MF lens comparison to LF lens

[Doug Paramore]

Mario: You mentioned being afraid of the "upside down image" on the ground glass. Fear not. After a very short learning curve, you will find that the upside down image actually improves composition. LF is for studied work, where you take your time making the image. After a while, you may, as I have, arrive at the point where an upright image looks strange. Don't worry about lens quality. You will be using the center part of the len's image, which is the sharpest. Even the older LF lenses are blazenly sharp in the center.

[shaman]

I went through the same "decion-making-process" myslef, until I got tired of staring at MTF charts and simply bought an ARCA 6x9 with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. Compared to my Hasselblad lenses: if I view the negative under a microscope, the medium format lenses are somewhat sharper and have somewhat better resolution at their sharpest focal point. As soon as I apply lens tilt to increase DOF however, the view camera "blows away" what I can achieve with my Hasselblad, and I do not need a microscope to appreciate the difference - it's so obvious!!! From now on, I use my Hasselblad strictly for hand held photography - if I have the time to setup a tripod, I'll use the 6x9 (which I like MUCH better than 6x7!)

[Howard Slavitt]

Have you actually examined the two side by side under a microscope? What power magnification was required to see the difference? . . . One thing that's lost in the medium format - large format lens resolution comparison is overall "look" of the lens, which, to me includes color rendition, rendition of subtle tonal ranges, and that final "X" factor, meaning that when I use a particular lens in actual conditions do the results on my light table often cause me to react by saying, wow, what an image. On all of these counts, using the latest Schneider and Rodenstock lenses in 6 x 9 format, the results are superb. . . . The one area where I've been a little disappointed with large format lenses, and, in a particular, I've noticed this with my Rodenstock APO Ronar 240 mm f9, which otherwise is a wonderful lens, is "bokeh," meaning how pleasing do the out of focus areas look. I suspect that this is related to the design of the diaphragm -- i.e. how many blades are used, more being better, if you believe the 35 mm lens marketing hype.

[shaman]

Differences were very obvious at 100x magnification (corresponding to 200x300 inch prints!!!) - but I didn't check what was the LOWEST magnification were I could see a difference. I completely agree with you, 6x9 slides from Rodenstock or Schneider lenses are superb and any "absolute" advantage a medium format lens might have is negated once you use lens movements to tilt the plane of focus. For what it's worth: I specifically compared the Hasselblad CF 100 T* and the Schneider XL 110 - both being fantastic lenses!

(I have not yet been able to discern the more subtle differences like color rendition or tonality - at least in my hands differences in film freshness, film processing and exposure accuracy within 1/3 f- stop tend to outweigh these subtleties...)