I also did a test in the opposite direction. Digital lenses on film. An Alpa camera, Rodenstock HR Digaron 32 and 70 and Schneider Apo Digitar 90. Film Fuji Provia 100F.
I shot 6x6, these lenses have only 90 mm image circle except 70 which has 100, so I didn't make movements, and WOW, tons of sharpness, ideal contrast and great color.
So great minds think alike!Originally Posted by hiend61
I did the exact same thing after getting my Rodenstock Digital lenses, the generation just before the current Digaron's. They are really "perfect" as perfect gets, perhaps some times a little too sterile perfect when I was hoping for a little more "personality".
And every one of the non-HR's I got - 55, 90, 105, 150 - exceeded their coverage spec of 90mm to varying degrees. I found the 105 and 150 perfectly useable on 4x5 with some movement. The other revelation was that it was not easy to fully exploit the limits of increased resolution of these lenses while being handheld. I used them on my Master Technika and after securing the camera on a sturdy tripod, I saw additional resolution gains on the film.
Sorry for being off-topic to the original post.....
carver
It’s all a question of optical design compromises. Indeed, the digital lenses have better performance in many important aspects, at the price of the limited IC. Once you don’t need it for 4x5 they are superior.
One of the things I like best about LF is the texture and feeling of the images. It isn't a secret that LF provides a more natural contrast more and more natural as larger is the format. I also love the way in which LF lenses "write", despite general type diferences.
Modern high end digital back and lenses are clinically perfect, and anyone here feels well in a clinic?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks