Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Klein
Thanks Bernice. What is the criteria for sharpness between an acceptable lens and a dud? ?
How well you think fine detail is resolved in the final print. Good enough or not? Come to think of it, sharpness is overrated.
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Klein
Bob, I don't understand. Right now, I've been shooting at f/22 on all my lenses because everyone seems to be saying that's the sweet spot. So could you explain your process above?
To test it take shots of what you will use it for. If you will use it for copy work shooting a flat page from a newspaper is fine. If for landscapes test it on a landscape, etc..
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
"Sharpness" IS over rated. There are a LOT more elements and factors to what makes an emotionally expressive print than "sharpness" alone.
Being obsessed with sharpness alone could be the result of Chronic f22 syndrome where f22 has been defined as the optimal taking aperture for modern lenses. Difficulty with chronic f22 syndrome, it tends to limit the vast expressive image possibilities made incorporating out of focus rendition and LOTs more. It is very possible chronic f22 syndrome, "sharpness", everything in print in ~sharp~ focus is a result of the Group f64 legacy and the "Straight Photography" Doctrine. While this is a very viable technique and method, it can be self restraining in exploring ALL the potential expressive means photography can offer.
Early on in my LF endeavors with 4x5 (during the mid 1980's), chronic f22 syndrome was combined with the Group f64 Doctrine.. "sharpness" was primary and what mattered most.. Those images made by AA and other like them held a very significant influence over what my image goals were.
Not long after that working photographer friends and artist, did not think the obsession with everything "SharP" and the Group f64 Doctrine myopia was good at all. This was when trips to the local art museums, considering what film makers were doing and LOT more were imposed on me.. This resulted in a long term influence with how images made to this day or why image quality of a LF lens at full aperture is as important as "f22"... View camera movements can be applied to keep items in an image in focus, what is not always considered, view camera movements can also be applied to controlling what is out of focus, using geometric distortion that can be done using movements of the rear camera standard. This is much about using all the tools available to achieve the print goal in mind.
Numerous other lens personality factors beyond sharpness:
~Contrast rendition. High contrast can be easily mistaken into the perception of higher sharpness.
~Out of focus rendition.
~Transition from out of focus to in focus.
~Color rendition.
And more.. How does any given image maker pin a point of reference on what is acceptable -vs- what is not acceptable?
Yet other factors like film, film processing, print making, print making materials, chemistry, method of projection and much more all have
an effect on the finished print and can impose their personality more on the finished print than lens alone.
Essentially, once a lens is tested and verified it is good enough, move on to address and deal with all these other aspects of print making as the lens along or "Sharpness" alone will NEVER define the results finished print alone.
Bernice
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Even the digital crowd is discovering sharpness is overrated and are looking for lenses with character. They now make adapters to adapt old 35mm lenses to mirrorless cameras. Some of the most popular lenses are old M42 screw mount lenses.
They would probably "freak out" over all the lens options for large format!
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Gales
They would probably "freak out" over all the lens options for large format!
I really don't see it that way. For LF the choice of lenses is very restricted, not to say extremely restricted. Also very little optical formulas compares to 135, even compared to MF. And then the 4 major makers made lenses so comparable that it isn't even a contest. And they make even more 135 lenses every day!
I think there are more different 50mm 135 lenses than all LF lenses together.
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Majority of 50_ish mm lenses for 35mm film from back in the day evolved to become variant the Double Gauss Lens Formula.
Majority of modern f5.6 full aperture LF lenses evolved to become Plasmat lens formula design.
Ponder why?
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Havoc
I think there are more different 50mm 135 lenses than all LF lenses together.
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
This is the most sensible and knowledgeable answer anyone can give, to which I subscribe wholeheartedly.
Just a note however that for those learning, mastering sharpness is important. Like everything else in the tool bag, achieving full sharpness is a technical tool that should be mastered, and so striving for sharpness (within reason) is not a bad goal it in itself as long as it's understood as a path for learning. Once that is achieved, and you know the tools of the trade, ie. what apertures do to the image you intend to capture, out of focus behavior, you know your lenses, and the technicalities about the movements and many other aspects on exposure, development, etc., then you effectively have at your disposal a deep understanding of all those tools to achieve the expression that you're looking for.
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kiwi7475
This is the most sensible and knowledgeable answer anyone can give, to which I subscribe wholeheartedly.
Just a note however that for those learning, mastering sharpness is important. Like everything else in the tool bag, achieving full sharpness is a technical tool that should be mastered, and so striving for sharpness (within reason) is not a bad goal it in itself as long as it's understood as a path for learning. Once that is achieved, and you know the tools of the trade, ie. what apertures do to the image you intend to capture, out of focus behavior, you know your lenses, and the technicalities about the movements and many other aspects on exposure, development, etc., then you effectively have at your disposal a deep understanding of all those tools to achieve the expression that you're looking for.
Much simpler is that you can not increase sharpness if your lens can’t deliver it. But any lens can be made softer.
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Havoc
I really don't see it that way. For LF the choice of lenses is very restricted, not to say extremely restricted. Also very little optical formulas compares to 135, even compared to MF. And then the 4 major makers made lenses so comparable that it isn't even a contest. And they make even more 135 lenses every day!
I think there are more different 50mm 135 lenses than all LF lenses together.
I'm talking about character. Look at Cooke, Dagors, Commercial Ektars, Heliars, Aero Ektars, Imagon's, Verito's, Kodak Portrait, Pinkham and Smith's, Petzval's and on and on.
Most 35mm camera lenses are sharp and contrasty. I can't even think of a soft focus lens for 35mm cameras.
Re: Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Gales
Most 35mm camera lenses are sharp and contrasty. I can't even think of a soft focus lens for 35mm cameras.
they definitely exist: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrev...Soft-Lens.html
