by the Ektar lens.

Teodor,

I like the Ektar as well. Beautiful, well resolved images.

[Bernice Loui]

That look is precisely why I gave up on modern plasmat lenes (Symmar, Sironar, Fuji W and ...)

While the newest ones produce higher resolution with higher contrast than the older Plasmats, they tend to lack contrast range rendition and a nice smooth in to out of focus transition. Examine the negative with a microscope at 40X and one may discover the Ektar resolves more information than the Plasmat. What is deceptive is the longer or what is perceived by some as lower contrast is actually increased contrast range rendition.

Some time in the 1980's I did a trial between a Commercial Ektar. Sironar N, Symmar S and liked the overall look and image quality of the Ektar best.

Try the Commercial Ektar on color and be ready for a surprise at how well and honest it renders colors.


Bernice

I like the look of the images produced by the Ektar lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Tim, its wonderful that you ask your lenses what they can do. That's much much better than asking strangers who don't have your lenses what your lenses can do.

But comparisons between two lenses shot wide open have little bearing on how well they do, relative to each other, at the apertures most of us use most of the time. It isn't safe to reason from performance wide open to performance at smaller apertures. You're absolutely right that most of the lenses we use are sharper, especially in the corners of the image, stopped a few (many that is it depends on the lens) stops from wide open. How much better is what matters, though, and the only way to find out is to ask the lens.

I asked you which Schneider lens you have. Well? The lens' name should be engraved on the trim ring or around the front of the barrel. Thanks for posting a picture of your Schneider lens. It isn't very informative. A few words are worth more than a picture.

About translating a lens' serial number to approximate date of manufacture. From roughly 1940-on (that's before they used the trade name Commercial Ektar) Kodak used serial numbers of the form XX nnnn, where XX is a pair of letters that translates to year of manufacture and nnnn is a string of integers that is the lens' sequence number within its type. The letter code is CAMEROSITY were C = 1, A = 2, ..., Y = 0. My little 101/4.5 Ektar, s/n EI 205, is the 205th 101/4.5 Ektar made in 1947. Schneider has published a list of serial numbers by year of manufacture, see http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/service/serie.htm , look at it.

It is rarely safe to act on conclusions drawn from small samples.

Bernice, in my experience it is hard to control everything well enough to draw solid conclusions about how well a lens renders color. FWIW, most of the transmission by wavelength charts I've seen for lenses intended for general use are pretty flat across the visible. This isn't true for some lenses intended for aerial photography; some of these beasties are very poorly achromatized [oops! achromatized is the right word but it has nothing to do with transmission. Some of them need heavy filtration to eliminate bad chromatic aberration]. That said, Commercial Ektars are very fine lenses; their biggest weakness relative to plasmat types is smaller coverage.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Bernice,

I'm not nearly scientific enough to examine at 40x but I know that I do really like the "look" that I often see with Ektar's. I have the 8 1/2, the 10" and the 12" to play with. Now I really hope to find a 14 to round out the focal lengths. I have yet to shoot colour but I look forward to it!

That look is precisely why I gave up on modern plasmat lenes (Symmar, Sironar, Fuji W and ...)

While the newest ones produce higher resolution with higher contrast than the older Plasmats, they tend to lack contrast range rendition and a nice smooth in to out of focus transition. Examine the negative with a microscope at 40X and one may discover the Ektar resolves more information than the Plasmat. What is deceptive is the longer or what is perceived by some as lower contrast is actually increased contrast range rendition.

Some time in the 1980's I did a trial between a Commercial Ektar. Sironar N, Symmar S and liked the overall look and image quality of the Ektar best.

Try the Commercial Ektar on color and be ready for a surprise at how well and honest it renders colors.


Bernice

[ScottPhotoCo]

Mr. Fromm,

I did ask all of my lenses what they can do but the voices in my head drowned them out. That's why I decided to experiment a bit.

Yep, I did start wide open, as that is how I tend to visualize at this point in my photographic journey. Next I will work on smaller apertures to see what that does with each of my lenses. That is a big part of what I love about this! All of the combinations that we can explore with LF film. That and I love the process of MAKING an image, slowly, thoughtfully and that each image costs $$. In my fast-paced day job where everything seems to be due in about-an-hour, I really appreciate the craft and care it takes to truly make something.

Sorry for the confusion on the lens, as I mentioned, I am still quite new to this. The lens is an Schneider-Kreuznach No. 1824734 Tele-Xenar f5.5 36cm. According to the chart you kindly referenced it would seem to be manufactured some time between 1942-1948 (closer to 1942 is would appear). Referencing the secret decoder you posted my Ektars are; 8 1/2" – 1947, 10" – 1947 and 12" – 1957. Thank you for the info!

I agree with your statement that "It is rarely safe to act on conclusions drawn from small samples". That's why I'm starting at the beginning and will be exploring additional samples and variables as I continue.

The whole "colour" discussion is a whole other can of worms. Colour is so subjective based on media, ambient light and so many other variables. Sure, there are measurements, tests and other observables (is that a word?) in the scientific world. But as I came from a creative background I think much more with emotion (visually anyway) than I do with science in my photo undertakings.

Thanks again for the info!


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

Tim, its wonderful that you ask your lenses what they can do. That's much much better than asking strangers who don't have your lenses what your lenses can do.

But comparisons between two lenses shot wide open have little bearing on how well they do, relative to each other, at the apertures most of us use most of the time. It isn't safe to reason from performance wide open to performance at smaller apertures. You're absolutely right that most of the lenses we use are sharper, especially in the corners of the image, stopped a few (many that is it depends on the lens) stops from wide open. How much better is what matters, though, and the only way to find out is to ask the lens.

I asked you which Schneider lens you have. Well? The lens' name should be engraved on the trim ring or around the front of the barrel. Thanks for posting a picture of your Schneider lens. It isn't very informative. A few words are worth more than a picture.

About translating a lens' serial number to approximate date of manufacture. From roughly 1940-on (that's before they used the trade name Commercial Ektar) Kodak used serial numbers of the form XX nnnn, where XX is a pair of letters that translates to year of manufacture and nnnn is a string of integers that is the lens' sequence number within its type. The letter code is CAMEROSITY were C = 1, A = 2, ..., Y = 0. My little 101/4.5 Ektar, s/n EI 205, is the 205th 101/4.5 Ektar made in 1947. Schneider has published a list of serial numbers by year of manufacture, see http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/service/serie.htm , look at it.

It is rarely safe to act on conclusions drawn from small samples.

Bernice, in my experience it is hard to control everything well enough to draw solid conclusions about how well a lens renders color. FWIW, most of the transmission by wavelength charts I've seen for lenses intended for general use are pretty flat across the visible. This isn't true for some lenses intended for aerial photography; some of these beasties are very poorly achromatized. That said, Commercial Ektars are very fine lenses; their biggest weakness relative to plasmat types is smaller coverage.

[Bernice Loui]

Small sampling in any test can and will mis-lead in ways that will surprise.

I'm well aware of the wave length transmission curves, yet the color rendition is not what the curves may suggest. The overall result is far more complex than just measurements. There are many technical widgets that test great, yet fail other broader units of measure.

My opinion of color rendition in Commercial Ektars and other lenses comes from a time when color transparency film was at it's prime (1980-late 1990's).

The color test were as well controlled as possible at the time.

*Test for strobe color temperature using a Minolta flash color meter to calibrate the actual flash color temp at a given power setting.

*Tweak the color temp by using a Kodak CC filter gel (on the strobe) to bring the strobe color temp to 5000K (usually takes no more than 025cc yellow or magenta).

*Using a new Kodak gray scale as the test object along with a Mc Beth color rendition chart.

*Measure the gray (18%) and white test area the processed transparency film with color densitometer to see where the color shift went. Beyond this, learning what a specific color film/processing/lens/lighting will do.

This was pretty standard practice back in the days when color transparency film was used for all serious color work. It seems those days are mostly gone and the majority of color images today are digital where color can be altered digitally.

*This was a time when I had the serious looking for the greatest lens disease, making this worst, there was a camera dealer friend and other foto friends than indulged me with tinkering with lenses new and old. This is where my opinions of lenses comes from, a pretty sizable sample size, too many sheets of film burned but learned a lot in the process.

*This is where I discovered modern multi coated lenses had some degree of color bias overall... which I did not like, and the best most neutral color came from single coated lenses like the Kodak Ektar and Kinoptik (found this to be true with Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad, the T* multi coated had color bias, while the older non T* did not have this color bias). Beyond color rendition, there is contrast range and in to out of focus transition. Also worth noting is those old shutters have a round iris that makes a difference even if these old shutters tend to need loving care at times and tends to be slow at the higher speeds.

*Best color film IMO, Kodachrome 25. All E6 transparency films from that time has varying degrees of color bias, levels of less the real color saturation and etc relative to Kodachrome 25.

*Kodak made tri-color or color separation cameras using a Commercial Ektar. This camera had a optical system with RGB color filters for each sheet of film exposed.
Three sheets of panchromatic B&W film would be loaded and once the exposure was made three RGB negatives would be the result. No cross color and other problems related with layered color film.

*I'm not convinced greater coverage (image circle) is always a plus and a sole criteria for choosing optics. Know the larger image circle required, the more difficult is is to achieve optical corrections and uniform illumination on the film plane. There is also a problem of stray light bouncing around inside the bellows if the image circle is much larger than required.

*There is no ideal lens, just what is optimum from the task required and individual preferences do play a significant part in all this.

*Out of all this, the lenses I kept were, APO Artars, Dagor, Kodak Ektars, Heliar, Xenar, Super Angulon XL, Super Symmar XL.


Bernice

It is rarely safe to act on conclusions drawn from small samples.

Bernice, in my experience it is hard to control everything well enough to draw solid conclusions about how well a lens renders color. FWIW, most of the transmission by wavelength charts I've seen for lenses intended for general use are pretty flat across the visible. This isn't true for some lenses intended for aerial photography; some of these beasties are very poorly achromatized. That said, Commercial Ektars are very fine lenses; their biggest weakness relative to plasmat types is smaller coverage.