classic lenses vs modern lenses

[zuck_kovak1]

I am still trying to decide between 8x10 and 11x14. Thanks for all

the replies to my previous thread.

 

The decision also involves lenses of course. I am not familiar with

lenses for ULF especially the classic designs however I hear great

things about them.

 

There are plenty fine modern lenses available with plenty coverage

and very sharp results (from 210 through 300, 480, 600 from fuji,

schneider, nikkor & rodenstock). They are of course expensive but

usually very sharp. The classic lenses are cheaper however some more

famous ones like the Goerz Golden Dagor, Red dot Artar etc. are

quite expensive almost as expensive as modern ones.

 

I would like to contact print on Azo and heard that for this

application the classic lenses offer just as good quality. Some even

say they are better since they are a little softer and gives the

print a "glow" or at least a certain character that the modern

lenses don't. Because there is no enlargement factor the not so

sharp properties of the classic lenses is in fact not a hindrance

rather an advantage.

 

Is this correct or at least close? Or modern lenses are better

performers with better overall sharpness, contrast and more coverage

with higher prices to pay.

 

Please share some thoughts with me on the performance of classic vs

modern lenses for 8x10 or 11x14 contact printing on Azo.

 

Thanks a lot,

 

Zuck

[kevin_kolosky]

Have you ever been to a photography show where prints from Ansel Adams and Edward Westen were displayed. Have you seen any of the work by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee?

 

The point is, any good quality lens, whether it is classic or modern, is capable of making a great photograph if (and this is a big if) the photographer does his/her part (methods used in seeing, exposing and processing, and materials used)

 

Best thing to do is TRY for yourself a lens you might want to buy to see if it lives up to YOUR standards.

 

Kevin

[zuck_kovak1]

I couldn't agree with you more Kevin that trying them would be the best way to decide but I have no chance to try out these classic lenses. I need to buy one to try it. Just wanted to hear from the people that have first hand experience about the differences between these lenses. I haven't decided which way to go yet and shared experiences would help me to make those always difficult decisions.

[david_goldfarb]

The biggest thing you'll notice with modern lenses is better contrast, because they have better coatings, and the image circle will usually be restricted to the range of acceptible sharpness.

 

The difference is really a matter of taste. Look at work by the best photographers using both varieties, and see what appeals to you.

 

Personally, I like the character of the classic lenses. Many of the new lenses just seem too "clinical" to me. Also, I'd rather trade a little sharpness in the corners for some extra coverage, as long as the decline in quality is a smooth progression. Some lenses, like the Angulon, show a very sudden decline in image quality at the edge of the image circle (imagine a ring of crumpled cellophane in front of the lens), and that is more of a visual distraction.

[michael_briggs2]

For contacting printing, many of the older lenses are excellent choices. When one looks at an Edward Weston print, one does NOT think "that would have been a better photo if he had used a sharp lens".

 

However, I think that saying that they are better than current lenses is mostly mystique rather than reality. However, there are some older lenses for which no current versions are manufactured, mostly in the longer focal lengths. Some lenses have insufficient demand for new production to be profitable (or at least the manufacturers think so), and some lenses couldn't be made because shutters larger than #3 are no longer made.

 

One example is simple wide-angle lens designs which would be fully adequate for contact printing but might either not be up to today's standards for enlarging or today's market demand for really wide coverage. An example is a Gauss-type wide-angle design of four elements in four groups in longer focal lengths. A classic form of this is the Kodak Wide-Field Ektar, e.g., the 10 inch Wide-Field Ektar for use with 8x10. This lens would be very difficult to produce today because it requires a large shutter, which was originally a #5 Ilex.

 

The Sept/Oct 1997 issue of PhotoTechniques has an excellent article by Carl Weese comparing the 10 inch Wide-Field Ektar to the 240 mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S and Apo-Sironar N lenses used with an 8x10 camera. He is very balanced in discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each lens.

[kevin_kolosky]

Michael is exactly right in that some of these lenses creat shutter problems. I am fortunate in that I own a sinar with a sinar shutter, and I have often thought that there must be a way to adapt that shutter to any other large format camera because if you could adapt that shutter to any other camera you would not have to worry about how big of a shutter the lens required. all you would need to do would be to acquire sinar boards and adapt them with sheet metal to hold the lenses that you wished to use so that they did not interfere with the sinar shutter. a little bit more expensive of a solution in the short run, but in the long run you only have to buy one shutter and you can use many lenses that do not usually come with shutters such as the 24 inch red dot artar, etc. I am betting that any metal shop could adapt a field camera to take that sinar shutter and away you go. Kevin

[brian_ellis3]

With respect to trying before buying, most reputable dealers will let you return a lens within a certain period for a full refund. So you can buy a lens, try it out, and return it if you don't like it, assuming you act within the return period. Just make sure the dealer doesn't charge a restocking fee.

 

For contact printing the camera lens is relatively unimportant, or at least of less importance than it is for enlarging. I use two old Wollensak lenses, one of which is a triple convertible that I occasionally use with the front cell removed, as well as a new 210mm G Claron, for 8x10 contact prints. The prints from all three lenses are indistinguishable even though the G Claron is new and the other two must be 40 or so years old.

[graphicjoe]

Zuck,

It is worth considering that many of the photographers who used what we call �classic lenses� were using the best lenses that they could get at the time. If they were still working they would in a lot of cases, use current lenses.

 

My VC lenses are from the late 1960�s (not sure if that qualifies as �classic�) and at least for B&W they are marvelous. For critical color work I would prefer a new lens, but at that same time I suspect that the difference between a Super Angulon made in 1968 and the current equivalent would not be very great. VC lenses were almost always made to high standards, which is part of the reason that they hold their value well. This fact makes it less risky to buy and then try; if you don�t like a lens you can sell it for a price close to what you paid�if you shopped carefully before purchasing.

 

Cheers,

 

Joe Stephenson

[jim_galli4]

2 sides to any coin of course. Is better contrast always "better"? There are those folks who select a given classic with a known personality because they know instinctively how the shadow details will come to life because of the balance of how resolution and flare interact. I have seen instances where my 240 f9A which may certainly be the sharpest lens I own will leave shadows blank that a Heliar or even G-Claron would illuminate. Michael and Paula I believe only use Artars and Dagors for their Azo contacts. Don't let horror stories about the cost of a 210 Super Angulon deflect you from 11X14 if that's what you want to do. I've got a 260mm Konica Hexanon GR II that will cover 11X14 and produce details equal to what my Nikon lenses are capable of, and I think I paid $38 bucks for it.