f64

[Drew Wiley]

This is neither speculation nor pontification on my behalf, Sal. ULF shooters went crazy sticking little tabs of putty or ATG tape on holders to try and prevent sag. Serious concerns like Sinar tried to reinvent the filmholder. Until that problem is solved, how can anyone trust your casual method of testing, or that of anyone else who just wings it. And even your opinion about various lenses differs from that of many others who use these same lenses. It's a crap shoot unless you interject some controlled objective methodology to it. No, not all lenses are equal at f/64. And probably no lens at f/64 is going to be equal to the very same lens at f/45 unless depth of field is itself the priority. But by definition, this forum is concerned with the behavior of sheet film under such circumstances. Bringing 35mm lenses into the discussion doesn't do anything to solve that - and please, Fishbulb, don't tell me something I haven't already known for decades. I'm not about to test some stupid Sigma lens with respect to 8x10 shooting.

[Sal Santamaura]

...ULF shooters went crazy sticking little tabs of putty or ATG tape on holders to try and prevent sag...

8x10 isn't ULF.

...Serious concerns like Sinar tried to reinvent the filmholder...

Note that Sinar's literature for its film holders showed results at large apertures, not f/45 or f/64.

...how can anyone trust your casual method of testing, or that of anyone else who just wings it...

Not casual or "winging it." Controlled and repeatable.

...even your opinion about various lenses differs from that of many others who use these same lenses...

They're not "opinions." They are observations based on testing of my samples. Always accompanied by caveats about sample variation. Delivered along with an invitation for readers to test other samples of the same lens models and post whether they've duplicated or refuted my results.

...It's a crap shoot unless you interject some controlled objective methodology to it...

One more time: my methodolgy is completely controlled.

...probably no lens at f/64 is going to be equal to the very same lens at f/45...

Nor does anything I've posted claim that it is.

...unless depth of field is itself the priority...

I'm completely unable to grasp how prioritizing depth of field could have any effect on an objective assessment of a given lens' sharpness, when evaluating said sharpness by photographing an Edmunds chart at 50 feet distance and then viewing the negative with a magnifier. More arm waving.

...But by definition, this forum is concerned with the behavior of sheet film under such circumstances...

No, actually this forum is about photography using cameras using sensors nominally at least four by five inches. Those sensors don't need to be film. Another irrelevant comment.

This is neither speculation nor pontification on my behalf...

Bottom line: it's nothing but speculation and pontification. If/when you've actually obtained a 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W and tested it against your 300mm f/9 Fujinon A, and/or any of the other lenses I compared my sample to, under the conditions I described, then evaluated the results, please post about it here. Until then, I'll neither repeat the responses I've already posted to irrelevancies you bring up nor address any further arm waving you might engage in.

[Drew Wiley]

Sal, I'm not questioning your reason for disliking a Fuji 300W. I've never owned one of these, nor will I. I have no use for big clunky studio plasmats. Yet even
with this specific lens type there were many years of evolution, right up to the CMW line, which might or might not match your given stereotype. But there is nothing objective about you standard of evaluation. Optical benches exist for a reason. No lens designer tacks up a piece of paper on a fence post. Sure, I've stuck a postage stamp on a wall sixty feet away and then looked at the GG image with a 10X magnifier. It tells me something, but not how shutter vibration might interact, not about film plane issues, not about potential weaknesses in the tripod support, and maybe not a good enough view of the corners of the field to discuss things like pupilary distortion. I have set up elementary optical benches for such things. And even "sharpness" has different levels of interpretation. That's why so many of us have different lenses even of the same focal length that might all be quite sharp, but still render that sharpness with a somewhat different look, best suited to different applications. The biggest complaint I have in all these casual evaluations is the routine default of blaming lens to lens
batch inconsistency for what are far far more likely uncontrolled variables in the alleged testing method itself. Your consistent denial of film plane issues in ordinary 8x10 holders flies in the fact of what every serious camera maker and lens manufacturer has taken for granted for decades as an inherent limitations.
It is the very thing that makes one stop down to f/32 even when f/22 is optically sufficient with 4x5 format, for instance, and exactly why I routinely use full
adhesive holder with 8x10 film anytime I foresee the potential use of the shot for a print bigger than 20X24. It's not an accident why my big prints are sharp,
and the reason goes way beyond lens selection itself. Yes, you're welcome to ignore me. I'd post this anyway just because this kind of chronic misinformation
about testing seems so ubiquitous. Throw in visual web "proof" extracted from junk flatbed scanners and it get's REAL convoluted at times.

[Peter De Smidt]

Will more going back-and-forth change either of your opinions? Since the answer is clearly, "No." What's the point of continuing?

[Kevin Crisp]

Chronic misinformation...like the idea that you need adhesive to go over 20X24 from an 8X10 negative?

[Sal Santamaura]

Will more going back-and-forth change either of your opinions?...

Drew's opinion never was, is not now nor will it ever be subject to change.

...What's the point of continuing?

...If/when you've actually obtained a 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W and tested it against your 300mm f/9 Fujinon A, and/or any of the other lenses I compared my sample to, under the conditions I described, then evaluated the results, please post about it here. Until then, I'll neither repeat the responses I've already posted to irrelevancies you bring up nor address any further arm waving you might engage in.

As quoted, I'll not continue responding to Drew in this thread. Unless he actually tests a 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W as suggested and reports his results.

The point of every response I've posted to Drew's recent posts was never to change his "opinion." It was instead to make clear for other thread readers that a) Lenny's OP was a valid observation of a specific lens' behavior and b) Drew's arm waving / speculation / pontification must at all times be critically evaluated, challenged when appropriate and ignored when appropriate. I believe that's been accomplished.

[TXFZ1]

"Since there is no one practical measure of the ability of a lens to produce a sharp image, the photographer can best evaluate a lens by comparing it with another lens." Saint Ansel

David

[Drew Wiley]

Kevin - what does adhesive "over" a 20X24 have to do with anything? Do you have even the slightest clue what I'm talking about? Get an old Sinar catalog.
Bingo. Pushback from somebody who apparently doesn't even understand the given discussion. And this is not "opinion"; Peter, it's recognized fact, unless you want to accuse people like Sinar Bron not having serious skin in the game. And have any of you seen any of St Ansel's 8x10's significantly enlarged? They're pretty damn mushy by modern standards or even commercial lab standards of his own era, no matter how tightly he pushed his bent nose up against the groundglass. Gosh.
Didn't realize I was up against Tennessippi moonshiners who still insist on leaded solder.

[Kevin Crisp]

I guess this is my last contribution to this thread as well. Yes, I knew exactly what you were talking about. By "go over" I meant "go bigger than," which I suspect is how most people would have read it. You took it, I guess, as a suggestion about somebody gluing something on top of something else. Maybe because you sell so much in the way of coatings and adhesives and such, per your earlier posts. Whether "push back" or not, I seriously still question the idea you'd need a special film holder to get a sharp modest enlargement from an 8X10 negative, especially in the aperture ranges under discussion in this thread. I think that is just plain misinformation, possibly discouraging to someone who doesn't know better.

I actually have seen Ansel's prints significantly enlarged and I did not find them "pretty darned mushy" by any means. There were lots of originals on display at the restaurant by Mono Lake, which may no longer be open. I believe the enterprise was one belonging to a grandchild. I've seen them elsewhere too in the flesh. I don't agree with your opinion (I know, your opinions are always "facts" to you...) that his prints were worse in their time than commerical lab product.

Not sure the descent to name calling serves any purpose. I've never had moonshine, or made it. I've been to Tenessee a couple times. I do use leaded solder for electrics repair, you "bingo-d" me there.

[Jody_S]

I believe that's been accomplished.

I believe we've moved on to necrohippoflagellation.