If I shoot 95% Black and White, would LF APO lens be a benefit?

[harlequin]

Dear Team,

Have a chance to purchase APO lens for not much more than conventional 210mm lens, Question...

A) would image quality be superior to justify cost differential?
B) I shoot mostly Fp4 and Hp5 would it be sharper in black and white?
C) Is APO a lens coating or is it a completely different lens design (physics?)
D) would APO be more contrast than single coated lens of same focal length?

What say you?
Thanks for your input on this!

Vincent/Harlequin

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Maybe if you were shooting colour and APO lens would be best, but you plan on shooting b/w. Save the cost difference for film.

 

[brbo]

Even though you are shooting BW film you are recording pretty much the entire visible spectrum with HP5 and FP4. So, yes, a (true) APO will make a difference.

I don't think anybody can answer the question if the focusing all light in the same place (lateral and longitudinal) is worth the price difference for you. We don't even know the price difference.

APO is not a coating.

 

[Bob S]

The Apo Sironar lenses have reduced the lateral chromatic aberrations in the secondary spectrum to a very small percentage of the focal length. This means that in black and white, with high contrast subjects. Say tree branches against the sky, there will be no fringing. Thus making them resolve sharper.
So yes, they will improve black and white as well as color.

 

[Paul Howell]

Then there is the 5% color, if not much more the additional cost might be worth for little color you do shoot.

 

[BrianShaw]

Let me give a non-technical answer. Since you are asking the question, you probably think that APO might probably make a difference, so you should get one so you no longer have to wonder.

Personally... all of my lenses pre-date the APO craze and photography has always been fine for me (and many others). Unless the goal is to take pictures of test charts and spec sheets, I'm skeptical. Seems more like a marketing approach for geeks with lots of money.

 

[GKC]

I have APOs, non APOs, multi coated, single coated and uncoated, relatively modern and antediluvian.
As to which is best, it all comes down to preferences and even then, unless there is a high rate of magnification
I don't see much of a difference and certainly not enough difference to detract from an otherwise decent print.

That said, I notice my B&Ws from APOs are pretty sharp---even ouchy sharp, but somewhere around here I have a negative shot with a 1940s Commercial Ektar on TMax 400 that rivals the sharpness of prints from my APO Artars (with a loupe, I can read the license plate on a truck parked about the length of a football field away)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sorry but I cannot see a difference between my APO lens and modern, non-APO lens in black and white... Maybe if you blowed up your images real good, you can. (sorry for the SCTV reference )

 

[otto.f]

The advantage of APO lies in the fact that all colors of the spectrum unite at one focal point, whereas in a non-APO some colors are a bit off focus. So APO has above all to do with sharpness and contrast, whether it’s B&W or color film is not relevant. It’s even usefull to use an APO enlarger lens for printing B&W photo’s, because the light source also has this spectrum of colors that don’t land all at the same place in a non-APO lens

 

[ignatiu5]

Sorry but I cannot see a difference between my APO lens and modern, non-APO lens in black and white... Maybe if you blowed up your images real good, you can. (sorry for the SCTV reference )

You should never be sorry for Farm Film Report!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You should never be sorry for Farm Film Report!

 

[Luckless]

The advantage of APO lies in the fact that all colors of the spectrum unite at one focal point, whereas in a non-APO some colors are a bit off focus. So APO has above all to do with sharpness and contrast, whether it’s B&W or color film is not relevant. It’s even usefull to use an APO enlarger lens for printing B&W photo’s, because the light source also has this spectrum of colors that don’t land all at the same place in a non-APO lens

The extent of the impact will depend on capture medium. Doesn't matter how far off your red light is on typical photo paper when the photo paper isn't affected by that light, but modern panchromatic film will be impacted by that light.

There is also the filtering with black and white film to consider. If you're a fan of using a heavy narrow filter, such as a deep red, then the focus issue from a non-APO lens will be lessened.


I personally don't find APO glass to be of critical importance, but I do acknowledge the simple truth that you can do more to reduce the sharpness of a lens that you find 'overly sharp' for the task at hand than you can to increase the sharpness of a lens that is too soft for your liking.

If it fits in your budget and you have the choice between a sharper or softer lens, and are unsure which you would prefer, then go for the sharper of the two if you can't justify getting both to play with. You can experiment with both sharp and soft focus till you decide what you really like.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are different degrees the definition of Apo, depending on the specific application in mind, or alas, the marketing advantage perceived in calling something only modesty improved that. But for all practical purposes, nearly all modern LF lenses (from the 70's onwards) are so well color corrected for general photography purposes that it's a non-issue. Multi-coating is a somewhat different subject, only sometimes related, and again, basically a non-issue with modern LF lenses. That doesn't mean older lenses are bad, but just gives a general reference point. But no ordinary "apo" LF lens is equal to the graphics standard of Apo. No need to go into that topic here - it's complete overkill unless you are intending to make huge exceptionally precise color enlargements.

But in theory, yes, apo correction helps even black and white shots too, especially with respect to acute performance with a variety of contrast filters, and not just some. That's more a problem with smaller formats where greater degrees of magnification in enlargement are generally needed.

But as far a marketing bait goes, the German brands of Rodenstock and Schneider decided at one point to affix the Apo designation to their general purpose lens upgrades, while Nikon and Fuji didn't, even though those Japanese varieties are every bit as good from the same time period. So don't let a mere marketing label fool you.

Now as per film choices. That is your limiting factor at this point. No lens is going to make HP5 look sharp at significant enlargement. It's lovely film, but I don't like shooting it in any format smaller than 8x10, and even then, never enlarging it greater than 2.5X. FP4 will hold far more detail, but doesn't have as fine grain as a number of other films. Tonality is generally more important in LF work anyway. But you haven't even told us what format you work in, or how big you print.
And there are other variables involved in getting optimal acuity all the way from shot to print.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

All these "informed" responses, yet nobody has asked about the alternative "conventional" lens. What is the make and model of that lens? Is it multicoated?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you tend to use a strong color filter when you shoot B&W (typically Y2, O, R), then it won't matter.

If you use the whole spectrum of light than an APO lens is in theory sharper, but what counts as "APO" is a moving target over time. It's not about multicoating, per se. It's about whether all wavelengths can be focused at the same point on the film plane. Multicoating reduces reflections at air-glass surfaces within the lens and improves contrast, so a multicoated lens can have more air-glass surfaces than a single-coated or uncoated lens, and thus a more complex design. The APO feature comes from the more complex design that the coating facilitates, not from the coating itself.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Dear Team,

Have a chance to purchase APO lens for not much more than conventional 210mm lens, Question...

A) would image quality be superior to justify cost differential?
B) I shoot mostly Fp4 and Hp5 would it be sharper in black and white?
C) Is APO a lens coating or is it a completely different lens design (physics?)
D) would APO be more contrast than single coated lens of same focal length?

What say you?
Thanks for your input on this!

Vincent/Harlequin

It's better t concentrate on making meaningful images than taking technically perfect pictures.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I disagree with David for a technical reason. If a lens is not created equal with respect to all three primary wavelengths, a strong contrast filter of the same color an the less corrected wavelenth, it will result in slightly less acutance. I recognize that darn well with a couple of MF teles I own which are not as well corrected for red. If I shoot with red filter in place, it just increases the problem. But if I use a complementary across the color wheel, like a deep green, it truncates the offending color and results in a sharper result. .... Not such a big deal in LF, since that generally has a surplus of real estate with respect to degree of enlargement; but it can sometimes be an important variable for me when making greater enlargement from roll film negs, especially if I choose to travel with lenses of mine hypothetically reasonable in cost to replace if damaged or stolen. The are times one should not wear the crown jewels.

But to clarify that, I do not consider Y2, or O, old designations which David mentioned, to be strong contrast filters. Nor are they primaries; only actual red is. Also, multi-coating can in cases be a method used to fine-tune specific spectral transmission, which any optical engineer can describe better than me; but it's not simply related to increasing transmission or controlling reflections and flare.

As far as Ralph's comment goes, I'd just remark that I don't know any great cabinet maker or wood sculptor that uses either cheap or dull chisels. Tools matter. Mate the lens to the image itself you desire; and yes, sometimes the "latest and greatest and sharpest" might not the most desirable lens for a particular subject. All depends.

 

[otto.f]

I disagree with David for a technical reason. If a lens is not created equal with respect to all three primary wavelengths, a strong contrast filter of the same color an the less corrected wavelenth, it will result in slightly less acutance. I recognize that darn well with a couple of MF teles I own which are not as well corrected for red. If I shoot with red filter in place, it just increases the problem. But if I use a complementary across the color wheel, like a deep green, it truncates the offending color and results in a sharper result. .... Not such a big deal in LF, since that generally has a surplus of real estate with respect to degree of enlargement; but it can sometimes be an important variable for me when making greater enlargement from roll film negs, especially if I choose to travel with lenses of mine hypothetically reasonable in cost to replace if damaged or stolen. The are times one should not wear the crown jewels.

But to clarify that, I do not consider Y2, or O, old designations which David mentioned, to be strong contrast filters. Nor are they primaries; only actual red is. Also, multi-coating can in cases be a method used to fine-tune specific spectral transmission, which any optical engineer can describe better than me; but it's not simply related to increasing transmission or controlling reflections and flare.

As far as Ralph's comment goes, I'd just remark that I don't know any great cabinet maker or wood sculptor that uses either cheap or dull chisels. Tools matter. Mate the lens to the image itself you desire; and yes, sometimes the "latest and greatest and sharpest" might not the most desirable lens for a particular subject. All depends.

+1

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For pictorial use, irrelevant hairsplitting. Focus with the filter in place and you focus the strongest wavelength of light in the image, even if other wavelengths are present. It's the classic way of improving sharpness with a not so well corrected meniscus lens in addition to stopping down. Use a monochromatic filter with a reasonably well corrected modern lens, and chromatic abberation is a minor issue compared to all the other factors that contribute to sharpness.

 

[DREW WILEY]

NOT hairsplitting, David. I often have to mix 16X20-ish prints from little 6X7 and 6X9 roll film negs in the same portfolios as prints from 4X5 and 8x10 negs. It calls for some distinct optimization to get away with that. Then if the same lens is used for actual color work, where my "small print" standard tends to be 20X24 inches, it's even more demanding if roll film shots are involved.

That being said, I do agree that with nearly all modern lenses from 70's onward, by the "big four" (Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon) - these are all so well corrected in general that it makes little or no practical difference in ordinary photography whether these were marketed as "apo" or not. However, graphics applications and process lenses had a much higher standard of the definition of "apo", where it did count.

Esthetic decisions add a whole different layer, where I sometimes do prefer older less "clinically sharp" lenses.