Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,552   Posts: 1,544,920   Online: 876
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Frank Petronio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    downwind from Kodak
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    218
    Images
    2
    If you're shooting outdoors, as many of the APUGs are, then I think atmospheric conditions and all of the subtle environmental variations (wind being the major factor) between shots is going to play a much larger role in the outcome of your photography. In general, I would consider a 300-S to be the kind of lens a deep pocketed architectural or studio shooter would want, with the N-series more practical for field work. Of course, if I could afford it, I would outfit myself with a range of the shorter, more compact S lenses for 4x5, as they seem to be the state of the art these days.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
    [...] Of course, if I could afford it, I would outfit myself with a range of the shorter, more compact S lenses for 4x5, as they seem to be the state of the art these days.
    Ya big silly. If you didn't buy that SOTA D*l camera you could have have almost any lens you want.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by JackRosa
    ------------

    Marco: Are you shooting table top (close-ups) or landscapes (infinity)? Thank you for your insight, by the way.

    I shoot industrial landscapes/architectural and "things" with my wife: http://www.cristinamian.com.

    We started in 8x10" with a Nikkor 300M f/9, it was part of our 4x5" outfit, but we became soon disappointed by the performance of this lens, we use a lot of rise/fall and found the Nikkor quite soft at the edges.
    We were buying a 305 G Claron but then I read a post of my very good friend, Chris Jordan, about the outstanding performances of the Sironar S series and decided to spend the extra money, mainly because we make huge enlargements from our 8x10" originals.
    I have to say that the 300 Sironar S is big, heavy and bulky, if you do a lot of landscapes with some hiking it's not an ideal choice, this is the lens to bring with you if you are planning to shoot very close to the car .

    Ciao
    Marco

  4. #14
    Frank Petronio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    downwind from Kodak
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    218
    Images
    2
    Marco and his wife's website is definitely worth checking out, excellent work.

    jjstafford "Ya big silly. If you didn't buy that SOTA D*l camera you could have have almost any lens you want."

    I love shooting 4x5. What is limiting is getting a good scanner or buying scans, plus the time involved. Right now, the 69 mb file I get from the new digitoy is better than what I can pull from a 4x5 on an Epson flatbed, using good techniques for both. That translates into better (inkjet) prints in the 11x14 to 20x30 range. Of course, I lose the ability to use camera movements and the slow pace of contemplation - but frankly, the digitoy works for me professionally. If I were to really commit to shooting LF again then I would definitely go the high-end route (Sironar-S lenses, Arcas and Linhofs, Tango drum scans, Lightjet prints, etc.) and commit to doing 40x50 prints... or maybe go retro and do ULF contacts... but I think I'll need to make more money off the DSLR to be able to indulge in those "hobbies." ;-)

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
    Right now, the 69 mb file I get from the new digitoy is better than what I can pull from a 4x5 on an Epson flatbed, using good techniques for both.
    You lost me. What dimital camera did you get that give 69mb files?

  6. #16
    Frank Petronio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    downwind from Kodak
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    218
    Images
    2
    D2x = 12mp x RGB x 16-bit = 72mb or ~ 69mb files.

    You thought I meant 69mb resolution? Gee, that would be a ~400mb working file.... Next thing you know we'll be talking about Clifford Ross or some other wealthy idiot claiming to have the world's highest resoultion camera.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
    D2x = 12mp x RGB x 16-bit = 72mb or ~ 69mb files.

    You thought I meant 69mb resolution? Gee, that would be a ~400mb working file.... Next thing you know we'll be talking about Clifford Ross or some other wealthy idiot claiming to have the world's highest resoultion camera.
    Whaaaaat? All digital cameras are RGB. Where do you get off multiplying by 16? Seriously. Enlighten me, please.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    116
    I own several Sironar-S lenses, the 150mm, 180mm, 210mm and 360mm, I used to own their Sironar -N counterparts and have found the S's to be higher contrast, higher resolving and having greater coverage. In most applications you may not see much of a difference. If the cost is no object, I'd go with the S's.

  9. #19
    JackRosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    324
    Images
    8

    Thank You All. How about the Symmar?

    Thank you all fro your insight and input. How about the Sironar-N and -S versus the Schneider Symmar?
    Jack Rosa

  10. #20
    Frank Petronio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    downwind from Kodak
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    218
    Images
    2
    The latest Schneiders are comparable to the latest Rodenstocks. In my opinion, Rodenstock has better consistency and quality control since the early 1980s, but the Schneiders are much better than they used to be in the 1960s - 1980s. Also Schneider is conservative on their lens coverage charts.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin