[Largeformat] LENS - WHICH ONE

[oldgoat@voy.net (Robert L. Johnson)]

From: oldgoat@voy.net (Robert L. Johnson)

Pete Groh wrote:

>Another question: Nikon or Schneider glass? Nikon is about
>$300 or so cheaper; does that make Schneider that much better?
>Always liked Nikon glass, but thought I would ask the question
>before I placed an order -- or started hunting around on eBay.

Pete, lenses being my 'thing', I have done some lens testing. If you want
ultimate sharpness, go with the Nikkor lenses. That's not to say that the
others are not fine; and in my 'kit' of 20 LF lenses, 19 are Nikkor lenses,
and there is one Schneider XL 150mm which is superb as well.

In fact, I even occasionally read, in magazines and on the newsgroups, that
some people dislike Nikkors for being 'too sharp!' I cannot imagine such a
state of affairs, but then, I do industrial and technical photography, much
of which is recording antique machinery for archiving and for future
reference; and I also do landscapes. For portraiture Nikkors might indeed
be 'too sharp' but my own take on that is unless you are solely a portrait
photographer, you can always soften down a very sharp lens when you need
to, but you cannot sharpen an inherently soft one!

Many of the lenses you are seeing on eBay now are the older Nikkor process
lenses. These were made for the graphic arts/printing industry up until
1984 when production ceased. They are all optimized for 1:1, coated, are
corrected to the ultimate degree, and are the real bargains on eBay now,
since (1) there are a lot of them available since the old process cameras
are ancient history now; (2) they are not in shutters, and therefore many
people hesitate to use them with Packards (or the lens cap!) and many of
them are too large to be put into shutters - they really shouldn't be
anyway, for even a modern Copal's vibration will take that ultimate 'edge'
off what these lenses can really deliver in terms of resolution. And (3)
Many people are afraid of these, since they think they are no good for work
at infinity. Since I shoot inanimate machinery, and the landscape, and
nothing moves, and since I am using very fine grain slow film, I use these
without shutters (I use a spare dark slide as a shutter.) But we're talking
ultimate sharpness here - i.e. sandbagging the tripod, not touching any
part of the camera when the exposure is being made; never shooting even in
a light breeze. Most photographic subjects don't have such stringent
requirements, and as others have said, when you are talking about modern
lenses in shutters, all of the late production ones are very fine and you
probably would not be able to tell the difference short of a resolution
test. Schneider, Nikon, and Rodenstock lenses do each have a certain
'personality' and after you have shot some LF film, you may come to notice
that, which is why, once you find a lens whose 'bokeh' you like, you should
probably stick with that brand as you add different focal lengths.

If your resolution requirements are not too stringent, especially if you
are shooting black and white, you will find that many older lenses from
other companies are good bargains. Some lenses - the Goerz Dagors and Red
Dot Artars, for instance - have a cult following which means inflated
prices; but there are many others. Since many of these are available in
both coated and uncoated versions, I'd look for coated lenses with the
coating intact especially if you are planning to shoot much color....or
plan on spending $$$ to have an old lens recoated. For general LF
photography, Kodak Commercial and Wide Field Ektars which are widely
available are excellent lenses. Tessars are real bargains on eBay now, and
the later ones are coated.

If you do wind up with some older single-coated or uncoated lenses,
remember that a correct sunshade is worth its weight! (It is for new lenses
too, but not quite as important.)

All best,

Robert