sharpest lense ever

[Bob Salomon - HP Marketing]

About Digitar 120mm lens...

........ I bought the lens and have since compared its results with many other great modern lenses including Sironar-S 135mm, Nikkor-M 300mm, Nikkor-M 200mm and Nikkor Macro 120mm. Digitar is the sharpest LF lens I have owned. As it has been correctly pointed out in this thread, its main problem is its smaller IC. I don't use the lens much on my 4x5 as I don't use any lens in that focal length in 4x5. For 6x9, Digitar is my most used lens.

// Atul

But it more properly should be compared to a 135mm Apo Sironar Digital or similar.

[Richard Wasserman]

I went today to see one of my prints just that size that was hung in the reception area of an office. It was shot on 4x5 FP-4+ and looks very nice.

Anyway, returning to the original thread.... has anyone out there made a large print, eg. 1.5 x 1 metres from a single 4x5 film and been satisfied with the results?

[SergeiR]

Anyway, returning to the original thread.... has anyone out there made a large print, eg. 1.5 x 1 metres from a single 4x5 film and been satisfied with the results?

Just like Rick - i did prints from MF of that size (and bigger too) - no issues at all (645, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 - shot with MF optics and LF optics). I am pretty sure i dont have "sharpest lens ever". But then i am not sitting over any of prints with wee lens and spotting stuff. Never did, never will. I dont see 4x5 or 8x10 being any worse. To my eye they do look grrrreat, when i am not goofing sharpness b/c of focus, wobbly tripod, accidental finger in the lens, sneezing or forgetting that i triggered shutter once already).

[Jim Andrada]

I remember a story from rather long ago when the folks in a semiconductor fab facility were having sharpness issues with the cameras used to make the masks. They looked at everything - vibrations from the nearby interstate highway, aircraft, etc etc. Turned out they were having a problem caused by trucks backing up to the loading dock at the other end of the half mile long building and hitting the stops. When they put stoppers a few feet from the building the sharpness improved.

Moral of the story - the lens is only one link in a chain and often not the most significant link at that.

[Mark Kononczuk]

I went today to see one of my prints just that size that was hung in the reception area of an office. It was shot on 4x5 FP-4+ and looks very nice.

Do you remember what lens you used? Or do you think that this is not relevant when looking at this print?

[E. von Hoegh]

Do you remember what lens you used? Or do you think that this is not relevant when looking at this print?

The lens is relevant, but the lens is just a link in the chain. The best lens available, combined with sloppy technique is just one other area, will not give good results. A sharp lens is the least of your concerns, because virtually any good LF lens made in the past 50 years (and many made in the last 100 years) will be suitable for the task.

[Richard Wasserman]

I think it was a plain vanilla 210mm Caltar II-N. As Mr. von Hoegh wrote below, the lens is only one link in the chain. I also agree with him that just about any fairly recent—I have no experience with older—lens is up to the task of making large prints. The solution is not in hardware, but in knowing the entire process, from film exposure and development all the way to the print.

Do you remember what lens you used? Or do you think that this is not relevant when looking at this print?

[E. von Hoegh]

I think it was a plain vanilla 210mm Caltar II-N. As Mr. von Hoegh wrote below, the lens is only one link in the chain. I also agree with him that just about any fairly recent—I have no experience with older—lens is up to the task of making large prints. The solution is not in hardware, but in knowing the entire process, from film exposure and development all the way to the print.

To go further, I own a Goerz Dagor lens made about 1908. A 6" in a tiny Compound shutter. If used properly, this lens is closely comparable to a 1960 - 1970 Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar in resolution and contrast, in fact I use it on 4x5 more often than my Symmar due to the Dagor's unique tonality - an area where it exceeds the Symmar by a good margin. BUT - it's the second 6" I bought, the first one wasn't so good. Again, though, just a link in the chain. Print a negative from this lens with a crappy enlarger lens, and you'll get nothing special.

[nonuniform]

How did you focus that image? It's pretty d**m sharp!

One of the sharpest lenses I have is the 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar... it's extremely sharp in the center at f/2.8 as demonstrated below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6806479707/

I also have some 150mm f/2.8 aerial lenses that are consistently sharp across the frame but not as sharp as the Xenotar in the absolute sense.





The guy wants to know about optically good lenses. I'm failing to see the crime he committed here.

[Drew Wiley]

The typical sheet film holder simply doesn't hold film flat enough to make critical lens comparisons at optimum f-stops, that is, below the perceptible amt of diffraction necessary for a reasonable margin of error. This single miscalculation essentially voids a
helluva lot of the BS one routinely encounters on this very subject. Lenses do matter,
but they're rarely the weak link in the chain.