All of my lenses are just sharp enough. The sharpest of the bunch is my 305mm G-Claron, but the image quality it produces is somewhat different than the Symmars and Super-Angulons that make up my kit. I'm sure there are sharper lenses out there, and all of my lenses are now at least two generations old. So what? I find that error on my part is more detrimental to the sharpness of my images than anything that has to do with the lenses.
Peter Gomena
And since this thread is bound to go off the rails anyway -
Nikkor 105/2.5, the Sonnar version. Just gorgeously sharp,some views I took on the Rhine clearly show the weathervane on the Marksburg castle at a distance of a mile or a bit more.
Zeiss 75/3.5 Tessar, the one used on the Rolleiflex 3.5T. Another wonderfully sharp lens, I've read that these had a lanthanum glass element to inprove definition.
210~/6.8 Dagor type, unknown manufacturer ca. 1905. This one has all the character of a Dagor, smooth tones, wonderful contrast, soft wide open, focus shift, and so on. However the cells are a bit thicker than the Goerz lenses and the coverage is less. Stopped down to f16 or so it gives eerily sharp, almost 3D images. I wish I could find out who made it and get some more examples in different focal lengths.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Based on a limited selection and my admittedly subjective evaluation, you will have to look hard to find a lens sharper than an APO-Ronar stopped down to f22.
However, my nominee for the title "Sharpest Lens Ever" has to go to the 80mm f4 for the Mamiya 7 and 7II cameras. Yes, I know, this is the LF forum, but I can't help myself, they are that good and that camera is now the one I use if I do not need movements.
My sharpest lens is excellent technique (field and darkroom).
I’ve passed over several links connecting the two for brevity.
But it’s my sharpest lens ever.
There are more "real" worlds than there are people out there...Originally Posted by Bill_1856
lol I might quote you on that...
Nice to hear that you have a 480 Xenar... they don't come up easily. I've been having mine for a while but have put all my adaptation efforts in to a lens that's more challenging lens to use and have been stuck with it. Back to the Xenar... Are you sure the bokeh is smooth on it? It's a Tessar after all, right?
I count 3 questions in OP's post (and I'm not qualified to answer any of them), plus an invitation to throw facts out the window and just name our favorite lens. Since facts don't matter, I will say this: do a search of e**y's completed sales for LF lenses, sorted by 'highest price', and the one with the highest realized sale value is your sharpest (by your definition) lens. Seems as good a measurement as any others, for the criteria you've specified (none).
Venturing into fields I'm not too familiar with, I've seen specs for JML process lenses giving better than 200 lp/mm across the field. I have a Canadian-made 3.5mm fisheye, in a box somewhere, that purports to give 350 lp/mm in the center (with a signed certificate and everything!). I don't know what to do with it, I use it as a paperweight. The sharpest purpose-made LF lens I've ever owned was a Schneider Angulon 90/6.8, which was considerably better than my current SA 90/8, not to mention a fraction of the weight. Then again, I have 3 new Dagors to play with, so who knows. I do have modern process lenses that blow all of those out of the water.
I think there are few and subtle differences between lenses of the same vintage. I've compared a few different lenses lately.
First, I started with a 115 Grandagon which is my main lens. It's quite a sharp lens and by far my most-used focal length. I wanted a backup since I use it for so much of my work, so I picked up a 120/8 Super Angulon. I got screwed on the sale and the lens had some coating marks and schneideritis. I later got a deal on a 120 Super-Symmar HM. I did a test of all three in a real-world shooting situation and saw very little difference in resolution, either in the center or at the corners with some front rise, which I almost always use. The differences were tiny, though for the record I thought the SSHM was the sharpest, followed by the 120SA and then the 115 Grandagon. But the differences were minute, especially between the Grandagon and the SA.
I also compared 210mm lenses and found that there was basically no difference between my 210 Apo-Sironar-S and 210 Apo-Symmar (non-L). They were both really tack sharp, I couldn't imagine needing more sharpness.
I think in real-world shooting you'll be more limited by diffraction, camera alignment, groundglass calibration/placement, film flatness, wind, atmospheric conditions, tripod/head sturdiness, etc.
You will find subtle differences in contrast and color between lenses. Also, of course, you can find vastly different specifications when it comes to size, weight, image circle, etc. I think these things are better criteria for choosing lenses.
Having said that, if I could have only two lenses they would be the 120 Super-Symmar HM and the 210 Apo-Symmar. They're both really sharp, have good coverage for 4x5 and I just love the way the Schneiders seemed to have a tad less contrast but just as much sharpness.
By the way, when I was doing my tests I made drum scans of Portra 160 and Provia at 4000dpi and I printed small sections equal to about a 4x5 foot print. So that's a pretty demanding test.
Ok, thanks everybody. A wealth of information to ponder over. With reference to my original question, we are so far from fully understanding the psychophysiology of seeing that intuition and artistic sensitivity seem to provide the most reliable key. Hence the ambiguous question.
My criterion for judging the sharpness of a lens is to make one negative, focussed at infinity on someting with a good deal of fine detail. It could be tree limbs, bicycle wheels, signs, almost anything. Then I look at the negative with a dissecting microscope. If it renders the fine detail, it's sharp for my purposes, since few hang photos of test charts on their walls.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
When I started LF I did some work for a colleague and quoted "three large format lenses" as the price. He must have liked the work I did because I ended up with a Schneider 110XL, Rodenstock 150 Sironar S and Fujinon 240A (very nice man!). I've since bought a Nikkor M 200 and 300. However the only lens that seems to "look" sharper than the others is the Sironar S - that isn't based on measuring resolution.
Quite recently I've been shooting large groups for the army and I needed a backup lens for the 150 Sironar S. I bought a £90 APO Symmar and use it on my travel kit, a Chamonix 45N-1. When I got the first job back and drum scanned them at 4000dpi I had to double check my notes to find out which was which (taken at f/16). This quite surprised me!
Tim
Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks