Zeiss Biogon 38/4.5 for Large Format???

[sol_campbell]

Hi,

 

<p>

 

A while ago I posted a question about a modern T* Zeiss Planar lens for sale on E-Bay. The seller, Kerry Thalmann was very nice and gave a complete history for that lens. That lens by the way went for $3K!!!

 

<p>

 

Well I have spotted another one! This is the Biogon 38/4.5 in a Copal shutter for sale. Actually I have found two places for selling this one at around $1000-$1500. I wonder if this is the same one as in the Hasselblad SWC.

 

<p>

 

I did not know that Zeiss sold this lens in a Copal shutter for the view camera market. How does one get one?

 

<p>

 

I am curious! Can Kerry or anyone else enligten me?

 

<p>

 

Thanks!

[sol_campbell]

John,

 

<p>

 

Thanks but I am not after the lens for myself. I am a big Zeiss fan

but I just wanted to know more about it for the sake of knowledge!

 

<p>

 

So if anyone know about it please let me know!

 

<p>

 

Thanks!

[john_hicks]

The 38 Biogon has fairly recently become available in helicoid mounts for the Alpa 12 6x9 camera; I gather it just barely covers sufficiently.

 

<p>

 

While the Biogon is a fine lens, a 6x9 view camera user would probably be better served by the Rodenstock 35 lens.

[trevor_crone1]

Sol unless you are really determined on the Biogon 38. I would seriously consider the 35 Apo-Grandagon. I use it on the 69 format and its a first class lens allowing some movement to boot.

Regards,

[sol_campbell]

Trevor,

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the info. But as mentioned before I am just after the

knowledge. I am curious. Of course I know of the Apo Grandagon 35/4.5.

 

<p>

 

But for you information, while the Apo Grandagon 35/4.5 may be one

fine lens the Biogon puts it to shame, albeit with a smaller image

circle. The 38 Biogon is one of the finest lenses ever made by Zeiss

and if you compare the MTF curves of it aginst the Rodenstock, you

will see the differnce - night and day and know what I mean.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again!

[julio_fernandez]

Sol: I am big Zeiss fan too, but the comparisons between the MTFs

for Apo Grandagon 35mm and the Biogon 38mm need corrections. First,

the Apo Grandagon made for the Hasselblad is not the same lens than

the one made for LF. -Reflex lenses must pay a heavy retro-focus

tax, and the A-G pays a heavy one in the Hasselblad version. Yes, it

is mindless or at least unimaginative for Hasselblad and Rodenstock

to call the Hass. version an A-G, when it bears no ressemblance to

the real A-G for LF. Comparing the Hasselblad versions, yes, the

Biogon has the better MTFs albeit a reduced IC. If the comparison is

between the LF A-G and the Biogon, that is another story: Here, the A-

G is by far the superior lens. I am sure even Zeiss would agree. In

this case, though the comparisons need to be made at optimum

apertures for each lens, being mindful of the respective ICs and

using the same L/mm as the base point. (20L/mm is given for both)

The A-G just covers the 9X12 European format, the Biogon barely

covers 6X6. The answer to the question with regards to LF is that

the Apo-Grandagon is without doubt the superior lens. I have to

wonder why anybody other than a museum curator would pay such an

exorbitant sum for a lens for which in LF at least, there are far

superior alternatives. This is one case where reading the MTFs

correctly can save lots of money.

[glenn_kroeger]

Julio:

 

<p>

 

Where do you come by this info on the A-G for Hasselblad. As far as I

knew, the only Hasselblad version is for the ArcBody, which due to

the lack of any mirror box, does not require retrofocus designs, but

rather uses Rodenstock LF lenses to handle shifts and tilts.

[sol_campbell]

Julio,

 

<p>

 

Sorry but you are very, very wrong. The Apo Grandagon for the Hassy

is identical to one for view cameras. It is NOT for the SLRs but the

Arc Body (which has no mirror). If it was different then it would not

be called the Apo Grandagon, but something else. It would also be a

tottaly different beast, since it would have to be non rectilinear.

 

<p>

 

Moreover, the MTF curves published by Hasselblad and Rodenstock are

the same, since it is the same lens. Of course Hasselblad does

publish a 40 lines per mm curve which Rodenstock does not.

 

<p>

 

How did you come to the conclusion that the Hassy AG was completely

different?

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

[glenn_kroeger]

Sol:

 

<p>

 

Agree about the 35 Apo-Grandagon being the same in LF and Hassy...

where did you get MTF curves for the 38mm Biogon?

[sol_campbell]

Glen,

 

<p>

 

Zeiss are great to publish MTF curves for all their lenses. You can

find them at www.zeiss.de. You can download a PDF file that is very

nice and has a lot more info than just the MTF curves.

 

<p>

 

Also Hasselblad too publishes the MTF curves at their web site

www.hasselblad.se.

 

<p>

 

Compare the two MTF curves. Like I said before, there is no

comparison. The 40 line curve of the Biogon is as good as the 20 line

of the Apo Grandagon!

 

<p>

 

The 35 Apo Grandagon is the poorest performer in the Grandagon

series, according to the MTF curves. The 45mm really shines and that

is much closer to the Biogon.

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

[julio_fernandez]

Sol and Glen:

The 38mm biogon MTFs come from Zeiss's site for the Hasselblad

lenses. Those for the Apo Grandagon for the Arc Body come from the

Hasselblad site. The ones for the Apo Grandagon, LF come from

Rodenstock's own literature for the Grandagon lenses. My conclusion

that the Grandagons Hass version and LF version were different is

based on the totally different MTFs for the 35mm Grandagons as shown

in the Hass site and in Rodenstock's brochure. On that basis, I can

not see how the two could possibly one and the same lens. About

retrofocus you are both correct, so the difference in performance

needs another explanation. (Yes, taking into consideration such

things as apertures, IC and L/mm, which can only be compared at

20L/mm since 40 L/mm is not given for the LF version of the

Grandagon). Do check please, perhaps I missed something?

[sol_campbell]

Julio,

 

<p>

 

If you look at both, you will see the that they are the same. It is

not that easy, since Hasselblad publishes them at f4.5 and f11 and

Rodenstock publishes it at f8 and f16. But by the shape you can

conclude that it is the same.

 

<p>

 

Look at the shapw of the curves, which are quite unique. The

performance at center is much poorer than half way through the image

circle. And don't know a lot of lenses with this characteristic. But

both the Hassy and Rodenstock curves do show this.

 

<p>

 

Moreover look go to:-

 

<p>

 

http://www.hasselblad.se/products/lenses/lens_roden/index.html

 

<p>

 

And look at the picture of the shutter! It is a Copal! So Hassy won't

even give you an expensive shutter for what they charge!

 

<p>

 

So are you now convinced that it is the same lens?

 

<p>

 

:)

[julio_fernandez]

Sol: Tabulating the numbers indicates the following: Radials for both

LF and Hass versions of the A-G are identical but tangential lines

differ, with the Hasselblad version being lower. Because the LF

version gives f:/8 and f:/16, to make the comparison fair I had to

average the two readings to come up with an f:/11 reading for the LF

so that we can compare that with the f:/11 of Hass. (some license in

so doing but close enough) Results for tangential lines taken at 0,

20, 32 and 40mm are as follows: LF version: 71.5, 74, 65, 52. For

the Hass version: 70, 66, 58, 42. The last reading in the Hass is

20% lower than for the LF version. One difference could be that the

Hasselblad readings are measured and Rodenstock's are calculated.

However a 20% difference for one of the readings can not be

neglected. I agree with you that the two lenses were not intended to

be different, contrary to my previous statement, however, Rodenstock

and Hasselblad have some unanswered questions here. No, I do not

think that the copal in both is a sure indication of anything. On

the second issue, the Biogon, the readings for the radials at f:/8

and 20L/mm compare as follows, again at 0, 20, 32 and 40mm. (The

reading on the left is for the A-G LF, that on the right for the

Biogon) 73/88, 75/88, 85/75, 72/30. Then as above, for the

tangential lines: 73/88, 80/76, 72/65, 58/45.

The above confirms that the Biogon is a good lens and only slightly

better up to midway but beyond, the A-G is substantially better. As

I said, the old Biogon for LF may be worth the money,... for museum

curators. For the same money and LF, my choice would still be the

Apo-Grandagon.

[robert_hageman]

The long standing decision at Leitz / Leica not to publish MTF

curves seems to be well founded. In spite of this I think it's safe

to say their lenses have certainly produced some remarkable

images over the decades. You boys also take pictures?