Printable View
Sam - have a look at these posts, too. Could be helpful. Kirk Gittings is a successful commercial photographer who used medium format rollfilm on a view camera. Read what he has to say about it. I'm kind of surprised he hasn't put his 2 cents in yet.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...earchid=207223
Jonathan
Anyone who thinks Large format lenses (even the vaunted Rodenstock Apo Sironar-S 150) are as sharp as a good prime 35mm lenses has never taken a decent loupe to images shot at f8 with the Nikkor AFS-I 300 f2.8 lens.
I have, and the discussion ends there.
It's probably best if I bite my tongue at this point.
Did you look at the hard data from Schneider and from the photodo site?Quote:
Originally Posted by JW Dewdney
Andre is right; it's not even close.
Beware of casual tests that are based on "maximum resolution." These tell you very little about real world image quality. Whether or not you can barely make out fine detail at high resolutions, at a contrast that's barely above zero, means little. A lens that resolves 60 lp/mm by this standard might still make pictures that are clear as mud, if the modulation is low at the resolutions that matter most.
Paul, would you mind pointing me to the specific graphs or datatables you're referring to? The ones I'd seen were pre-corrected to compensate for certain assumptions. I'm very open to being wrong... not that I'm even taking a position. Actually - the position I'm taking is to have no assumption - and that people are jumping to conclusions for social, rather than what we'll call 'scientific' or 'rational' reasons. I just suspect that most people are responding to hearsay. But I'd like to see for myself more clearly the specific dataset you're referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulr
Specifically - I'd be looking for a direct comparison between two lenses of the SAME focal length and SAME focal distance which are designed for 35mm body use and for large format use. Of course - this narrows it down to a longer, 'tube mount' candidate (non-retrofocus) for 35mm with it's LF equivalent - or something like a 35mm grandagon (close enough to LF) with a 35mm elmarit or something. I mean, fair's fair. And this way, we can ensure that focal distance doesn't become a factor. I think when you allow for this, then you'll find that a lens is a lens is a lens and we can do away with all the white cloak mystique and rumour.
J
Andre, you overgeneralize. I've shot a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII against a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS. 1:2, ~ 30'. f/9, f/11, f/16, f/22. EB. At every magnification and aperture the GRII beat the MicroNikkor. As you said, end of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre_941
On the other hand, from 2:1 to 8:1 a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS at f/4 beats a 63/4.5 Luminar wide open hands down. And both lenses do worse when stopped down farther.
Discussions of this nature -- which class of lenses is "better"? -- confound two issues. Quality of negative, quality of final print. It is extraordinarily difficult to produce a negative that will yield a good print when enlarged more than 10x. But if, say, a 4x5 negative is even half as "good" as a 35 mm negative, it will yield the better large print.
Sure, it's a mistake to think that all 35mm lenses are sharper than all large format lenses. This simply isn't true; mostly because of the wild variations in quality from one small format lens design to another. It would be more accurate to say the POTENTIAL for sharpness is much higher in a 35mm lens than in a large format lens. This is reflected by comparing the very best lens designs available from each format, not by comparing a handfull of random lenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
It's also a big mistake to think this will make final prints sharper from smaller formats. It doesn't work that way. The small lens may be 30% sharper, but the negative is less than a third the size by linear measurement. Even if you give the small format lens a larger handicap based on greater depth of field, and on reduced diffraction from the wider working apertures, it will still come nowhere near the 300% plus performance difference it would need to compete.
And you also have to look at film. Remember that you will be making an enlagement over three times the size to make an equivalent print. This is going to push the MTF capabilities of the film in the same way you pushed the abilities of the lens. That's another major disadvantage for the small format.
So none of this is the point. The origninal question is mostly relevent to someone who wants to use a lens for a smaller format than its intent. Based on data that's available, you can know that it will work, and might work well--but if you're looking for the sharpest possible result, you'll want to a best-of-breed lens for the intended format.
FWIW, here's a recent comparison of 35mm, Medium Format, Medium Format Digital, and 4x5 including several capture sources and lenses. There are 100% crops to look at on the web if you want to at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-testing.shtml
Obviously the primary focus was on testing the authors medium format digital back, but the fact that other formats are included makes it quite interesting. Interesting conclusions, including that a couple of the MF lenses outperformed the Rodenstock APO Sironar HR. I think that my takeaway was that the difference in performance in controlled situations of the best 35mm/MF/LF lenses is not significant enough for the lens resolution to be the deciding factor in choosing what format/medium to shoot.
Sheldon,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheldon N
Our group had a lot of fun discussing the LL study:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=17491
I remember that thread, which is why I was a little hesitant to bring up that dead horse again. ;-)