Agfa Record - Which is better, really? - 3 Element vs 4 Element Lenses

[Andrew in Austin]

On medium format folders many folks automatically tout the superiority

of our beloved Tessar clones versus simple three element

Cooke-Triplet, but can you really tell that much of a difference

between the two?

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that I can't tell much of difference

between the two when looking at prints. In other words, after looking

at Mikel's photos, a Cooke-Triplet works just fine for normal prints

and small enlargements.

 

Let me present some images from scanned from prints made with an Agfa

Billy Record II that has an 105mm Apotar and its more expensive

descendent, the Record III, which is fitted with a difficult to find

105mm Solinar.

 

Both cameras were loaded with Tri-X. The are two noted dissimilarities

which I'll point out tomorrow.

 

Please note, my scanning skills are not that great, but see if you can

tell which lens is which.<div></div>

[Andrew in Austin]

A small magnification of Mr. Smarty Pants

[Andrew in Austin]

Oops, Mr. Smart pants again with a small amount of magnification<div></div>

[Andrew in Austin]

Now, one of my students on a mill for the first time making a project in our student machine shop.<div></div>

[Andrew in Austin]

Same photo of Constantine, but with a small magnification<div></div>

[dean_williams]

I agree with you, for the most part, Andrew. I'll take a stab at it, though, and choose the Smarty Pants photo as the triplet. I won't mind if I'm wrong, though. I don't consider myself a lens snob, although I do have my favorites.

 

An observation, and OT. Young Constantine should have no tools on his milling table when the spindle is running ;>). Sorry, I'm a nosey bugger.

[mskovacs]

Kind of unfair going by web photos (especially in 6x9!) but I'll second the mill shot being made with the Solinar. I'm assuming that it must have been stopped down a lot less where the difference in sharpness would be more apparent.

[Andrew in Austin]

Yes comparing 6x9 scans over the web is a definitely not a true test, but all I'm trying to show is the 3 element Cooke triplet can hold its own.

 

And Dean, you are correct the tool shouldn't be on the milling table. I believe young Constantine had just removed his edge finder and inserted an end mill.

[dan_fromm1]

Andrew, for all that I grumble here about cheap cameras with cheap lenses, two of the best lenses I own are triplets. To be exact, 25/3.5 and 40/4.5 Zeiss Luminars. Both were made in the 1950s and still rank high among high performance macro lenses.

 

Let's not forget that Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson, licensees of the original Cooke Triplet, produced many highly regarded versions of that basic lens. That I have no TT&H Cooke Triplets owes more to happenstance and the lenses' high prices than to my other shortcomings.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[jonathan_stark]

Andrew, I'm no authority, and not even a serious student of these matters, but won't the difference between a Tessar and a triplet mostly show up in the corners, at large aperatures?

[Andrew in Austin]

No Jonathan, this isn't a fair test at all. In fact, there are three variables - which I'll mention tomorrow morning.

 

I use to have a Franka with a 3.5 Rodenstock Trinar which would have made for an interesting comparison with the 3.5 Color Skopar on my Bessa I. Of course any comparison would have to be side by side and shooting under the same conditions which the above comparison is not.

[h._p.]

I'd say that the difference between lenses only really show up in extremis. In my experience, at normal apertures and enlargements, there really isn't as great a difference as some people claim.

 

When I first started taking pictures seriously, all I could afford was a three element Meritar lens. I enlarged some of the pictures taken with that to 20x16 and no-one seemed to think they were unsharp.

 

In his book on collecting classic cameras, Ivor Matanle describes an experiment he tried, taking a close-up of a watch movement with half-a-dozen assorted lenses, enlarging them to 20x16 and then asking keen photographers to choose which lens created with picture. Although the lenses tested ranged from a three element Domiplan (the auto-aperture version of my old Meritar) to 6-element designs, he says that no-one got the answers right.

 

If you're doing very precise work, then a lens with more elements may be necessary but I'd argue that moving up a film size, say from 35mm to 6x6 or 6x9 to 5x4, would give greater benefits.

[terry_scott]

I have a Meritar lens which came with the camera when I bought an Exakta Varex IIb. To my surprise, it was/is quite a capable performer. Sharp, nice contrast - main disadvantage, of course, is the fact it's a pre-set.

 

Indeed: Broadly speaking, going up one or two format sizes makes a bigger difference to picture quality than switching between lenses within a format.

[Andrew in Austin]

<p>Well it's time to open the envelope.</p>

 

<p>Let me say it is difficult to fool this experienced crowd and everyone guessed correctly, the balloon guy was taken with the Billy Record II and young Constantine was taken using a Record III fitted with a Solinar.</p>

 

<p>First it wasn't a fair test at all, as the Solinar was under three disadvantages:

<li>I believe I used f/8 in the outdoor photo and f/5.6 for the indoor photo</li>

<li>Both were on Tri X, but the top photos were exposed @ EI 200 and the bottom two at @ EI 1600</li>

<li>Last but not least, the top two were developed in Microdox X and the bottom photos developed in X-TOL</li>

<p>As mentioned, both printed well up to 8x10 and the Tri-X exposed @ 200 printed well up to an 11 x 14. All the extra real estate makes 6x9 very forgiving of older lenses. Just don't try exposing Tri-X in 35mm @ EI 1600 and printing large, as you will clearly see grain.</p>

 

<p>Bottom line, I'm please with both lenses and may try a truer match up with TMax 400</p>

[bueh]

I think your examples show clearly that a triplet at a higher aperture can be quite sharp, especially under good, contrasty lighting (outdoor+sunlight, flash). This has also been my experience. But sharpness is not all there is. While both of your shots seem pretty sharp, the second shot has a much more pleasing rendering of out-of-focus areas (bokeh).<br>In addition to the better sharpness wide open, this is also a typical characteristic of a 4+ element lens. The Solinar in particular is known for its very smooth bokeh.

<p>Interesting to know, the five-element Heliar by Voightländer was not marketed as being noticeable sharper than the four-element Skopar, it was sold as "master craftsman lens" because of its "soft" transition of the in-focus depth-of-field to the unsharp out-of-focus zone. They emphasized that this results in pictures with "natural, harmonious smoothness".

<p>

This pleasant smoothness can also be found in Tessar copies. I think that is why we liked the second shot more and guessed that this must have been made with the better lens.

[silent1]

I've had ample comparison of similar subjects shot in similar light and generally similar cameras, one with a triplet and the other with a 4-element (though not a Tessar). Until a couple weeks ago, I had a Seagull 4B TLR with a triplet; it made acceptable, but unspectacular images. I also have a Kodak Reflex II, with the Anastar lens (which I'm told is the same prescription as the legendary Anastigmat Special used in the Medalist). Same focal length. Same film (TMY). Similar lighting and subjects...<div></div>

[silent1]

Continuing...<div></div>

[Andrew in Austin]

Donald are you shooting hand-held? The reason I ask is I don't always get to stop down my 6x9 cameras for the reason as I shoot hand-held and try to shoot at 1/100th or 1/250th of a second.

 

Looking at the photo of again of young Constantine, I may have had the aperture set to f/4 and the shutter at 1/50th. So, that would make a two stop difference between the Apotar and Solinar.

[Andrew in Austin]

Oh yeah, the top frame of the lake looks to have less contrast than the bottom frame. So, I'll guess that the top frame was taken with the Anastar.

[silent1]

In fact, of those shots the first one was on tripod, the second hand held. I find with the TLR I can hand hold at 1/30 without significant motion blur, even in a 1:1 crop from 2400 ppi scan -- it's much, much easier to hold these steady in the waist level position than to hold an eye level camera at a similar speed (my hands aren't steady enough any more -- combination of being past 40 and too much caffeine, I guess -- to hand hold my Spottie at 1/15 as I did with an SLR in high school).

 

For which is which, you're missing the effects of flare -- though the lighting was similar, partly cloudy midday daylight, the distance shot was into the sun without a hood; it was the Hai Ou triplet in the Seagull (coated, but obviously still capable of some flare), while the closer water shot was the Anastar (which is also coated, of course). The giveaway for me is that most of the Seagull shots show some light fall-off in the corners, while the Anastar does that only when wide open (and I seldom shoot it at f/3.5 to f/4).

 

Bottom line for me is that in small prints or on the web, especially if the lens is stopped down a bit, it's almost impossible to tell a triplet from a Tessar or non-Tessar 4-element lens; I have shots from the fixed-focus, non-achromat, symmetrical double meniscus in a Speedex Jr. that, at f/16 to f/32, rival what the Seagull's triplet would deliver in the same light and show no light fall-off whatever; one shot from that camera stood a crop to 35 mm frame size followed by enlargement to 8x12 (that one print cost me more than the camera!).

 

If you have to shoot wide open, however, or can/must print large, or crop tightly, the differences in lenses start to show; the Anastar, in the plane of critical focus, is still razor sharp to the corners of 6x6 at 2400 ppi (even at f/4), which is definitely not the case with the Seagull.

[Andrew in Austin]

Hello Donald, being unfamiliar with both cameras, I assumed that the older Anastar was uncoated.

 

I should have remembered that this was Kodak's pride and joy. Plus, it is a post war camera and Kodak was pushing us forward into the realm of color film.