Rendering: rodenstock vs schneider vs nikkor

[guphotography]

Hi folks,

Which lens make would give you the flattest picture in daylight when working with colour negs?

I'm mainly interested in finding out the overall look you get, such as the smooth transition between highlight and shadow.

Flatter the better.

Thanks

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Isn't what you can get out of color negs also a function of the scanner - ie the brighter the light source the flatter you can get it? Curious too ...

 

[guphotography]

so far, i've read that nikkors have higher contrast than german glasses.

i'm very tempted to get my hands on all three makes covering 60mm to 90mm and have a shoot out!

 

[MartinN]

I suppose the design and production ’date’ will be the most important for a look, the very newest designs the most microcontrasty. Older, with older coatings are probably ’flatter’. But, I think the present light is so much more important than any lens age. Catch the right moment, and not a specific lens.

 

[MartinN]

Isn't what you can get out of color negs also a function of the scanner - ie the brighter the light source the flatter you can get it? Curious too ...

Overexposure, overdevelopment and scanner settings are all somewhat important. I use mainly Silverfast and the film ’curves’ are really giving different looks, so it is finding and tweaking that is very important. And those curves are mainly applied when inverting bw negatives and color negatives. This gives more possibilities than just one brand of RA4 color or multicontrast bw silver papers.

 

[guphotography]

I suppose the design and production ’date’ will be the most important for a look, the very newest designs the most microcontrasty. Older, with older coatings are probably ’flatter’. But, I think the present light is so much more important than any lens age. Catch the right moment, and not a specific lens.

Yes, light is of course essential for the look, but I'm interested in finding out how the lenses would behave in exact same shooting condition, then scanned under the exact condition.

I hope this would help examine lenses' native characteristics without any meddling.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I would assume if you get a pre multi coating version lens this could also bring you closer to a flatter look.

I would think a 60s / 70s era Grandagon with Compur shutter, maybe?

I am not familiar with the exact timeline, but a lot of classic LF lenses didn't change the basic design for decades it is my understanding with main developments over time being introduction of better coatings to increase contrast, introduction of apochromat lens elements, aspherics, etc.

 

[JoelM]

In my experience with LF lenses, as above, Nikkor is contrastiest, Grandagons are very sharp as are most Rodenstocks, and the Schneider would be the closest to what you are looking for.

 

[Alkibiades]

all depends on what kind of lenses we are talking, wide, standart, long? what generation? what edge?
to say nikon lenses has better contast as rodenstock or schneider is simply not true.
If you take all large format nikkor lenses they were very modern as they were introduced. This was at the end of 80 ties I think.
Nikon did not develope them any more as Rodenstock-Schneider did. The lensproduction, lensdesign and lens coutings are 20-30 years later simply better ( not that much, but better).
Last generation rodenstock and schneider lenses are opticly little better than Nikon lenses. Just compare apo sironar S,W or n with Nikkor W... anyway there are some outstanding Nikon lenses like the wides : 8/90 mm ( outstanding 8 elements lens) and well known 4,5/90 mm in small copal 0. the 4/65 mm was also very good.
if you are looking for lenses with lower contrast and very smooth then just go for old Symmar- Super angulon. Old symmar in old compur 1 with very smooth bokeh, cheap and good lens could be that you are looking for.
But latest Apo Symmar has best contrast that you can get...

 

[DDudenbostel]

Old thread and I’m late to the party but most likely you’ll never see the difference between different makers lenses of the same basic formula and focal length.

I was a commercial photographer for 55 years and used view cameras almost daily until digital came in and still use them to this day for personal work.

I’ve owned and still own Fuji, Cooke, Scneider, Nikkor, Goerz, Rodenstock and a couple of Wallensak oldies. In modern lenses until you get into like the Super Symmar XL, Super Angulon XL and the newer Apo lenses you’re not going to see much if any contrast difference. Actually the only difference I’ve seen has been variations in color among some Schneider and Goerz.

Some lenses are warmer color and others cooler. Differences in contrast will be more related to light scattering in the bellows and that’s why a good compendium shade is important.

Older single coated lenses like my vintage Cooke XV triple convertible have more internal reflections that flatten contrast due to light coatings and light scattering inside the lens.

The more complex and more glass to air surfaces in a lightly or non coated lens will be your best bet. Lenses like the Dagor, Turner Reich triple convertibles, and Protar VII have a lot of elements but few internal surfaces since the cells are cemented together. The Cooke XV has quite a few air spaces and surfaces that produce a good bit of flare under the right conditions.

You might look at a Goerz Artar, not the red dot Artar because it coated. The Artar is a very sharp process lens with four air spaced elements. The old NON RED DOT might be a good choice. I’ve used the RD version for many decades and they make beautiful images.

Cooke XV lenses are very scarce and they have gorgeous tones but they will cost you serious money. I’m considering selling mine but wouldn’t take less than $4,000. They do produce beautiful smooth tones.

 

[RodK]

The Sironar-N, Apo-Sironar N, Apo-Sironar W, Apo-Sironar-S from Rodenstock, and the Schneider Apo-Symmar L, and their XL series, are the best ever made for film. Especially when the film is color Negative or even transparency. The Nikons are quite good and one may be satisified with those as well. Nikon T and M series are excellent.
Flat look and lacking the color contrast of those already mentioned, are the Fujinon W series, sharp in most cases, but harder to focus due to low color contrast. The Fuji A series can be good, but again tend to be much flatter, with their sharpness and small size tending to be their chief attributes. Remember, that sharper you make a lens, the lower the contrast tends to be. So the designers task is to balance those 2 factors, contrast and sharpness.
The most important factor is does it look good to you.
Make pictures!
Rod

 

[lookbook]

... for the 4x5 format there were also some very nice glasses from Zeiss west-germany!!!

 

[RodK]

The Zeiss glass was very sharp, and in B&W they perform very well.
But the issue is that the APO glass is much more vibrant than non-APO glass on color film. In B&W it can, if processing is good, also be very slightly better as well in tonality and
especially in the shadows, render more shadow detail.

The red wave lengths are slightly out of focus behind the image plane created by Blue/Green. The error of a non-APO lens is greater than 1/2500 of the focal length of a given lens.

And therefore less than 1/2500th of the focal length of the lens in an APO objective. If the error is very small, the APO-Chromatic design, will always win out.

An Apo lens is supposed to have an error of less than 1/2500th of the focal length. In this measurement with Large format lenses, the focal length is actually the extension of the lens. This means the error will increase as the lens is extended for near focus. Also this is why wide angle lenses are not great up close, as the error on a percentage basis is much greater.

The Zeiss lenses have a certain look that is endearing to some photographers, though a bit more neutral than Rodenstock, or Nikon, which tended to more saturation.
Schneider film lenses rendered very neutral, as well, like the Zeiss, in terms of color.

Rod

 

[dmecham]

The Sironar-N, Apo-Sironar N, Apo-Sironar W, Apo-Sironar-S from Rodenstock, and the Schneider Apo-Symmar L, and their XL series, are the best ever made for film. Especially when the film is color Negative or even transparency. The Nikons are quite good and one may be satisified with those as well. Nikon T and M series are excellent.
Flat look and lacking the color contrast of those already mentioned, are the Fujinon W series, sharp in most cases, but harder to focus due to low color contrast. The Fuji A series can be good, but again tend to be much flatter, with their sharpness and small size tending to be their chief attributes. Remember, that sharper you make a lens, the lower the contrast tends to be. So the designers task is to balance those 2 factors, contrast and sharpness.
The most important factor is does it look good to you.
Make pictures!
Rod

I've been using Rodenstock Sironar N, Apo Sironar W, Gradagon N and Apo Grandagon and have always been very pleased with the performance and color and even illumination with these lenses. One thing I love about my 55mm Apo Grandagon lens is it was designed for the optimum aperture of F11. When using a center filter with this lens, as I do with my 75mm Grandagon as well, I get exceptional performance. Was also very surprised to see the distortion data from Rodenstock showing the linear distortion with the 55mm Apo Gradangon was lower than other models of Gradagons despite having a wider angle of view.