APO (or near) Lenses in Nikon F-Mount

[KarlMera]

I have two copies of the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar f/5.6 120mm MC lenses, each slightly different
I have a Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-s f/4 80mm lens
2 copies of the Nikkor AM-ED 120mm f/5.6 lens
1 copy of the Nikkor AM-ED 210mm f/5.6 lens (heavy)

Do you have the Apo-Digitar 120 M26°, that is important.
The Componon 80 is not recommendable, the Apo-Digitar 5,6/80 M28° is much better.
The AM-ED 120 is not usable wide open, the Apo-Digitar 120 M is very good at 5,6.

[Michael Erlewine]

Do you have the Apo-Digitar 120 M26°, that is important.
The Componon 80 is not recommendable, the Apo-Digitar 5,6/80 M28° is much better.
The AM-ED 120 is not usable wide open, the Apo-Digitar 120 M is very good at 5,6.

I have the Apo-Digitar 120 M26° MC and the Apo-Digitar 120 N-46° MC.

I like the Componon-S 80mm. It all depends what I'm shooting and the look I want.

Here are two shots taken with each of the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digital f/5.6 120mm :
 (all are stacked photos)
They are taken within minutes of one another, both processed the same, but look at the difference in their contrast, etc. How do we explain this? It could be that the outside light changed coming through the window.

The first is the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digital f/5.6 120mm  MC M-26°
The second is the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digital f/5.6 120mm  MC N-48°

What does that "N" mean. I believe it means telephoto and the "M"means macro.

Any ideas?

P.S. I went back and reprocessed the first one (MC M-26°) and it's clear that anything can happen with color and so on post. Here that image is. Putting that aside, what do the two differ in?

[F2F3F6]

Hello Michael, I love your work !

Indeed, the Apo-Digitar M with narrow field of view/angle of view is the Macro (from1:4 to 4:1)  specialised lens (8-4 lens/groups);

The N lens (6-4) seems to be the digital successor of the well known Apo-Symmar LF lens, a very good normal lens (no it's not a tele-formula) usable from infinity to 1:4 (said the old Schneider documents for Apo-Symmar L or Apo-Symmar).

Apo-Digitar - Schneider Optics
https://www.schneideroptics.com/.../CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.as...

[Michael Erlewine]

Hello Michael, I love your work !

Indeed, the Apo-Digitar M with narrow field of view/angle of view is the Macro (from1:4 to 4:1)  specialised lens (8-4 lens/groups);

The N lens (6-4) seems to be the digital successor of the well known Apo-Symmar LF lens, a very good normal lens (no it's not a tele-formula) usable from infinity to 1:4 (said the old Schneider documents for Apo-Symmar L or Apo-Symmar).

Apo-Digitar - Schneider Optics
https://www.schneideroptics.com/.../CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.as...

Thanks for the note and details. So, the "48°" is the field of view. What does the "MC" indicate?

The first is the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digital f/5.6 120mm  MC M-26°
The second is the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digital f/5.6 120mm  MC N-48°

That link does not seem to work.

Do you know of any book or paper or site that lays out the whole Schneider lens history or some way for me to understand these lenses?

[Jack Dahlgren]

MC is multi-coated. Means just that.

[F2F3F6]

Yes MC means Multicoated but I don't know if some Schneider Kreuznach book exists (?). Never heard about it or saw it...

The link can befound with your browser: you just have to search for "Schneider apo-digitar ".

Schneider Kreuznach site has some informations (but not much !) about older lenses, some LF classics (Super Angulon or S-A XL, Symmar S and Apo-Symmar, Tele-Xenar or Apo-Tele Xenar...) and enlarging lenses...(Componons, apo-componons...).

[Michael Erlewine]

Sine there seems to be no handbook, can anyone offer a list of the best corrected Schneider lenses for close-up or macro, please and thank you?

[KarlMera]

Sine there seems to be no handbook, can anyone offer a list of the best corrected Schneider lenses for close-up or macro, please and thank you?

That depends on the magnification factor. For my work the Apo-Digitars 120 M and 80 M for 4:1-1:4 are the best. For infinity to 1:4 the 120 and 4,5 90 digitars are the best. But the Ms are patient and also usable at 1:10.

[KarlMera]

A very good macro lens is the Apo-Macro-Sironar Digital 5,6 120 from 1:5-2:1.

[JKoerner007]

Why the old and not the newer Sigma 180mm APO macro?

Michael, let's get back to the AF question you had for enjoying the in-focus stacking feature of the D850.

I don't think Robert Otoole's tests are in any way relevant with respect to your style of photography.  Since you don't shoot 1:1, his tests are utterly-irrelevant.
As mentioned, Ray Charles could see the Sigma 150 is soft as warm butter wide-open, while the CV 125 was razor sharp. For that matter, the Sigma 180 was also very sharp at f/2.8.

As better source material, I found multiple lens reviews (from the same testing outfit: LensTip) on ALL Sigma macro lenses, that prove-out the obvious errors/omissions in Otoole's testing:

• Sigma 105 f/2.8
• Sigma 150 f/2.8
• Sigma 180 f/3.5
• Sigma 180 f/2.8

* All of these links go straight to the resolution charts *

These tests prove what can easily be seen in OToole's limited tests, namely that the Sigma 150 is a dud at the f/2.8 aperture, which is where you like to be, whereas the Sigma 180mm (f/2.8 ) is pretty darned good.
[For comparison, check out the chart for the lens we both know you like, namely the Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar.

In fact, wide-open, @ 2.0, the Zeiss 135 Apo Sonnar actually blows away every single Zeiss Otus (considerably, and with much more even sharpness across the frame): 28mm, 55mm, 85mm.
(For this reason, I just pulled my own copy of the Zeiss 135 Apo Sonnar off EBay and intend on keeping it )

By contrast, the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF is 'meh' wide-open.

Now, if you shot Canon, the 100mm f/2.8L looks to be a great candidate, wide-open, for in-body AF ... but, sadly, it's not an option for you.

That said, when all is said and done, for in-body AF (for the Nikon D850), with a desire for exceptional wide-open resolution, the Sigma 135mm f/2.8 Art appears to be the lens you should consider for this specific purpose.

Although it only has a 1:5 reproduction ratio, it is very similar to the Zeiss 135 Apo Sonnar (@ 1:4), and is even sharper wide-open

Jack

[Michael Erlewine]

That said, when all is said and done, for in-body AF (for the Nikon D850), with a desire for exceptional wide-open resolution, the Sigma 135mm f/2.8 Art appears to be the lens you should consider for this specific purpose.

Although it only has a 1:5 reproduction ratio, it is very similar to the Zeiss 135 Apo Sonnar (@ 1:4), and is even sharper wide-open

Jack

I follow your reasoning, exactly and agree. I figured out from my own tests about the Zeiss 135mm APO Sonar being sharper than the others. In my own person notations I refer to it as the Otus 135mm. LOL.

I sill look into the Sigma 135mm lens. Thanks for all the effort. Much appreciated!.

[JKoerner007]

I follow your reasoning, exactly and agree. I figured out from my own tests about the Zeiss 135mm APO Sonar being sharper than the others. In my own person notations I refer to it as the Otus 135mm. LOL.

I sill look into the Sigma 135mm lens. Thanks for all the effort. Much appreciated!.

You bet, and your eyes were right.

In fact, I am sad to remind myself that it appears the Sigma 135 does not offer the same micro-contrast subtlety as the Zeiss 135 Apo Sonnar, especially where you (and I) like to be: up close

[Michael Erlewine]

I think I will wait and see if something does not appear. I have other less attractive lenses I can experiment with. Also, I am trapped inside until next spring. We have snow on the ground already. Also, I like stacking and can do it pretty well. And aside from sunlight, my subject will cooperate. LOL.

I see this more as a tool for other photographers that will introduce them to what stacking can do. I already know that.

[benveniste]

The ticket here is APO lenses that are in F-Mount that have a modern autofocus. Like Frank, I have a number of APO lenses, plenty of them, but they are not autofocus lenses. I did have the Sigma 180mm F/2.8 Macro (the newest version), but was not that impressed by it.

I have the Sigma f/1.4 24mm lens in F-Mount, but while it is a nice lens, it is not really an APO lens, even though that term has no standard definition. I have the Nikkor 105mm Macro VR, but that is not APO by a long shot. And so on...

Here's a working definition of APO from astronomy:  An apochromatic system is one in which wave aberrations do not exceed 1/4 wave optical path difference (OPD) in the spectral range from C (6563A - red) to F (4861A - blue), while the g wavelength (4358A - violet) is 1/2 wave OPD or better, has three widely spaced zero color crossings and is corrected for coma.

For D850's stacking to function, you not only need an autofocus lens, but one with a built-in motor.  With perhaps one or two exceptions (like the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S),  lenses with "modern autofocus" employ floating elements instead of focusing as a unit.  Even if each set of moving elements met the above definition of APO, I'm skeptical that a floating element design can meet that definition across a wide range of focus distances.  And that's before thinking about manufacturing tolerances.  So I dismiss the APO moniker on lenses like the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 as marketing hype.  I do own a 180mm f/3.5 and think it's a good lens, but an APO lens it is not.  Autofocus speed is quite slow, and I suspect it would need rechipping to function fully on a D850.

[Michael Erlewine]

Here's a working definition of APO from astronomy:  An apochromatic system is one in which wave aberrations do not exceed 1/4 wave optical path difference (OPD) in the spectral range from C (6563A - red) to F (4861A - blue), while the g wavelength (4358A - violet) is 1/2 wave OPD or better, has three widely spaced zero color crossings and is corrected for coma.

For D850's stacking to function, you not only need an autofocus lens, but one with a built-in motor.  With perhaps one or two exceptions (like the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S),  lenses with "modern autofocus" employ floating elements instead of focusing as a unit.  Even if each set of moving elements met the above definition of APO, I'm skeptical that a floating element design can meet that definition across a wide range of focus distances.  And that's before thinking about manufacturing tolerances.  So I dismiss the APO moniker on lenses like the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 as marketing hype.  I do own a 180mm f/3.5 and think it's a good lens, but an APO lens it is not.  Autofocus speed is quite slow, and I suspect it would need rechipping to function fully on a D850.

I understand the above. Where the rubber meets the road is the fact that camera lens manufactures do not IMO (whether there exists some theoretical APO standard or not) follow a standard for APO, not anywhere near. I have a lot of APO lenses, many of which are really well corrected, like the Otus lenses and various among the exotic industrials. The saving grace is that sooner or later, the reality of APO will sink in and more and more of them will appear.