Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 vs Schneider Super-Angulon 90mm f/8 MC [large pics, be aware]

[GPS]

GPS, I think your not perfectly on the mark. With a well maintained camera, on a still day, with a decent ground glass, and careful focus, the OP's test has some validity.
...
bob

Kidding yourself. There was a test made to see the spread of focus of a photographer trying to "precisely" focus his LF camera. The focus was in 70% (if I remember correctly) of cases different... And that is just the focus. The wooden cameras are not made to test lenses and compare their resolution in serious tests, however you dream about it. Never mind, amateurs love this kind of statements - "I tested lenses and found out..."

[GPS]

GPS, I think your not perfectly on the mark. With a well maintained camera, on a still day, with a decent ground glass, and careful focus, the OP's test has some validity.

...
bob

BTW, what has "a still day" to do with the validity of the test? You mean, if the day is not still, it could change the test's results? Then the forces on the front standard when you change lenses have even more effect on it than - the stillness of the day...

[Bob McCarthy]

I guess you never shoot a camera outdoors.

There is a lot more than resolution that can be determined by test shots,

Using tranparency film, how about fall off, how about CA, flatness of image plane.

Black/white hard edges can be looked at for flare.

Wooden field camera will do fine as a test bed.

Resolution is the least important factor to me unless its inadequate, and oh yea, dof plus stopping down at middle apertures homogenize many of the lens characteristics.

The test the OP describes is not expected to differentiate between 60 lpm vs. 40 lpm, but answer the question "is the lens adequate and functional".

bob

[GPS]

I guess you never shoot a camera outdoors.

There is a lot more than resolution that can be determined by test shots,

Using tranparency film, how about fall off, how about CA, flatness of image plane.

Black/white hard edges can be looked at for flare.

Wooden field camera will do fine as a test bed.

Resolution is the least important factor to me unless its inadequate, and oh yea, dof plus stopping down at middle apertures homogenize many of the lens characteristics.

The test the OP describes is not expected to differentiate between 60 lpm vs. 40 lpm, but answer the question "is the lens adequate and functional".

bob

Look Bob, the OP speaks about test of sharpness. Now, if you want to speak about CA, fall off blah blah blah serve yourself. I said a wooden camera with the methods he used cannot be taken seriously for lens sharpness test. Have a still day for your lens test.

[Bob McCarthy]

Just to make sure we were on the same page, I reread the thread. The OP put up two images, described the conditions they were shot under, what equipment was used, and some info about the process (focused between shots). Did not even divulge which was which. Others spoke out about liking the second image best, and the discussion went in a number of directions after that.

You're the one questioning the validity of the exercise, labeling people amateurs, and IMO making haughty comments.

You read too many books!

bob

[Bob Salomon]

The driveway directional info appears sharper and has better contrast on the bottom image. The upper portions of both appear pretty muddy to me.

[GPS]

...
You read too many books!

bob

Bob, I like that one. The only problem with books is they take space and are heavy when moving. Fortunately they later started with CDs. The Machinery's handbook (2600 ? pages) is now entirely on a CD. But not the super beauty Atlas of mathematical functions (Oldham, 760 p) - that one must be tasted in reality to see its beauty. Not to speak about other works on the shelf...

[Bob McCarthy]

I agree,

Digital storage is very powerful. It's tough to beat an ipad for walkabout with virtually the library of congress at your fingertips.

But nothing beats a beautifully illustrated, fine rag paper, artfully bound book of a relevent subject.

bravo,

take care,

bob

[GPS]

I agree,

Digital storage is very powerful. It's tough to beat an ipad for walkabout with virtually the library of congress at your fingertips.

But nothing beats a beautifully illustrated, fine rag paper, artfully bound book of a relevent subject.

bravo,

take care,

bob

I knew we would agree about the sharpness of the two lenses... Best regards.

[TJV]

I'm late to the party on this thread (by over two years!) and found it while searching for info on diffraction limits of my Schneider SA f8. I haven't had the chance to print or scan any of the images I've taken with mine yet, but have been wondering if I've been using it at optimum aperture. I pretty much only shoot at f22 out of habit but have read several posts that say f16 is far sharper at the plane of focus if fine detail in that area is critical. Would this be true?

So... After that heated debate... Does anyone who has experience using the SA comment on the above? DOF aside, as I mainly shoot focused in the middle distance and am covered either way, is field curvature and diffraction noticeably worse at f22 than f16, at print sizes of 30x37.5" prints?