Any Bad Modern LF Lenses?

[thomas_mangan]

I notice that people are always posting questions here asking whether or not a certain model large format lens is any good. It seems as if 99.9% of the time people always respond positivley to just about every inquiry. I realize that Large Format really allows us to get past many pitfalls that poorly designed lenses in other formats can not overcome. My question is this. Does anyone out there have any stories or expierences with Modern Multi-Coated or Single Coated Large Format lenses that they would like to share?. We all know that lenses such as the Schnieder 110 XL or 150mm APO Sironar-S are truly amazing performers, I'm just curious to see if there really are any lemons out there. Thanks, Tom Mangan.

[brian_yarvin1]

In my experience, lens quality is never the problem...dropped or dirty

loupes, warped film holders and incorrect lens mounting are just the

beginning of the list of things that can ruin the sharpness of large

format images, but lens quality...?

 

<p>

 

Remember though that when buying used lenses, you never know their

history and how they were handled could have a big impact on your

results too.

 

<p>

 

Best of luck!

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Tom

 

<p>

 

The todays lenses are normaly very fine and sharp and I think the

bigger problem is the camera itself and the filmholder accuracy and the

film flatness.To put the sharpness on the right place in the picture is

even more a weak point in the beginning.

The most differences you will find if there is really one, will be in

very long lenses and in very short wide lenses.

Good light!

[skygzr]

Well, we're forgetting the most obvious weak link....the

photographer! I won't speak for the rest of us, but I bet I very

seldom take a picture that's as good as my lens.

 

<p>

 

Many thousands of breathtaking pictures were taken with optics not

nearly as good as those we have today. I remember reading reading

somewhere about Edward Weston buying some junk lens in Mexico for $5.

I'm sure he took great pictures with it.

 

<p>

 

If my pictures were as good as the closet full of optics I've got,

I'd be one damn fine photographer!

[ron_shaw]

Check this site for good information on lens quality:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index.html

It seems it is quite difficult to find a bad lens for LF work. The

one bad example Terry and others found was defective.

[david_goldfarb]

Weston's "junk lens" was an old Rapid Rectilinear, considered outdated

in the age of Pictorialism. The expensive, fancy, new lenses at

the time were largely soft focus lenses.

[jeff_buckels]

Some footnotes to David's interesting response -- If you read through

Adams' "Examples" book, also his autobiography, etc., there are of

course numerous references to lenses that he and others (often Weston)

were using, basically in the era of the late 30s through the 50s.

Just sitting here, I can think of an exchange of letters between

Weston and Adams -- I think in the 40s -- where Weston is complaining

that some lens he'd picked up was giving him all this trouble. Adams

responded with the suggestion that EW go with one of the new Zeiss

Protars of the day, which are so "razor sharp" etc. I also recall

Adams in another place remarking that a certain image he was

discussing was so extraordinarily sharp because the exposure was made

with a Zeiss Tessar of some length or other. These were

single-coated, symmetrical lenses whose basic designs were thirty to

fifty years old when Adams and Weston were discussing them in the late

forties (I'm thinking the Tessar around 1905, the Protar around 1920

-- please correct me, anyone). Well, point is, both these and

other classic lenses are disparaged on this Forum and elsewhere in

comparison to the new multi-coated and/or aspherical lenses. The

point is that Weston and Adams produced images of fabulous apparent

sharpness with these and similar classic lenses, including uncoated

lenses. The limitations of the lenses couldn't stop them.

Conversely, and as suggested in one of the previous responses, I don't

guess a new German multicoated aspherical lens can COMPEL fabulous

sharpness, if all the other variables aren't in place (full

disclosure: I've never had or used such a lens).... A practical

matter is that there are great deals on Ebay and elsewhere for classic

single-coated and uncoated lenses. It's just a question of the

condition. Certain dealers consistently offer fine stuff, by the

way, and I'd be happy to discuss that with you by private email.

Also, don't let the old shutters put you off (esp. Compound,

Ilex, Compur, Alphax/Betax/Rapax); they are very repairable ....

-jeff buckels (albuquerque)

[bill_glickman]

Tom, you raise an intersting point, and I think the posters addressed

your question very well.... I will say that some lenses do seem

inferior to others if compared side by side.... I own 11 new LF

lenses, and for some reason, I think the Nikor 450 M is bit soft and

lower contrast than all my other lenses. But if one did not compare

chromes side by side, they would not complain of this...

[duane_kucheran]

Here's a vicarious experience with a modern LF lens. I was going to

buy a used Congo lens at one time because it was of recent

manufacture with a modern shutter and was about 2/3 of the price of

an equivalent Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikkor. I did some 'net

research and found a number of bad comments about the line in

general - mostly poor quality control as I remember. Perhaps others

may have comments on Congo lenses?

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

 

<p>

 

Duane

[geoffrey_chen]

Tom,

 

<p>

 

If you look at specs of those modern LF lenses, they are all great on

paper. I once compared a late Nikkor-T 600 mm multicoated Telephoto

with an Apo-Germinar 600 mm single-coated plasmat. The Apo-Germinar is

sharper and contrastier. Is the Nikkor a bad lens? No, it's a better

lens compared with ones made 50 years ago. Be your own judge. Shoot

a few chromes and look at those images to see if you can spot a bad LF

lens. They say beauty is in the eyes of beholder. It's funny that my

favorite 8x10 lens so far is my almost 90 years old 12" dagor (not

even coated).

 

<p>

 

If you put a Schneider Super Symmar 210/5.6XL in your backpack for

travel, it's a pretty bad modern LF lens! Too much weight! But you

know it's a great lens....... Cheers,

[thomas_mangan]

Thanks guys for the responses so far. Without question the most

important tool is the photographers vision, and there execution. I am

very aware that Large Format allows us to make excellent images with

older and less advanced lens designs. I was just trying to gauge if

any other photographers feel that there are some lenses that just are

not all that good. For example I own a 110 XL and it is an amazing

lens. It has a certain snap to it that myself and many others have

raved about. My 210 APO Symmar also has a very simmilar snap to it,

extremly sharp and stunning. However, I have noticed that my 150 APO

Symmar although still excellent, lacks that overall snap of the other

two lenes. Its not soft, the images it helps to create are still

amazing, but its just not the same as the other two. The same

situation occurs when I compare my SA 90mm F8 with a Nikkor 90mm F8,

although both produce great images, side by side one can tell the

Nikkor is just a tad better(snap thing again). Granted these are not

sceintific tests but I shoot alot of LF and these are things I have

noticed over time. With 35mm we see this kind of thing all the time.

Sometimes some of the most modern, well thought out lens designs seem

to produce lenses that can only be categorized as lemons. I was just

trying to gauge if this happens in 4x5 as well. Tom