Future Apo-Sironar S companions

DREW WILEY said:

All that extra fuss and significant expense of chasing that mythical extra 2-5% is going to be lost if everything else in the workflow isn't equal. For
example, expect to lose 10% if you have ordinary filmholders and not precision one, some more % when you find out big 3 shutters often induce more vibration and front standard wobble than small shutters and more than cancel out the allgeged optical improvement. If you use a ballhead or
flimsy tripod for 8x10, might as well save the money and carry a Holga. If you use glassless carrier in the enlarger, might as well smear vaseline
over the lens to begin with.

Click to expand...

It should be obvious that if I'm seeking the last few percent, I have buttoned up the craft in other areas already, at least during my first 20 years of photography, and will continue to do so. Of course I know that your craft and technical execution has very very little correlation with your wallet. Of course perfection is impossible, seeking it is surely folly, but still I like to strive for the best (meaning what best suits the image). Presumably this striving is what sends many people to 8x10 in the first place. So among my other technical improvements over the years, I got a sharp lens, so what?

I primarily shoot black and white, sometimes color. For the black and white abstracts, still lifes, landscapes, etc, I'd like to try a great lens and so I got the Apo Sironar S 300mm. My second lens might actually be a 14" Dagor for portraits and softer color work. If so, sooner or later I'm bound to try some black and white work with the older "classic" lens. If somehow I don't see the difference, I'll change optical direction for the more detail-oriented black and whites. However I really don't expect this will happen, but it's all part part of the learning process, no?

Jarin

I'm the kind that seeks the last .00001 %, and I assure you, lenses are the easiest part of it when you're talking 8x10. As an example of why you're
a little off-track (totally understandable until one has been on the road with this format for awhile), is that you think a Dagor is the ticket for softer
color images. Exactly the opposite! With only four air/glass interfaces, this lens design equates to high contrast. In fact, the multicoated 14" Dagors
I've owned had more contrast than any camera lens in any format I've ever used - so much, in fact, that I sold em off and bought the previous generation single-coated Dagor instead. Likewise, you'd find that Nikkor M's, the apogee of tessar design, inherently have better contrast and hue rendition than even the best plasmats like the Apo-Sironar S. But none of this splitting hairs means much anyway, because you'll never find a combination of color film and print media even capable of rendering all the nuances. You're only as good as you're weakest link. The short story
is that there are lots and lots of good modern lenses to choose from. But going out and paying three times as much for a particular one does not
necessarily equate to that extra few percent performance at all. It all depends on what you personally define as a positive quality; and that means
means you have to test your wings a bit first. 8x10 is wonderful, so enjoy!

This all makes sense: it's just in a new arena where I don't know the tools yet. I have no large format community and you can't rent 8x10 lenses anywhere anymore. So I have to buy the tools almost blind, based on hearsay on the internet. It's a little sad.

What you said reinforces that perhaps my next lens should perhaps be a Dagor, perhaps single coated, and I can see two different styles of lens and ultimately which I like better. I totally agree that it's the subjective that matters, and not MTF numbers or production era. I've also learned that in my cinematography there's not just degrees of "sharp" and "soft" lenses: it's indeed much more nuanced than that. When you reach for a Super Baltar (lower micro contrast, but silky and beautiful for faces) rather than a Cooke Pancho (beautiful otherworldly astigmatism and "roundness", zero C.A.) or a Panavision SS Mark II (nice creamy/sharp balance but some C.A.). For me dimensionality and tonality are most important, then perhaps sharpness and micro contrast for the black and white work, and good performance but creaminess and fall off with the color work and/or portraits. Unfortunately I need to buy things and try them out and yes, I'm just starting!

J

Dagors have a distinct kind of edge rendering in the details, but won't give smooth out-of-focus background blur like a tessar might. If you want overall less color saturation, a 14'' Commercial Ektar might be nice - but their shutters are huge. The best bang for the buck in that focal length
might well be a 355 G-Claron. It's hard-sharp, and corrected for closeup as well as infinity. An even more deluxe equivalent would be a 360 Fuji A,
much lighter, but rather rare and expensive. If extreme sharpness is required on a budget, get an Apo Nikkor 360,mm 4-element graphics lens; but you'll need to find a shutter for it, or else use the lens cap method of exposure. Moving up a little in focal length, the 420 Fuji L was a late tessar design prized by portrait photographers, which can be found at reasonable pricing, but itself a heavy clunker. I really recommend getting well accustomed to just one lens at a time, rather than buying a full set. It takes awhile to establish your own style and recognize what you really need in lenses. Just beware of "cult" lenses which are overpriced according to their alleged "collector" reputation. Most of them have been superseded by lenses of even better optical performance at much lower price.