Are less complex lenses better for Night Photography?

[Sjixxxy]

I been using Wollensak Raptars on a large format cameras for night photography for a while now. Results were always great. Last winter I got an RB67 and started using it for the same type of shooting. While I didn't save much (if any) in weight, the camera and roll film is much easier to operate in the dark. The Sekor-C lens are great, but I've been noticing lately that I have to reject a lot of negatives due to appearance of the aperture shaped flare on the negatives.

My night aesthetic typically involves a street lamp included in the scene. With the Raptars I'd get this amazing smooth light as seen in Dead Link Removed, and Dead Link Removed. I don't recall ever seeing the shape of the aperture ghosting on the negatives while using the old lenses. Far too many of the negatives from the RB67 are I find unacceptable because of it.

My assumption is that since those lenses have less groups & elements than the Sekor lens, the opportunity for a reflection to bounce around and appear is much smaller? Does that seem like a proper explanation?

I need to review all the work I shot with the raptars and reconsider my night photography load out.

 

[Ian Grant]

Not really, simpler lenses aren't usually as sharp at wider apertures, and good multi-coating should mean that shooting into the light prevents any ghosting. However one observation I'd make from my own experience is that my LF lenses seem to have far better coatings even older pre-Multi-coated ones than some of my modern Multi-coated MF & 35mm (&Digital) lenses.

So while shooting last year in Turkey with the sun in the image circle of a 75mm f8 Super Angulon (pre MC) I had no flare/ghosting at all while a Canon Multi-coated lens was unusable, and my earl5y 1950's T (coated) 150mm Tessar is equally as good.

It's possible that some internal surfaces of the Sekor aren't coated.

Ian

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

It doesnt mean older lenses or less element lenses are less complex. Generally , the more element count means they were trying to lower the errors and easier to assemble the lens with less precision.
Less the element count means it is more difficult to assemble it to its correct position.
I dont think Sekor designer has a same target with zeiss tessar designer. First is hamburger , Second is expensive restaurant lunch.
You can read countless books to understand what is quality in lens design.
I will only use goerz , cooke ,zeiss or leitz and few others . I am not rich to experiments

 

[domaz]

If your seeing aperture shaped flare it may be because the newer lens has a fewer blades in the aperture than the Raptar. The old apertures tend to have many blades, often close to twice as many as more modern lens.

 

[holmburgers]

Here's a question.... do you have a UV filter on your Sekor and not on your Raptar?

 

[jerry lebens]

No answer regarding the lenses - I suspect that domaz may be thinking along the right lines - but I do like the pictures.

Regards
Jerry

 

[Sjixxxy]

Here's a question.... do you have a UV filter on your Sekor and not on your Raptar?

No filters.

If your seeing aperture shaped flare it may be because the newer lens has a fewer blades in the aperture than the Raptar. The old apertures tend to have many blades, often close to twice as many as more modern lens.

Good point. I think I have noticed some really round ghosts in some images. The roundness however makes them very non-distracting. I need to bust out the old kit and re shoot some stuff I shot earlier this week and see what happens.