Will I see a difference with better lenses?

[Kent Shafer]

I'm dusting off my 4x5 after a long hiatus. I have two lenses, both old and

inexpensive even when new: 215 mm f/6.3 Caltar and 90 mm f/8 Caltar. (Not Caltar

II.) Would I see an observable increase in quality by switching to newer/better

lenses such as Schneider or Rodagon?

 

I will be shooting Astia (and maybe color negative film), scanning on Epson V700,

and printing 16x20 inches.

 

Thanks,

 

Kent

[bohdan_pryszlak]

I think the biggest difference you'll see will be in your bank balance and the smile on the salesman's face. Your Caltar lenses are fine. Good technique, careful focusing and a steady tripod matters more than the upgrade you are contemplating.

[mike_earussi1]

You will see a slight difference in color saturation and contrast between single vs mulit coated lenses or between old vs new coatings, but whether this difference is worth the price only you can decide.

[brucecahn]

It depends on how well you see. There is a huge difference.

[ronald_moravec1]

The last two generations are pretty close. Once you get back into 1960 lenses, they are pretty bad. I did better with my Leica than those lenses. The newest are right up there.

[bob_salomon]

Yes, but not with a Rodagon, unless you are printing! But you will definitely see a

difference with a modern Rodenstock taking lens like the Apo Sironar S or the Apo

Grandagon or Grandagon N.

 

[moderators note: Bob is a representative for HP Marketing, the US distributor for Rodenstock.]

[Kent Shafer]

I apologize for the errors in how I framed the question (typing Rodagon instead of Rodenstock and asking you to evaluate my eyesight).

 

With that out of the way, thank you all. I've always been somewhat disappointed with the sharpness and detail I got from 4x5 (compared to Hasselblad, say, or friends' 4x5 work). These old lenses probably are the weak link.

 

Thanks again.

 

Kent

[bob_salomon]

There can be other weak links. Is the ground glass focusing surface actually at the film

plane? Is the camera in proper alignment? Are there filters behind the lens? Are you

properly shading the lens to reduce all flare to maximize contrast? Are there vibrations

in the camera/head tripod that are effecting the image? Are you shooting at the optimal

aperture for the lenses or stopping down so far that you are in diffraction?

[Kent Shafer]

Bob, I have been wondering whether the ground glass and film plane match. Am thinking of measuring with a depth micrometer (groundglass vs. holder with a piece of film). Is that a good way, or is there a better technique?

 

Thanks,

 

Kent

[bob_salomon]

Rather then shooting in the dark testing and adjusting one at a time get the camera to

a qualified repair shop and have them check the whole thing out and give it a proper

CLA at the same time.

[steve_levine]

If good technique is applied (stopped to f22, careful focusing, sturdy tripod,serious shading of the lens etc). I doubt you will see any difference what so ever at smaller print sizes such as 16x20. This is assuming that both are modern multi coated lenses.

 

 

Keep in mind that a 16" print from a 4" negative is a 4X's enlargement. This is equal to blowing up a 35mm neg to 4". How much difference does lens quality matter at 4"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be after 8" that a bad 35mm lens will start to "tip it's hand". An 11x14 is usually assumed to be the upper end of 35mm blow ups. It is here that a better lens will shine. A better 4x5 lens will show itself after 30 or 40 inches, and not an inch sooner.

 

 

 

 

Of course good technique is everything. Camera shake, is responsible for more un-sharp photos than lenses.

[Kent Shafer]

That sounds like good advice.<p>

 

FWIW, I did measure with a micrometer and found everything parallel but film plane 0.003 inch farther back than ground glass plane. That seemed like a pretty small difference - probably much less than the tolerance of my ability to focus.<p>

 

Then I found this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00398S">1999 thread</a> with a good discussion of the subject, including the information that 0.007 inch tolerance is the ANSI manufacturing standard. So I've concluded my camera's alignment is OK.<p>

 

Thanks again,<br>

Kent

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 1940's Ektars will out resolve the limits of a flatbed scan with alot of margin; the weak link in your settup if is the flatbed scan; which deconstructs the image down to a 25 to 32 line pair resolution. The 12cm Angulon here from the 1930's will out resolve the Epson flatbed. Your are also just enlarging a moderate amount; ie about 4.5X with a slight crop for a 16x20 from a 4x5. Thus the Epson is OK. With a high resolution lens your Epson truncates the high end; but the saleman gets the spifs and commision. IF you explore drum scanning then a better lens might be explored. The Epson low passes the higher end info in the original. PLUS you are only doing moderate enlargements and the inkejt printer/paper combo can only support so much info. A Steve has mentioned; this is like making a 4x enlargement; like a Walmart 4x6 print from 35mm.

[bohdan_pryszlak]

"Am thinking of measuring with a depth micrometer (groundglass vs. holder with a piece of film). Is that a good way, or is there a better technique?"

This is the only way and you can quickly determine if your ground glass is at all involved with your sharpness question. I have done this with a micrometer and made the adjustments myself. See this link for the specs:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00398S

[ned1]

I read one review that said that the true dpi of the V700 is only 2900. And the scanner's glass is certainly poorer that the lenses, even an old one. It may be worth to cost to send the negative out to a pro lab with a drum scanner and then compare it to the V700.