sharpest lense ever

[genotypewriter]

Noah, sharpness is important to me. Or, more exactly, image quality is important to me. There've been times when I did more lens testing than serious shooting. Shame on me.

But the lens is just one element that contributes to image quality. Every time I start to get hung up on the lens as key, I recall that when I was setting up to be a 35 mm snapshotter (that's where I started) one of my chamber music partners pressed me hard to go Leica because of their lenses outstanding sharpness. I've never known whether he pressed me because he'd measured (or had access to measurements) or because he'd drunk the Leica koolaid. After I'd shot a bit I really wondered about him. He shot handheld so tremor had to have eliminated most of the image quality his lenses could deliver to film. "My best lens is a tripod" sounds odd but its true.

What I've learned from my testing is that for my purposes -- yours may be different -- there's no practical difference among lenses that are good enough. If there are any, they're hard to see and may be imaginary. The difference between good enough and not good enough can be striking. So I see the question "which lense is the best ever?" as dumb, perhaps trolling. The spelling error doesn't help, either. Good enough is good enough, end of discussion. Time and money spent chasing silver bullets are better given to improving technique.

I've also learned that although image quality is good and worth working to improve, images that aren't as sharp as possible can look very good on the desk or hung on the wall. When I was working I had several such that spent time on my desk. They're strong images, they pleased passersby, and I'm not ashamed of them. In the end, its the final print, not the gear used in producing it, that matters.

IMO, the OP was jumped on because he posed the simple question "What's an OK normal lens for 4x5 that will fit my budget?" very badly. That's a legitimate beginner's question.

Cheers,

Dan

Should we take notes? lol

[Dan Fromm]

Of course you should take notes. Students take notes, so do principal investigators.

Status as a sinus has been asserted by Genotypewriter. That assertion has been ignored as irrelevant if true but should have been remembered. Our posts here should have been written in sinific publication style. Occurrences of the first person singular are rare in sinific publications. Henceforth, second person plural will be used in our posts here and short words will be replaced by polysyllabic words with latin roots.

[E. von Hoegh]

Of course you should take notes. Students take notes, so do principal investigators.

Status as a sinus has been asserted by Genotypewriter. That assertion has been ignored as irrelevant if true but should have been remembered. Our posts here should have been written in sinific publication style. Occurrences of the first person singular are rare in sinific publications. Henceforth, second person plural will be used in our posts here and short words will be replaced by polysyllabic words with latin roots.

E. von Hoegh shall type every post in the third person ablative.

[Mark Kononczuk]

Hmm. More an essay about life, methinks. I chased the magic skiing bullet for 15 years until my knees gave in. I had my end of year exams recently and explained to one of my lecturers my sheer frustration with the technical side of photography. He thought for a while and said : "It's impossible to get to a level of technical mastery where you can say: 'I've got to a world class level and now I'm sticking to this system', because everything is changing all the time - new processes emerge every year, old products are discontinued, etc." Then he looked at me and said: " The best stage in photography is probably behind you and you missed it." That was a bit of a downer.

[Mark Kononczuk]

Sorry, forgot to say I was replying to this:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic-bullet.html

[Jody_S]

Hmm. More an essay about life, methinks. I chased the magic skiing bullet for 15 years until my knees gave in. I had my end of year exams recently and explained to one of my lecturers my sheer frustration with the technical side of photography. He thought for a while and said : "It's impossible to get to a level of technical mastery where you can say: 'I've got to a world class level and now I'm sticking to this system', because everything is changing all the time - new processes emerge every year, old products are discontinued, etc." Then he looked at me and said: " The best stage in photography is probably behind you and you missed it." That was a bit of a downer.

In the end, photography is about the images, not the process. Well, for me. I'm not a gearhead or whatever they're called. Technical mastery and equipment serves the purpose of making real the images you see in your mind; if you use equipment to create what images it will, as a substitute for having that vision, you're not an artist (IMHO). That's fine, many excellent photographers are not artists. And they make a lot more money than I ever will.

[photobymike]

Its like blondes or brunettes make a choice ... personally i like em both... There are some questions that are like mental masturbation ... fun to think about but not productive

[Mark Kononczuk]

In the end, photography is about the images, not the process. Well, for me. I'm not a gearhead or whatever they're called. Technical mastery and equipment serves the purpose of making real the images you see in your mind; if you use equipment to create what images it will, as a substitute for having that vision, you're not an artist (IMHO). That's fine, many excellent photographers are not artists. And they make a lot more money than I ever will.

Yeah, ok, but the most inspired and original images in contemporary art will not amount to much if they turn into crap when enlarged to a gallery-sized print. Unless that's what you want - then you should be using a mobile phone to take pictures.

[jnanian]

Yeah, ok, but the most inspired and original images in contemporary art will not amount to much if they turn into crap when enlarged to a gallery-sized print. Unless that's what you want - then you should be using a mobile phone to take pictures.

a gallery sized print can be just about anything ... a smaller than 4x5 print or something huge ...
why is it always a race to hoard equipment or get the sharpest or the most expensive or ?? ...
i've seen some pretty amazing photography that was made on a box probably cobbled together for less than $20, as well as stuff taken from mobile phones ....
the people did something interesting rather than endless equipment and materials tests --- they weren't in a race.
whats the point ?

[Jody_S]

Yeah, ok, but the most inspired and original images in contemporary art will not amount to much if they turn into crap when enlarged to a gallery-sized print. Unless that's what you want - then you should be using a mobile phone to take pictures.

If your vision is for gallery-sized razor-sharp images, then you need technical mastery sufficient to create gallery-sized images, which of course includes knowledge of sharp lenses and their proper use to get sharp images. I would certainly agree that someone like Mapplethorpe would not have had the success he did if his images were fuzzy around the edges. But I don't think he cared about his Hasselblad (?) other than as the tool that could do what he wanted, and I've never heard about him running around chasing a better lens that might possibly make an even sharper image. The Hassy wasn't a 'magic bullet', it was simply the camera of choice for what he was doing.

FWIW, in LF, I think technique and other hardware such as tripods, film holders, developing, etc all have a greater effect on image quality than lenses- if you're comparing modern lens to modern lens. This is true across all formats, of course, but very pronounced in LF. If I personally were thinking of investing another $500-$1000 into large format, my 1st purchase would be a better tripod; 2nd a better developing system (a Jobo or equivalent, now that I have room); 3rd a better shutter for my 8x10, whether or not a lens came attached to it (ie, a Packard or Luc large enough for my process lenses, or a used Fujinon/Nikkor/whatever in shutter).

I should add that I've been to galleries to see famous images, and occasionally been quite disappointed with the technical side, or lack thereof, when standing in front of said image. The one that comes immediately to mind is Maggie Taylor's The Woman Who Loves Fish.