Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?

[manfrominternet]

Bernice, It's always a pleasure to see your posts. You are 100% correct, and it would be nice to see more discussion of those elements you list, rather than the mundane gear chat.
Buy a lens, (or use what you have). Take photographs. Make prints.

Of course Bernice is right, and I agree.

But it may also be pertinent that I wasted about $300 in film and processing using a - now independently confirmed by an LF photographer far more experienced than me - dud of a lens (65mm Nikon Nikkor f/4) because I bought the whole "it's-not-your-lens-it's-YOU" mentality, not to mention the cost of the lens itself. All of the processed color negatives and transparencies (Ektar, Portra 160, Provia, and Velvia) that I shot using this lens came back extremely soft, to the point that I had to shelve the project I was working on. (Note that all of my color negs/transparencies shot with either my 150mm or 210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/6.8 are tack sharp.) While the work done with my 65mm Nikon Nikkor might have been okay for small prints, my goal for said project was to make digital c-prints prints around 8' x 6' (2.4m x 1.8m). I only continued to work with the lens because, as I mentioned, I was convinced that it was really just me.

Anyway, since I'm not Jeff Bezos, this is exactly why i'm asking such a, ahem, pedestrian or perhaps inane question about the quality of the lenses I have. I know that the prevailing wisdom is to tell others to not worry about their lens quality and to just go out there and shoot, but if I'm looking to make as-sharp-as-possible 8' x 6' color prints, I'm fairly confident that no one would recommend using any beat up LF lens from a junkyard either.

In any case, I agree that a lens alone (or camera, for that matter) does not make a photographer, but a good one can certainly help.

I apologize if I sound sour. I'm not. I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of which lenses are known to be extremely sharp for extremely large prints of color negs/transparencies.

[Bernice Loui]

Dud lenses happen more often than folks realize. This is why reading on the web this or that lens is Absolutely Superior to all might not be fact and reality. Back in the day, any lens to be considered for purchase was tested LOTs using color transparency film under controlled studio conditions and lighting. Film and processing cost were modest, high quality color transparency processing was easy, fast and modest cost. If the lens proved to be no good, it went back to the seller-dealer. Same applied to new or used lenses. More than a few never got past this test. The keepers are still here and are not going any where fast as too much has been spent proving them to be good with predictable results.

This is why testing ALL your lenses, camera, processing method and all related to print making is SO important to getting that finished print goal.

The potential wast is a LOT more than film cost, the loss of your time which is your limited time alive cannot be recovered and there is the effort to try replicating what that image could be.

Lots of "Crowing" about new to LF folks to get a proven good modern lens (both optically and shutter). Physical appearance does not imply good optical performance. For anyone new to LF, a dud lens will result in huge amounts of frustrations, cost and worst of all discouraging results that reduce the interest or desire to use any view camera.

Choice is, get another 65mm lens, be it another Nikor, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schineider and test it lots to your satisfaction before trying to produce any meaningful work with that lens. IMO, do this with ALL your current lenses to make absolute sure they are "up to snuff".


Bernice

Of course Bernice is right, and I agree.

But it may also be pertinent that I wasted about $300 in film and processing using a - now independently confirmed by an LF photographer far more experienced than me - dud of a lens (65mm Nikon Nikkor f/4) because I bought the whole "it's-not-your-lens-it's-YOU" mentality, not to mention the cost of the lens itself. All of the processed color negatives and transparencies (Ektar, Portra 160, Provia, and Velvia) that I shot using this lens came back extremely soft, to the point that I had to shelve the project I was working on. (Note that all of my color negs/transparencies shot with either my 150mm or 210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/6.8 are tack sharp.) While the work done with my 65mm Nikon Nikkor might have been okay for small prints, my goal for said project was to make digital c-prints prints around 8' x 6' (2.4m x 1.8m). I only continued to work with the lens because, as I mentioned, I was convinced that it was really just me.

Anyway, since I'm not Jeff Bezos, this is exactly why i'm asking such a, ahem, pedestrian or perhaps inane question about the quality of the lenses I have. I know that the prevailing wisdom is to tell others to not worry about their lens quality and to just go out there and shoot, but if I'm looking to make as-sharp-as-possible 8' x 6' color prints, I'm fairly confident that no one would recommend using any beat up LF lens from a junkyard either.

In any case, I agree that a lens alone (or camera, for that matter) does not make a photographer, but a good one can certainly help.

I apologize if I sound sour. I'm not. I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of which lenses are known to be extremely sharp for extremely large prints of color negs/transparencies.

[Tin Can]

All education is expensive

whether Harvard, Art school or Tin Can College aka the school of hard knocks

Bernice is correct and you must satisfy yourself, all other judges may have bias

IMHO you are pushing your format too far with too large a print


Nikon Wide Angle 65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW Lens with Copal #0 Shutter

[neil poulsen]

I suppose one could consider upgrading the two Symmar-S lenses to either Apo Symmar, or better, to Apo-Symmar L lenses. But years ago, I spoke with Schneider Optics about this, and they indicated that one would be hard pressed to see a difference in an actual photograph. Maybe one might see a difference on close examination with a loupe, they suggested.

As a question, do either of these lenses have Schneideritis, the malady where one can see tiny, shiny silver spots in the black area beneath the surface of the lens? (Symmar-S lenses can be prone to this.) Since you're intent on having excellent optics, and depending on the seriousness, you could replace any such examples.

The 72mm Super Angulon XL is a large lens, but it's near the focal length of the 65mm lens, and it would offer greater movements. At the very least, I would replace the 65mm with a 75mm f5.6 super-wide for the greater movements that it would offer. For me, 75mm is sufficiently wide.

[Greg Y]

All education is expensive

whether Harvard, Art school or Tin Can College aka the school of hard knocks

Bernice is correct and you must satisfy yourself, all other judges may have bias

IMHO you are pushing your format too far with too large a print

Manfrom, This goes back to one of Bernice's statements, about working back from the desired output to choose your tools....

[Alan Klein]

Dud lenses happen more often than folks realize. This is why reading on the web this or that lens is Absolutely Superior to all might not be fact and reality. Back in the day, any lens to be considered for purchase was tested LOTs using color transparency film under controlled studio conditions and lighting. Film and processing cost were modest, high quality color transparency processing was easy, fast and modest cost. If the lens proved to be no good, it went back to the seller-dealer. Same applied to new or used lenses. More than a few never got past this test. The keepers are still here and are not going any where fast as too much has been spent proving them to be good with predictable results.

This is why testing ALL your lenses, camera, processing method and all related to print making is SO important to getting that finished print goal.

The potential wast is a LOT more than film cost, the loss of your time which is your limited time alive cannot be recovered and there is the effort to try replicating what that image could be.

Lots of "Crowing" about new to LF folks to get a proven good modern lens (both optically and shutter). Physical appearance does not imply good optical performance. For anyone new to LF, a dud lens will result in huge amounts of frustrations, cost and worst of all discouraging results that reduce the interest or desire to use any view camera.

Choice is, get another 65mm lens, be it another Nikor, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schineider and test it lots to your satisfaction before trying to produce any meaningful work with that lens. IMO, do this with ALL your current lenses to make absolute sure they are "up to snuff".


Bernice

Bernice, How do you test a lens simply? I'm new to LF photography. I have a Fujinon 75mm SWD F5.6, Nikkor 90mm SW f/4.5 with CF (Schneider IV), Schneider 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar, and I just ordered a Nikkor M 300mm, f/9

[Bob Salomon]

Bernice, How do you test a lens simply? I'm new to LF photography. I have a Fujinon 75mm SWD F5.6, Nikkor 90mm SW f/4.5 with CF (Schneider IV), Schneider 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar, and I just ordered a Nikkor M 300mm, f/9

You use it to take pictures of what you want to use it for. Stop down 2 stops and then take additional shots down to f22.
Pick the best. Is that result make you happy? Make sure what you shoot has fine detailsacros# the frame

[Bernice Loui]

Been a while since doing any of this.

Mount the lens to be tested on the Sinar P. There is a reason for this, lenses are checked at full aperture and stopped down. Camera alignment cannot be an issue that affects the performance of the lens. If the camera's front to rear standards are NOT absolute parallel out of focus due to the front to rear standards being out of alignment this applies to full aperture more than stopped down. Lens must be properly mounted to it's lens board. If the lens mounting is outa-whack, this can and will affect lens performance.

Point the lens out a open window on a bright sunny day at some far distance object with fine details like a building, tree cluster or similar. Apply a high quality 5x to 7x loupe on the GG, examine the GG image very carefully for focus, image quality and all that at full aperture, then two stops down then f22, then f45 across the entire area of the GG. If the lens cannot pass the GG basic test, stop here and reject the lens. Don't bother wasting any film as the lens will be an automatic dud.

Film flatness is an issue, simplest way to aid this is to apply a small piece of double stick tape ( 1/2" x 1/2" or so will do for 4x5) to the center of the film holder before the film is loaded (bit tricky as the film sheet might want to hang up on the small piece of tape while loading, so do this upside down or curve the film slightly while loading) . Press down gently with a cotton cloth at the center of the film after it is loaded. Yes, it raises the film by a few thousands of an inch, but it is a LOT better than having the film pop out or not stay flat to the film holder affecting the test results.

If the lens looks GOOD on the GG, make two color transparencies at full aperture then at f22. Exposure will typically be sunny 16, verify with a good light meter. Take the film to the processing lab, get the film processed then examine the results on a 5000K light table with a good microscope or high quality loupe 10x or so. Schneider once made high magnification loupe that were not bad, there is certainly equal to better ones easily available today.

If the lens gets this far. To the color rendition test as noted in post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ght=elinchrome

Rinse-repeat what was done above. If the results are acceptable. Apply the lens to your print image goals, evaluate the results to see if all is acceptable. This is where the personality of the lens begins to be revealed in ways those test above cannot reveal.

For image circle test. lenses for 4x5 is easier than lenses for larger film formats. Set up a 8x10 view camera (easy with a Sinar) mount the 4x5 lens to be tested and do the point the lens out a open window on a sunny day test. This will give some idea of how big the image circle is and how the lens behaves at the edges of it's image circle. Keeping film flatness and camera alignment is a LOT more difficult with 8x10 due to the physically large parts involved.



Bernice

Bernice, How do you test a lens simply? I'm new to LF photography. I have a Fujinon 75mm SWD F5.6, Nikkor 90mm SW f/4.5 with CF (Schneider IV), Schneider 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar, and I just ordered a Nikkor M 300mm, f/9

[Alan Klein]

You use it to take pictures of what you want to use it for. Stop down 2 stops and then take additional shots down to f22.
Pick the best. Is that result make you happy? Make sure what you shoot has fine detailsacros# the frame

Bob, I don't understand. Right now, I've been shooting at f/22 on all my lenses because everyone seems to be saying that's the sweet spot. So could you explain your process above?

[Alan Klein]

Been a while since doing any of this.

Mount the lens to be tested on the Sinar P. There is a reason for this, lenses are checked at full aperture and stopped down. Camera alignment cannot be an issue that affects the performance of the lens. If the camera's front to rear standards are NOT absolute parallel out of focus due to the front to rear standards being out of alignment this applies to full aperture more than stopped down. Lens must be properly mounted to it's lens board. If the lens mounting is outa-whack, this can and will affect lens performance.

Point the lens out a open window on a bright sunny day at some far distance object with fine details like a building, tree cluster or similar. Apply a high quality 5x to 7x loupe on the GG, examine the GG image very carefully for focus, image quality and all that at full aperture, then two stops down then f22, then f45 across the entire area of the GG. If the lens cannot pass the GG basic test, stop here and reject the lens. Don't bother wasting any film as the lens will be an automatic dud.

Film flatness is an issue, simplest way to aid this is to apply a small piece of double stick tape ( 1/2" x 1/2" or so will do for 4x5) to the center of the film holder before the film is loaded (bit tricky as the film sheet might want to hang up on the small piece of tape while loading, so do this upside down or curve the film slightly while loading) . Press down gently with a cotton cloth at the center of the film after it is loaded. Yes, it raises the film by a few thousands of an inch, but it is a LOT better than having the film pop out or not stay flat to the film holder affecting the test results.

If the lens looks GOOD on the GG, make two color transparencies at full aperture then at f22. Exposure will typically be sunny 16, verify with a good light meter. Take the film to the processing lab, get the film processed then examine the results on a 5000K light table with a good microscope or high quality loupe 10x or so. Schneider once made high magnification loupe that were not bad, there is certainly equal to better ones easily available today.

If the lens gets this far. To the color rendition test as noted in post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ght=elinchrome

Rinse-repeat what was done above. If the results are acceptable. Apply the lens to your print image goals, evaluate the results to see if all is acceptable. This is where the personality of the lens begins to be revealed in ways those test above cannot reveal.

For image circle test. lenses for 4x5 is easier than lenses for larger film formats. Set up a 8x10 view camera (easy with a Sinar) mount the 4x5 lens to be tested and do the point the lens out a open window on a sunny day test. This will give some idea of how big the image circle is and how the lens behaves at the edges of it's image circle. Keeping film flatness and camera alignment is a LOT more difficult with 8x10 due to the physically large parts involved.



Bernice

Thanks Bernice. What is the criteria for sharpness between an acceptable lens and a dud? ?