Lens Philosophy or Do you really need to resolve 68lppm on an 810 1114 sheet?

[dphphoto]

Jim is correct, as usual.

Take a look at mid 19th century photography, particularly daguerreotypes; the pictures look quite sharp, even though the lenses they were using were pretty poor. For the most part, landscapes were made with a simple meniscus lens, not dissimilar to a Imagon or other soft focus lenses. Yet they are sharp. Why? Because they were stopped down to f/15 or beyond, and were the equivalent of contact prints. No need for a sharp lens, almost anything will do.

19th century emulsions were only sensitive to blue light. So lenses didn't have to be corrected for chromatic aberation. That's a large part of the reason that any ol' "coke bottle bottom" would do (even though most of those lenses were finely ground and housed in elegant brass barrels). Dean

 

[jimgalli]

Personally I don't see the need to denigrate those who have chosen to spend more money on their equipment. If they see an advantage or value in it, it's their business.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. No denigration intended whatsoever. In fact I made a little side trip to your web site and would encourage others to do so. Beautiful work by someone who obviously has a fine vision.

Certainly there are many ways to arrive at a similar destination. The important thing is to have some fun while you're getting there. My chosen path may only be right for me. In any case, I am having so much fun, I may never arrive.

 

[roteague]

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. No denigration intended whatsoever.

I didn't take it the wrong way myself, and I can't speak for how Brian felt. I recognize that we have have different interests. For the kind of work I do, I feel the need to have the sharpest lenses I can get.

 

[MichaelBriggs]

And quite probably why the Schneider Super Symmar XL series lenses are geared more to those shooting 4x5, rather than 8x10.

Do you really think that the 210 mm f5.6 Super-Symmar XL (or even the 150) was designed by Schneider for, and is typically used by, 4x5 photographers?

 

[roteague]

Do you really think that the 210 mm f5.6 Super-Symmar XL (or even the 150) was designed by Schneider for, and is typically used by, 4x5 photographers?

Yes, although the 210 will cover an 8x10.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-symmar_xl/chart.htm

 

[nworth]

Getting back to the original question .... You need to make an adequate print for your uses. That is the only real guide. The rule of thumb is to resolve 300 lines per inch (about 12 lines per mm) at the print. That is based on the eye's ability to resolve one second of arc at the normal viewing distance. But the subject, viewing conditions, and the aesthetic effect you want can change the real requirements by three fold or more. Just try to make good pictures. If you can't get the sharpness you want for those, then worry about it. Most lenses available for 8X10 work well enough for most any print you will make.

 

[Early Riser]

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. No denigration intended whatsoever. In fact I made a little side trip to your web site and would encourage others to do so. Beautiful work by someone who obviously has a fine vision.

Thanks for the kind words regarding my work.

My feathers weren't ruffled but you have to understand that there are many people who read these threads and don't have much experience. They seek guidance and sound advice regarding equipment, techniques, etc. When people make blanket statements or generalizations on these threads they influence others, sometimes in a bad way.

As I have stated several times I don't believe that expensive cutting edge lenses are necessary for ULF work, but for work with smaller negatives requiring enlargement better lenses are needed, and I explained why I came to that conclusion. Making a generalization that the only reason people buy expensive gear is for bragging rights or prestige is just wrong.

 

[Kerik]

My feathers weren't ruffled but you have to understand that there are many people who read these threads and don't have much experience...

Making a generalization that the only reason people buy expensive gear is for bragging rights or prestige is just wrong.

I was half-joking. You're right, generalizations are usually wrong. However, I teach a lot of workshops and it's not uncommon to see relative new users of LF equipment with absolute top-of-the-line (and price) gear because they buy into the hype and obsession with sharpness, detail, etc. So, as far as influencing newcomers on these forums, I think it's also good to point out that first-quality work can be accomplished with third-quality gear. I've made 20x24 gelatin silver prints from 4x5 negs shot with a $150 Ilex Paragon lens that are, frankly, awesome. Would they have held up to 30x40? Don't know and don't care...

 

[jimgalli]

I think anyone would agree there is no shortage of "Which is sharper, Sironar-S or Schneider XL??" posts. It frankly gets kind of mind numbing. If anything I try to stir the pot for sake of some balance. The which is sharpest discussions are winning.

 

[MichaelBriggs]

"Do you really think that the 210 mm f5.6 Super-Symmar XL (or even the 150) was designed by Schneider for, and is typically used by, 4x5 photographers?"

Yes, although the 210 will cover an 8x10.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-symmar_xl/chart.htm

An analysis of the characteristics of current lenses gives no sensible reason to use the 210 mm Super-Symmar-XL for 4x5. A plasmat type design (e.g., Schneider's Apo-Symmar-L) has plenty of coverage, and costs and weighs far less, and uses smaller filters. The Super-Symmar-XL series are super-wide coverage designs, intended for similar uses to Super-Angulons. It doesn't make sense to use them as long lenses. I think it very likely that most buyers are using the 210 as a wide-angle on 8x10, and that this is how Schneider views the lens.

 

[df cardwell]

There was a time in my career I had a collection of diatoms, to check out my gear.

I'm glad I'm just taking pictures today of rocks and trees and people.

But the important lessons learned in technical photography ( 1. good lighting makes a poor lens good, and 2. poor lighting makes a good lens bad ) have remained handy to remember.

And I'm impressed Brother Galli implied the Rayleigh Criterion in one of his posts.

.

 

[cperez]

I think of it differently than having a wad of cash to blow on something silly. People sometimes depend on their camera gear to make a living. Perhaps there is a case to be made that says something like ... if you don't have time to "test" something before you buy it, then buy the best you can afford and hope for the best...

The reason I say this is that I worked for years as a print maker, first in Hollywood and later as an photographic artist. I have seen too many negatives, transparencies, and prints to even begin to count. I have made enlargements from wallet sized through to 4feet by 6feet. With this kind of background I feel confident that what I'm about to say is observable, correct, and reproducable.

The only visible differences between enlarged images can be found between formats. That is to say, people can easily see the difference between enlarged 35mm and 120 work. The differences are smaller but sometimes observable moving between 120 and 4x5.

Which leads me to another of my cute little maxims: I will buy anyone a beer who can successfully tell what lens an image was taken with. I have worked with art directors who made some pretty wild claims... and were unable to support those claims. It turns out, their "ideas" of how things work were not true.

In professional work, a good lens is a good lens. Period. But do you need it? In 4x5 and the better 120 gear there's no doubt in my mind that most of the lenses are better than we are as photographers, even amoungst the "pro's". That's where I think people get all balled up into things that perhaps don't matter as much as we would like.

If you are a critical shooter of color, perhaps it makes sense to purchase the newest/latest lenses from one manufacturer so that you get "color matched" images. But I've got to say, there is more variation introduced during processing, which can override "color matching" within lens groups.

If a person is concerned about resolution, just about any LF lens for 4x5 work made after 1950 will be diffraction limited by f/16. So there is no optically physical way a Rod Sironar-S will be "sharper" and in many cases "contrastier" than any other lens at f/16 or f/22. I'm finding out that even at larger apertures, there are many many older lenses which will beat a new plastmat in this regard.

The most important thing in all this is opportunity. Opportunity to take a photograph. Get what you feel comfortable with and show up 20mins early to get set up for the shot. Gear is just gear. Marketing fluff is just marketing fluff.

Caveat Emptor.

... you have to understand that there are many people who read these threads and don't have much experience. They seek guidance and sound advice regarding equipment, techniques, etc. When people make blanket statements or generalizations on these threads they influence others, sometimes in a bad way.

As I have stated several times I don't believe that expensive cutting edge lenses are necessary for ULF work, but for work with smaller negatives requiring enlargement better lenses are needed, and I explained why I came to that conclusion. Making a generalization that the only reason people buy expensive gear is for bragging rights or prestige is just wrong.

 

[Early Riser]

I test all my lenses, in fact after testing the lenses on my Fuji GX680III versus my Rodenstocks, I returned most of the Fuji GX lenses and use my LF Rodenstocks on my GX680.

I used Hasselblad for 20 years, when I did head to head testing between Hasselblad Zeiss glass and Rollei Zeiss and Schneider glass I found the Rollei Schneiders to be superior. Bye bye hassys.

I've tested Sironar-N versus Sironar-S and found the S versions to be generally contrastier, higher resolving and being able to work in near macro situations far better than the N series. From what my tests show me is that there are differences between lenses.

My experience comes from making my living solely with a camera for more than 30 years. Shooting nearly every single day for 30 years. I've bought equipment based only on performance. I test EVERYTHING. Resin filters versus glass, carbon fiber versus aluminum tripods, affects of shutter shake, etc. I shoot as much film on tests as i do on real images.

To say "Gear is gear" is easy, but gear has a direct affect on the quality of the image and the ease in which one works. Try hiking steep slopes and you'll wish you had lighter gear, try shooting on windy days,do long exposures, mount a heavy lens and you'll wish for rigid cameras. Camera gear is a tool for those who make images.
A person needs the right tool for the job, and a tool that they are comfortable using.
If you don't think the right tool is important try using a philips screwdriver for a slotted screw.

 

[roteague]

"Do you really think that the 210 mm f5.6 Super-Symmar XL (or even the 150) was designed by Schneider for, and is typically used by, 4x5 photographers?"

An analysis of the characteristics of current lenses gives no sensible reason to use the 210 mm Super-Symmar-XL for 4x5. A plasmat type design (e.g., Schneider's Apo-Symmar-L) has plenty of coverage, and costs and weighs far less, and uses smaller filters. The Super-Symmar-XL series are super-wide coverage designs, intended for similar uses to Super-Angulons. It doesn't make sense to use them as long lenses. I think it very likely that most buyers are using the 210 as a wide-angle on 8x10, and that this is how Schneider views the lens.

The only thing stopping me from buying one for my 4x5 is the cost. My APO Symmar works well enough, especially since I use mostly wide angle lenses, that I can't justify the extra cost - if I made my living with it I would. Get a job at Schneider then you will know what they design for, short of that, we are all making guesses.

 

[Oren Grad]

Get a job at Schneider then you will know what they design for, short of that, we are all making guesses.

"The SUPER-SYMMAR 5.6/210 XL ASPHERIC covers the 8" x 10" ( 20cm x 25cm ) with ample movement. Due to its large image circle, 500mm at f/22 (at infinity) some large format panoramic photographers will enjoy using this lens too. If one considers the lenses that this 210 XL replaces, you get higher performance at a lower cost. The lens is relatively light in weight for its size and weighs 2002 grams (about 4 1/2 pounds). The lens is available in Copal #3 shutter."

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/foto/SS_56_210_E.pdf

The lens in the Schneider lineup that the 210 SS-XL replaced is the 210 Super-Angulon, which, in its last version, weighed about 6.5 pounds and offered the same coverage at f/22 as the SS-XL does.

 

[roteague]

The lens in the Schneider lineup that the 210 SS-XL replaced is the 210 Super-Angulon, which, in its last version, weighed about 6.5 pounds and offered the same coverage at f/22 as the SS-XL does.

I've got most of the brochures on my computer at home, but not this one. Thanks, I can add it to the rest. View Camera list this lens for $3,391.88; a bit pricy for me, since most of my work is with wide angle lenses. I can vouch for the 80mm XL however, it is a sweet lens. I'll probably get the 110 XL as well.

 

[Ole]

Pity they didn't make a modern "upgrade" of the original 210mm Angulon instead - I've got one, and it's a surprisingly good lens. With 500mm image circle too, unlike the later ones. A Super-Angulon 210mm is too big and heavy to be portable...

 

[John McCallum]

You make your point well Brian. As say; your perspective changes when you make a living solely from your own printed image. In markets where there are limited points of difference between competing photographers, one of the most significant being quality of image, one starts to look at their tools differently.

There are so many who photograph purely for the love of it. Their interests often becoming a life consuming passion - to the extent one would be loath to call it a hobby. In these circumstances, there's a great deal of satisfaction that can be derived from producing a quality image from economically priced tools. Lord knows I've been down that road myself.

But one can also be sucked into the hype around older lenses. I do a lot of testing also. When I've compared one of my older Schneider lenses (legendary in it's reputation) with a newer Rodenstock, the Rod is better for my prefered working circumstances. Not just a little bit either.

I don't wish to take anything away from the good work Jim does in getting info out there about often forgotten gems (this is not a dig at him). But hype can be found anywhere. It's just that falling victim to hype about a vintage lens costs less than a new one.

Cheers, John.

I test all my lenses, in fact after testing the lenses on my Fuji GX680III versus my Rodenstocks, I returned most of the Fuji GX lenses and use my LF Rodenstocks on my GX680.

I used Hasselblad for 20 years, when I did head to head testing between Hasselblad Zeiss glass and Rollei Zeiss and Schneider glass I found the Rollei Schneiders to be superior. Bye bye hassys.

I've tested Sironar-N versus Sironar-S and found the S versions to be generally contrastier, higher resolving and being able to work in near macro situations far better than the N series. From what my tests show me is that there are differences between lenses.

My experience comes from making my living solely with a camera for more than 30 years. Shooting nearly every single day for 30 years. I've bought equipment based only on performance. I test EVERYTHING. Resin filters versus glass, carbon fiber versus aluminum tripods, affects of shutter shake, etc. I shoot as much film on tests as i do on real images.

To say "Gear is gear" is easy, but gear has a direct affect on the quality of the image and the ease in which one works. Try hiking steep slopes and you'll wish you had lighter gear, try shooting on windy days,do long exposures, mount a heavy lens and you'll wish for rigid cameras. Camera gear is a tool for those who make images.
A person needs the right tool for the job, and a tool that they are comfortable using.
If you don't think the right tool is important try using a philips screwdriver for a slotted screw.

 

[sanderx1]

Thank goodness Photography is a practical exercise.

Apochromatic correction ( TRUE apo ) is not much use for anything but repro work.

"True Apo"? Apochromat: an objective corrected parfocally for three widely spaced wavelengths and corrected for spherical aberration and coma for two widely separated wavelengths. This is as useful to have now as it was when Abbe came up with it and originaly made the Zeiss name with a solution - and it certainly isn't undersirable in modern colour photopraphy. Most modern well corrected lens designs are achromats as are most older "apochromats", the problem being one of precision of data back then ... add more precision and you see that the older designs fall short.

There is a more modern definition of APO in terms of optical path differences and correctedness for coma but I can't remember it precicely enough to cite.

 

[Struan Gray]

df can speak for himself, but here's my take.

"True" or Abbe apochromaticism says nothing about what happens at wavelengths other than the three with coincident focus. Various German lens makers decided to adopt "Apo" as a marketing term to describe a lens in which the whole secondary spectrum was less than some percentage of the focal length. The bottom feeders of the 35 mm world followed suit.

In principle, the latter definition is more photographically relevant, and a old-style apo lens could still have significant colour fringing at intermediate wavelengths. In practice, the old style photographic apo lenses were excellent at all wavelengths and it was pretty clear that the new definition was a shabby attempt to appropriate a long-standing specific technical term to flog lenses to impressionable buyers with no sense of history.

For a while there was much talk of a DIN standard for the new definition. But nobody can find a copy. Hmm.

 

[sanderx1]

Getting back to the original question .... You need to make an adequate print for your uses. That is the only real guide. The rule of thumb is to resolve 300 lines per inch (about 12 lines per mm) at the print. That is based on the eye's ability to resolve one second of arc at the normal viewing distance. But the subject, viewing conditions, and the aesthetic effect you want can change the real requirements by three fold or more. Just try to make good pictures. If you can't get the sharpness you want for those, then worry about it. Most lenses available for 8X10 work well enough for most any print you will make.

Yes, but what you are talking about is the resolutin on the print, which is not the same at all as the resolution you need from the lens. Not even if you are contact printing. Also, if you are getting only 12lpmm on 8x10 then you are probably carrying a lot of dead weight compared to a 4x5 with even sub-average lens, not to mention extra cost of film.

 

[sanderx1]

Both definitions for APO allow for a wide variety of undesirable qualities to exist with teh lens. Including colour fringing. Especially colour fringing in colours in the deep reds and blues / violets that are to the sides of the corrected band of spectrum. It really is a pure marketing term in photography these days.

APO or not is IMHO really a lens design detail that is not end user consumable and thus end users shoudln't be exposed to it. Except possibly in the case of enlarger lens.

 

[Early Riser]

John, I have to agree with you. There is hype on both ends. From my perspective, and my philosophy, ultimately film and gear are the cheapest and most replaceable things, the time and effort put into getting a certain image is priceless.

What is ironic in my case is that on one hand I have spared no expense to be able to create the highest image quality with the film format I use, yet I eventually diffuse or soften the image. However starting out with the best optical quality allows me the most control over what I do. I could never understand the lure of the Holga. I know so many photographers who shot great pics with a Holga but ultimately wished they had used a higher quality camera because their options for enlargement and control have been limited. I'd rather shoot a high quality image and then "dumb" it down to my liking. I feel the same way about many of the vintage lenses. I'd hate to have gone through a long arduous hike and not have the right gear, or gear that yields a result that I know could be better.

Whether I'm selling the image or not, I still want everything I do to be the best that I can do. At the same time if an image of mine turns out lacking, I can't blame the gear, with my work the gear isn't the limiting factor, I am.

You make your point well Brian. As say; your perspective changes when you make a living solely from your own printed image. In markets where there are limited points of difference between competing photographers, one of the most significant being quality of image, one starts to look at their tools differently.

There are so many who photograph purely for the love of it. Their interests often becoming a life consuming passion - to the extent one would be loath to call it a hobby. In these circumstances, there's a great deal of satisfaction that can be derived from producing a quality image from economically priced tools. Lord knows I've been down that road myself.

But one can also be sucked into the hype around older lenses. I do a lot of testing also. When I've compared one of my older Schneider lenses (legendary in it's reputation) with a newer Rodenstock, the Rod is better for my prefered working circumstances. Not just a little bit either.

I don't wish to take anything away from the good work Jim does in getting info out there about often forgotten gems (this is not a dig at him). But hype can be found anywhere. It's just that falling victim to hype about a vintage lens costs less than a new one.

Cheers, John.

 

[df cardwell]

... snip....Most modern well corrected lens designs are achromats as are most older "apochromats", the problem being one of precision of data back then ... add more precision and you see that the older designs fall short.

There is a more modern definition of APO in terms of optical path differences and correctedness for coma but I can't remember it precicely enough to cite.

I agree with you. My point ( or Airy disc ), is that "apo" is a term thrown around by marketing folks, and seldom - today - is a lens really apo.

A well corrected classic lens and well corrected contemporary lens are BOTH corrected to the same criteria: light hasn't changed.

 

[df cardwell]

...snip... Whether I'm selling the image or not, I still want everything I do to be the best that I can do. At the same time if an image of mine turns out lacking, I can't blame the gear, with my work the gear isn't the limiting factor, I am.

Well said.

thanks

d