[rollei_list] Re: Heliar, Sonnar, Planar [WAS Re: off topic rants]

  • From: Laurence Segil <ljsegil@xxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 10:48:53 -0600

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laurence Segil" <ljsegil@xxxxxxx>
>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:41 PM
>
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Heliar, Sonnar, Planar [WAS Re: off topic rants]
>
>
>  Beats me, of course, but that's why one can attribute magical properties
>> to
>> lenses and make them your favorites for what may only be happenstance.
>> Currently in love with an uncoated 210mm Goerz Doeppel Anastigmat Series
>> III
>> f/6.8 (Dagor precursor) based on a single 8x10 image taken over the
>> summer.
>> But the same scene shot from the same spot with a host of different lenses
>> (including the 300mm Heliar and a state of the current art Schneider 210mm
>> Super Symmar XL) didn't come close to the glow of the DAIII image.
>>  Probably
>> luck and magic, maybe change in the lighting on a partly cloudy afternoon,
>> but I choose to credit the lens as the most readily identifiable and
>> verifiable difference between how the different images were made.
>>  Otherwise
>> the camera (Canham Traditional 8x10) was the same, the film type (8x10
>> Fuji
>> Pro 160S) and holders were the same, all film processed at the same time
>> by
>> the same lab (Precision Imaging, now Phoenix Imaging, Chicago), scanned by
>> me in the same fashion on the same scanner (Epson V750) and handled in
>> pretty similar ways in photoshop (color inverted with CF systems ColorNeg
>> plug-in), printed on the same paper (17x22 Ilford Gold Fiber Silk) with
>> the
>> same printer and ink (Epson 3800) and admired (though only by me, alas)
>> under the same lighting conditions (my mess of a "study"). Yet there are
>> very clear differences between the different renderings (a 19" Red Dot
>> Artar
>> produced the sharpest image) and I love the look of the Goerz image.  So
>> do
>> I know it's the lens?  No, but I think there's a pretty good chance it's a
>> contributing factor.
>> But it's still probably mostly magic.
>> Best
>> Larry Segil
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Dennis Purdy <dlp4777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>    The Dagor is famous for this look. At large stops the Dagor has a lot
> of zonal spherical aberration. Spherical affects the whole image rather than
> being proportional to the image angle. Its main effect is a softening of the
> image and a sort of glow around bright highlights. This is essentially the
> same aberration that special soft-focus lenses rely on. The amount in the
> Dagor is only moderate and disappears quickly as the lens is stopped down so
> that by f/16 its quite sharp.
>   Beause the Dagor has only four glass-air surfaces its flare is low even
> when uncoated. Dagors also have very good color correction. When stopped
> down to around f/45 a Dagor will cover very nearly 90 degrees so it will
> work as a wide-angle lens and is especially valuable on cameras with a lot
> of movements. However, the same spherical aberration causes the apparent
> point of best focus to change as the lens is stopped down. This is known as
> focus shift. At large stops the lens should be focused at the stop at which
> its going to be used. For small stops focusing at f/16 will take it past any
> significant shift. The focus shift makes Dagors unsuitable for cameras with
> rangefinders.
>   The names of all Goerz lenses was changed in 1904 so if you have a Goerz
> Dopple Anastigmat it will date from somewhere between about 1892 and 1904.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


   Richard, thank you for your (as always) valuable and interesting
information.  The photo was in fact shot open, with the DAIII at f/6.8,
hoping to achieve an image with a look reflecting the special
characteristics of the lens.  It is a dramatically different image, even
when compared with the Heliar, than those produced by a variety of other
lenses.  (And apologies to the group for my lack of awareness of the rule
against posting attachments on the list, in the future I will certainly
abide by that prohibition).  However, this is all kind of OT from this
already a bit OT discussion, as the Dagor design (the DAIII with a new name)
is neither a Planar, Heliar, nor Sonnar, but rather I cited it as an example
of a lens study that I think does show differences primarily between
different lens types while controlling, as best as possible, some of the
other variables involved in producing a final image, as importantly brought
out by Dennis in his question that provoked my digression.
If anyone is interested in some of the other images and wants to contact me
off list I will be happy to supply them (I need all the distribution, or for
that matter aid of any sort, that I can get).
Lamely, though still game,
Larry
ljsegil@xxxxxxx

>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

Other related posts: