... but to answer the question...
There is ALWAYS a sharper lens than the one in use. Often that sharper lens is owned by someone else... a "someone else" who has a more stable tripod.
... but to answer the question...
There is ALWAYS a sharper lens than the one in use. Often that sharper lens is owned by someone else... a "someone else" who has a more stable tripod.
"Someone else" also often has a properly placed GG, a real lens shade, consistent filmholders, a pneumatic shutter release, and some Rodinal.Originally Posted by BrianShaw
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Yeah, sure. Have you ever read what EKCo's very bright people meant when they talked about, and even found ways to measure, subjective image quality? SQI turns out to be another way of saying MTF.
As for color rendition, it can be measured objectively. Some lens makers now publish transmission vs. wavelength curves. For lenses intended for general photographic use, they're usually pretty flat. This isn't always the case for lenses intended for aerial cameras, and is one of the reasons that they're often used with heavy filtration.
More seriously, opinions aren't easily compared. And we don't all have the same preferences.
Some of us don't even have the same preferences all the time. When I was working I rotated a set of prints through my office. Some of the images were quite fuzzy, but I liked 'em. Mr. Galli recently saw one such that I'd taken at Mono Lake. I think he agreed with my take on it. Sharpness in the final print isn't all that matters.
"The best I'm acquainted with" is pretty useless coming from most of us, because most of us aren't acquainted with that many lenses.
I see the OP as a person who posts provocations in the hope of getting strangers to quarrel. Such types often live under bridges and subsist on goat.
Hehe, perhaps this table is what the OP looks for: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
Best,
It is questions like this that kill my bank account.
My candidate: 135mm f3.5 Planar with T* coating. It was made for the Japanese government for an aerial survey project, and some released to the public.
I'm glad to see a nod for the 150mm f2.8 Xenotar.
How about the 150mm APO-Lanthar f4.5?
Vick
I'm not sure that is a fair statement, Dan. I see the OP as asking naive questions that are poorly stated. I think it is innocent.
Re: SQI = MTF... yes, that is often the case. I totally agree with you. I'm just saying that at some point the "physical measures" may be angels-on-a-pinhead but the change in perception is nil. And, yes, I am quite aware of the literature and practices for measurement of subjective image (and audio) quality... I have an advanced degree and practical professional experience in that area. Also, as a statistician I well know (and, perhaps, exemplify) the oft-quoted statement about numbers, lies, and statisticians. One you are in the realm of "pyscho-anything" and statistics there is always variability and differing opinions!
f:3.5/135mm Xenotar or Planar.
In the "real world" of Large Format, lenses are used at small apertures, and once you get to f:22 there's little to choose between any post-WW2 lens by a reputable maker.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Brian, you may be right about the OP. With n = 2 (this thread and the one he started on problems with a 135 Optar), we can't make any objective decisions. Subjective, yes.
I wish posters would stop asking "what's best?" when their real question is "what will perform well enough and fit my budget?" The two questions are very different.
Have never tried Red Dot Artars or Planars, but CZ Biogon 4,5/75 and CZ S-Planar 5,6/120 are not bad. I like Topogon 11/60 too. Have heard, that they reach up to 150 lp/mm and more. Normally the film is the limit, not the lens.
This question arises on a regular basis, and the regular answer is that among the "big four" Large Format lens makers (Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji, Schneider), equivalent lenses in popular focal lengths make images that are indistinguishable except under extreme conditions, laboratory-like conditions.
When purchasing lenses, other factors come into consideration: coverage, max aperture, weight, size, filter size, availability, and of course... price.
People have their favorites: and given enough responses to this thread, the list will grow without end.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks