Large Format Lenses recommendation

[DREW WILEY]

You really want to go to factory specs for anything serious, in those cases where they're actually available published somewhere. It can take some digging. But through their marketing literature by itself, Rodenstock tells you that their Sironar S series was designed for better performance at wide apertures than the Sironar N lenses; so that might prove beneficial to a minor segment of view camera users who either rely on those wider apertures or need to squeeze the most definition out of the outer fringes of the stated image circle.
Citing this or that well-known photographer relative to their own work might not tell you much at all except what is anecdotally useful. Sexton generally printed or published images so small that none of these alleged resolution distinctions about various modern lenses would make much difference at all in practice. He did like Nikkor M's for their tiny size (portability) and excellent contrast rendition, which is exactly the kind of anecdotal opinion which is so valuable in real world usage.
But a hounding nitpicky obsession over MTF, especially based on questionable methodology, tends to be a waste of time. I pay more attention to it when it comes to roll film backs on view cameras, where the magnification in print is higher, than with full size sheet film.

 

[Bob S]

I may be wrong but IIRC, weren't many of those lens tests done by both Thalman and Perez under both their names and didn't Thalman also publish a lot of the results on his own web site? I thought that Thalman was a pretty respected viewer and writer for the late lamented View Camera magazine. Thalman did reference his own engineering background and I would expect that he understood reasonable experimental process and not going beyond the limits of the data. IHTFP

He may or may not be an engineer. But a guy that operates heavy equipment or builds roads and bridges or is an elictronic or me+hanical engineer is not qualified to test random used lenses at random times under varying lighting and atmospheric conditions of 2 dimensional targets at other then optimal magnification ranges is not capable of doing reproducible lens tests. And I say this fully knowing that my oldest grandson is a mechanical engineer!!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm just an orderly working at an old feline convalescent home, serving their every demand. Gotta clean up a hairball in a moment. A couple of them have degrees in Ornithology and its related cuisine, but so far, no optical engineering background among them. So I won't bother asking them anything pertinent about my own lens collection.

 

[Lachlan Young]

He may or may not be an engineer. But a guy that operates heavy equipment or builds roads and bridges or is an elictronic or me+hanical engineer is not qualified to test random used lenses at random times under varying lighting and atmospheric conditions of 2 dimensional targets at other then optimal magnification ranges is not capable of doing reproducible lens tests. And I say this fully knowing that my oldest grandson is a mechanical engineer!!

All that the Perez/ Thalmann tests seem to show is what the average resolution limits of their 4x5 systems are/ were - and not the sharpness/ contrast performance (where most of the real visual differences are), let alone the effects of film flatness.

Citing this or that well-known photographer relative to their own work might not tell you much at all except what is anecdotally useful. Sexton generally printed or published images so small that none of these alleged resolution distinctions about various modern lenses would make much difference at all in practice. He did like Nikkor M's for their tiny size (portability) and excellent contrast rendition, which is exactly the kind of anecdotal opinion which is so valuable in real world usage.
But a hounding nitpicky obsession over MTF, especially based on questionable methodology, tends to be a waste of time. I pay more attention to it when it comes to roll film backs on view cameras, where the magnification in print is higher, than with full size sheet film.

Indeed - and the MTFsystem is limited by the worst performing part (usually a flatbed scanner these days). The biggest problem is the lack of systemic thinking - a camera/ lens/ film system that delivers a response of perhaps 24 cyc/mm at 50% MTF of the subject, subsequently fed through a system that is only delivering a 10% response at the same cyc/mm, is not going to deliver a very good result, no matter the nominal resolution of the latter system at near extinction.

I think the quoting of Sexton etc relates back to a persistent problem, whereby people fixate on someone who they assign ideals of technical perfection to, proceed to assume that learning and repeating a set of rote techniques will make them a great and acclaimed photographer, all while spectacularly failing to grasp the basics - because to do so would be to realise that technique (especially with LF and moderate enlargements) is actually a small and largely easily learnt part of photography - and that the image is what matters, not how hard wrought it was.

 

[DREW WILEY]

We see AA's old habits quoted quite a bit as ideal procedure on these kinds of forums. Heck, some of his most famous images were made on old Agfa Isopan or Kodak Super-XX, films with grain the size of buckshot (though classified as fine grained back then). Those images might look good in a book or postcard or in 16X20 print fashion, or maybe even in a 20x24 print, but that's still way less than a 3X magnification from an 8x10 negative. Printed bigger than that, and they look like outright oatmeal mush. Yes, even modern lenses have certain desirable personality characteristics or specifications which might factor into choice; but unless deliberately engineered for soft focus, nearly all of them are going to be PLENTY sharp for routine large format applications. It's perhaps the least important issue to squabble about these days, but the very one which beginners gravitate to, with an inevitable entanglement
with techie-sounding numbers, seemingly inherited from a prior "pixel peeping" culture mentality. A 16x20 print might be about a 15X enlargement from even a full-frame DLSR, but it's only 4X from 4x5 film, and 2X from 8x10 film, which dramatically offsets any modest spec differences concerning alleged sharpness issues. Yeah, I know everyone nowadays wants to go out and instantly take shots worthy of prints 8 ft across; but in that case, learning things like depth of field management and focal plane control is going to be a far more pertinent challenge than which brand and model of LF lens might be ever so slightly "sharper" over another.

 

[138S]

learning things like depth of field management and focal plane control is going to be a far more pertinent challenge than which brand and model of LF lens might be ever so slightly "sharper" over another.

of course, what is sharp is the photograper, not the lens.

There is a kind of shot that requires no complex focus management, this is a distant subject like a far mountain, with nothing close. It that case we only need need to check focus well, avoiding wind, and to stop to f/16 or f/22 to get an optimal shot.

Still, YMMV, because many of us do love the Out Of Focus management instead the focus management. By controlling the focus roll-off and bokeh nature we may be able to add a depth feel in the image (and other effects) that helps viewer's mind to interpret the 3D space. An art does not need at all a 3rd dimension, a quite flat image can be totally sound, but depth can be a powerful resource in an image.

In Avedon's Dovima with Elephants (a "bare" fashion shot !) we see the roll-off in the legs of the elephants an in the straws on the floor, Avedon did not manage focus, he managed defocus.



http://100photos.time.com/photos/richard-avedon-dovima-with-elephants

 

[Lachlan Young]

If anyone wants to quote 'Dovima with Elephants' as an example, they've lost all rights to whine about film cost - forever. Plenty of film was used to ensure that the perfect image was possible. All that matters is that the lens was stopped deep enough (likely f22 or a little more) and focus checked repeatedly by an assistant throughout the shoot to ensure the focus was where it should be. None of Avedon's assistants have reported him ever using camera movements at any point in his career. What matters in that image are the movements, the poses, the gestures, the details - not some overheated verbiage and underinformed speculations about 'focus control'. Avedon reportedly initially used a 14" Commercial Ektar, then a 360mm Symmar and a 360mm Fujinon (essentially simultaneously because they were on different cameras). I think most people would have a hard time telling apart which were used for what.

 

[138S]

not some overheated verbiage and underinformed speculations

Lach, please don't quote my posts, directly or indirectly, I ignore you, please ignore me.

Best Regards

 

[Bob S]

If anyone wants to quote 'Dovima with Elephants' as an example, they've lost all rights to whine about film cost - forever. Plenty of film was used to ensure that the perfect image was possible. All that matters is that the lens was stopped deep enough (likely f22 or a little more) and focus checked repeatedly by an assistant throughout the shoot to ensure the focus was where it should be. None of Avedon's assistants have reported him ever using camera movements at any point in his career. What matters in that image are the movements, the poses, the gestures, the details - not some overheated verbiage and underinformed speculations about 'focus control'. Avedon reportedly initially used a 14" Commercial Ektar, then a 360mm Symmar and a 360mm Fujinon (essentially simultaneously because they were on different cameras). I think most people would have a hard time telling apart which were used for what.

And, of course, a lot of 75mm and 80mm Planars

 

[Lachlan Young]

And, of course, a lot of 75mm and 80mm Planars

Interesting - I'd always thought it was the 80's that Avedon mainly used, but you likely know more about this than the rest of us!

 

[Bob S]

Interesting - I'd always thought it was the 80's that Avedon mainly used, but you likely know more about this than the rest of us!

He had both 3.5 and 2.8 Rolleis

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I don't want to get too tangled in parts of this conversation because I never did like much of what Avedon did - found it quite pretentious and even corny at times. And I happen to use view camera movements almost every single time I shoot with one. But it has been pointed out how certain lenses, especially older ones, might be deliberately chosen for personality characteristics like out of focus rendering, which override alleged hard number sharpness dictates. It's all about choosing the right tool for the task in mind, and that fact allows for more than one definition of what might constitute the "best" lens in a particular focal length. Some of this simply cannot be boiled down to hard specifications.

 

[138S]

But it has been pointed out how certain lenses, especially older ones, might be deliberately chosen for personality characteristics like out of focus rendering, which override alleged hard number sharpness dictates.

This is a design characteristic, OOF rendition has several factors, there are two of them having special importance:

> Spheric aberration correction in the Out Of Focus, while desing is optimized to minimize Spheric Aberration in the focus plane, it can hapen that this aberration is undercorrected or overcorrected as the focus is lost. If overcorrected defocus discs from bright points have a light ring in the periphery, also delivering a harsher bokeh, a Triotar is the clear example. I if it is undercorrected then those discs have an smooth boundary, delivering a "rounded" OOF, or a very "pleasing/good bokeh" some would say. Finally a Neutral bokeh deliver uniform OOF discs. Bokeh may be different in the fromt than in the rear of the focus plane...

> Entrance/Exit pupil size compared to aperture pupil. If Entrance/Exit pupil are smaller than the aperture (in particular than the max aperture) then defocus discs have cat eye shapes when placed off center, anf we have circular bokeh or a Petzval Swirl.

Beyond that a soft lens may project a blurred image over a sharp component image, or it may blurr all. Diffusion may go to the center, the counter, or both.

There are many nuances about that, my view is that true artists are those mastering these tools. You know, Jim is one mastering that... Why always sharp ? Sharpness... Diffusion... or both in the same image... to craft beauty, or to tell something...

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's all fun, but at a certain point, a person like me has to settle on lenses I actually intend to use. So I own only a single large format lens which I'd classify as having especially nice bokeh, and don't own any true soft focus lenses at all. If I'm after those kinds of images, I'm more likely to use smaller more spontaneous cameras instead.
If I was primarily a contact printer rather than doing enlargements, I'd probably revise my own LF selection a bit. I do employ selective focus quite subtly in many LF images, but almost never in a conspicuous soft focus background blur mode, which I find more convenient to achieve using MF and 35mm telephotos, perhaps due to sheer laziness. I'm basically a format schizophrenic, and enjoy working with various film formats and a variety of equipment, frequently making choices via a last minute whim. And gut instinct generally proves correct.

 

[Luckless]

It's all about choosing the right tool for the task in mind, and that fact allows for more than one definition of what might constitute the "best" lens in a particular focal length. Some of this simply cannot be boiled down to hard specifications.

I feel like this is a far too often overlooked aspect of photography equipment discussions.

If you pick and choose your metrics carefully, any piece of equipment objectively comes out terrible. Or great. It all comes down to what you're actually after as an artist. Things can be a little more straight forward for defining your metrics when dealing with a technical field of photography - you have relatively clear and defined specifications to meet the task requirements, but even then 'better' can get fuzzy once you reach the minimum needs.

I still haven't done nearly enough work with my large format gear to justify having bought it, and I'll eventually get around to correcting that, but I can already say that the little Kodak Ektar 127mm I have is going to be a hard lens to beat. I'm sure there are any number of lenses out there in the 120-135mm range that could compare and beat the socks of this 127 in any number of statistics on paper, but I've yet to find one that win on size/weight and cost.

Sure, I give up any real movement use with it, but if I stick it on a press camera and leave it leveled and centred, then I'm not really going to care. It makes a lovely and enjoyable to use setup to wander around with and even shoot handheld.

 

[138S]

any piece of equipment objectively comes out terrible.

Of course, Michelangelo made La Pietà with a hammer as his main piece of equipment. A true artist may craft impressive art by using a lens made with the bottom of a Coke bottle, or he may use the most refined lens he can find to depict impressive textures in a mural print. We never know...

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Pieta also got vandalized with a mere hammer. Depends on who's on the other end, wielding the handle.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lach, please don't quote my posts, directly or indirectly, I ignore you, please ignore me.

Best Regards

OK, here's how to resolve that: Don't post misleading nonsense that poses as infallible doctrine and then get offended/ double down on your errors when there's informed pushback. Learn from your mistakes, question your sources, and move on. From your heavy reliance on tertiary source material, and lack of primary research data/ experience, you are potentially putting yourself in a position of leading people into making costly mistakes they could have otherwise avoided if they were instead given the benefit of others' primary experience or good quality secondary source material - both of which (as a matter of course) still need to be subjected to reasonable levels of source criticism.

And please leave the techniques of renaissance sculpture out of this - their tooling and techniques were in no practical way 'primitive' or simplistic compared to modern post-Industrial Revolution techniques used today - they were just more time consuming & there was a different understanding of measurement/ precision.

 

[138S]

OK, here's how to resolve that: Don't post misleading nonsense that poses as infallible doctrine and then get offended/ double down on your errors when there's informed pushback........

Lachie, you lost a war.

When the core thing was rigorously examinated you didn't show, sporting a remarkable cowardness.

https://www.largeformatphotography....Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners
https://www.largeformatphotography....rum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178


Still you include a personal disacreditation each time you quote one of my posts, one by one, and later I always find the way you show your non existent technical background. Last time you were saying TMX was single layered not understanding how the cubic component would challenge the amazing arrangement of the T component, leading you to ridiculous behaviour.

Well, I practice English which is my 4th language. The problem is that our proven rivalry damages this forum, so please ignore me, I ignore you.

 

[grat]

OK, here's how to resolve that: Don't post misleading nonsense that poses as infallible doctrine and then get offended/ double down on your errors when there's informed pushback.

Why do you hate the internet?

 

[138S]

The Pieta also got vandalized with a mere hammer. Depends on who's on the other end, wielding the handle.

Yeah... Drew this is ! A true artist will make art with a Sironar S, with a lens we would throw away, or with a hammer.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I warned Sean about this troll when it first appeared at PHOTRIO. He apparently didn't find the trolling sufficiently offensive to follow other photography forums and ban the troll. Those of you still engaging the troll continue to accumulate flat spots on your heads. I'm not sure why you punish yourselves so.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Why do you hate the internet?

I don't

Many of the problems with the particular individual stem from a combination of an apparently absolutist doctrinal belief in the inerrancy of stuff published in books, coupled to partial/ uncomprehending readings of those texts, compounded by insufficient useful practical experience to be able to parse those errors.

Compared to the damage people used to be able to do to societies with books & other publications, the internet (if you have basic source analysis skills) makes it really very easy to fact check whether someone has understood (let alone actually read) the texts that they routinely attempt to use to mislead the unwary with.

I warned Sean about this troll when it first appeared at PHOTRIO. He apparently didn't find the trolling sufficiently offensive to follow other photography forums and ban the troll. Those of you still engaging the troll continue to accumulate flat spots on your heads. I'm not sure why you punish yourselves so.

The sealion problem (and a handful of other griefers) is probably a big part of why many of the manufacturers don't bother to engage here much. Unfortunately that handful of yapping clowns still clog up public search results with their bad faith claims.

 

[138S]

Many

Keep calm... or soon you'll need medical assistance, and we have a pandemy... that irritation cannot be good for your health

Bye, Lachie

 

[Lachlan Young]

Keep yapping man...

To take one recent example - if you'd read the relevant chapters in Way Beyond Monochrome, Post Exposure and the BTZS manual and actually understood them, you would never have made so many wrong claims about the curve behaviour of T-Max 100 across so many threads - not least as all three sources essentially agree & can be repeated/ demonstrated through practical usage of the material. On the same basis you would also understand that claims about material latitude (and MTF) have to be understood as part of a larger systemic approach and not as a set of sui generis claims. And as this thread has shown, resolution claims are questionable measures of useful optical quality for anyone who actually wants to use the lenses to make images - rather than those who are obsessed with the idea that a particular lens/ technique will magically turn them into a great artist.