Your favourite “bang for the buck” lenses

[rdeloe]

The Pentax 35m A images are sharp. They are just at a disadvantage being 35mm rather than 50mm. I imagine that a Schneider Kreuznach 35XL might produce more detail than the Mamiya 50, but I can't really use that on the X2D.

I see what you meant now.

Speaking of those two 35mm lenses... At 100% I'd say they're a wash based on these unedited samples.

 

[MGrayson]

I see what you meant now.

Speaking of those two 35mm lenses... At 100% I'd say they're a wash based on these unedited samples.
View attachment 211111

THAT'S impressive!

 

[rdeloe]

THAT'S impressive!

Which do you think is which?

 

[MGrayson]

Which do you think is which?

I'd put the 35XL on the right, as it looks to have slightly less distortion, but I could be fooling myself. They're really close!

I just did a similar comparison with a Leica M 35 Summicron. Inside its image circle, it's extremely sharp, but I didn't see any difference between it and the Pentax at f/11.

 

[rdeloe]

I'd put the 35XL on the right, as it looks to have slightly less distortion, but I could be fooling myself. They're really close!

I just did a similar comparison with a Leica M 35 Summicron. Inside its image circle, it's extremely sharp, but I didn't see any difference between it and the Pentax at f/11.

Bingo! Good eye.

You can't see it in this sample, but the SK does seem to live up to its APO billing. It's also small and light. The image circle is larger than the Pentax, but I can shift the Pentax farther on my F-Universalis because the SK sticks into the GFX mount; it only shifts 8mm in one direction.

Those sample crops are f/11 by the way. Diffraction is having its way with both.

 

[John Leathwick]

Inspired by your experience, Matt, I decided that I'd better check to see whether there was an RZ equivalent of your M645 50mm shift lens. It seems that for the RZ there was both a shift 75mm and a short-barrel 75mm with the same optical configuration, but designed to be used with a tilt-shift adapter. However, the short-barrel version at 1.3 kg sounds way to heavy a beast to put on the front of my Universalis - one reviewer described it as being solidly enough built to be fired through a howitzer with armour-piercing capability, after which it would probably still be photographically useful. Joking aside, reports suggest that it performs to a similar level as your 645 shift lens, but the M RZ 75mm L with its floating element covers my GFX sensor so well, that I concluded that neither of the shift lens would be likely to give any gain over what I already have.

John

 

[diggles]

The going rate for the lens used to make this image is just over the $500 threshold, but in the $500s makes it still worth mentioning. The lens is the Nikkor M 200mm f/8. It was recommended by two different photographers I trust as a great telephoto option for the technical camera. They are right and they just happen to frequent the forum.

This is a 3 image stitch with the digital back in vertical orientation– 20mm+ camera fall and LR 15mm.

2024-03-01-B00897-Pano-6000px by Warren Diggles, on Flickr

Some things to note…

My first tests were worrying because there was a lot of flare. It is my belief that lenses with very large image circles have a tendency to flare on a tech camera because the tech cam manufacturers like Cambo and Arca do not make the interior of their lens mounts free from reflections. Why? You'll have to ask them.

Anyway, here is what I think is happening. A lens with a large image circle projects light on the interior of the extension tube and it bounces around all over the place creating flare.

The good news is that the flare is simple to fix. All I had to to is roll up a piece of flocking material and insert it into the tube. To fix it permanently, I may adhere the flocking material, but I want to be sure it is the best solution before taking that somewhat permanent step.

 

[rdeloe]

That looks superb Warren! A nice find.

 

[jng]

The going rate for the lens used to make this image is just over the $500 threshold, but in the $500s makes it still worth mentioning. The lens is the Nikkor M 200mm f/8. It was recommended by two different photographers I trust as a great telephoto option for the technical camera. They are right and they just happen to frequent the forum.

This is a 3 image stitch with the digital back in vertical orientation– 20mm+ camera fall and LR 15mm.

2024-03-01-B00897-Pano-6000px by Warren Diggles, on Flickr

Some things to note…

My first tests were worrying because there was a lot of flare. It is my belief that lenses with very large image circles have a tendency to flare on a tech camera because the tech cam manufacturers like Cambo and Arca do not make the interior of their lens mounts free from reflections. Why? You'll have to ask them.

Anyway, here is what I think is happening. A lens with a large image circle projects light on the interior of the extension tube and it bounces around all over the place creating flare.

The good news is that the flare is simple to fix. All I had to to is roll up a piece of flocking material and insert it into the tube. To fix it permanently, I may adhere the flocking material, but I want to be sure it is the best solution before taking that somewhat permanent step.

Indeed, a nice find, Warren! One thing I've come to appreciate about some of these legacy lenses: they can be quite sharp yet render in a more pleasing and less clinical way than the modern glass, as your image here attests. While at least some of the difference has been attributed to how the various raw converters "correct" images made with specific lenses represented in their databases, I suspect that much of this has to do with the properties intrinsic to the lenses themselves.

John

 

[diggles]

I wonder about that too. That is is the same way I feel about the 100 APO Symmar– while it is not as sharp as some of the newer digital lenses, it is plenty sharp and the transition between tones is natural and pleasing.

 

[daz7]

another tessar worth recommending is Schneider's Xenar 150mm 5.6 - can be bought for around 200 USD in copal 0 and is amazingly sharp as for analog lenses. Great lens - very compact, light and sharp with a large image circle.

 

[Whisp3r]

...
The lens is the Nikkor M 200mm f/8. It was recommended by two different photographers I trust as a great telephoto option for the technical camera. They are right and they just happen to frequent the forum.
...

Hello Warren, if you don't mind me asking: how was the Nikkor mounted to the RM3di?

 

[rdeloe]

I wonder about that too. That is is the same way I feel about the 100 APO Symmar– while it is not as sharp as some of the newer digital lenses, it is plenty sharp and the transition between tones is natural and pleasing.

I saved a post from 2021 by Hank Dietz (ProfHankD) on DPReview that speaks to this point. Hank knows what he's talking about. Here's the link to the original post: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65479822 I'm quoting the post for posterity.

...modern lenses tend to be designed primarily for high microcontrast at a fixed resolution, and often don't seem to show much higher resolution when a lower contrast threshold is set. In my experience, older lenses are more likely to have resolution steadily increase as you lower the contrast threshold, and quite often old manual-focus lenses actually out-resolve newer autofocus ones at low contrast thresholds (e.g., 20% contrast, MTF20). Resolution smoothly increasing as you reduce the threshold to zero contrast seems more natural than resolution maxing-out at a fairly high contrast. Modern lenses are now often designed with tolerance ranges rather than individually adjusted at assembly time and motor-driven things need lower friction than human-driven (motor-driven focus and zoom can be a bit loose). Modern lenses having more elements and aspherics also tends to amplify the resolution-limiting effects of minor misalignments.

I find it amusing that, in many ways, the newer lenses would have been more suitable for film and the older ones are more suitable for electronic sensors with digital processing. Film really needed contrast right, whereas contrast is a bit of a free variable in digital processing given that humans are log sensitive to light and sensors are pretty much linear photon counters.

Of course, having all colors crisply come to focus together, etc., is also important. Simpler old lenses tend to be decent at this (at least when stopped down), but modern lenses are often better corrected. There's also a huge difference in how flare is handled, and again, newer tend to do better... although some modern lenses are using better coatings to be able to get away with having many more surfaces, so not all modern lenses handle flare better than simple older lenses.

 

[MGrayson]

Never met an older APO lens I didn't like. It's a sign of care in the optical design.

 

[diggles]

Hello Warren, if you don't mind me asking: how was the Nikkor mounted to the RM3di?

Of course…

Here are the ingredients:

• Rodenstock 50HR (factory R-Mount)
• APO Symmar 100mm (mounted to SK 80n ring and rotaslide remove ring)
• Extra arca tubes (60XL ring and 32HR ring)
• Nikkor-M 200mm and piece of flocking material

The lens boards are easy to remove from the Arca rings, they just twist off like a normal lens mount. Here is a picture with the rings from the above picture assembled for the Nikkor. I like that I can easily use the extension tubes from other lenses. One thing to note is that some rings won't connect to both sides of other rings. The 50 HR ring I have has to be the one in the front that the lens is connected to. For some reason, other rings can't connect to the front of it.


Here is a picture of the Rm3di with the flocking material placed in the lens tube (this works, but hopefully I can come up with a more permanent fix).


Here is a picture of the whole setup. The 40.6 extension and rotamount on the rear and the helical was extended by about 2 full turns (~5mm).


For scale, here is a picture of the Nikkor on the left and 35XL on the right.

 

[diggles]

Here is a list of lenses that I've managed to use on the Arca with these same ingredients…

• APO Digitar 35 XL
• Digaron 50 HR
• APO Digitar 90n
• APO Symmar 100mm
• APO Digitar 150n
• Nikon M 200mm

Of course these would work as well…

• Digaron 32 HR
• APO Digitar 60 XL
• APO Digitar 80n
• APO Digitar 100mm

So 10 different lenses with just a handful of rings, a rotamount, and a rear extension. My take is that I don't want to get a lens mounted by Arca just so I can try it. That is ridiculous. When I do find a keeper lens then it makes a lot more sense to send it in to be mounted and calibrated by Arca.

 

[Whisp3r]

Of course…

Here are the ingredients:

• Rodenstock 50HR (factory R-Mount)
• APO Symmar 100mm (mounted to SK 80n ring and rotaslide remove ring)
• Extra arca tubes (60XL ring and 32HR ring)
• Nikkor-M 200mm and piece of flocking material

View attachment 211246

The lens boards are easy to remove from the Arca rings, they just twist off like a normal lens mount. Here is a picture with the rings from the above picture assembled for the Nikkor. I like that I can easily use the extension tubes from other lenses. One thing to note is that some rings won't connect to both sides of other rings. The 50 HR ring I have has to be the one in the front that the lens is connected to. For some reason, other rings can't connect to the front of it.
View attachment 211241

Here is a picture of the Rm3di with the flocking material placed in the lens tube (this works, but hopefully I can come up with a more permanent fix).
View attachment 211242

Here is a picture of the whole setup. The 40.6 extension and rotamount on the rear and the helical was extended by about 2 full turns (~5mm).
View attachment 211243

For scale, here is a picture of the Nikkor on the left and 35XL on the right.
View attachment 211245

Good Lord! Definitely not for the faint of heart. I guess I'll have to stick to the stuff meant for mere mortals such as myself
Many thanks for the explanation, all really clear & thorough!

 

[rdeloe]

Here is a list of lenses that I've managed to use on the Arca with these same ingredients…

• APO Digitar 35 XL
• Digaron 50 HR
• APO Digitar 90n
• APO Symmar 100mm
• APO Digitar 150n
• Nikon M 200mm

Of course these would work as well…

• Digaron 32 HR
• APO Digitar 60 XL
• APO Digitar 80n
• APO Digitar 100mm

So 10 different lenses with just a handful of rings, a rotamount, and a rear extension. My take is that I don't want to get a lens mounted by Arca just so I can try it. That is ridiculous. When I do find a keeper lens then it makes a lot more sense to send it in to be mounted and calibrated by Arca.

+1 for use of tape

 

[Whisp3r]

My take is that I don't want to get a lens mounted by Arca just so I can try it. That is ridiculous. When I do find a keeper lens then it makes a lot more sense to send it in to be mounted and calibrated by Arca.

Man, you have a point there. I just finished sending a 35XL to Arca for a remount, and I was planning on doing the same for a 72L, I'm not even sure I will find that particular focal length useful but since the 60XL is so hard to find (that particular focal length coincides with one of the most-used equivalent focal lengths on my GFX) I don't seem to have a lot of options in that range. Maybe I should start doing my homework properly

 

[rdeloe]

Man, you have a point there. I just finished sending a 35XL to Arca for a remount, and I was planning on doing the same for a 72L, I'm not even sure I will find that particular focal length useful but since the 60XL is so hard to find (that particular focal length coincides with one of the most-used equivalent focal lengths on my GFX) I don't seem to have a lot of options in that range. Maybe I should start doing my homework properly

You could look at 65mm lenses for large format as a stopgap. You don't have to send those to anyone to mount. Mounting them yourself is simple and reliable.

I would avoid the Nikkor SW 65mm f/4.5S. It has a good reputation on film, but the copy I tried on GFX had wicked field curvature that made it unusable wider than f/11. The Rodenstock or Schneider-Kreuznach offerings might be more promising. Fujinon-W lenses are great value too. I have not tried their 65mm, but their 125mm is a very nice lens on digital as well as film. They are also dirt cheap.