So, what are the top notch LF lenses?

[Vickko]

So, what are the top notch LF lenses?

Let's stoke some LF GAS



Vick

[nlubis]

I'd like to listen to this conversation too. Thanks Vikko for starting this.

[DamenS]

Rodenstock 150mm APO-Sironar S.

[Vickko]

Yep, APO-Sironar-S. Now hard to find and expensive.

Oh, I am re-familiarizing myself with this: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

" ... Oh lord, won't you send me a 135mm f3.5 Planar T* .... "

[benmacphoto]

I really enjoyed the 150mm f4.5 Schneider. Great lens.
Also had great results from the 90mm Nikkor.

[Benjamin Marks]

It is such a different world, as super speed is really not a practical option.
Any Schneider APO Symmar
Any late Fuji LF lens
Any Nikon W or SW lens
Any Rodenstock Apo Sironar . . . the list goes on. They are like chocolate and vanilla milkshakes: each is rich and creamy, but they have different flavors. Others I love:

203 Ektar
127 Ektar . . . these are like the DR 50's of the LF world. Lower in contrast than their bleeding edge cousins, but great performers.

[venchka]

Benjamin said it all for me.
I own a 180mm Nikkor-W, 125mm & 250mm Fujinon-W and the 127mm Ektar. No complaints ever.
Then we go to the ancient optics.
5"-6", give or take, Brownie Hawkeye lens in working shutter from the 1930s. A garage sale present from Mrs. Wayne. Slips right on a Copal 0 lens board.
The early 1900s Voigtlander Collinear II of about 8" and f/5.4. A delight.

Wayne

[graywolf]

One of the simple facts is that all the LF lenses, at least since they quite making LF roll film cameras, were designed and intended for professional photography. Unless a lens is damaged it is unlikely that you will find a bad one. Most of the stories you hear about bad lenses, are just that stories.

For example, this is a crop from the edge of a 16x20 300ppi image taken with a Graflex Optar 135/4.7 at f/16. You can read hundreds of posts on the web saying that the lens will not cover any movements, but this shot is with 35mm of drop and 5 degrees of swing.



I will leave it to you to decide whether that indicates you can not use movements with that lens or not.

[stompyq]

This is such a open ended question. What is best for you? More coverage? bokeh? size and weight? Heres two i like

Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL (Huge coverage and ridiculously sharp)

Doctor Optic 150mm Germinar W (if you can find one this is crazy sharp and about the size of a small RF lens)

[Ezzie]

I rather like my Fuji EBC SW 90 f8. Beautiful build, and sharp as a razor

[Frankd]

I have been using a Schneider Angulon 120mm f6.8. It is moderately wide, light weight, a fair amount of coverage, and usually priced well. Resolution seems fine as well. Even most press cameras can handle this focal length.

Basically I agree with Tom above--just about all LF lenses work great. The only time you may need a lens with lots of movements is for architecture and some product photography. Although I have used my 120 Angulon for archi photos with good results even when some say it does not have enough coverage.

[froyd]

What this thread needs is more pictures!

[jmcd]

9-1/2" Dagor on 8x10 or 5x7. Luscious.

[bensyverson]

What do you mean by "top-notch?" Some folks will pay a premium for the vintage brass lenses with tons of character and not much contrast... Others will want the clinical modern lenses with insane sharpness.

The lenses that no one seems to want are the workaday lenses of the 60s and 70s—they're cheap and very sharp!

[kzphoto]

58 grandagon on my little graflex XL is damned sharp, and the 135 Symmar-S schneider lens was pretty good too! My next lens for LF will likely be an 80mm Super Symmar XL. That's a lens that can be modified to lots of different mounts and it is stupid sharp. Like wow sharp.

[Frontman]

The Zeiss 135mm f/3.5 Planar. One is listed on a local auction, but the price has gone quite high, even though the auction won't end for another 5 days.

[Moto-Uno]

Kodaks 127 and 203 fit into the Busch Pressman D when closed and are capable of
producing such an image on Provia 100f as to leave me memorized , anything more would
leave me without cash for film (and those Ektars aren't all that cheap)
It's probably best not to show pictures taken with 4x5's, there'd be a flood of 35mm camera sales,no?
Regards,Peter

[keytarjunkie]

My $250 Nikkor-W 150mm 5.6 is all I need. I've used the APO-sironar S, didn't notice much of a difference. My teacher has the 90/5.6 SA XL, which is a huge and impressive lens, but optically I don't see a huge advantage over a cheap lens like the the 90/8 SA (neither does he). If I were wealthy, I would buy the 110mm Super Symmar XL in a heartbeat. But honestly, any modern multicoated lens from Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock, or Fujinon will perform well enough that it isn't worth the crazy price discrepancies to buy an expensive one. Color 4x5 film is already $4 a shot, 8x10 is $13. I don't feel the need to buy a metal Linhof and a huge heavy lens when I can buy a cheap 80's japanese wood field camera and a cheap lens and get basically the same results. At least, that's how my art student brain justifies it.

[Rayt]

For 4x5 these two lenses are perfect for me - Nikon 90/8 SW and Rodenstock 135/5.6 Apo Sironar S. I shoot a lot of old buildings so need tons of image circle and these two delivers. Having gotten caught up with the classic lens phase with the Leicas I don't want to do that with LF. Just choose a few lenses and shoot. The criteria in choosing a lens should be focal length, image circle and filter size since the big four manufacturers are pretty comparable in performance. Also you will be stopping down these bad boys to f/45 or smaller anyway.

[Franz Elmar]

I won't spend the cash but this is what I think is the BEST large format lens, period. Smooth yet sharp, the Cooke PS945 229/4.5: http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf...rgeformat.html

These picks are all over the place but if your criteria is sharpness, then the later-newer the better, i.e. Rodenstock Sironar-S or the Schneider APO Symmar-L. But you can save some money with the previous generation Sironar-N and APO Symmar (sans L), they are 99.99999% as sharp with a few degrees less image circle. There are some older lenses that are incredibly sharp too, like the 135 Kodak Wide-Field Ektar which has a great reputation.

For portraiture and expressiveness, I like the Schneider Xenars and Eastman Kodak Commercial Ektars, especially the 14" on 8x10. But even a sharp Symmar can look good for portraits if you simply shoot with it wide-open with a round aperture and shallow depth of field. I've had the classic Brass portrait lenses too, including an expensive Verito, but I think they are only good for making mush.

The fast lenses I've had are the Aero-Ektar and 135/3.5 Xenotar and I was ambivalent, a lot of hassle or expense for not much of a gain, as well as somewhat flat/mushy and difficult to focus with such shallow depth of field. Good way to waste film....

I also consider the shutters. While Copals are predominate on most later lenses, the last of the all black Compurs were probably the finest shutters ever made. If you shop on German eBay quite a few lenses in Compurs still show up but they are rare elsewhere.

Something to watch out for is an older lens in a newer shutter or vice-versa. While it can work just fine, unless you know the history there is a chance that the aperture scales are wrong or the lens may not have the correct spacing between the front and rear.

The American-made shutters that you will find on old Crown and Speed Graphics are all very reliable and well built, much simpler and cruder than the Compurs but almost bulletproof. Making something good that isn't expensive is harder to do than it is to make something good that's expensive....

[Dwig]

Originally Posted by Frankd

I have been using a Schneider Angulon 120mm f6.8. It is moderately wide, light weight, a fair amount of coverage, and usually priced well. Resolution seems fine as well. ...

I used a 90mm Angulon for years and have the same opinion. It was a great companion for the feather-light wooden field camera I used. Angulons don't have quite the coverage that the Super Angulons have (~5 degrees less) but they don't suffer from the rather significant light falloff that plagues the SAs. I also was extremely pleased with the results from my 180 f/5.6 Nikkor-W.

A word of warning about buy and Angulon, though. The Angulons were made for a very very long time. Many, perhaps most, were uncoated and can date from the first quarter of the 20th century. The one I used was a very late sample from probably the late '50s, coated and in a modern Compur shutter. If you get one be sure to get a modern sample.

[raid]

My only lens is a Schneider convertible lens.

[brusby]

Used to use 90mm and 65mm Super Angulons on 4x5 for architectural stuff with great results. If I remember correctly the 65mm coverage didn't quite extend all the way to the corners, but maybe I'm thinking of 5x7.

[Roger Hicks]

There are so many different lenses for so many different purposes that it's impossible to say. In 300mm lenses alone ('standard' on 8x10), there's an immense difference between my f/3.5 Tessar and my f/9 Nikkor, but they both have their uses. My favourite lens for portraiture on 8x10 is a 21 inch (533mm) f/7.7 Ross. And so forth.

Cheers,

R.

[marduk]

Every LF lens I tried was wonderful, even thought I prefer more gentle color rendering of German lenses to Japanese ones. I have a Fujinon-C 300/8.5 and love it, but my ultimate lens is 120mm Super Symmar HM. Also have a Grandagon-N 75/6.8 on the shelf, which I didn't have time to try yet. Chamonix 45N-1 takes anything from 75 to 300mm on standard bellows.