How much does a "modern lens" matter?

[Policar]

I've read plenty of times that all LF lenses are "pretty good" and that the biggest differences are in contrast and flare (coated vs. uncoated); I've also read that the newest "cult lenses" (super angulon xl; apo-symmar; apo-sironar-s) are just the best, but mostly from marketing departments...

Optically, the differences between LF lenses seem minor compared with those between retrofocus SLR lenses. The results from my should-be-terrible old wollensak seem reasonably good and these tests ( http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html ) seem to show more variations between samples of the same lens than between brands and eras (not so if you look at the MF tests).

I realize micro-contrast (mtf at 10lp/mm) is more important than resolution and some modern lenses claim they have more, and maybe between that and multicoating modern glass has more apparent sharpness, but even Rodenstock's mtf charts look awful compared with 35mm glass, maybe just due to the huge image circle. Is the difference between a high-end modern optic like the difference between an off-brand zoom and good prime on an slr, or like the difference between a good AIS Nikkor and the equivalent autofocus lens--mostly a matter of appearance and newer coatings for extremely similar performance with maybe slightly better contrast at lower f-stops?

[rdenney]

The coating on the glass acts as an impedance matching device, to tune the frequency of lights passing through and tune out the frequency of light being reflected. Computer-aided lens design has greatly improved the ability of coatings to perform this function. Many older lenses avoided the problem altogether by using designs that minimized the effects of those reflections.

A lens has several roles to perform. It might focus different colors on the same plane. It must perform well over its entire image circle. It must focus on a field that exists in nature (if curved, the curvature must fit the normal distances of objects, for example, and not focus "beyond" infinity). It should perform symmetrically, though many old lenses are prized because of their asymmetry. The latest modern lenses fulfill all these requirements with wider image circles and more accurate rendition than previous generations.

Thus, the 47mm SA XL accommodates 4x5 and still performs marginally better than the 47/5.6 SA, which does not cover 4x5. The 8-element 47/5.6 performs marginally better with more coverage than the older 6-element 47/8, even though both are still double-biogon designs. The Super Angulon itself and lenses like it were revolutionary, however, providing very wide coverage using the double-biogon design, and present a quantum improvement over the previous double-anastigmat dagor wide-angle designs. All the improvements since then have been reaching for diminishing returns.

MTF at a given frequency doesn't mean much across formats, it seems to me. A large format lens doesn't need to perform at, say 40 lines/mm the same way a small-format lens does, just because few large-format images will get enlarged by more than about a 10x factor, while 12-20x enlargements are common with small formats. 10 lines/mm might represent micro-contrast in one format and ultimate resolution in another.

Rick "whose regularly used lenses range in age from 20 to 60 years old, but who would like a 47xl just for the coverage" Denney

[Peter Gomena]

How "modern" are you thinking? All my lenses are 30-year-old Schneiders, all multi-coated. They are now at least two and perhaps three generations old. Used examples are very reasonably priced these days. If you are concerned about quality and consistency, I'd stick to lenses made in the last 30 years unless you are after a specific "look" from an older style. In some cases, you may be stuck with whatever you can find in a particular type or focal length, but that's a different issue. As Rick said above, the latest generations of lenses represent small increases in quality over their predecessors. They do offer greater coverage, great new designs, new coating technology, etc., and price tags that give me palpitations. Would I like a latest generation 210 Schneider? You bet. Do I want to pay the price? Not on your life. I'll spend the money on film.

Comparing MTF curves between LF and 35mm lenses will make you crazy. Remember that enlarging a 4x5 negative to 16x20" is only a 4X enlargement. Enlarging a 35mm to 16x20 is a 16X enlargement. Every flaw in the 35mm frame will be magnified immensely, so the optical requirements are very different than for LF, and that's not even addressing the coverage issues.

Peter Gomena

[Mark Sawyer]

I think a lot depends on what you want from a lens...

All modern conventional lenses are very, very, very good at the same thing. They all have the same perfect design criteria over many fields (resolution, micro-contrast, contrast, flare resistance, minimized aberrations, etc. from the center to the edge of a large image circle.

For a photographer who wants "perfection" according to these standards, all modern lenses, will be perfect. (And quite a few "semi-modern" lenses, such as coated Dagors, Commercial Ektars, Apo-Lanthars, etc., will be close enough to be indistinguishable to most.) An old uncoated Series II Velostigmat wouldn't cut it for these photographers; too soft in contrast and not enough lppm...

Other photographers will look at such "perfect" lenses as sterile, harsh, even clinical in their perfection. The Stepford Lenses. These photographers like a lens with a smoothness, a glow, a swirl, a soft edge, or some other imperfect signature.

So it kinda depends on which camp you're in.

I like the old uncoated glass for most things, even my "sharp" work. A lot of that is because I've adjusted my processing for the old glass over the years, and the multicoated stuff seems too harsh for most things. And for contact prints, the old lenses are comfortably more than sharp enough. But sometines, I pull out the new lenses, especially for soft subjects in soft light.

It all kinda depends on your expectations and your process. Would a Carlton Watkins mammoth landscape be any stronger if it were made with an Apo-Sironar-S rather than a Rapid Rectilinear? But Gorsky would likely hate working with an old Rectilinear. All lenses have a lot of wonderfulness in them. It's just which kind of wonderful you want...

[patrickjames]

How do you want your steak?

I can't really add anything more than has already been said. You have to figure out what you want. I am thinking these days that I am partial to single coated lenses, although I have a range from the 20's until the last generation. Sometimes I think the newest lenses are just too much. Just as it was hard to work with uncoated lenses back in the day, I find it difficult to work with the modern ones. Harshness is a word that comes up often in many discussions. If you shoot color though, the more modern lenses may be your cup of tea.

[Ben Syverson]

If what you want is a neutral, sharp, "clean" image (like MF on steroids), just about anything multicoated will do it, so don't spend too much or over-think it. With that out of the way...

Probably the single best thing about LF is the freedom to use lenses from any era—and any manufacturer—on nearly any camera. Once you realize how profoundly that expands your range of expression, small format concerns like MTF and lens sharpness lose some of their hypnotic power.

Selecting a lens in LF is exactly like choosing a wine (or guitar, or amplifier, or bicycle, or...). In other words, it can become a fulfilling end in itself for those unfortunates given to collection or obsession, while simpletons such as myself will just be grateful that the modern stuff is so good and so cheap. If you want a really good wine, any $10 bottle at the supermarket is probably better than what your grandfather drank—back then, wines routinely spoiled, entire vintages were "off," and worst of all, they had little idea why. On the other hand, you can really dive into the complexities of an old Bordeaux that will, for hundreds of reasons, simply never be replicated.

In other words, it all comes down to taste, not sharpness.

[cosmicexplosion]

well put every one.

[BetterSense]

Bah, all lenses are good at f/32. Modern ones have more coverage though. I find that the 'character' or 'quality' of the blur/boke at larger apertures is a dominant factor in what I think of a given lens.

[bobwysiwyg]

I must admit to a bias since my lens kit is less than "modern," but I wonder if I took a shot that both myself and a viewer thought was a good one, would it matter whether it was taken with a modern verses vintage lens? I'm thinking it would not be the distinguishing factor.

[Jim Noel]

I prefer to use old lenses, even though I have a couple of "Newer" ones.
Modern highly coated lenses make images look as if objects, such as trees or people, have been cut and pasted. I prefer that round objects look round.

Many of the really old lenses are as sharp as the latest ones. As an example, yesterday I tested an old Turner-Reich triple convertible by photographing a set up including a flower stem with extremely fine hairs along it. The lens was used wide open. Lith film was used because it is the sharpest film available and when developed appropriately yields a beautiful long scale negative. The fine hairs are as sharp as any lens can possibly make them, including a couple of process lenses I own.

What I am trying to say is if people will learn to use lenses and developers appropriately, rather than taking the word of manufacturers and "experts" they can get excellent service from older equipment. The money saved from not buying the latest and best (according to advertisers) can be used to buy a lot of film and other supplies.

[Rick Olson]

Like Jim Noel, I find that I am using my older lenses much more than my new. I bought an old Dagor type G-Claron from Jim Galli, and as he described in the sale, it was not taken care of very well by its previous owners. Both the front and rear elements have many fine scratches. The lack of multi-coating along with the fine scratches reduces the overall contrast, allowing for some very smooth tonality in my black and white negatives when compared to my multi-coated, highly corrected optics. Having new and old lens options allows me the ability to select correction and contrast depending on what I plan to photograph.

[Dan Fromm]

Bah, all lenses are good at f/32. <snip>
BS!

All of my good apochromatic process lenses -- Apo-Saphirs, Apo-Nikkors -- are discernably worse at apertures smaller than f/16 than at f/16 and aren't so hot at f/32. That's in my situation, which may not be yours. The same is true of my, um, humbler lenses. The maker of my most extreme lens, an f/4.5 Apo Grandagon, advises against stopping it down too far. And the makers of my aerial camera lenses made them with minimum apertures of f/16 or f/22, usually f/16.

Requirements differ. What's good enough for you given your situation and goals may well not be good enough for others.

Policar, the two threads you've started so far give the impression that you're just starting out with LF and are trying to work out what will be best for you. This prompts two thoughts:

Nearly every beginner tries hard to buy wisely, agonizes of what's best, lays out requirements, ... The LF gear that nearly every beginner starts with is replaced within a year. I conclude from this that you'd do well to use what you have and let it tell you what you really like/don't like and really need/don't need. There seems to be no substitute for trial and error.

Many of us here go on interminably about what's best. I'm sort of guilty of this. But, y'know, "good enough" means just what it says. What's "good enough" depends somewhat on individual needs, goals, and circumstances but within their coverage -- there's a kicker -- many of the lenses made by major manufacturers since early in the 20th century are at least good enough. That said, every lens, no matter who made it, no matter whether used or new, should be put through acceptance testing on receipt. Variation between lenses swamps variation between designs and makers, if you see what I mean.

Cheers,

Dan

[Policar]

Thanks, everyone. There have been so many helpful replies I'd like to respond to everyone individually, but that would take uhh...a while. The level of knowledge on this forum is really unusual.

Yes, I'm incredibly new to LF and only started shooting film at all a few months ago. I know very little about optics (I'm hoping to buy a textbook on optics and if anyone has any suggestions for a primer pertinent to photography and lens design, please let me know; don't worry I can do the math), but I do know exactly what I want:

For now, I'm going to be doing 90% deep focus landscape photography with color slide film. So the "3d paper cutout" look is what I want. Later maybe more "pictoralism" and black and white but not right now. I've been through two 35mm systems and a 6x7 system but I need rise/fall/tilt/shift. With SLRs it was just "good lenses" vs. "bad ones." This seems more complicated because I guess good resolution is a given and so aesthetics become more important.

I know the look and focal lengths (roughly 24mm, 35mm, 50mm on 135) I like, though the size of the negative changes what focal lengths I end up using, generally pushing me toward deeper focus and longer lenses with a bigger negative (not a pleasant combination as regards how much light I need, unfortunately)... I don't see myself going wider except maybe on 6X12 and in very graphically simple scenes in 4x5. I'm hoping to get a good starting system specifically because I don't want to trade the whole thing in a few months later...and I know what I want now, in theory. I compromised in lens quality in 6x7 and, well, it bums me out...hence the hunger for fancy glass (which is cheaper on 4x5, mercifully).

I think I'll be shooting around f22 or f32 a lot, and I doubt mft at 40lp/mm is very different between any lenses at that stop, though other characteristics may be. I am a sucker for micro-contrast. Coverage is also a very serious issue for me. I don't shoot architecture but I also don't like converging vertical lines in landscapes and my current style is "everything in focus," except I can't achieve it on 6x7 half the time... So I expect to use lots of tilt/shift, which my current wollensak lens doesn't seem to like. I collect stuff, but I'd rather have just a few boring modern lenses for LF than a stable of cool ones...for now. I also asked this question just to get a general feel about LF lenses. They seem so different from retrofocus/telephoto SLR lenses.

Thanks again...pretty excited to get into LF. Except for loading film, not so into that yet.

[John Jarosz]

One thing I'll add is that you seem to be quoting performance numbers rather than actually looking at images.

I just bought (horrors I know) a "better" digital camera. I printed out some big (11x17) prints and I was surprised how "bad" they looked. Until I caught myself and said - "Hey, wait a minute, these are not ULF contact prints - What do you expect?". The prints were actually quite good once I shifted my expectations. You must look at prints, not numbers.

My opinion anyway....

John

[Policar]

Well, I got those numbers from figuring out what focal lengths I like (based on my own slides/prints and others' prints) and then the f-stops used or needed to get infinity focus, which is the style I like and have been failing to achieve on 6x7.

I guess I'm just going to buy a stable of apo-sironar-s and grandagon-n lenses. The marketing material says I'll like them.

[Ole Tjugen]

If you fail to have everything in focus on 6x7, you will find it even more frustrating on LF!

Unless your subject scene is very close to flat, no amount of tilts and swings is going to bring everything into crisp and clear focus at the same time.

In my experience some older lenses with a bit of residual aberrations and image plane curvature can actually come closer to achieving all-over sharpness over a typical 3D scene than anything modern.

[paulr]

Stylistically, I'd always been one of the great grandchildren of the group f64 guys ... in the sense that I usually tried to get everything sharp from corner to corner in my images. This is a stylistic choice, one which may or may not serve what you do.

What I've realized is that if you're keeping everything sharp (or mostly sharp) many of the differences between lenses won't matter to you. A lot of design differences start to show themselves in how lenses render detail that's much ahead or behind the plane of focus, and not tamed by tiny apertures.

My lenses (90s era multicoated schneiders) render out of focus detail with a decidedly modern and neutral look. Some lenses render it either like hell or like magic (typically this has to do with under-or over-corrected spherical aberration; one that makes detail beyond the focal plain look like magic will generally make detail behind the focal plane look like hell ... and vice versa).

There are other differences, like flare, which can be good or bad, depending the situation and your temperment.

[Ed Richards]

I think the correct way to look at this is that almost all lens are about the same at f32 and greater. Certainly there is enough diffraction at f32 to take the edge off the sharpest lenses, and by f45 the difference even starts to be visible on real world prints.

But I am with Ole - LF with movements only helps with focus in very limited circumstances. Usually landscapes are not it, unless you are taking pictures of very flat prairies. OTOH, once you get wide enough, focus gets easy.:-)

How are you going to print and how big?

[Jim Galli]

This was a fun read for a change. I started thinking about the lens pile. Do I have a single MC lens out there? Nope.

Oh, wait, that's wrong. I still have a 4.5 75 and 4.5 90mm.

Yesterday I was playing with a couple of new-2-me ones. A Series IIA Protar, and a no-name brassie 8X10 'M.C.' W.A. whatever that was. The IIa looks contrastier and sharper than many of my Dagor's. And the little W.A., someone had long ago poked the aperture plumb out of it, so it's probably seeing photon's it was never meant to see. But my Oh my what a buzz that little number has got. Hope to do some pics with both tomorrow.

What the other folks already said in so many words is what I've had as a reminder in my dark room for eon's. "It's the picture stupid!" IOW a crummy picture taken with the latest greatest Triple MC MTF blah blah blah lens is still.............a crummy picture. I have thousands to prove this point.

[Ed Richards]

Jim,

Aways horses for courses. The lenses I like for high rez architecture with lots of movements are not going to look nearly as nice as an old fast lens with lots of aberrations if I was doing intimate portraits as you do. But mostly when I am taking pictures of people, they are moving and I put the LF down.

http://www.epr-art.com/galleries/c1a-des-amis/photos/_DSC2531.jpg

[Tracy Storer]

Most of the lenses I use for my personal work were designed either in the early 1890s (NOT fuzzy portrait lenses, Dagors and Zeiss WA Protars) or designed in the early 20th C.
The variables of subject, format size, medium (color/bw), and final print size will decide it for you.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think the correct way to look at this is that almost all lens are about the same at f32 and greater. Certainly there is enough diffraction at f32 to take the edge off the sharpest lenses, and by f45 the difference even starts to be visible on real world prints.


The resolutions of different lenses may start to approach each other, but the softness from internal flare remains. There will still be a considerable difference between an old uncoated plasmat and a new multicoated plasmat.

[Ed Richards]

Mark,

Absolutely - flare is a separate issue, as are aberrations. Depending on what you do, they are a plus or a minus. My lenses were picked for maximum movements and limited aberrations and flare because of the nature of my work. But I do have an old single coated f5.5 270mm tele cammed to a Technika for when I do need to do portraits in 4x5. But for me, I realized that when it comes to people, I would rather be using an 85mm 1.8 wide open on 35mm.

[E. von Hoegh]

Mark,

.... But for me, I realized that when it comes to people, I would rather be using an 85mm 1.8 wide open on 35mm.

That's interesting. I recently did some outdoor "golden hour" portraiture using a 105/2.5 at 2.8 and 4; ( Nikkor, Nikkormat FTN) they're easily the best portrait work I've ever done.

[BetterSense]

What kind of film do you use when you use 35mm? I know it's almost backward, since you would think finer grained film would be the obvious thing to use with a smaller format, but whenever I "downgrade" I'm always torn between trying to use a fine grain film like Acros, which reveals the lower resolution, veiled 'look' that comes from 35mm film, and using a more grainy film, which seems more forgiving for the format.

[Ed Richards]

> What kind of film do you use when you use 35mm?

Electrons - D700 full frame digital. Even at ASA 800, which lets me use decent shutter speeds indoors when I am shooing music, I can get a beautiful large print with no noticeable noise. Not finely detailed like LF, but then that is the whole point of old lenses on LF. In a highly detailed print you can really tell the difference between the D700 and 4x5 on prints images bigger than 11x14, but on low detail images like portraits, the D700 looks amazingly good even at 17x22. No grain and very smooth tonality if you keep within the dynamic range of the sensor.

[Brian C. Miller]

With SLRs it was just "good lenses" vs. "bad ones." This seems more complicated because I guess good resolution is a given and so aesthetics become more important.

Horses for courses, and do the best with what you have.

Here's what I found out: the "cruddy" lenses do a really fine job. If they're in good shape, that is. My Super Graphic came with a Wollensack 135mm, standard for the camera, with the glass in excellent condition. After much fiddling with the camera due to crummy replacement ground glass, I found that the lens will deliver bicycle spokes at two blocks away. That level of detail only shows up on a 16x20 enlargement. Mind you, there isn't a lot of extra coverage for movements, but there's enough there for most general stuff.

Personally, I don't like using a standard 35mm camera. When I use 35mm, I like Olympus Pen-F half-frame and 400 film. Yeah, I like the grain. The 24mm lens is quite sharp, and the grain gives the print softness. When I shoot LF, I like either the Acros or Tmax, or else pushed 400 for speed.

Since the subject matter you want to photograph is landscape in color with extreme detail, you'll need a "modern" lens. One lens (just one!), slightly wide, will suffice for just about everything. Really. Trust me! You search and find things that will fit, and you think more about what you are going to photograph.

[Brian Ellis]

Improvements often found in modern lenses include coating (single important, multi less important) which reduces flare and improves contrast, wider usable image circle, smaller, lighter, and more coverage. "Sharpness" can be as good in an older lens as a "modern" one if you take enough care, e.g. using a lens shade all the time with an uncoated lens. Improvements in modern lenses matter if they matter to you - I'd much rather carry an 80mm XL than a 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon.

But IMHO other things besides lens age can have a bigger influence on image quality - sturdiness of tripod, alignment of front and rear standards, your focusing ability, your knowledge of how to use movements to best advantage, your film processing methods and your knowledge of and ability to use your scanner and Photoshop - to mention just a few things besides age of the lens that have a major effect on image quality.

[Ole Tjugen]

Since I said it's frustrating to get everything in focus on LF film, I figured I had better show that it CAN be done.

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_GF.jpg
Shot with an Angulon 165/6.8 at f:32, on 13x18cm E100W. Focus was on infinity to ensure maximum possible sharpness of the fine details in the distance, then stopped down to bring the foreground branches into acceptable focus. Hyperfocal technique would have given a softer background, which would be a lot less interesting.

More details in the picture? Zoomified picture here. (http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html)

The Angulon is NOT a modern lens, and is single-coated.

[BetterSense]

Hyperfocal technique would have given a softer background
You sure about that? I thought that was kind of the point of the hyperfocal distance...if the background is softer, then you aren't really at the hyperfocal distance it seems to me.

[Policar]

That is sharp, though I don't understand why hyperfocal technique is a bad thing, assuming you really have stopped down far enough.

For my own purposes this has been helpful: for what I want to do now I'll look into modern multicoated lenses with enough coverage but not stress too much over their precise age. Just in terms of LF in general, reading this has been very interesting... But simply due to ease of use I'll stick to MF for portraits. And I love the ideal of using one lens but can't stick to it.


I'm also going to buy a how-to book so I don't flood the board with too many more dumb questions. Thanks again!

[Ole Tjugen]

Hyperfocal technique assures that both the near and the far points are right on the verge of being unacceptably unsharp. Since I rarely know in advance what the final print size will be, I find it difficult to guess what "acceptable sharpness" is, so I aim for maximum sharpness in the most important part of the image.

Instead I used the technique explained by H.M. Merklinger in The INs and OUTs of FOCUS (http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/download.html), which IMO should be compulsory reading for all photographers. ;)

[Brian C. Miller]

More details in the picture? Zoomified picture here. (http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html)

The Angulon is NOT a modern lens, and is single-coated.

One pine needle, two pine needle, three pine needle, four...

Size = advantage. :D

[Policar]

It is impressive...I downloaded that book and am also going to buy Steve Simmons' book on LF.

But like, I shouldn't lose sleep over getting a 90mm f6.8 grandagon-n instead of the super angulon xl (both very modern lenses) unless I do crazy tilts and shifts? It's half the price and I need an ultra-wide.

[rdenney]

But like, I shouldn't lose sleep over getting a 90mm f6.8 grandagon-n instead of the super angulon xl (both very modern lenses) unless I do crazy tilts and shifts? It's half the price and I need an ultra-wide.

No, you should not lose sleep over if the Grandagon has the image circle you need. Both of these lenses are excellent and it would probably take a bench test to note any difference between them.

Rick "who carefully applies tilt even in landscapes" Denney

[Ed Richards]

The Grandagon 6.8 is a wonderful lens. The Nikon 4.5 90mm is about the same price, and gives an amazingly easy image to focus and a little more coverage. The 90mm XL is really a 5x7 lens - its rear element is so big that you cannot use it cameras what use Linhof Technika boards, as many have discovered to their detriment. But you can buy old design 5.6 Super Angulons and do just as well for even less money. As many have counseled, you will likely shift your great a few times in the first year or two, better to do it with less expensive stuff that you are more likely to be able to resell for what you paid. What has gone unsaid is that a significant number of folks (the majority is my bet) just give up LF entirely within the first year. Better to start slow and learn one lens and camera for a while - say for your first 200 sheets of film at least - then figure out what you need next. I think that increases the chance you will stay with it.

[Policar]

Thanks, everyone. I've heard only glowing reviews of Nikon's LF range, but both the SA XL and grandagon are less expensive used than the Nikon f4.5--plus the Rodenstock has a little green ring around it. Having never owned Canon L glass, my decorative lens ring quota remains woefully unfulfilled.

Last question: why do large format lenses struggle to resolve more than 60lp/mm when Arri's cinema lenses resolve 400lp/mm and Nikon has some 35mm primes that approach that, too? I realize it's all moot because of the size of the sensor, but it seems to me that these LF lenses must be really, well, bad.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks, everyone. I've heard only glowing reviews of Nikon's LF range, but both the SA XL and grandagon are less expensive used than the Nikon f4.5--plus the Rodenstock has a little green ring around it. Having never owned Canon L glass, my decorative lens ring quota remains woefully unfulfilled.

Last question: why do large format lenses struggle to resolve more than 60lp/mm when Arri's cinema lenses resolve 400lp/mm and Nikon has some 35mm primes that approach that, too? I realize it's all moot because of the size of the sensor, but it seems to me that these LF lenses must be really, well, bad.

Have you checked the performance of the HR Digaron S and W series of lenses from Rodenstock? Those would be more comprable to primes and Arri lenses then analog view camera lenses.

[rdenney]

Thanks, everyone. I've heard only glowing reviews of Nikon's LF range, but both the SA XL and grandagon are less expensive used than the Nikon f4.5--plus the Rodenstock has a little green ring around it. Having never owned Canon L glass, my decorative lens ring quota remains woefully unfulfilled.

Last question: why do large format lenses struggle to resolve more than 60lp/mm when Arri's cinema lenses resolve 400lp/mm and Nikon has some 35mm primes that approach that, too? I realize it's all moot because of the size of the sensor, but it seems to me that these LF lenses must be really, well, bad.

My advice: Put the lens test data down. Go make pictures. Seriously. My experience with large format lenses is that they are more than adequate to produce stunningly detailed photos far beyond the capabilities of small format, no matter how sharp the lenses are supposed to be for the latter. And I do have several lenses with that red stripe. You will find it quite a challenge to keep the rest of your technique up to the level required for your lenses to be a limiting element. Remember also that lens test data comes from the plane of sharp focus, and the three-dimensional world doesn't fit into that plane very well. In a depth-of-field world, other factors are more important than lens performance.

Rick "thinking that obsession with lines per millimeter is a small-format neurosis" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

Policar, do you understand the practical implications of diffraction? Lenses for small formats are typically used at large apertures, lenses for large format at small ones.

And do you understand the difference between aerial resolution and resolution on film?

Modern Photography Magazine published an article years ago that addressed the question of whether 100 lp/mm could be attained on film. Short answer, for 35 mm cameras: with a good lens at its best aperture, high resolution film, and meticulous technique, yes but not consistently. In practice, rarely. By the way, good lens turned out to mean 50 mm or so 6/4 double Gauss type lens with maximum aperture f/1.7 - f/2.0. MP got marginally better results with the best of the 50 - 60 mm macro lenses included in the test. Cheap relatively slow modern normal lenses for 35 mm are marvels.

More recently Zeiss asserted that with microfilm processed for continuous tone, meticulous technique, and a good Zeiss lens at its best aperture, > 200 lp/mm was attainable. Interesting, if true, but of little practical significance.

Today's lp/mm madness reminds me of the days when H&W Control Film -- Agfa Copex, I think -- and H&W's miracle developer that oxidized into uselessness minutes after the bottle was opened -- don't ask how I know this -- were available. Leicanuts insisted that with H&W products they could produce huge prints that matched what could be done with larger formats. Fine, wonderful, but since they shot hand-held they pissed the film's advantage away.

[BetterSense]

And do you understand the difference between aerial resolution and resolution on film?

I don't know about Policar, but I don't. Are you just talking magnification/enlargement degrees here?

[Dan Fromm]

I don't know about Policar, but I don't. Are you just talking magnification/enlargement degrees here?No, the aerial image contains more detail than film can capture.

[Ed Richards]

Aerial resolution is what you can see by looking at a target through the lens using a microscope sort of system, i.e., without out making an image. When you move to film, you introduce flatness issues, alignment with the lens plane problem, issue with focusing, diffusion in the film base, etc. In the real word, not shooting on a granite optical bench, you introduce camera and tripod resonance, rigidity of the connection between the lens/camera/tripod and tripod to ground connections, and wind. I agree completely that any multicoated lens (which means any in about the last 40-50 years - MC only because of flare) is going to out perform your technique until you refine it over several years of work, and by then you will realize that LF is not about ultimate sharpness on a test chart.