300 nikkor M or 300 APO ronar-landscape?
Brian Kosoff
or the 300mm APO Ronar? Movements don't matter too much to me in this
case, I'm looking for pure optical quality and color quality.
Thanks,
Brian
Michael Gudzinowicz
appear to be a decent lens. When comparing other Tessar type (4/3) lenses
to 4/4 designs, the latter have always had better color rendition and
acutance off-axis even though they may have been optimized for 1:1
reproduction ratios. The lens designs are quite different, and the 4/4
permits greater optimization.
Recently I've been running a number of classic designs through Zemax just
to see if the literature descriptions are consistent with computer
generated data. It appears that they are, even when multiple variations
of one design is compared to another. Generally, the 6/4 designs are
better then the 4/4, and those are better than 4/3 designs. That's not
surprising.
In addition to the APO Ronar, you might consider the Red DOT & APO Artars,
the Docter APO Germinar, Fujinon C, APO Sinaron (Ronar) or the
305 G Claron (6/4). All should be available in #1 shutters, and all should
be stopped down to at least f/22 for best off-axis color rendition.
If your interested in the "best" lenses (read "more expensive"), you'd
have to step up to a #3 shutter and use the multicoated f/5.6 6/4 designs.
The corrections off-axis are better, but if you are doing 4x5 landscapes,
you may not need that much coverage.
Ken Iisaka
> appear to be a decent lens. When comparing other Tessar type (4/3) lenses
> to 4/4 designs, the latter have always had better color rendition and
> acutance off-axis even though they may have been optimized for 1:1
> reproduction ratios. The lens designs are quite different, and the 4/4
> permits greater optimization.
Such generalisation of which lens type is better is not necessarily
applicable in real world. What is important is the actual design, and its
build quality.
Ronar was optimised for 1:1 reproduction, and while it performs well at
infinity, it is not necessarily superior to a Tessar-type lens.
> Recently I've been running a number of classic designs through Zemax just
> to see if the literature descriptions are consistent with computer
> generated data. It appears that they are, even when multiple variations
> of one design is compared to another. Generally, the 6/4 designs are
> better then the 4/4, and those are better than 4/3 designs. That's not
> surprising.
There are many instances where fewer elements produce better results. Also,
the Orthometar/Plasmat design providing coverage of over 70 degrees is
wasted on a 300mm when used with a 4x5. As a long lens, there is less need
for movements, and a Tessar or Triple that provides coverage to 50 degrees
is more than adequate, without the extra cost and weight.
Paul and Paula Butzi
<bko...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Which is a higher resolving lens for landscape use? The 300mm Nikkor M
>or the 300mm APO Ronar? Movements don't matter too much to me in this
>case, I'm looking for pure optical quality and color quality.
>Thanks,
>Brian
I can't comment on the 300mm Apo-Ronar since I haven't used one.
I own and have used (extensively) a 300mm Nikkor-M. In my not so
humble opinion its a tough lens to beat - excellent sharpness,
excellent contrast, good flare resistance, small, lightweight,
relatively cheap even new. So much coverage you don't know
what to do with it all.
List price on the Apo-Ronar is about 1200 bucks. List price on
the Nikkor is about 700.
I know which I'd pick if my 300mm Nikkor-M got stolen - another
300mm Nikkor-M.
Based on the number of 300mm Nikkor-Ms I see in other photographers
kits, and the number of Apo-Ronars I've seen in my entire life (zero)
I suspect most other photographs feel similarly.
Another possibility would be the 305mm G-Claron. Looks like a big
piece of glass, though. (Note: I'm considering picking up the little
brother to the 300mm Nikkor-M, the 200mm f/8 Nikkor-M, just to have
a smaller, lighter lens to cover that range for when I have to schlepp
a longer distance than from the shoulder to the ditch).
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W photography, camera and equipment reviews, and photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 3/2/00)
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
Michael Gudzinowicz
>> I haven't used the 300 mm Nikkor M, but based on its popularit
>
>Such generalisation of which lens type is better is not
>necessarily applicable in real world. What is important is the
>actual design, and its build quality.
a detailed working knowledge of design and published books on the subject.
I think it is safe to assume that each current production design is state
of the art using the most suitable glass.
Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, since it is
_impossible_ to correct it given the limitations of the design. It isn't a
matter of glass or being clever, but of degrees of freedom in design.
(The original poster wanted to know about color correction.)
I agree that build quality is important, and I've owned and used a number
of terrible Tessar type lenses (notably one Xenar 210 f/3.5), and have a
couple of "good" ones. But that has nothing to do with the Nikkor M or
APO Ronar.
With respect to QC, I do know of a local dealer dropping the Nikkor line
about 10 years ago due to QC problems, and discussed the situation at
length with him. And then there's the "rumor" about centering which is
attributed to a notable user of LF Nikkors.
The standards and QC of the competative German lensmakers are quite high,
and they had a very substantial investment in APO process market. The
availablity and price of the lenses isn't a reflection on quality - just
demand.
There are some resolution specs on the 300 mm Nikor M on the web:
<http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html>
The testers note the problems involved in testing lenses on film, and
wouldn't read too much into the numbers. The Nikkor is a "decent" lens.
If we were to assume that the results are reproducible, the second Nikkor
has a problem since on-axis resolution is low at f/11 and /f16 compared
to f/22. That usually signifies aberrations. Generally in well corrected
lenses, the center resolution will fall while corners improve over that
range. Compare it to the "better" 305 G Claron and 240 Fujinon A process
lenses optimized for 1:1.
>Ronar was optimised for 1:1 reproduction, and while it performs
>well at infinity, it is not necessarily superior to a
>Tessar-type lens.
diagrams show little difference, and are very tight with respect to color
and size compared to the Airy disk. The typical Tessar diagrams reflect
what is seen on film - off-axis fringing. Those were done at 17.5 deg, so
the issue of using the "sweet" spot is moot.
I've read the notes which accompany LF color photography in magazines
and books over a few decades. I honestly can not recall _one_ instance of
a published professional photo taken with a long Tessar type lens or
triplet on 4x5 or any other format. There are tons of examples of photos
taken with long 4/4 designs, usually Artars, and they make up the majority
of that group. For shorter "normal" focal lengths, the 6/4s predominate,
and again, I don't recall one 4/3 or 3/3 lens making the cut imposed by
the photographers or publishers.
Filtered B&W standards might be less stringent, but you would be very hard
pressed to find someone basing their professional career work around a
long 4/3 or 3/3 lens. Other lenses are used though they are more costly.
Michael Smith has a pertinent comment on his web site about Artars and
Dagors.
As I indicated, people who use the lenses for a living have cast their
votes over a few decades.
>> Recently I've been running a number of classic designs through
>
>There are many instances where fewer elements produce better
>results. Also, the Orthometar/Plasmat design providing
>coverage of over 70 degrees is wasted on a 300mm when used with
>a 4x5. As a long lens, there is less need for movements, and a
>Tessar or Triple that provides coverage to 50 degrees is more
>than adequate, without the extra cost and weight.
A triplet can't touch a good Plasmat design, though it is "good enough"
for teaching purposes and amateur photography. In the past, Bob S has
commented on the Rodenstock triplets compared to Sironars, and he's
undoubtedly used the Ronars.
As I mentioned, the 3/3 and 4/3 designs can not provide the same degree of
color correction as the 4/4s even when the latter are used at infinity.
The details and limitations are in every book on photographic lens design.
The simpler designs obey optical laws and physics regardless of what one
might like to beleive, and that is the reason they have been replaced to a
large degree. The limitations of those designs are scientific facts, not
impressions, that lens makers have spent a lot of time and money to prove
despite the advertising hype and unproven endorsments to the contrary.
>> In addition to the APO Ronar, you might consider the Red DOT &
>> 305 G Claron (6/4). All should be available in #1 shutters, an
>>
Thor Lancelot Simon
Michael Gudzinowicz <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>"Ken Iisaka" <kiisaka...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> I haven't used the 300 mm Nikkor M, but based on its popularit
>>> appear to be a decent lens. When comparing other Tessar type (
>>> to 4/4 designs, the latter have always had better color rendit
>>> acutance off-axis even though they may have been optimized for
>>> reproduction ratios. The lens designs are quite different, and
>>> permits greater optimization.
>>
>>Such generalisation of which lens type is better is not
>>necessarily applicable in real world. What is important is the
>>actual design, and its build quality.
>
>
>You'll have to take that up with Kingslake and everyone else who has
>a detailed working knowledge of design and published books on the subject.
>I think it is safe to assume that each current production design is state
>of the art using the most suitable glass.
>
>Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, since it is
>_impossible_ to correct it given the limitations of the design. It isn't a
>matter of glass or being clever, but of degrees of freedom in design.
>(The original poster wanted to know about color correction.)
Note that the Tessar design does give good color correction over a
relatively narrow field -- good enough that apochromatic Tessar-type
process lenses were offered by several manufacturers for many, many
years. In fact, the standard Zeiss process lens was a Tessar.
It's noteworthy as well that a team of lens designers as well-regarded
as Kingslake's team at Kodak chose the Tessar design for their
top-of-the-line lenses for large-format color photography. The Tessar
doesn't provide "good" corrections over a wide field, but over the
comparatively narrow field used when using a long lens for the
format (even a slightly long lens such as an 8" on 4x5 or a 15" on 8x10)
it can certainly yield results which are acceptable for critical color
work.
If you've never seen a color photograph in a magazine that was taken
with a Tessar type lens, you haven't looked very hard -- the Commercial
Ektar was the standard lens for color photography in most studios in
the USA for many, many years. Plenty of published work (especially
catalog work) is still shot with it.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Brian Kosoff
6/4 design, also optimised for 1:1, according to perez's trsts the 305
G-claron does quite well, but this doesn't seem very popular with landscape
shooters. Coul the popularity of the 300mm nikkor be based primarily on size
and price?
Brian
Michael Gudzinowicz
> It's my understanding that my third choice, the Schneider
>G-Claron is a 6/4 design, also optimised for 1:1, according to
>perez's trsts the 305 G-claron does quite well, but this
>popularity of the 300mm nikkor be based primarily on size and
>price?
price.
If you check dejanews, you'll find discussions of small light weight
lenses. That is a consideration for some people, and price enters into the
equation.
But there is a design limitation on all Tessar type lenses when it
come to lateral color. The question is just how important that is
to you. If you've stated that color and acutance are the criteria, subtle
differences may be important.
The "more expensive" process lens are hitting the street for $50 or so if
you look hard, you can find some bargins. However, many of them will not
fit into a shutter directly (the G Claron will). Check the front and rear
cell thread diameters and compare them to the shutter data on Steve
Grimes' or Schneider's web sites. The "high" availability of APO Ronars
and G Clarons reflects the fact that these lenses were the current
"keepers" used on process cameras.
In addition to the G Claron, the other modern 6/4 process lens which was
tested was the 240 Fujinon A, which is an excellent lens.
I try to avoid anecdotal "evidence", but I just finished an email
clarifying some of the points to someone who uses the 300 Nikkor M,
publishes with it, and whose opinion I respect. Some of my comments (not
his) are pasted in below.
The first excerpt is on testing, and how I look for fringing. If tilts are
used with a 300, this might be more relevant than one would expect.
The other issue is quality control. If you pick up a new Nikkor, test it,
and if it does not perform as you would expect it to, return it. I've done
that with just about every lens I have, and uncovered some unpleasant
surprises. I haven't seen a bad example (QC) of a modern Schneider or
Rodenstock lens but other people have. I've included a second qoute from
the email which explains one of my reservations that the Kerry and Chris'
tests uncovered.
On testing for lateral color:
>An email acquaintance in Europe bought a 300 APO Ronar a couple
>of months ago for which he paid all of $40. He tested it for
>table top work, and for landscape work side by side with a 210
>MC Symmar S. He mentioned that it was just as good as the
>Symmar S when he checked the negs with a grain magnifier at
>maximum enlarger height (Durst 1200/APO lens).
>
>That was pretty much what I observed based on my use of the
>Artars when I was generating 4x5 and 8x10 chromes for Ciba and
>dye transfer printing. I've run into a few people who were
>using the APO Ronar, and their film and impressions would lead
>me to beleive that the lenses are nearly identical to late
>model Schneider APO Artars.
>
>I don't much resolution testing these days, but I used matched
>holders, repeated exposures at the same aperture after
>refocusing, and paid a lot of attention to astigmatism. The
>criteria I used for pass/fail color reproduction was to focus
>on distant electrical wires against the sky placing them in a
>corner, and twisting camera around to give a radial and
>tangential orientation. Color fringing in my Tessars types is
>evident, and wasn't present with the Artars or the shorter
>"keeper" plasmats.
On the test data for the 300 Nikkor M and 1:1 6/4 designs (my email has
been edited a bit):
>If the numbers are reproducible (the qualifying "if"), the
>resolution at f/11 and f/16 on-axis should be higher than at
>f/22, since on-axis aberrations are not present to the same
>degree as those of axis, and are corrected easily by stopping
>down.
>
>Any modern lens whose resolution _on-axis_ improves going from
>f/16 to f/22 has some real problems with aberrations. That
>happens with the second lens tested. The first lens is
>"diffraction limited" on axis at f/11; the second one is
>probably limited at f/22 (assuming performance drops a bit at
>f/32, which is a reasonable expectation). Since the first one
>is fine, it indicates the design works. The deviation of the
>second one indicates real quality control problems, though the
>lens might give very good resolution values at f/22. The
>consistancy of the data for f/11 and f/16 (lens #2) would indicate that
>the problem isn't due to film flatness, vibration, etc. which
>might affect one sheet.
>
>The person to whom I replied made a big deal about design
>execution (QC) being more important than design per se. That
>is why I cited that data. It was something I wanted to avoid.
>
>#1
>Nikon M f/9 300mm f/11 67 67 47
> f/16 48 42 42
> f/22 42 42 42
>#2
>Nikon M f/9 300mm f/11 48 48 48
> f/16 48 48 48
> f/22 54 54 54
Comments on 6/4 design tests:
>The reason I referred to those lenses was that the person to
>whom I replied indicated that process lenses are designed for
>a 1:1 repro ratio, and implied that performance at other
>ratios might suffer. The data provides some insight into
>whether that is true or not, and that does not appear to be
>true.
>
>Fuji A-series f/9 240mm f/11 60 54 48
> f/16 76 60 48
> f/22 60 67 60
>
>Schneider G-Claron f/9 305mm f/16 67 67 54
> f/22 54 60 54
>
>These are not inferior lenses in any way simply because they
>were optimized for 1:1.
Michael Gudzinowicz
>>"Ken Iisaka" <kiisaka...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I haven't used the 300 mm Nikkor M, but based on its popular
>>>
>>>Such generalisation of which lens type is better is not
>>>necessarily applicable in real world. What is important is th
>>
>>
>>You'll have to take that up with Kingslake and everyone else wh
>>
>>Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, s
>
>over a relatively narrow field -- good enough that apochromatic
>Tessar-type process lenses were offered by several
>manufacturers for many, many years. In fact, the standard
>Zeiss process lens was a Tessar.
of the term. I don't think they've been offered as recently as the APO
Artars and Ronars, and they have never been very popular as process lenses
if the used market is any indication. The only one I've seen on a portable
LF camera taking was on a Devin one-shot, and I don't have a clue of the
magnification for which it was optimized.
I wouldn't run out and buy on of these if it had been optimized for 1:1,
since non-symetrical lenses do suffer when pushed out of the design range,
compared to the symmetrical process lenses.
>It's noteworthy as well that a team of lens designers as
>well-regarded as Kingslake's team at Kodak chose the Tessar
>design for their top-of-the-line lenses for large-format color
>photography. The Tessar doesn't provide "good" corrections
>over a wide field, but over the comparatively narrow field used
>when using a long lens for the format (even a slightly long
>lens such as an 8" on 4x5 or a 15" on 8x10) it can certainly
>yield results which are acceptable for critical color work.
>
>If you've never seen a color photograph in a magazine that was
>taken with a Tessar type lens, you haven't looked very hard --
>the Commercial Ektar was the standard lens for color
>photography in most studios in the USA for many, many years.
>Plenty of published work (especially catalog work) is still
>shot with it.
statement since they are usually associated with studio work. I was trying
to recall landscape photos done on 4x5 with long lenses, and for that
reason, the Ektar didn't jump out at me. Also, I was focused on small
lenses (Copal #1).
Kerry and Chris have some data on the f/7.7 EKC Anast. (a 4/4 design;
uncoated) which did well.
I don't have a "problem" with the Commercial Ektars or any other lens.
The "problem" though, is using a long lens on 4x5 which may required
a large degree of enlargement (20x24). When someone states that color and
sharpness are important, I have a tendency to think of extremes.
The long lenses are great for their intended format, however, the
aberrations are an angular in nature. In other words, a "spot" from a 300
mm lens may be twice the size of one from a 150 mm lens all factors being
equal. If the film size were twice as great, fine. If that isn't the case,
one needs a lot of correction. On a 5X print, 20 lpmm in the negative
might seem adequate, but good eyes can see 8 lpmm in a print (40 lpmm).
Some of that difference in apparent as "texture" and acutance. Off-axis
fringing can often be seen in large prints and in chromes. I first started
getting really picky about it when I was doing large dye transfer prints
and Cibas starting with 4x5 chromes taken with long lenses which magnified
every little problem.
Paul and Paula Butzi
Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, since it is
>_impossible_ to correct it given the limitations of the design.
How far off axis must you be to see this
color fringing in, say, a 6x print from a chrome?
Michael Gudzinowicz
>On 22 Mar 2000 05:19:14 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>
>>Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, s
>
>How far off axis must you be to see this
>color fringing in, say, a 6x print from a chrome?
using a coated 210 Tessar on the press "snapshoot" camera I'd leave in the
trunk of the car. My guess would be the angle was around 20 degrees
(corners straight on). The prints were 5X using an APO enlarging lens and
glass carrier. The subtle problem didn't show up using my 6/4 MC lenses,
or the long Artars I used on 8x10 and 5x7 with a 4x5 back (bellows
draw). The shorter press lenses didn't hold up that well, so I stopped
carrying around the Graphic. I didn't want to keep "better" lenses and
cameras in the car due to the constant vibration.
At that time a freind owned a well stocked shop, and we checked other
new Xenars and used clones, and duplicated the findings. It didn't end
there... we set test bench, and checked everything in stock, and picked
the good stuff. That included a 70-210 zoom which is still have, and it
still puts over 100 lpmm on APX 25.
We didn't have a Nikkor M, or I'm sure it would have been noticed. I did
check a couple of long Xenars for 8x10, and they did not hold up as well
as the process lenses at 5X magnification.
I was also doing a lot of dye transfers starting with negs and chromes.
Since there were some losses along the way, I was looking for overkill,
and I found it.
Paul and Paula Butzi
Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Mar 2000 05:19:14 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>
>>>Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, s
>>>_impossible_ to correct it given the limitations of the design.
>>
>>How far off axis must you be to see this
>>color fringing in, say, a 6x print from a chrome?
>
>
>My guess would be the angle was around 20 degrees
>(corners straight on).
20 degrees at infinity focus for the 300mm f/9 Nikkor-M would be just
a smidge over 205mm of image circle before you'd see the problem.
In other words, for 4x5 you could use up to 4cm of rise/fall/shift
or not quite 6 degrees of front tilt/swing before seeing the problem.
For 5x7, you'd just squeak through straight on.
Perhaps I've miscalculated, or I'm misunderstanding your
answer and am off by a factor of 2, but it appears likely to
me that this color fringing is outside the edge
of the film in the vast majority of landscape uses for 4x5.
As a side issue, it does make me wonder about using
rear tilt/swing rather than front, just to stay in the better
performing part of the image circle, as a general rule.
Paul and Paula Butzi
<bko...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> It's my understanding that my third choice, the Schneider G-Claron is a
>6/4 design, also optimised for 1:1, according to perez's trsts the 305
>G-claron does quite well,
Sure, but remember that Chris Perez's tests are based on
photographing a test chart. I don't recall which test chart
he uses, but it's probably not bigger than 32x40, which
means it was photographed at a 8:1 reproduction ratio.
In landscape work you're more likely to be focused
closer to infinity.
I have a vague recollection that the G-Claron is not
multi-coated. Perhaps someone with access to specs
can give a definitive answer on that.
> but this doesn't seem very popular with landscape
>shooters. Coul the popularity of the 300mm nikkor be based primarily on size
>and price?
I suspect it's based on a lot of things. In general I think it's
a mistake to consider ONLY resolution when buying a lens.
Other things to consider are (in no particular order):
* contrast
* resistance to flare
* size
* weight
* maximum aperture
* coverage
* size of filters required
* shutter size
* cost
Landscape photographers who schlepp their gear often
consider size and weight to be at a premium compared to,
say, studio workers. For some people coverage is a big
issue; for others, a minor one.
You'll need to put together a similar list and a set of weights
to help you evaluate possible lens purchases.
But beware - I started out with a single lens (a 210mm Symmar-S).
Now my large format kit includes 4 lenses (with another purchase
contemplated). The Symmar-S was replaced with an Apo-Sironar-N.
And as I struggle to keep the size and weight of the large-format
bag down, that 210 Apo-Sironar-N might get replaced by the
much smaller, much lighter 200mm Nikkor-M, at least for field
work where transporting the gear is an issue.
What seems like a minor difference in weight in a lens can
mount up when multiplied across five or six lenses. The worst
performer is a lens that gets left home because it's just too
damn big/heavy to take along.
Alexander Kraus
Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:S2bZOHJQYukZB5...@4ax.com...
....
> I have a vague recollection that the G-Claron is not
> multi-coated. Perhaps someone with access to specs
> can give a definitive answer on that.
It's true - and that's why I bought a Germinar-W: Multicoated, 6/4 optical
construction, 70° , small (Copal 1) and light :-))
Alex
M. J. Rossano
capable of better corrections at its optimum reproduction ratio, not worse.
Given that the APO Ronar/Artar/etc... types are completely symmetrical,
they, therefore have fewer degrees of freedom in the design, not more. Am
I missing something here?
My subjective impression is that the 300mm Nikkor-M and the 300mm APO Ronar
will both give excellent results. I happen to have both a 300 Nikkor and a
360 (not 300) APO Ronar MC. I use both on 5x7. The APO Ronar is a bit
"snappier" for close-up work (1:10 or closer). At distance, they give me
very similar results; both are very sharp and contrasty.
I personally don't worry much about weight, as I use a Kardan Master GTL on
top of a 400 series Gitzo tripod, so I'm already lugging around a kit that
weighs more than my seven year-old son. A few ounces here or there doesn't
get noticed. Of course as I leave my fourtieth birthday further and
further in the past I may have to reevaluate (or put that child to work as
a pack animal).
Regards,
Mark
Michael Gudzinowicz <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<8b8otg$orf$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> Brian Kosoff <bko...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >Which is a higher resolving lens for landscape use? The 300mm
> >Nikkor M or the 300mm APO Ronar? Movements don't matter too
> >much to me in this case, I'm looking for pure optical quality
> >and color quality.
>
> I haven't used the 300 mm Nikkor M, but based on its popularity, it would
> appear to be a decent lens. When comparing other Tessar type (4/3) lenses
> to 4/4 designs, the latter have always had better color rendition and
> acutance off-axis even though they may have been optimized for 1:1
> reproduction ratios. The lens designs are quite different, and the 4/4
> permits greater optimization.
>
> Recently I've been running a number of classic designs through Zemax just
> to see if the literature descriptions are consistent with computer
> generated data. It appears that they are, even when multiple variations
> of one design is compared to another. Generally, the 6/4 designs are
> better then the 4/4, and those are better than 4/3 designs. That's not
> surprising.
>
> In addition to the APO Ronar, you might consider the Red DOT & APO
Artars,
> the Docter APO Germinar, Fujinon C, APO Sinaron (Ronar) or the
> 305 G Claron (6/4). All should be available in #1 shutters, and all
should
> be stopped down to at least f/22 for best off-axis color rendition.
>
> If your interested in the "best" lenses (read "more expensive"), you'd
> have to step up to a #3 shutter and use the multicoated f/5.6 6/4
designs.
> The corrections off-axis are better, but if you are doing 4x5 landscapes,
Michael Gudzinowicz
> On 22 Mar 2000 23:29:07 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
> Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>
> >Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 22 Mar 2000 05:19:14 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
> >>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, s
> >>>_impossible_ to correct it given the limitations of the design.
> >>
> >>How far off axis must you be to see this
> >>color fringing in, say, a 6x print from a chrome?
> >
> >My guess would be the angle was around 20 degrees
> >(corners straight on).
>
> 20 degrees at infinity focus for the 300mm f/9 Nikkor-M would be just
> a smidge over 205mm of image circle before you'd see the problem.
>
> In other words, for 4x5 you could use up to 4cm of rise/fall/shift
> or not quite 6 degrees of front tilt/swing before seeing the problem.
> For 5x7, you'd just squeak through straight on.
>
> Perhaps I've miscalculated, or I'm misunderstanding your
> answer and am off by a factor of 2, but it appears likely to
> me that this color fringing is outside the edge
> of the film in the vast majority of landscape uses for 4x5.
the image gets from the lens axis. At some point it may appear as
fringing, but before that point, it may be there as a loss of resolution
or contrast. For B&W, if filters are used to cut blue or red, the spot can
tighten up.
> Perhaps I've miscalculated, or I'm misunderstanding your
> answer and am off by a factor of 2, but it appears likely to
> me that this color fringing is outside the edge
> of the film in the vast majority of landscape uses for 4x5.
>
> As a side issue, it does make me wonder about using
> rear tilt/swing rather than front, just to stay in the better
> performing part of the image circle, as a general rule.
there are very competent people who use the lens, and they are fairly
critical.
The "current" (or recent) crop of process lenses don't have color problems
at all when used for landscapes (still APO). There's a vary small amount
of coma, but that disappears at f/22 or smaller apertures. The 4/3
spots run well outside of the Airy disk diameter for a given f/stop due to
lateral color. The process spots occupy only a small fraction of the Airy
disk diameter at f/22.
Since some of these lenses can be found for very little $$ if one looks
around (not on the web or in camera shops), I don't think that they
should be ignored.
In a different reply, you mentioned coatings. Most of the process lenses
are single coated, which isn't as bad as sounds for most situations. If
you want to look at numbers for flare depending on coating and design,
drop a note, and tell me which spreadsheet you use if any.
(Chris and Kerry's tests were done at 1:20, but don't read too much into
them.)
Richard Knoppow
>Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Mar 2000 05:19:14 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
>>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>>
>>>Off-axis, it is easy to see the color fringing of any Tessar, s
>>>_impossible_ to correct it given the limitations of the design.
>>
>>How far off axis must you be to see this
>>color fringing in, say, a 6x print from a chrome?
>
>
>In the early 80's when I got serious about Ciba's, I picked it up
>using a coated 210 Tessar on the press "snapshoot" camera I'd leave in the
>trunk of the car. My guess would be the angle was around 20 degrees
>(corners straight on). The prints were 5X using an APO enlarging lens and
>glass carrier. The subtle problem didn't show up using my 6/4 MC lenses,
>or the long Artars I used on 8x10 and 5x7 with a 4x5 back (bellows
>draw). The shorter press lenses didn't hold up that well, so I stopped
>carrying around the Graphic. I didn't want to keep "better" lenses and
>cameras in the car due to the constant vibration.
>
>At that time a freind owned a well stocked shop, and we checked other
>new Xenars and used clones, and duplicated the findings. It didn't end
>there... we set test bench, and checked everything in stock, and picked
>the good stuff. That included a 70-210 zoom which is still have, and it
>still puts over 100 lpmm on APX 25.
>
>We didn't have a Nikkor M, or I'm sure it would have been noticed. I did
>check a couple of long Xenars for 8x10, and they did not hold up as well
>as the process lenses at 5X magnification.
>
>I was also doing a lot of dye transfers starting with negs and chromes.
>Since there were some losses along the way, I was looking for overkill,
>and I found it.
I wonder if the Tessars you tested showed lateral or longitudinal
color, maybe both. Kodak claimed the Commercial Ektar was free of
lateral color, actually, I think they make that claim for all Ektars.
Lateral color is automatically corrected in symmetrical lenses (when
the entire system is symmetrical) but hard to get rid of in
unsymmetrical lenses like the Tessar. I have no doubt at all that the
range of performance of Tessar type lenses varies all over the place.
I have a couple of dogs myself. The Kodak lenses all seem to be
exceptional in sharpness and freedom from color fringing, at least at
distances down to where you would expect to see some effect from the
optimization.
In answer to the question about fewer degrees of freedom for
symmetrical lenses (I am responding to two posts in this thread) the
symmetry itself is a sort of degree of freedom. It automatically
corrects lateral color, coma, and field curvature. This is exactly
true only when the entire system is symmetrical (i.e. at 1:1
magnification) but the degree of compensation stays very high at all
distances. Where a symmetrical type is intended for use mainly at
infinty the symmetry can be upset just a little by shifting some power
from one side to the other. The lens still has the benefits of
symmetry but they are optimized at some magnification other than 1:1.
Lots of lenses are made this way. The Angulon, Kodak 203mm, f/7.7
Ektar, Goerz Dogmar, just about all of the current Plasmat type LF
lenses and probably most of the current LF WA lenses.
The 4/4 type of lens known as a dialyte, as used as the basis of the
Artar and many other lenses, seems to be particularly stable with
regard to the variations of corrections with distance.
I am curious where Mike got the lens prescriptions to set up in
Zemax. Are these from patent literature or do you have a source of
actual prescriptions of production lenses. The latter would be _very_
interesting.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Gudzinowicz
> I'm no optical designer, but it seems that the Tessar formula should be
> capable of better corrections at its optimum reproduction ratio, not
> worse.
> Given that the APO Ronar/Artar/etc... types are completely symmetrical,
> they, therefore have fewer degrees of freedom in the design, not more. Am
> I missing something here?
and other degrees of freedom (power, etc.) are available to refine the
design. Those aberrations are hard to correct any other way, especially
when one tries with an unsymmetrical design with fewer groups.
Richard has commented on the advantages.
Away from the 1:1 repro ratio, the dialyte has a bit of coma which
dissappears as the lens is stopped down to a working aperture.
> My subjective impression is that the 300mm Nikkor-M and the 300mm APO
> Ronar will both give excellent results. I happen to have both a 300
> Nikkor and a 360 (not 300) APO Ronar MC. I use both on 5x7. The APO
> Ronar is a bit "snappier" for close-up work (1:10 or closer). At
> distance, they give me very similar results; both are very sharp and
> contrasty.
available to me for testing (for the 8x10 format) were large, and didn't
hold up well. But those were from an older design generation than the
Nikkor M, with which quite a few people are pleased.
Michael Gudzinowicz
>bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>
>>Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Mar 2000 05:19:14 GMT, bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michae
[edit]
> I wonder if the Tessars you tested showed lateral or
>longitudinal color, maybe both. Kodak claimed the Commercial
>Ektar was free of lateral color, actually, I think they make
>that claim for all Ektars.
coma, which sort of makes me feel that coma was a "problem".
If I didn't have some near perfect chromes with long lenses,
I probably would have never noticed the problem. The long
Tessar type lenses didn't hold up all that well. I had one
for 8x10, and we looked at a few more new and used lenses.
> Lateral color is automatically corrected in symmetrical
>lenses (when the entire system is symmetrical) but hard to get
>rid of in unsymmetrical lenses like the Tessar. I have no doubt
>at all that the range of performance of Tessar type lenses
>varies all over the place. I have a couple of dogs myself. The
>Kodak lenses all seem to be exceptional in sharpness and
>freedom from color fringing, at least at distances down to
>where you would expect to see some effect from the
>optimization.
EKC Ektar I had was a short press lens, and it didn't hold up well
compared to a plasmat (corner color 10X loupe). The Commercial Ektar
was a variant of the Tessar with a different type of rear group.
I'll have to look and see if I have data on it, but somewhere
there are compromises.
> In answer to the question about fewer degrees of freedom for
>symmetrical lenses (I am responding to two posts in this
>thread) the symmetry itself is a sort of degree of freedom. It
>automatically corrects lateral color, coma, and field
>curvature. This is exactly true only when the entire system is
>symmetrical (i.e. at 1:1 magnification) but the degree of
>compensation stays very high at all distances. Where a
>symmetrical type is intended for use mainly at infinty the
>symmetry can be upset just a little by shifting some power from
>one side to the other. The lens still has the benefits of
>symmetry but they are optimized at some magnification other
>than 1:1. Lots of lenses are made this way. The Angulon, Kodak
>203mm, f/7.7 Ektar, Goerz Dogmar, just about all of the current
>Plasmat type LF lenses and probably most of the current LF WA
>lenses.
> The 4/4 type of lens known as a dialyte, as used as the basis
>of the Artar and many other lenses, seems to be particularly
>stable with regard to the variations of corrections with
>distance.
on the 4/4 450 mm f/12.5 Fujinon C and the 240 A, Kerry seems
to very pleased with both, and mentioned that the first 450 is his, and
it's a sharp as his 300 Nikkor M. That's very good performance for a
longer focal length lens.
It's unfortunate that the print shops aren't giving those lenses
away.
> I am curious where Mike got the lens prescriptions to set up
>in Zemax. Are these from patent literature or do you have a
>source of actual prescriptions of production lenses. The latter
>would be _very_ interesting.
I just thought it would be interesting to look at classic designs
and see if comments in the literature could be illustrated. I'm
thinking of including it in a faq with all of the lens specs I
have (in a useable form), notes on usage, aberration testing,
common and less common formulas for dof & tilt, etc., etc.
It would be nice to have the prescriptions of production lenses -
I'll check the literature sometime. I'm sure that Rodenstock and
Schneider have figured out each others designs even if they are trade
secrets.
Paul and Paula Butzi
Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>> In other words, for 4x5 you could use up to 4cm of rise/fall/shift
>> or not quite 6 degrees of front tilt/swing before seeing the problem.
>> For 5x7, you'd just squeak through straight on.
>>
>> Perhaps I've miscalculated, or I'm misunderstanding your
>> answer and am off by a factor of 2, but it appears likely to
>> me that this color fringing is outside the edge
>> of the film in the vast majority of landscape uses for 4x5.
>
>
>The "problem" is always there, it's just that it gets worse the further
>the image gets from the lens axis. At some point it may appear as
>fringing, but before that point, it may be there as a loss of resolution
>or contrast. For B&W, if filters are used to cut blue or red, the spot can
>tighten up.
How does this problem scale? linearly with the angle? as the sine
of the angle?
I'm not trying to be difficult or pick nits - I'm just trying to get a
grip on how to reconcile your claim that a problem exists and
the fact that many people are using the lens yet no one seems
to notice the problem you mention.
One obvious way to reconcile the two is to conclude that the
problem exists but is unnoticeable when the lens is used
in a normal configuration for 4x5 - close to on axis.
>> As a side issue, it does make me wonder about using
>> rear tilt/swing rather than front, just to stay in the better
>> performing part of the image circle, as a general rule.
>
>
>Paul, just test the lens to see if it meets your needs. You know that
>there are very competent people who use the lens, and they are fairly
>critical.
No, I think you misunderstand. I'm just observing that, as a general
rule, the on axis performance for ANY lens is better than the off-axis
performance. And, as a rule, when I want to move the plane of focus,
I tend to use front movements, which puts the film off-axis. For
those images where it doesn't matter, I might well be better off
using rear tilt/swing, and using the on-axis portion of the field.
I can't say that I've noticed a lack of sharpness or contrast in those
images made with front movements, but to be honest I can't say that
I've been looking closely.
As a side issue, I'm wondering about the design of the Fujinon-C 450mm
f/12.5 - apparently 4 elements in 4 groups. I've just bought one, and
based on the very small number of images I've made with it so far,
I'm very pleased.
-Paul
Michael Gudzinowicz
>Gudzinowicz) wrote:
>
>>> In other words, for 4x5 you could use up to 4cm of rise/fall/
>>>
>>> Perhaps I've miscalculated, or I'm misunderstanding your
>>> answer and am off by a factor of 2, but it appears likely to
>>> me that this color fringing is outside the edge
>>> of the film in the vast majority of landscape uses for 4x5.
>>
>>The "problem" is always there, it's just that it gets worse the
>
>How does this problem scale? linearly with the angle? as the
>sine of the angle?
description. The radius seems to increase linearly with angle until the
edge of the sharp image field is reached. Lateral color varies the same
way. Longitudinal chromatic aberration is also present in the Tessars,
often around 0.5% of focal length from red to blue, and the field isn't
flat.
The dialytes don't have any lateral or longitudinal color, and don't vary
from the focus plane by more than 0.005%.
Those don't represent "real" lenses - just prototype designs.
>I'm not trying to be difficult or pick nits - I'm just trying
>to get a grip on how to reconcile your claim that a problem
>exists and the fact that many people are using the lens yet no
>one seems to notice the problem you mention.
reflect on the Nikkor M design. It is consistent with lenses I've used and
some of the generic prescriptions I have for them.
I looked at a number of Tessar designs, primarily recent long Xenars, and
checked an odd assortment of shorter lenses. They all had color problems
of one sort or another compared to some of the best lenses available. That
shouldn't be very surprising. The result was that I continued to use the
long Schneider APO Artars.
When going through some designs, I found that the dialytes held up very
well at infinity focus, and are as good as it gets at f/22 or smaller.
The Tessar designs I've run through the program show color problems,
which seems to reflect the literature and my experience.
>I'm not trying to be difficult or pick nits - I'm just trying
>to get a grip on how to reconcile your claim that a problem
>exists and the fact that many people are using the lens yet no
>one seems to notice the problem you mention.
>
>One obvious way to reconcile the two is to conclude that the
>problem exists but is unnoticeable when the lens is used
>in a normal configuration for 4x5 - close to on axis.
any aberrations which you'd notice are small, but others might exist.
If it works, use it.
I just wanted to point out that process lenses are a very viable
alternative and that they are well corrected. That seems to be born out by
the semi-formal tests and comments.
>>> As a side issue, it does make me wonder about using
>>> rear tilt/swing rather than front, just to stay in the better
>>> performing part of the image circle, as a general rule.
>>
>>
>>Paul, just test the lens to see if it meets your needs. You kno
>
>No, I think you misunderstand. I'm just observing that, as a
>general rule, the on axis performance for ANY lens is better
>than the off-axis performance. And, as a rule, when I want to
>move the plane of focus, I tend to use front movements, which
>puts the film off-axis. For those images where it doesn't
>matter, I might well be better off using rear tilt/swing, and
>using the on-axis portion of the field.
and whether distortion might be noticed. In some cases, the distortion
might be welcomed.
>I can't say that I've noticed a lack of sharpness or contrast
>in those images made with front movements, but to be honest I
>can't say that I've been looking closely.
then to the center of a glass carrier and examining with a loupe 1 or 2
stops down.
>As a side issue, I'm wondering about the design of the
>Fujinon-C 450mm f/12.5 - apparently 4 elements in 4 groups.
>I've just bought one, and based on the very small number of
>images I've made with it so far, I'm very pleased.
liklely has double concave elements near the shutter, and double convex on
the ends. You can check it by looking at reflections as you tilt the lens.
Some lenses of that design have lost their symmetry to a small degree when
they are optimized for infinity in order to remove a bit of coma. I don't
know if they did that to the Fujinon C.
Michael S. Briggs
>
> >As a side issue, I'm wondering about the design of the
> >Fujinon-C 450mm f/12.5 - apparently 4 elements in 4 groups.
> >I've just bought one, and based on the very small number of
> >images I've made with it so far, I'm very pleased.
>
>
> It's a 4/4 lens, and undoubtedly, some sort of dialyte design. It very
> liklely has double concave elements near the shutter, and double convex on
> the ends. You can check it by looking at reflections as you tilt the lens.
The cross-section diagram in the Fujinon lens brochure I have shows your
prediction to be very close. A small difference is that the front
inner element appears to be plano-concave.
> Some lenses of that design have lost their symmetry to a small degree when
> they are optimized for infinity in order to remove a bit of coma. I don't
> know if they did that to the Fujinon C.
The cross-section diagram shows the lens to be extremely asymmetrical.
The two rear elements are separated about a factor of four more than the
two front elements. It is not clear whether or not this lens is based
on the classic dialyte design.
--Michael
Alexander Kraus
Michael S. Briggs <Michae...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
[...]
> The cross-section diagram shows the lens to be extremely asymmetrical.
> The two rear elements are separated about a factor of four more than the
> two front elements. It is not clear whether or not this lens is based
> on the classic dialyte design.
[...]
Hmm... Very interesting. But do you think the elements themselves are
symmetrical (front elements compared to back elements). If yes, the lens
would still be a dialyte. This information could help to optimize other
dialytes (Apo-Artar, Ronar, Germinar, Nikkor) for infinity, just by placing
a spacer ring between the inner and the outer back element. Besides this, I
have a copy of an article from a German optics journal, where someone tested
the influence of the spacing between the front and back lens sections on the
infinity performance of Zeiss Apo-Germinars. The result was that an increase
of the spacing by approx. 2mm improved the resultion of fine details in the
outer sections of the image circle significantly.
Alex
Michael S. Briggs
>
> Michael S. Briggs <Michae...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> [...]
>
> > The cross-section diagram shows the lens to be extremely asymmetrical.
> > The two rear elements are separated about a factor of four more than the
> > two front elements. It is not clear whether or not this lens is based
> > on the classic dialyte design.
> [...]
>
> Hmm... Very interesting. But do you think the elements themselves are
> symmetrical (front elements compared to back elements). If yes, the lens
> would still be a dialyte.
No, the cross-sections of the elements look different. The biggest
difference is in the inner, negative elements. The front one looks to
be plano-concave (or at least to have a very large radius of curvature
on the front), while the rear one is double-concave.
--Michael
Alexander Kraus
Michael Gudzinowicz <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8bk0mm$4q5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Alexander Kraus" <alex_...@sprynet.com> wrote
>
> >Michael S. Briggs <Michae...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >message [...]
> >
> >> The cross-section diagram shows the lens to be extremely asymm
> >[...]
> >
> >Hmm... Very interesting. But do you think the elements
> >themselves are symmetrical (front elements compared to back
> >information could help to optimize other dialytes (Apo-Artar,
> >Ronar, Germinar, Nikkor) for infinity, just by placing a spacer
> >ring between the inner and the outer back element. Besides
> >this, I have a copy of an article from a German optics journal,
> >where someone tested the influence of the spacing between the
> >front and back lens sections on the infinity performance of
> >Zeiss Apo-Germinars. The result was that an increase of the
> >spacing by approx. 2mm improved the resultion of fine details
> >in the outer sections of the image circle significantly.
>
>
> cell. I just ran that simple "what if" situation, and the results
> are not pleasing. The "space" isn't just space - you might think
> of it as another element.
Haha. I know. But don't worry - everything is under controll :-) Recently, I
had a 360mm Apo-Germinar (dialyte type) adapted into a shutter and on this
occasion I had to take the elements out. When I reassembled them, I
deliberatly played a little bit around, turned the biconcave elements around
and so on (of course all lenses were properly marked :-). It turned out that
on gets a nice softening effekt if one or both of these lenses are inverted.
In the latter case the effect was maybe to strong, but the ground glass
image with one lens inverted looked actually very interesting on the ground
glass.
Well, I finally reassembled it way it was meant to be. However, I has forced
to increase the spacing between the front and the back cells, because the
shutter was ~2mm to thick. I haven't had the time to take some pictures so
far, but the ground glass image looks very crisp (even with 10x loupe).
> If I'm not mistaken, in one of his articles Ron Wisner mentioned
> that the spacing between to front and rear cells of the G Claron
> could be varied to improve edge performance at 1:20 or infinity
> by reducing astigmatism, or perhaps where the curves might cross
> over.
>
> Was that the effect they saw in the optics journal?
Yes. this sounds like the same effect. Do you recall how by much Ron Wisner
increased the spacing and for which focal lengh?
On the other hand, I think these optimizations will only improve the outer
part of the image circle, which I don't use anyway with 4x5". Is this
article avaiable on the web? I would be very interested...
Alex