Hah. The first LF lens I bought was a 135mm Apo-Sironar-S (used, thankfully), thinking I had to get a really great lens or why bother at all?
Of course, it performed flawlessly, but then I bought a Crown Graphic with a 135mm Xenar (single coated) and realized even that was more than what I needed, so I sold the first lens and do all my 4x5 shooting with that and a since-acquired 210mm Xenar.
The limiting factor in my photography is not my gear...
My Supergraphic has one of the my two Raptar 135mm f/4.7 lenses mounted because the cam I've got precisely focuses with it and it's incredibly sharp at f/22.Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
But 60 year old Rapax shutters are something of a PITA, first because the shutter speed increments are different than modern speeds (increments of 10, not 2), second because they tend to run slow (problematic mostly when shooting color transparency), and third because the lens cell threads don't interchange with Compur/Copal/Prontors (used lenses are so cheap that thread adapters aren't worth the expense or trouble).
So I also bought a used 15 year old Caltar IIN 135mm f/5.6 that has a bit more coverage, and a shutter that's bang-on. (Don't use it with the SG because it's not exactly a 135mm and the cam I've got doesn't work accurately).
I tend to agree that a good CLA is more important than the brand of the lens for general LF shooting. I haven't paid over $200 yet for normal sharp LF lenses. I like the lens that comes with my speed graphic too. I wish it had normal filter threads, but that's no big deal.
I am willing to pay a little extra for a brighter lens, just to make focusing without a darkcloth easier, so that's the differentiator for me.
If you get into soft focus, pricing becomes a little less rational, and research shows they do indeed vary greatly between manufacturers, and in non-quantitative ways. There's still some <$200 stuff, but the real variety typically requires a bigger checkbook unfortunately unless you do estate sales, lawn sales, etc...
That's an absolutely snotty response to a perfectly reasonable question, one which I would have asked myself had Jerold not already done so.
Attitude adjustment required, "Rust." Yet another instance where not using a real name seems to embolden poor behavior.
I wasn't trying to be difficult. I thought your answer (except the part about me) was helpful.
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
A quote, from a link, on another thread..... man I just love this quote, and I laughed out loud, because I am drinking the koolaid when it comes to some of these soft focus lenses, now I just need deeper pockets....
"Old boy, this is not a lens; it is a MAGIC chunk of glass." — John W. Giles
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.
I think among modern, multi-coated lenses the differences are negligible. There may be some significant differences in rendering out of focus areas between, say, a mostly symmetrical plasmat and a postmodern design like the schneider XLs (just guessing ...)
As far as differences in tonality, that's really a question of flare more than anything else. Modest amounts of overall flare give that solf glow that people love in vintage optics (you can also get it with zoom lenses on an slr, if the light is right!). Otherwise, I'm not at all convinced of tonal fingerprints of lenses.
I think we tend to attribute characteristics to our lenses that have more to do with the quality of light in our favorite pictures. It's amazing what happens when you start testing lenses side-by-side to evaluate tonal differences. Many of the presumed differences vanish, especially in lower contrast scenes.
Actually if we where talking face to face I would have said the same thing, but jeroldharter would have realized I was just being a smartass. Yet another instance of the problem with Internet communication, people read comments without the human emotion behind it. And why take Internet posts so damn serious, life is way too short and precious.
I guess I should have added a couple of these
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks