what lenses do you dislike?

jss said:

i have a schneider f8/90.. it is also pretty dark. what's a good alternative? is there a good backpacker's version?

Click to expand...

Yes, the Schneider SuperSymar XL 80mm f4.5 is a great lens - it is what I replaced my 90 with. It is a bit pricy, plus you need the center filter if you are doing color work.

BrianShaw said:

I agree, although they really are kinda' convenient sometimes (he waffles)... but a zoom on a LF camera... I had no idea that anyone was doing that!

Click to expand...

They did once - almost! The one I owned was strictly speaking a variable focus lens, since it didn't stay in focus when you changed the focal length. It was called a Rietzschel Telinear. It was just a curiosity with no great performance and most of the focal length range was so long as to be unusable, so I swapped it for something else.

darinwc said:

"Ilex 65mm f8 wide-angle paragon.
.. the edges go dim quickly.."

just an edit:
The edges go dim at f8, making it extremely difficult to compose and focus.
When stopped down to at least f16 the falloff is only minor.

Click to expand...

These type lenses were not really designed with ground glass focusing in mind. Most were used as press lenses and were simply set at infinity and shot with the photographer using the sports finder or RF to compose the image. That's the difference between a $200 lens (or less) and a $2000 (or more) lens.

JG Motamedi said:

I recant, I recant, I recant.
I do like lenses.
All of them.

Well, almost
I dislike G-Clarons and their process kin.

Click to expand...

LOL

Well, that's pretty much most of what I have in my lens collection at this time. I like my G-Clarons.

Oren Grad said:

But the special-edition 50/3.5 Heliar at least showed that they understand what a real Heliar is. This is an interesting idea - they like to do odd, short-run lenses sold as special editions, and seem to have figured out how to do it profitably. So why not something for LF? Dunno whether they could justify a whole line to cover different formats, but I'd bet they could sell a bunch of 150 Heliars for 4x5 if the price was within reason and the design really delivered the goods.

Maybe somebody should get on Stephen Gandy's case, see if he can talk Kobayashi-san into it...

Click to expand...

It would be worth it just to see the digiphiles trying to work out what had happened to their perfect world as lenses that had not been made for more than 35 years suddenly reappear and sell out in days! Seriously, I am pretty sure there is enough interest in either a Heliar or Apo-Lanthar 150mm for at least one batch from Cosina Voightlander with a reasonable pricetag - it would certainly make the bottom drop out of the secondhand LF Voightlander market!
I wonder also if we could persuade Mr. Kobayashi to produce some of the Kodak Ektar lenses again - the 203mm f7.7 springs to mind!

Lachlan

120 mm Angulon, 90mm angulon, 210/270 convertable symar. You will think these are all ok untill you compare with later designs. Then you will ditch `em like I did. Color is especially flat and dead.

colrehogan said:

...Well, that's pretty much most of what I have in my lens collection at this time. I like my G-Clarons...

Click to expand...

No offense Diane, I also have three G-Clarons and I am too cheap to replace them. This is probably why I dislike them.

JG Motamedi said:

No offense Diane, I also have three G-Clarons and I am too cheap to replace them. This is probably why I dislike them.

Click to expand...

What is so special about G-clarons anyway apart from their cult status? I can see why Heliars and Apo-Lanthars are legendary, but I fail utterly to understand why people love G-Clarons - thay are overpriced, slow lenses that are fitted to massive shutters and are only single coated! Why not just buy a Fuji 240mm f9 instead - multicoated, contrasty, huge angle of coverage - oh and they're in a copal 0 too!

Just my $0.02

Lachlan

P.S. I should add that I am talking from a 4x5 perspective here - larger formats may be different

"Overpriced and fitted to massive shutters"

a case where 2c is clearly worth FA.

Lenses that SUCK

Top of the list: Nicola Perscheid Portrait. I don't have one but I already know if I ever get one I'll hate it. they suck.

Hermagis Eidoscope. Completely awful.

All Gundlach lenses! Especially the stupid ill conceived HYPERION.

Veritos. Blaaa

Vitax. a real POS

Petzval's : any. They suck like the Military Service.

Pinkham & Smith! Nasty! The only thing worse is a Cooke. Any Cooke. They make me want to puke.

Voigtlander. They haven't made a decent lens yet. They all suck. Except maybe the uncoated f4.5 Skopar. That's a valuable lens.

Bausch & Lomb. What a pile of refuse.

And last but not least GOERZ. Pure s**t. Except maybe the Dogmar's which are actually mis-named. Fartmar maybe. Dagmar's have some redeeming value. Anybody remember Dagmar?

Lachlan Young said:

What is so special about G-clarons anyway apart from their cult status? I can see why Heliars and Apo-Lanthars are legendary, but I fail utterly to understand why people love G-Clarons - thay are overpriced, slow lenses that are fitted to massive shutters and are only single coated! Why not just buy a Fuji 240mm f9 instead - multicoated, contrasty, huge angle of coverage - oh and they're in a copal 0 too!

Just my $0.02

Lachlan

P.S. I should add that I am talking from a 4x5 perspective here - larger formats may be different

Click to expand...

Um, er, ah, Lachlan, what's this nonsense about a G-Claron cult? They're not bad lenses, they're not big lenses, and unlike the majority of process lenses they go straight into shutter. They sell for more than other process lenses because they're much easier to put to use.

Also and FYI, the trade name G-Claron covers two designs. The older ones are 6/2 dagor type double anastigmats. They'd benefit not at all from multi-coating. The newer ones are 6/2 plasmat types. It isn't clear that they'd benefit much from multi-coating either. I mean, they're not zoom lenses.

So you'll know, I don't own any G-Clarons. I've had and sold three, all 240/9 dagor types. I sold 'em not because I didn't like the way they shot -- they're actually pretty good -- but because I couldn't see a way to use them easily on my 2x3 Graphics. And yes, I sold them for the money.

When you grow up you'll understand why fast lenses are not the great blessing advocates of 35 mm still cameras think they are. For now, contemplate the 6"/1.9 Dallmeyer Super Six I used to own. Now THERE's a cult lens. On the whole, you'd be better off with a 6"/9 G-Claron in shutter than with the Super Six in barrel. Oh, yeah, I got the Super Six with the idea that it would be really outrageous on my 2x3 Speed. It turned out to be a wrist-breaker. And yes, I sold it too for the money.

jimgalli said:

Petzval's : any. They suck like the Military Service.

Click to expand...

People called by the House Un-American Activities Committee

1. David Bohm, physicist
2. Charlie Chaplin, actor
3. John Garfield, actor
4. Lillian Hellman, playwright and left-wing activist
5. John Hubley, animator
6. Arthur Miller, playwright and essayist
7. J. Robert Oppenheimer, physicist, "father of the atomic bomb"
8. Paul Robeson, actor, athlete, singer, writer, political and civil rights activist, and winner of Stalin Peace Prize
9. Waldo Salt, writer, government employee & CPUSA member.
10. Jim Galli, photographer and cyber-cynic

JG Motamedi said:

No offense Diane, I also have three G-Clarons and I am too cheap to replace them. This is probably why I dislike them.

Click to expand...

Jason,
No offense taken. Which three G-Clarons do you have?

Lachlan,
The thing that a lot of people like about the G-Clarons is their coverage on the larger formats, i.e. 8x10 and upwards.

p.s. Don't tell, but if you don't mind soft corners, you can get away with using a Kodak 203 mm f/7.7 on 8x10

I know alot of people love this lens...but I really do not like my Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" in an Ilex #5 shutter.

It's by far the heaviest and largest lens I have, the Ilex #5 shutter only stops down to F/45 and I usually need more, and I find its not nearly as sharp as some of the other lenses I have.

How do people feel about the Carl Zeiss Tessar barrel lenses? I have a 450mm and 600mm, but have not used either of them.

Ryan McIntosh said:

How do people feel about the Carl Zeiss Tessar barrel lenses? I have a 450mm and 600mm, but have not used either of them.

Click to expand...

I feel the same about the 14" Ektar. 3 have come and gone. Sorry Don. Got a neat coated 190mm f4.5 Ektar last evening though that I'll take for a spin. Should be a neat portrait lens for 4X5 at f4.5.

Zeiss Tessar's? CP Goerz, are you out there. Andrew's never around when you need him.

Brain: LOL

It's impossible to ascribe value to a lens that one does not use to one's own purpose.

So, Brother Galli may love to use a Petzval, I may not. It is not ABOUT the lens, it is about our vision, our pictures.

We go over the edge as soon as we become judgemental about a camera, or a lens, or even film. It is all about the picture, and we are obliged to choose the right tool for the job.

When you find something that works for you, run with it and don't look back. But we dare not presume to judge what is right for somebody else.

.

jimgalli said:

Top of the list: Nicola Perscheid Portrait. I don't have one but I already know if I ever get one I'll hate it. they suck.

Hermagis Eidoscope. Completely awful.

All Gundlach lenses! Especially the stupid ill conceived HYPERION.

Veritos. Blaaa

Vitax. a real POS

Petzval's : any. They suck like the Military Service.

Pinkham & Smith! Nasty! The only thing worse is a Cooke. Any Cooke. They make me want to puke.

Voigtlander. They haven't made a decent lens yet. They all suck. Except maybe the uncoated f4.5 Skopar. That's a valuable lens.

Bausch & Lomb. What a pile of refuse.

And last but not least GOERZ. Pure s**t. Except maybe the Dogmar's which are actually mis-named. Fartmar maybe. Dagmar's have some redeeming value. Anybody remember Dagmar?

Click to expand...

Is it just me or are you trying to destroy the market for these lenses - the market which you might perchance have created?

Lachlan

P.S. I don't have any great problem with G-Clarons - I just prefer other lenses like Kodak Ektars - sorry for the rather grumpy post, I just feel that the Clarons and their ilk are just too clinically sharp with none of the smoothness that some of the older lenses have.

Suzanne Revy said:

Zoom lenses are the work of the devil!!

Click to expand...

Anybody have any idea what a 150-420 zoom for an 8x10 would go for?

vet173 said:

Anybody have any idea what a 150-420 zoom for an 8x10 would go for?

Click to expand...

Even if you could afford it, I wouldn't want to see the size or weight of such a lens.

I had an Ilex accutar that I wasn't impressed too much with. I have a G-claron and it is sharp. I think I would like it better in a shutter that had a LOT of leaves in the iris. In my opinion Iris shape is what determines a large part of the type of bokah presented.

Lachlan Young said:

What is so special about G-clarons anyway apart from their cult status? I can see why Heliars and Apo-Lanthars are legendary, but I fail utterly to understand why people love G-Clarons - thay are overpriced, slow lenses that are fitted to massive shutters and are only single coated! Why not just buy a Fuji 240mm f9 instead - multicoated, contrasty, huge angle of coverage - oh and they're in a copal 0 too!
Just my $0.02

Click to expand...

-snip-

I recently bought a 270mm G-Claron, and so far - love it. First off, you and others are right about F9 being dim/dark/slow lenses. My Apo Artar at F9 is the same thing. That can drive you batty and wacky. However, backpacking with an F9 lens - well, I just sold a 300mm F6.3 lens, and what a difference in weight reduction. Sometimes you have to trade off.

Mine is in a copal 1, so not bad for size. Image circle - big enough to cover 11x14. For a 4x5 shooter like myself - yeah, i'd say that's enough room for a wee bit of movement.

So I suppose it depends on which G-Claron we are talking about, not the whole line in general. Now if the dealer had a Fuji 204mm, F9 at the same time he had the G-Claron in stock, I might of taken my time to decide, but I went with what I could at the time. That and the price ws good, IMO, considering the lens is in near mint shape.

Where I think some of these lenses pick up "cult' or legendary status was at some point in the past, you could pick them up dirt cheap, and in terms of cost vs performance, they were a great deal. I picked up my Red Dot Artar (8.25 inch or 209mm) for $60, have it front mounted in an even cheaper Ilex shutter that I oiled myself, and you know what - for a total investment of less than $100 in lens & shutter, I have a killer combo.

However, when I see the same lens - barrell only - on Eb*y, and i think - okay - $300 for the lens, another couple hundred for a shutter, and then the cost of having the shutter mounted, including shipping back and forth - well, at the end of the day, you could have $600, $700 or more invested in the total setup. For a lot less than that, you can pick up a really nice used 210mm in good shape.

Another thought - I have lenses from two process cameras. One of those cameras, in exchange for the lenses, I had to tear apart by hand, and carry by hand - no elevator - down three flights of stairs one bit at a time every part that was loose or not bolted into some kind of poured concrete. Then cart it all away too. I think my back still hates me for that. Those **%$#@!! process cameras are heavy, even in "small" chunks.

Well every time I pickup that 600mm Apo-Ronar off my desk and look at it, that whole day of labour floods back into my head (not to mention the cuts, bandaids, iodine, absorine junior, robaxacet, tylenol, etc, etc), and you know something, after that amount of work, I'm gonna tell you this is the greatest lens in the world., I'm liying through my teeth if I have too. I'll say that Ronar will turn water into wine, turn rainwater into beer, can solve world hunger, bring peace to the mid-east and reverse global warming, because the amount of work I had to go through to tear everything apart to get at that sucker, it's gotta be worth that much.


Joe

Ryan McIntosh said:

<snip>

How do people feel about the Carl Zeiss Tessar barrel lenses? I have a 450mm and 600mm, but have not used either of them.

Click to expand...

Ryan, "Tessar barrel lenses" covers a lot. FWIW, I have a couple of B&L Ser. IIb Tessars that aren't on my dislike list. And I'm sweating out delivery of an echt CZJ 150/6.3 Tessar, 1912 vintage, that I doubt will wind up on my dislike list.

Against that, the dread Dagor77, a Scot, he says, who must have spent hours necking with the Blarney Stone, swears vigorously that Zeiss Tessars are absolutely positively no good at all.

Ryan McIntosh said:

How do people feel about the Carl Zeiss Tessar barrel lenses? I have a 450mm and 600mm, but have not used either of them.

Click to expand...

450 and 600mm? I assume these are f/9 Apo-Tessars, not regular Tessars?

I have yet to come across a LF lens I really dislike, but then I've led a sheltered life...


Richard

Optical Gnosticism is an insidious theology.

Lenses made in plentiful supply over a hundred years by the biggest name in optics must be rubbish, and odd and rare lenses long out of production must be brilliant.

A camera made in huge numbers, and sold for years, must be crap.

Anything that is easy to find, straightforward to use, and not dangerous to own must posess limited value.

Only the rare, the unknowable, the over priced and most secret have value.

Most compellingly, one's own judgement cannot be trusted.

The world of LF photography is a wacky carnival compared to Before the Inter-Net.

Oh well.


Does anybody realize the formula for the Heliar was derived from cabalic symbols ?
( this'll be fun )