• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

"Best" 150mm for 4x5, any suggestions?

Whoa, Forget what I said before. If your shooting from three inches away you need a G Claron, Ronar, Makro Sironar or Apo Macro. Like DF said, "far beyond the design of the system".
 
Frankly, can hardly imagine an observer would look at the print as large as 1 meter long (or even larger) from near zero distance. One will not be able to see the craft in whole but rather a small portion of such which doesn't contribute to the perception of the entire image. Unless this is some kind of speciality work, of course...
So far I managed to print large only a single print (1 meter long produced from 6x7 MF slide original) it is hanging on the wall in my living room, but never noticed people willing to look at it closer then from the distance they find comfortable to observe the picture in whole, i.e. at least about 1 meter away. Obviously, I checked the image from much closer and then sharpness limitation can be brought up, but then this is only done for a specific reason to check a particular technical quality but in no case for a general observation of the craft.
Just out of couriosity, what kind of the work would require such large image to be normally observed from near-zero distance ?

Regards, Alex
 
Agreed. You want a real macro lens, optimised for maximum sharpness at very close distances. Not a repro lens either, since they are primarily designed for distortionless reproductions and not necessarily maximum definition.
 
APOLOGIES AGAIN! I GET CONFUSED WITH INCHES, I SHOOT FROM 30 TO 200 I MEAN FROM 90cm TO 600cm...

I am an artist and I show my photos in galleries, where people normally find paintings.
They like to observe my prints from very close, also because I show them with no glass (and mounted on aluminium boards and framed).
 
I've got a Rodenstock Sironar-S 150mm/5.6.

Decent lens? You bet. Worth all the hype? I don't personally think so, no.

It's a great lens, but as anything, it's only as good as the photographer shooting it.

Now the Rodenstock Sironar-S 210mm/5.6 on the other hand.....
 
Ok, my current favorite 150mm lens is my sweet little 150mm Germinar W from Kerry Thalman.
 

Thanks for your feedback. I don't have any current plans, but I do have some future plans, I'm looking at putting together a series of posters for members of the local orchid society, and looking at what equipment I will need. My primary 210 lens is the Schneider APO-Symmar, although I do have an older Rodenstock Geronar 210 (I don't have anything longer). I do mostly landscape work, and prefer to work with lenses from one manufacturer, in my case Schneider.
 
I don't think anyone has mentioned this. Get a GOOD tripod! That will determine how sharp your images are more than anything else.
 
Eric Rose said:
I don't think anyone has mentioned this. Get a GOOD tripod! That will determine how sharp your images are more than anything else.
Click to expand...

My tripods are the best part of my equipment...
eh eh
 
One note, you may be ahrd pressed to see the difference between the macro lenses available from Schneider and Rodenstock and their general purpose plasmats UNTIL you get to a 1:1 reproduction ratio and beyond. Once you are working at 1:1 and larger the macro lenes really bgein to shine, especially as you look at the resolution and sharpness toward the outer edges of your film ... thye give you edge to edge sharpness.
 
I like the feeling of old lenses even more when you print big size pictures.
 
And what about a Apo Lanthar?
 
eumenius said:
I'm personally very pleased with my small old Fujinon 150/6.3 - excellent results in both colour and BW, very good colour, sharpness and contrast, plus all the movements I need. But of course the newer lenses can outperform it, maybe. Or maybe not
Click to expand...


I'm with eumenius. Love my 150/6.3. But... I also have a Schneider Xenar 5.6/150 and to be honest, I can't think of any subject that this lens won't give you superb results all by itself. No matter how big you blow it up.

What don't you like about your enlargements?

tim in san jose
 
I have a modern 150/5.6 Xenar, and it's sharp in the center, but I find the circle of good definition drops off well before the circle of illumination. I recall once trying to photograph a church with a fair amount of front rise, and there was no way to get the steeple sharp and no safe place to stand so I could do it with a longer lens, so I just skipped the shot. Now I bring an old 168mm ser. iii Dagor for that situation.
 
I use a 210 macro sirinar for close work. Others have stated the truth that you need a true macro when 1:1 or better. That is when the macro will come into it's own.
 

Thanks Ole. I'll look into gettting the 110 XL. It is quite a sweet looking lens.
 

I like my enlargements, is just that I am not such a "technical" photographer and I want to know what is the top of the lenses. What is the good and the bad of good and bad lenses.
 
Nikkor makes some fine LF lenses, but the designs haven't been updated in some time.
 
I wouldn't give back a 150 Nikkor if I was given one. Fantastic. But ALL the 150's today are pretty much the same lenses, made by different firms. I'm happy with a current multi-coated plasmat from whomever, for about 25 % of my pictures, a single coated Ektar / Tessar / Optar / Raptar for 25% of my pictures, an uncoated Dagor / Angulon / Protar for half my pictures.

.
 
df cardwell said:
But ALL the 150's today are pretty much the same lenses, made by different firms.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the Scheider Super-Symmar XL Aspheric lenses, of which there is a 150mm f/5.6, is a more modern lens design. The 150 version is a is a 6-element, 4-component aspheric, with a 105 degree angle of view.

B&H lists it at $ 2,278.95. I would buy it in a minute, if I had an need of a 150 lens.

Link: http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-symmar_xl/pdf/super-symmar_xl_56_150.pdf
 
Yup, there are a lot of lenses I would buy if I had several thousand $$$ to dump into each one. The trouble with "best" is a match between performance and budget. The Nikkor-W I have came at a good price, and although I know more exotic element/coating paradigms can result in "better" negs, I look too at the kind of photography I do, namely B/W. Things that can enhance color saturation, contrast, etcetera at present add little to my work. I look too at how versatile the lens can be. It must fit into my Toyo monorail (very easy), the Super Graphic (easy), the Busch (harder). Some of the super-duper lenses have rear element assemblies so large they cannot work on some cameras.
 
Pragmatist said:
Some of the super-duper lenses have rear element assemblies so large they cannot work on some cameras.
Click to expand...

Not an issue with the Schneider XL series of lenses.

You are right about cost vs "best". It is a relative choice. For me, the highest quality, shapest lenses are a necessity.
 
roteague said:
B&H lists it at $ 2,278.95. I would buy it in a minute, if I had an need of a 150 lens.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. I would buy a 150 Symmar, an APO-Lanthar, a Dagor, a Xenar and a 165 Angulon, and still have money left for film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register