Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
Yeah, well I drive a stick-shift 4WD truck, and would probably instantly crash into a tree if I ever stepped on the accelerator of a Ferrari even in first gear. It's like that with lenses too. You don't realize the distinction until you have such choices in front of you, and then it becomes real. And I mean real. If I went from an old style Componon, for example, which was a decent lens long ago, to an Apo Nikkor at the other extreme, the difference in contrast, microtonality, fine detail and hue saturation would be quite evident even to the public. The upgrade from an ordinary Rodagon to an Apo Rodagon N, within comparable focal lengths, is apparent at close inspection, especially with respect to the superior microtonality in black and white prints; and Apo Nikkors optically outperform even those. All these little nuances cumulatively add up. But I don't even think of it in terms of one option being "better" than another, but as an option per se, to be chosen as the best fit for a particular image, much like we might select a somewhat older view camera lens for its special rendering qualities instead of sheer clinical detail ability. I once had a wonderful marriage between a 210 Componon S taking lens and 4x5 old-style Ektachrome printed with a Rodagon 180. Now I'm mostly working with much sharper, more contrasty taking lenses, distinctly improved enlarging optics, significantly improved color neg films (plus b&w work), and a whole new type of color printing medium capable of handling extreme detail, Fujiflex replacing Cibachrome. It all about matching everything up as efficiently as possible. When I want a softer image, I know how to do that too. It's all good.
Bookmarks