Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: MF lens comparison to LF lens

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    21

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    Hi, I'm thinking to step up to LF buying a Toyo vx125 camera and using it with a rol l film back. My question is: a 4x5 Large Format lens projecting on 6x7cm roll ne gative, would it produce different quality (resolution, acutance) that I would g et with a traditional medium format camera lens? Please, imputs on this issue are very much appreciated. Thank you.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    454

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    Yes, it would.

  3. #3

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    I think, if picture sharpness is your only concern, go with MF. MF is much more practical and optimized. But LF will allow for many corrections and if you use modern lenses at selected openings and work on your GG focus, sharpness will be plenty for most uses. With the VX, an insert ty pe back is a must.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    745

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    Mario, I wonder why you are considering using a roll film back on a LF camera, especially the VX125 (expensive!!) and with a 6x7 format? I would be inclined to either use 4x5 sheet film or use a 6x12 back at the very least, or simply get yourself a MF outfit. IMHO it seems a bit of a waste of all the movements offered by LF if you are trying to cram them onto a 6x7 neg. I always find it easier seeing the effect of movements on a large screen especially tilt. Good luck!! Regards Paul

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    21

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    Paul, thank for your posting. I'm interested in large format camera because of the movements that I cannot achieve with my Pentax 67. I like to shoot in MF at least at this moment. And in the future who knows, at this moment working with sheet film it's not for me. I read somewhere that large format lenses are optically inferior regarding sharpness and acutance compared to MF lenses, so this is the only dilemma that keeps me from my final decision. Although I'm giving some thoughts to the Fuji GX680 as an alternative, at least until I will have a more precise idea about the degradation quality with LF lenses compared to the MF Lenses. I mention 6x7 because I was making a comparison with my pentax, for me the ideal is 6x8 cm but if I'll use the roll back on the LF I would certainly go for the 6x9 in absence of 6x8. Thank you for helping.

  6. #6

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    Have you considered one of the MF view cameras which have a full complement of movements? Two that come to mind are the Arca Swiss F 6x9 or the Linhof Technikardan 23S. Hasselblad also has their Arcbody which has a limited range of movements.

    You might try renting a LF setup with a roll film back, and doing your own comparisons.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    133

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    At least a technical answer to you question is discussed by Chris Perez here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/resolution_limits.html In summary he says that for a resolution of 7 lines/mm on the final print, a 6X7 system will require 51 lines/mm for a 16X20 inch print or 25 lines/mm for an 8X10 inch print. Meaning it would be pretty easy to do an 8X10 with a LF lens, but your slightly on the margin for a 16X20 and will have to use a good LF lens at the more optimum apatures.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    118

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    Mario,

    I use a 6X9 roll film back quite often on my LF camera with a mix of Nikor and Schneider optics and am hard pressed to see a drop off in optical quality when compared to my 67 or 645. If there is any loss here it is more than made up for in your ability to have more control over perspective and DOF when compared to MF.

    However, I also would question your decision to go with a LF camera if you have no intention of shooting sheet film. The suggestion to look at the MF cameras that have movements is a good one. One other thing about roll film backs, particularly a 67 back, on LF that you may not have considered is the fact that wide angle work becomes more difficult. Since you are using only the "center" of the image projected on the GG your 90mm lens is not longer giving you a 90mm image, so to speak. To get a comparable field of view on the film you would probably have to use something like a 65? (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the focal length here). Does the camera you're considering readily take a extreme wide angle, or do you need bag bellows and/or recessed lens boards?

    What is it about sheet film that concerns you? If it has to do with dust and the weight of holders you might want to consider quickloads. If it's cost then that's another matter entirely. Working with sheet film can seem a little intimidating at first but once you've done it for awhile it becomes second nature.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    21

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    Thank you to every one for your time and for your precious help.

    From the information that you kindly shared with us I understood that a good LF lens will not degrade the already excellent quality that I have been getting with the Pentax 67 lenses.

    The link that Roger suggested shows that some study were performed to check the resolution of MF/LF lenses and is clearly understandable that modern LF lenses are up to the job. So if I use a Nikkor (for example) that has a resolving power of at least 60 l/mm I have good chance to get a quality 6x7 negative known to me from the pentax lenses.

    At the question why I would use roll and not sheet: it's just because the way I like to shoot; several shoots for each image, ver+oriz, zone placement, etc.. I like to see the image through the viewfinder which helps me to create and visualize the final image. It scares me to think that I have to compose upside down, too many things to do before shooting could take away some of the concentration from me. That's what I'm concerned about LF but I I'm going to give a try so that's way it would be friendlier starting with a Toyo vx125 (which is apparently a very capable camera working with a 65mm or 57mme and easier and faster then average to use) and roll film back (6x9). Still if I think that I have to place and replace each time the film back between triggering.... I'm used to look through the viewfinder very often between shots, it helps me to improve the angle, or change the composition or something else that always come up. I guess I could do this with the LF as well but with some energies spent to the technical side more then I'm used to.

    Thank you very much for your help. Best regards, Mario.

  10. #10

    MF lens comparison to LF lens

    I'd like Bill to expound on his resounding "yes,it would".

    A lens is a lens is a lens, and only a lens, in my book. Whether it's designed to cover 35mm or 20x16, it brings light to a focus, full stop (if you'll pardon the pun). It's a tool. Any other attribute you ascribe to it is pure wishful thinking, like those silly so-and-sos who think their car has a personality.

Similar Threads

  1. Lens Comparison
    By Bob Phipps in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2005, 16:11
  2. Lens Comparison
    By Jeff Morfit in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 23-Dec-2004, 22:33
  3. Lens performace comparison Nikkor 210 W vs. Symmar-S
    By Tom Reymolds in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8-Dec-2000, 18:31
  4. Lens hood required when using large coverage lens on small format?
    By Bill Glickman in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31-Jul-1999, 15:06
  5. 120mm lens comparison
    By Colwyn Griffith in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4-Mar-1999, 08:20

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •