Lens Testing - or why
the worst photographers have the best lenses...
Lens Testing Myths
Optical Myths
Photo Myths (e.g., photographers as photo editors..)
Photography - Ten Tips
Ten Tips to Improve Your Photography
Twenty Things You Shouldn't Do...(humor)
Zoom vs. Fixed Lenses
Zoom vs. Prime Lenses (Chris Bitmead)
I believe that you can get a pretty decent mechanical nikon (f2) with matching WA/normal/Tele lenses, tripod/flash and some accessories for about $1000 on the used market. For the same $1000, you could get a 6x6 all mechanical bronica S2A with 2 or 3 nikkor lenses and tripod/flash of the same vintage. For about $1000, you could get a used all mechanical 4x5 studio calumet view camera with 2 or 3 lenses and tripod/flash. Same mid-70s vintage. In the bronica vs nikon 35mm, the lenses are by the same nikon mfger. As another poster noted, I have compared all mechanical cameras of the same vintage and minimal similar 3 lens systems here. Surprise! The costs for similar systems are remarkably similar 35mm vs 6x6 vs 4x5...
A Popular Photography article (by Keppler) several years ago priced out system costs for various then current 6x6 and 6x7 cameras - hassy, rollei, bronica, and pentax 6x7. The system costs were compared vs. nikon 35mm. Surprise! The pentax 6x7 was the cheapest system (around $7k US) while Rollei was more than hassy (surprise again). Nikon 35mm F5 was more than the 6x7 pentax system (10K vs 7k$) but less than the rollei ($14k) 6x6 etc. Surprise!
If you compare OEM 35mm systems between nikon, canon, pentax, minolta for their top of the line professional cameras and similar lenses, you will find a similar distribution for overall system costs in a range around +/- 30 percent of the cost of the average professional system.
My point here is that when you focus on total system costs, the costs for a professional system are about the same, not only within a format (35mm, 6x6) but even between formats. The system costs for a professional 35mm current nikon F5 system was in the midrange for 6x6/6x4.5/6x7 systems. I remember being surprised that the largest format (6x7 pentax) was so reasonable vs. Nikon since I *assumed* it must be the most - but it was the least when you actually added it all up.
I propose that this phenomenon is due mostly to pricing photo gear for what the market will bear and leaving out costly features that would substantially raise prices above this level and/or reduce profitability.
Equally obvious is that each format has its strengths and weaknesses, and each has its place in a photographer's capabilities. I have grown a lot and learned a lot since buying my 4x5 this semester, perhaps more than I have in the last 12 years of shooting 35mm and 6x6 and then some. You cannot be "all the photographer you can be" unless you have the ability to exploit each format's unique strengths in your photography and have that knowledge and experience under your belt.
I have to check my notes to see if a given 6x6 slide was taken with the hasselblad 500c, the kowa 6, the bronica S2 or S2a, or the rolleiflex 3.5f. The sharpest lens is on the rolleiflex 3.5f, by my test shots, if you care. But without a loupe, I can't tell on the slides, or even when projected.
As for the 35mm crowd, all of my prime lenses beat all of my zoom lenses all of the time, including the nikon zooms against the pentax screw mount lenses. But I can't tell the 135mm screw mount prime from the topcon prime (surprisingly good) from the nikon prime when used at a midrange F-stop on slides of my test target (brick wall). My newest 28-200mm zoom is the worst optically, but still adequate for up to 8x10.
Sorry, but I can't tell the nikon F or nikon F2 vs. nikkormats (3), either on film or for reliability. Same for my nikonos I vs. II vs. III. The most delicate camera I have is the hasselblad 500c, it has had more crashes and repairs than my two bronicas, kowa 6, and rolleiflex TLR combined. The supposedly less reliable bronicas are sherman tanks...
Brands don't matter much. With prime manufacturer's lenses, you can rarely tell differences between brands in the same format with any consistency on the film. So much cross-labeling and rebranding of lenses and outsourcing goes on that Japanese competitors rarely attack third party makers who may also be the sources for some of their present or future lens runs.
A lens may be marketed under a dozen different names internationally, or the same name (Vivitar) and basic lens design may be made by three or more manufacturers over time, and in multiple countries (Japan, China). Most recent lens designs are very good, and large differences in price may not be reflected in either performance or longevity as you might hope.
See related Posting below on how Canon, Nikon, and
Minolta have essentially similar overall averages on lens tests (photodo).
Again, a Popular Photography article by Keppler in the last year or so dissected a current Canon Rebel vs. Canon EOS to compare construction of amateur entry vs. professional camera. The differences seemed pretty minor, with the nod going to more reliable and rugged construction of the professional camera. But the minor differences didn't seem to explain the large seven-fold higher cost differentials to me. The features were very similar, leading you to conclude the professionals paid a lot more for just a little bit more reliability.
Many professionals opted to buy a nikkormat as a second camera body, rather than buy a second F2 photomic. Why? Not because of the lower cost of the nikkormat, but because it offered a single feature (faster 1/125th flash synch than F or F2) that *might* have value to them in rare cases.
Similarly, professionals buy much much more expensive faster lenses simply because they can't afford to miss out on particular photos and push the limits of their film speed and lighting more often. But most amateurs, even serious ones, will be hard pressed to justify such needs by the number of photos they take under such wide open conditions. I can't. Surprise again, as the slower, least expensive prime lenses often are rated sharper or equally good at typical shooting apertures as their much more costly faster cousins. It is just easier to design a slower lens.
This is obviously true only for individual slides or prints. The problem is costs are the result of per photo cost times number of photos taken. I might shoot ten rolls of 36 exp. film on 35mm and be happy to get ten or 12 really good photos. If I shoot ten rolls on 120 (12 exposures), I might also hope to get ten or 12 good photos, possibly by cropping more. And if I shoot ten or 15 sheets of color transparency 4x5 film, I might also hope to get 10 or 12 good photos with cropping out of it. The final cost in each case is going to be remarkably similar (circa $75 for prof. lab processing and similar film costs too). But the good pictures will differ markedly, with the 35mm being more spontaneous and candid, the 4x5 for architecture and sculptures that don't move much perhaps, and the 6x6 in-between and in the studio/lab.
Price is usually proof of marketing, advertising, overhead, and profitability perhaps, but performance is rather less direct. This is a hopeful note, because it means you may be able to take as good a photo with a $100 pentax screw mount camera and $25 normal lens as with a 10x more costly F3 or 50x more costly F5. Similarly, a decent Yashicamat 124G may take as good a photo as a rollei TLR, a bronica S2a as good as a rollei or hassy SLR. The professional price tag may relate more to convenience nuances and ruggedness or reliability than to performance. These characteristics are important to professional photographers, but even serious amateurs may be hard pressed to justify the dollar cost differences versus the imperceptable differences on film...
Eventually, you will need to master not just 35mm but also Medium Format and also Large Format to fully develop as a photographer. So those who ask about switching from one to the other have it wrong. You don't switch, rather, you add medium format and you add 4x5 to what you can do now with 35mm, expanding your range as a photographer with MF and LF...
Price differences for professional photography equipment are probably less than you think. As the Popular Photography article concluded, the 6x7 pentax was cheaper than the nikon 35mm system, which was right up there with the other medium format systems. Surprise!
Format matters a lot. You can often tell 35mm from 6x6 from 4x5 when projecting transparencies or on very large prints. The bigger the negative, the better - it is a law of nature.
Format matters because 35mm really is different from 6x6 which differs from 4x5. Candids are easier with 35mm and 6x6; camera movements are easier on 4x5 than on bellows setup 6x6 or 35mm pc lenses. Doing studio work with 6x6 and a polaroid back is easier than on 35. The formats really are different, and they have different feels and strengths to exploit.
Finally, don't get "married" to any format, especially 35mm, with what we've shown is a false sense of either economy or limiting your horizons to either 35mm or 6x6 or 4x5 rather than eventually doing all three.
Fortunately, this advice is relatively low cost. For example, by the time you flesh out your 35mm prime lens lineup by a few lenses, it may be cheaper to change format than to add an extremely wide angle or telephoto lens. You can buy a view camera 4x5 (e.g., calumet) for $250-350, and a 6x6 Bronica S2 or S2A SLR for about the same price. I would argue that you will get more out of that investment as a photographer than you will out of a less frequently used lens like a fisheye** or super-tele.
Don't limit yourself to one format, expand into new areas,
and
[**n.b. In my case, I have opted for a fisheye adapter I can use on both my 35mm cameras and 6x6 cameras (maybe even my 4x5 with a custom filter adapter ring?). This more flexible approach reduced my 35mm system costs so much that I could float a 4x5 camera or bronica 6x6 or decent TLR. ]
Source:
From [email protected] Sat Nov 29 19:28:33 1997
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: MF greater $$ than 35mm - total system costs, MF can be
cheaper than 35mm
Summary: used medium format cameras rival used professional 35mm costs
Background:
I am into 35mm (nikon, minolta, pentax, topcon), 6x6 (bronica, hassy,
kowa, rollei) and most recently 4x5 (Calumet). If you compare all
mechanical serious amateur/semi-professional equipment of similar
vintage, you may be shocked at how little difference there is between
different system costs even across such diverse formats as 35mm 6x6 4x5...
I am posting this in part as a response to a number of positive responses...
Whenever people ask about taking macrophotography pictures, well meaning
replies try to steer them away from those awful diopter or closeup lenses
(e.g., +1 diopter lenses). Unfortunately, those posters are just
repeating yet another myth of photography!
My first suspicion that this common belief is a photographic myth came
from reading a HP published book on taking closeups of flowers. The
author stated he preferred using a diopter or closeup lens for such
photos - and had sold many thousands of such flower closeups using
one! In his tests, the use of a normal lens and closeup lens provided
the best results for flower photography.
What makes this approach so attractive is that closeup lenses do
not "cost" you any stops of light, unlike bellows or extension tubes. But
many folks use the slower and harder to use extension tubes rather than
closeup lenses because they have heard this myth of photography.
I finally found some supporting data and comparisons of the same lens
with closeup diopter lenses and extension tubes (See Diopter Lenses
Page). In fact, the closeup lenses had less distortion (1.5% vs.
2.7%) than extension tubes. The closeup lenses also had higher sharpness
than not just the extension tubes, but also zoom lens macro settings and
even high cost macro-lenses!
How can this be? Extension tubes and bellows are basically projecting not
only the size of the image, but also any defects in that image from
faults in the lens itself. So you get more distortion and less
sharpness.
Macrolenses are optimized for flat-field work, where the edge has to be
just as sharp as the center. In our test table, the 100mm f/4
macro-Takumar lens had the least distortion (0.7%) and the only example
where edge sharpness equaled center sharpness (56 lpmm each). But the
closeup lens on a 50mm f/1.4 nikkor reached an astonishing 88 lpmm (but
only 50 lpmm in the edges).
So use a macro-lens if you need minimal linear distortion or even
sharpness from center to edges (e.g., copying flat documents, stamps,
artwork). But a good quality (two element achromatic) closeup lens may
actually outperform both extension tubes and macro-lenses for natural
objects such as flowers and rocks (e.g., three dimensions).
When you read replies to a request for user comments on a given lens,
don't you wonder how one user can say what a great lens XYZ model is,
while another says it was the worst piece of trash s/he ever used?
Or how about the endless debates about which manufacturer's brand or model
of a given lens type is the best? Posters argue passionately for Nikon,
Canon, Hasselblad, Rollei, and so on as being the best. Others swear by
(and at) lens tested reported in different magazines such as Popular
Photography. Many folks dismiss Third Party
Lenses out of hand.
I finally have a partial explanation for what's going on here. The answer
is lenses vary, not only between different manufacturer's brands and
models of similar lenses, but even within the same batch of
lenses!
In fact, the variations within a batch can be much larger than the
smaller variations between some manufacturers lenses!
A number of Kowa normal lenses from the same batch or series were
compared by Modern Photography. In our table of results, you can see that
there were some terrific ranges of variation in performance of these
supposedly identical lenses!
Many people accept a single lens test published in a magazine as a basis
for comparing different manufacturer's brands of specific lenses for
purchase. Such folks will not be happy
when they see the large range of variation shown in our table of lenses!
What I am saying is simply that the variation within a batch of lenses
may be very large - perhaps even larger than the variation between
different brands of lenses.
What this means in practice is that you could get a lens in which all
elements worked together, with variations and tolerances cancelling out.
Such a lens could perform very well compared to a lens from the same
batch in which the elements had tolerance variations that added up
against you. In most optics, a few thousandths of an inch can cause major
changes in centration, sharpness, and optical aberrations.
When you are dealing with a used lens, or even a new lens which may have
been dropped during shipping, you have even more chance for variation from
the ideal settings. How can you tell it isn't a lemon?
The answer is you have to cherry pick your lenses, or at least test them
carefully with a return guarantee. Cherry-picking refers to
testing a number of the same model and brand of lens to find the best
performer in the bunch. A number of professionals like to cherry-pick
their pricey optics to ensure getting the "best of the bunch". If you
don't test your lens, how can you be sure you aren't getting the "worst
of the bunch"?
In short, knowing about the potentially large variation in lenses helps
explain why different magazines may get different sets of test results
(from testing different serial numbers of the same lens design). You can
also see why some folks hate a particular lens, and others love their own
specific lens of that design.
You are probably the first person to
actually test, on film, the performance of that new lens. As you know
see, you can't just assume or expect your purchased lens will equal the
performance of the magazine tested lens, right?
It is surprisingly hard to find comparisons of the internal construction
or mechanics of lenses. It is costly to compare different lenses of the
same focal length or type to perform such a test. In fact, I have only
seen one article in Modern Photography in which such a test was done.
The results were fairly shocking even to the authors and magazine editors,
who had accepted the common photography myth that higher cost lenses were
built better mechanically. Except for Leica lenses, there was no
direct correlation between build-quality and cost of the lens.
| What's Inside Counts by Bennet Bodenstein |
|---|
| The Prinz fooled us by being far better than its price indicated... (n.b. Prinz was $60 vs. up to $321 for Leitz)... However, to our consternation we also learned from disassembly and examination under low-power magnification that price often had no bearing on quality at all. Indeed, many assemblies of the lowest priced lenses were far superior in design, construction and finish to their high priced brethren... [Emphasis added] |
see related notes at How Much Quality Do You
Need? pages...
The pro repair facility found that some low cost
third party lenses
actually had relatively expensive mechanical designs and high quality of
construction and finish. Conversely (and perversely), some of the more
costly optics of similar focal length had much poorer internal designs
and lower quality of construction. Quality of threads, coarseness of
materials, solidity of design, use of exposed versus counter-sunk screws,
and other quality indicators varied without clear relationship to lens
cost.
In short, they had to report that there were a number of lower cost,
third party lenses under various importer labels, that had quality of
construction features that rivaled the best and much more expensive OEM
models. Conversely, some of the more expensive lenses had various
short-cuts (poorer quality, use of greases) that one would expect in the
lowest cost lenses only.
What makes this photographic myth particularly important is that many
users realize that their very costly OEM brand-name lenses don't always
perform significantly better than the lower cost third party optics. But
they took solace in the myth that their lenses were more rugged and
better constructed mechanically.
I think the recent evolution of auto-focus
lenses may well over-turn this photographic myth too. By design,
auto-focus lenses need to be lower mass in order to be faster to focus.
While polycarbonate plastics rather than metal may reduce both costs and
weight, I am not convinced that the ruggedness and durability will equal
that of the older all-metal mechanical lenses.
The rapid obsolescence of camera
lens mounts with new AF camera models and especially new AF lens
mount designs may render the issue of durability of camera bodies and
lenses a minor point (similar to the issue of durability of obsolete PCs!).
Most of us believe that a 105mm f/2.5 prime nikkor lens or a pricey prime
105mm f/2.8 macro-lens (micronikkor) can handily beat a cheapy
75-150mm f3.5 Series E nikkor consumer zoom lens across the board.
Surprise! An actual table comparing these 3
lenses at a 1:50 image ratio shows otherwise!
What's going on here? The macro-lens is optimized for macrophotography,
not distant objects. It is often the case that macrolens designs requires
tradeoffs that make the macrolens a less capable performer for distant
landscape work. Similarly, the 105mm f/2.5 nikkor portrait lens is
optimized for taking portraits, rather than larger scale objects.
It is also a less well known fact that normal
lenses are among the sharpest, fastest, and least costly lenses.
Similarly, a short-range (2:1) short-tele zoom can be optimized to provide
surprisingly sharp results, as the table shows.
Most people understandably believe that if they pay a lot more for a faster
lens, it should be a better lens than a cheaper, slower (smaller
aperture) lens.
That's true - but only at the fastest apertures where the slower lens
can't compete. In other words, a 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens is always
better than a 50mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 lens when used at f/1.2 or f/1.4.
After all, you can't use the slower aperture lenses at f/1.2 or
f/1.4, right? ;-)
But these fast lenses are much larger, physically bulkier, and necessarily
heavier in weight. They may require larger filters too. And you may have
to pay several times the price of a less than one f/stop slower lens to
buy one. Ouch!
Many photographers are surprised to discover that these faster lenses are
often more poorly corrected for aberrations at the slower apertures than
the less costly slower lenses. In other words, the slower, less costly
lens may outperform the faster, much more expensive lens at some apertures.
What makes this worse is that you may actually rarely use that ultra-fast
lens at its wide open aperture. If you are one of those who bought the
fastest lens for its higher price and presumed higher performance, you
may be surprised to find that your pictures could have been the same or
perhaps even better with the lower priced slower but better corrected
lenses.
Are expensive filters really worth the sometimes high prices asked? You
can spend $50, $75, even $200 and $300 US for a single filter. Are these
filters that much better than the other brands? Lots of posters will
warn you away from non-OEM brands (such as Tiffen and Hoya).
The obvious solution to the question of whether or not non-OEM filters
are significantly worse than the higher priced filters is to shoot some
comparison shots and test them out. Roger Hicks has done so (for BJP), among
other
photographers. The consistent results of such testing is that it is
either impossible or very hard to tell the results of using different
priced filters in real-world photography tests.
There are some notable exceptions. Some brands of polarizing filters have
a color cast that isn't neutral enough for many users. Very low cost
filters may not be truly optically flat. Filters may vary slightly in
actual color and filtering effects, even if they are labeled the same
generic type. Some wide angle lenses require special over-sized or
thin design polarizers and other filters to prevent vignetting too.
But the vast majority of third party photography filters such as Hoya and
Tiffen will have effects hard or impossible to distinguish from the much
more expensive Nikon, Canon and other OEM brands, as well as the highest
priced filters available.
Filter ads make a lot out of being multi-coated or even super-multicoated
rather than singly coated or uncoated. The difference between a singly
coated and multi-coated filter will probably not be noticed by most
photographers in real-world photographs. An uncoated filter may introduce
marginally more flare in some back-lit situations, but otherwise be very
hard to distinguish consistently in most photographs.
The real often unsung benefit of higher priced filters may be in their
mounts, which are often made of brass. Cheaper filters tend to seize up
more on lenses and each other due to the use of lower cost metals (e.g.,
aluminum) in their filter rims.
See filters page for more resources and
links.
Lots of people are buying pro-quality fast zooms, typically f/2.8 aperture
(e.g., 20-35mm f/2.8 and 70-210mm f/2.8), secure in the claims that these
new lenses will outperform their old prime lenses.
Let's hope they don't read this section! Zooms necessarily have more
elements than most single focal length prime lenses in order to do their
zooming magic. They also have to have more correction for aberrations and
other problems that crop up in going from one end of their range to another.
In general, the extra elements in a zoom lens means that a single focal
length, prime lens of similar design will necessarily have less flare than the zoom lens. The less the flare in
the lens, the higher the contrast in the slide or negative.
To make matters worse, how many folks do you see using lens hoods on zoom
lenses? Not many, since it is so hard to use the required compendium lens
hoods. Regular lens hoods either vignette at one end of the zoom range,
or are less than optimal at the telephoto settings if they are wide
enough for the widest settings.
Yet we all say how important a lens hood is to reduce flare, right? Yet
most of us use zoom lens without any lens hood at all. As noted above,
zooms have more inherent flare than primes, and that defect is magnified
by our failure to use lens hoods on zooms.
In short, I suspect that a prime lens with a lens hood will beat a
similar quality of design and construction zoom lens with more elements
(and flare) where a lens hood isn't used.
Once you accept this observation, it becomes easier to accept that the
convenience of using zoom lenses is bought at a sometimes high price -
both economically and artistically. Some users report becoming lazy when
using a zoom to crop without taking the opportunity to move around and
find the best shot.
We also list a number of other ways prime
lenses may beat zooms, ranging from close-focusing abilities to
lighter weight around your neck-strap.
The most expensive pro quality zoom lenses have finally gotten good enough
to displace prime lenses for many 35mm users requirements. But zooms have
made minimal inroads into medium format and large format photography where
image quality is such an important factor. Many optical and artistic
factors favor prime lenses over zooms for these and other users.
Only a few 35mm lenses can achieve sharpness ratings over 80 lpmm
delivered on a 24x36mm (or 1" x 1 1/2") piece of film. To make a 20" x
30" print, you need a twenty-fold enlargement. Ignoring losses in the
enlarger lens, your 80 lpmm on the film will only be 4 lpmm on the final
print (as 80 lpmm = 4 lpmm x 20X magnification).
While opinions vary, a critically sharp print is often figured as one
achieving at least 8 lpmm. So our 20" x 30" print is well under this
critical sharpness value.
Given our outstanding 80 lpmm performing 35mm lens, we could only
enlarge our 35mm film image by ten-fold (10X) enlargement. A 10X
enlargement would be 10" x 15" or so in size. Such a 10X print would be
critically sharp (e.g., 80mm lpmm = 8 lpmm x 10X magnification).
When people tell us they get great prints from their 35mm cameras in 16"
x 20" or 20" x 30" sizes, they are expressing an opinion about acceptable
sharpness. Moreoften, such users view their prints at distances that make
these sharpness losses less obvious as they are viewed farther away.
Others are happy with prints that are much less than 8 lpmm as a standard
of critical sharpness. Most of these people can readily identify the
higher standard 8 lpmm prints in side by side comparisons, however. So it
isn't that these quality differences aren't visible. They are.
In short, the physics of photography and the limits of lenses are such
that there is a limit to how much you can enlarge a 35mm negative and
still get a critically sharp image. Even with expensive lenses,
that limit is currently around 10X to 12X. Beyond this enlargement ratio,
and the 35mm shot will appear less sharp than a similarly sized
enlargement from a larger format negative.
Some direct scanning and laser scanning processes may avoid some of these
physics limitations. But in general, I restrict large enlargements of 16"
x 20" and beyond to my medium format or 4x5 cameras when I want maximum
sharpness and the best range of tonality.
See Quality Factors Page and Is Medium Format the Best Compromise? for
more information.
Many photographers believe that using anything but the very best OEM lens
by their camera maker will "insult" their fine camera bodies. Only Nikon
can build lenses that take full advantage of Nikon camera bodies. Will
you really "insult" your camera if you use anything but an OEM lens?
For mechanical (non-AF) lens mounts, you can rest assured that your
camera won't be "insulted" if you use another brand of lens. So long as
the lens fits the mount, stops down and otherwise works properly
mechanically, you can use it on your non-AF camera. After all, this is
the basis of the large third party lens
aftermarket.
This myth may have somewhat more truth now, thanks to autofocus lenses. Many AF lenses have software
coded features which are embedded in chips in these lenses. Third party
lenses may not precisely match the software or design of these lenses,
and so may fail to perform similarly under all conditions.
Some subtle differences between third party lenses and OEM lenses may
also provide some problems to a small number of users. For example, Nikon
lenses are spec'd to shut-down their aperture blades rapidly (e.g., 20
msec) in order to work with Nikon's fastest motor drives on pro camera
models. Not all third party lenses may have such fast, ball-bearing
aperture mechanisms. So motor drive users on pro cameras may have some
problems with these slower closing third party lenses in some light
conditions. But I have never encountered these problems with lots of
third party lenses on my pro motor-drive mount Nikon cameras (F, F2..).
But in general, lots of us don't need the very best lenses available.
This fact is responsible for the huge growth in zoom lenses,
particularly for the mass acceptance of the convenient but so-so quality
consumer grade zoom lenses of the past.
So instead of your camera being insulted by your using a third party or
non-OEM lens, it may be your wallet that gets insulted. Many OEM lens
buying photographers are buying quality and durability that they may not
be using in their amateur photography hobby. Many more amateur photographers
are unhappy because they can't afford the very best lenses, when the
truth may be that they couldn't tell the difference in their style of
photography if they had OEM lenses or not.
The flip side of myth #18 for large (20" x 30") prints is that if you only
make smaller prints, you aren't likely to take advantage of the very best
lenses. Less than 1% of all enlargements are 8" x 10" prints or larger!
So for 99% of all prints, and especially in the most popular 4" x 6"
print sizes, the quality of the lens is much less important than when
making larger prints.
Lots of photographers sneer at the new APS format, and many of us carry
heavy and expensive medium format systems to overcome limitations of 35mm
use. But for the majority of amateur photographers, the need for high
quality lenses isn't there. Virtually any cheapy third party lens can
exceed the resolution requirements for making a 4" x 6" print!
Similarly, digital camera photography involves a much smaller image
surface (on the chip itself, often 3/8ths of an inch). This smaller size
explains why such light and small lenses do so well. It is much easier to
make a very small coverage and sized lens to be very sharp. Indeed, many
microfilm lenses are two or even three times sharper (in lpmm terms) than
their 35mm brethren that cost much more to make. But the smaller format
means that these lower cost, smaller lenses can potentially outperform
their larger 35mm and even medium format brethren.
In the past, slide film was generally sharper than print film. A corollary
was that slides had wider dynamic range than most prints. Slides were
also much cheaper to process than making prints, and easier to display and
store. So slide film became the medium of choice for magazine and
professional photographers.
Recent innovations in films have produced print films that are slightly
sharper than the best slide films. Moreover, print films have much more
latitude in exposure than slide films. Some newer print films have 5
stops or more over which an acceptable print can be made, compared to
only one or two for many slide films.
One reason that slide films have seemed sharper is the tendency to blow
them up to gloriously large sizes on bright screens in dark rooms for
viewing. Alternatively, slides are viewed through loupes which can provide much larger apparent
enlargement factors (e.g., 8X, 10X, 12X) than typically seen in test
prints.
The apparent sharpness of projected slides is illusory when viewed at normal
viewing distances. Try this experiment, the next time you are in a movie
theatre. Hold up an 8 1/2" x 11" piece of paper at normal viewing
distances for a similar sized 8" x 10" or so print. You will immediately
notice that the sheet of paper handily covers the viewing screen. In
fact, most slide shows and movie theatres project slides so these images
subtend angles at the eye little more than for 4" x 6" prints (if that).
In other words, we are fooled by the large size of the slide on the screen
into thinking there is much greater sharpness and image information in the
slide than is really being seen. Despite the apparent large size, the
viewing angle of the slide as seen at our eyes corresponds to a
relatively modest sized print enlargement at normal viewing distance.
In summary, if you want the sharpest images possible, you may want to
look at print film. Black and white films typically have a thinner
emulsion than the multi-emulsion color print film, and are the sharpest
film media generally available today (ignoring holographic and specialty
films). Today's color print films may be sharper than your old favorite
slide films. Besides being sharper, print film is more forgiving of
exposure errors than slide films.
[added 2/6/99 #11-20 in response to posting (below) of same date...]
Do you need a lens hood when the sun isn't shining, e.g., at night? By
now, you have probably guessed that this is another photography myth.
The reason you need a lens hood at night is that there are many very
bright lights in night-time scenes (in cities, towns, near highways..).
These bright lights can produce a lot of flare and glare reflecting onto
your night time image. The longer night-time dark exposure times makes
night time flare much worse than daytime flare (ratios can be
10,000:1).
For more information, see flare pages.
Test charts have super-high contrast (being black or white, after all).
At a contrast ratio of 1:1000, many films can record 100 lpmm or more.
But at an average contrast value of 1:6, as you might find in the
real-world, your color film is probably capable of recording only 50
lpmm!
Since most lenses deliver well above 50 lpmm, this observation suggests
that your color film may be much more limiting than any inherent
sharpness differences in your lenses - at least with average
contrast (1:6) subjects!
This table helps explain why so many lenses that do poorly on high
contrast test charts perform surprisingly well in real-world shooting on
color film. You can also see one reason so many professionals shoot with
slower speed films (such as Ektar 25), and why Fuji Velvia is so popular
too!
Thanks to Patrick Bartek, here is a table of films and lpmm values...
| Film | 1.6:1 Average | 1000:1 Very High |
|---|---|---|
| Ektar 25 | 80 l/mm | 200 l/mm |
| Vericolor 400 Pro | 40 l/mm | 100 l/mm |
| Ektachrome 100 | 50 l/mm | 100 l/mm |
| Ektachrome 64T | 50 l/mm | 125 l/mm |
| Fujichrome 100 Pro (RDP) | 50 l/mm | 125 l/mm |
| Fujichrome Provia 100 Pro (RDP II) | 60 l/mm | 140 l/mm |
| Fujichrome Astia 100 Pro (RAP) | 55 l/mm | 135 l/mm |
| Fujichrome Velvia Pro (RVP) | 80 l/mm | 160 l/mm |
| Fujicolor NPS 160 Pro | 63 l/mm | 125 l/mm |
| Fujiolor NPL 160 Pro | 63 l/mm | 125 l/mm |
| Kodak T-Max 100 | 63 l/mm | 200 l/mm |
| Kodak T-Max 400 | 50 l/mm | 125 l/mm |
| Kodak Technical Pan 2415/6415 in HC-110 D | 125 l/mm | 320 l/mm |
| Kodak Technical Pan 2415/6415 in Technidol (liquid) | 100 l/mm | 320 l/mm |
| Kodak Technical Pan 2415/6415 in Technidol LC | 100 l/mm | 320 l/mm |
See Film LPMM
for related posts.
Before I get accused of being anti-Nikon, I have 9 bodies (F onwards) and
not only lots of 35mm nikkors, but also medium format nikkors and even LF.
Most of the major 35mm brands have "orphaned" their older manual focus
cameras and lenses in changing mounts - often several times - over the
last decade or two. The switch to autofocus has been used to justify the
need to again "orphan" the current generation of lenses - sometimes
including the first generation of autofocus lenses succeeded by a second!
All of these changes have left many unhappy owners with obsolete lenses
that won't mount on the latest cameras (at least not without feature
losing mechanical adapters).
The major exceptions are Nikon and Pentax. In fact, with Nikon you can take
any of the
latest lenses and still mount them on the earliest F-mount bodies. I like
to use my 35mm f/2.0 AF-D autofocus nikkor on my Nikon F body with the
sportfinder prism. However, the latest autofocus nikkors lack the meter
coupling "prong" needed to couple with the older camera metering systems
(Nikon Ftn, nikkormat FT/Ftn, F2..). Without this minor retro-addition,
you have to use stop down metering with the newer lenses on most of these
older cameras.
But what you would want is to use your investment in old lenses on the
newest bodies. For the oldest nikkors, called pre-AI, attempts to mount
them on most later model Nikon bodies will result in D A M A G E!!
On a Nikon EM, for example, the lack of the AI/AIS tab on these older
pre-AI lenses can cause damage to the mount of the Nikon EM and similar
cameras.
A few transitional cameras (Nikon FE, FM, F3..) had a button you could
press to push up the AI indexing tab mechanism out of the way so you could
mount the older pre-AI lenses without damaging the camera mount. Even so,
you generally have to use stop-down metering with these pre-AI lenses. Now
you know a major reason why these 20 year old Nikons still sell used for
more dollars than they may have cost when new!
Before you buy a nikon body, check out any lens limitations in John
White's
Compatibility Table. This table will help you spot any potential issues.
You can have the metering "prong" for older cameras retro'd onto newer
lenses that lack them at services such as John White's shop. John also
does conversion of pre-AI lenses to AI style inexpensively (circa $25).
However, look and price carefully. Many of the older nikkors have been
superseded by better designs, especially in AI mounts. Today, even these
AI mount models can often be had for little more than the cost of the
older pre-AI lenses plus the needed $25-30 conversion costs!
On the other
hand, some of the nikkor lens designs haven't changed in decades (105mm
f/2.5..), so an older model lens may deliver identical results to the
latest models for a small fraction of the cost. So if you have the right
camera body, you can save major dollars using the old lenses.
But it is a
myth that you can just take any old Nikon lens and use it on any nikon
body. In some cases, you will damage the camera if you try. But if you
learn the ins and outs of the Nikon bodies, you can keep on using a
remarkable fraction of the older lenses within their limits on your old
and new Nikon bodies.
Brian Reynolds adds these comments on the Pentax mounts:
All K mount lenses work on all K mount bodies. The only exception I'm
aware of is the auto focus version of the ME Super which used a
dedicated lens. The K manual focus lenses have to use aperture
priority or manual exposure setting, and of course you can only use
manual focus when you mix auto focus and manual focus body and lens
types (K and KA are manual focus; KAF and KAF2 are auto focus). I
think some of the some of the auto focus bodies have focus
confirmation indicators when used with manual focus. I'm also not
sure if the screw mount adapter works with the latest K mount auto
focus cameras.
See John Glover's
posting regarding new Pentax ZX-50 and ZX-30 autofocus
incompatibilities with many older lenses (drat!).
Oh yeah? Then try to get some of those Leicaphiles to give up their silky smooth mechanics and high priced Leica bodies for one of those Russian copies. Good luck. But if the lens is really critical (as most Leica-philes maintain), and the camera body is just a box, then it shouldn't make any difference, right?
Similarly, few Nikon users want the serviceable Nikon mount cameras made by non-Nikon formerly Soviet camera factories - even the locals. In fact, there is a pretty large group of Nikon users who don't want to buy Nikon cameras which weren't made in Japan (e.g., Malaysia or Chinese made Nikons). You can find similar Leica-philes who turn their noses up at Canadian made Leicas. Many Rollei-philes are upset about the Korean "Rolleis". Others are upset at Minolta made cameras under German nameplates. And how many folks have Contax cameras when they could use much cheaper Yashica bodies with the same lenses?
In other words, the camera body is a major element in your photography efforts and your success therein. If a camera lacks mirror lockup, as many do, you may be at a disadvantage trying to do some macro work. Another camera may have a double exposure lock that is needed by some photographers, but not at all by others. But camera features are often a compromise, with marketing added in. In other words, some of the most useful and needed features may only be available in the higher priced mid and upper range models (e.g., depth of field control, mirror lockup) as an incentive to get you to pay more for these high-priced camera "boxes".
Should you "balance" your lens and camera? Is it fair to make fun of someone who has a kilobucks camera body (say, a Nikon F5) with a low cost 50mm f/1.8 lens? Is it ridiculous to use a $75 used nikkormat with a fisheye lens that cost ten times as much or more?
The guy with the F5 and 50mm lens may know that the 50mm lens is the sharpest as well as the cheapest lens in the Nikon lens lineup. Having the sharpest lens on your camera is a hard concept to argue against IMHO.
As noted above, the nikkormat may have features (mirror lockup) missing on more current AF cameras. You can't use some nikkor 8mm fisheyes without a mirror lockup body. In this case, features drive camera selection.
Generally, folks think someone with a pricey pro camera body (e.g., F5, EOS-3) are silly if they don't buy the most expensive pro lenses to match their "pro" bodies. Since the pro lenses are often heavier by far, due to faster aperture, this isn't always as logical as it might seem.
Conversely, many folks are bemused when they see my collection of very wide prime lenses. Why don't you replace your 20/24/28/35 set of primes with a single 20-35mm nikkor zoom? Well, the zoom costs twice as much as the primes, is not quite as good optically, and is slower at f/2.8 than my average prime lens. The zoom is also heavier on the camera and around my neck, and has marginally more flare. The four primes weigh slightly more than the zoom, but if one of them fails I'm not out of business. So the lack of a pricey high end zoom pro lens is not necessarily a mis-match to my camera/lens needs.
What about the guy with a $2,500 camera and a $130 third party lens? Or the guy with a low cost yashica body and a prime Zeiss contax lens that cost $2,500? Isn't that a mismatch. Personally, I can understand the second case more than the first. But I really haven't seen all that many cheapy third party lenses on the high priced pro models - have you? Most camera store clerks seem to do a great job of ensuring that doesn't happen! When it does, we can just chalk it up to the camera as jewelry crowd.
In short, cameras and lenses should be balanced to meet your needs, with features that make sense in your style of photography. I use some low cost nikkormat bodies with expensive lenses because they have the features I need. But I also will buy a new camera body simply because it has the TTL flash I need for some macro shots. So match the camera's features and the lens characteristics to your photography needs.
Many people recommend against using Lens Mount Adapters which contain optical elements. These optical elements are essentially a small teleconverter lens, typically equal to circa a 1.1x teleconverter (vs. standard 1.4x and 2x teleconverters). These elements have to be added to the mechanical mounting ring to enable the shared lenses to focus at infinity properly. Without the optical element, the lens would be too far from the film plane of the other camera model with the mechanical mounting ring in place. Just like a teleconverter (1.4X, 2X), the optical elements enable the lens to be mounted farther from the camera mount but still retain infinity focusing.
I suspect that the bad reputation of low cost 2X teleconverters has also been extended to damn these optical mount adapters - unfairly.
If you actually test optical mount converters, you find that the actual effects on sharpness are quite minimal. Similarly, effects on contrast are also very minimal. In these Popular Photography test results, the optical converters "cost" only a few lines of resolution over the lens without the adapter in place.
However, be aware that most such adapters sacrifice automatic diaphragm and other automatic operations (e.g., autofocus) and require stop-down metering.
A more serious loss for wide angle lens fanatics is the slight teleconverter effect of that 1.1X or 1.2X optical element. A 1.1X teleconverter element would convert a 17mm ultrawide angle lens into a 18.7mm or 19mm lens, while the 1.2X optical elements would yield more like a 21mm lens equivalent. That's a big jump at the wide end, where a 19 or 21mm lens might be half or a third the cost of a 17mm prime lens.
Conversely, a 1.1x element on a 200mm lens yields a 220mm effect, while the 1.2X yields a 240mm effect. Both are close enough to the 200mm in actual coverage angle so as to not have as major an impact as the shifts at the wide end.
Finally, the optical converter element mounts cost about double what a non-optical element mount costs (e.g., $60-75+ US vs. $30+ for a mechanical mount). However, one such adapter can be used with many lenses to share lenses between two seemingly incompatible cameras (albeit using stopped down metering on the recipient).
A related observation to the above Myth #26 regarding optical elements is that you usually can mount lenses from similar kinds of cameras such as different brands of 35mm SLRs onto each other.
In the ideal case, the XYZ lens will come from a camera with a longer lens registration distance than the brand ABC camera. In this case, all you need is a mechanical mounting ring to mechanically mount the lens rear to the camera's lens mount. Naturally, the thickness of the mechanical ring is chosen so it holds the lens at the right distance to focus at infinity. This distance is the same lens registration distance of the brand XYZ camera it is designed to mount on. See our lens mount adapter FAQ for more details as well as Myth #26 above.
Many people claim that you can't share lenses when the lenses are too close in lens registration distance. They reason you can't build a mechanical mounting ring thin enough to fit and mate the cameras and lenses together (e.g., only 1-2mm available).
Similarly, they will also claim that you can't mount a lens with a shorter lens registration distance (e.g., Canon FD 42mm) on a camera with a longer lens registration distance (e.g., Nikon AI 46.5mm). They reason that you would have to shave off some of the metal from the camera's mount to allow the lens to be at the needed point for infinity focusing (here, 46.5-42 or 4.5mm).
Fortunately, we can use negative diopter lenses in the form of a weak teleconverter to effectively match the "shorter" lens to the "longer" camera mount. These optical elements are typically 1.1x or 1.2x strength teleconverters. Unlike conventional teleconverters, these mount adapters have the ABC camera body mount at the bottom and the XYZ lens mount at the top, with an optical 1.1x or 1.2x teleconverter inbetween. So you can mount nearly any 35mm format lens on another 35mm camera, with the right teleconverter elements and mechanical mounting adapters. Unfortunately, only a few popular combinations are available commercially (e.g., Canon FD to Nikon).
Generally speaking, adapters are usually restricted to the same size format (e.g., 35mm film) lenses or smaller. So you can probably use your medium format lenses on your 35mm SLR, but you can't use your Konica 35mm SLR lenses on your Hasselblad 6x6 body (except at macro). There are a few exceptions, where the 35mm lens has more coverage (again, see the Lens Mount Adapter FAQ for details, also homebrew lenses pages).
Let us compare a typical Hasselblad 500cm camera, the workhorse of the pros, with a typical Nikon FE, the choice of many serious amateurs. The Hasselblad's leaf shutter MTBF is estimated at 30,000 shutter cycles, while the camera bodies have an MTBF (mean time before failure) of around 60,000 cycles (shots, not rolls). For comparison, the Nikon FE has a MTBF of around 75,000 cycles for its shutter, which is the major failure mode. In other words, the Nikon FE is considerably more reliable than the Hasselblad, even though the Hasselblad costs ten times more. But wait, it gets worse, as the Nikon EM (MTBF 50,000 cycles) at $129 is also more reliable than the Hasselblad (based on MTBF). Aargh!
Naturally, this comparison between formats isn't really fair. The mechanics and film sizes are totally different. Still, the same pro camera owners who talk about camera reliability on the one hand, usually also highly praise the professional repairs and support they get from their pro camera makers. They also recommend annual CLA (clean lube adjust) servicing or more frequently for their pro equipment. Granted, they shoot more film than most amateurs, but the above MTBF helps explain the reason for such maintenance precautions.
How much more reliable is a pro 35mm SLR than an amateur 35mm SLR? We have already seen that the consumer 35mm SLR (Nikon EM MTBF 50,000 cycles) and serious amateur 35mm SRL (Nikon FE MTBF 75,000 cycles) are surprisingly reliable compared to top reliability pro 6x6 cameras. How do they compare to the pro's Nikon F series? The Nikon F3 is the best contemporary pro non-AF 35mm SLR for comparison, and rated a MTBF of 150,000 cycles. So the F3 has twice the MTBF of the Nikon FE and three times that of the Nikon EM.
Assuming our pro Nikon F3 camera user shoots a dozen rolls of film a day, as many professionals do, what does that mean? It means they can reasonably expect to have to replace their F3 camera's shutters on an annual basis (i.e., 150,000 shots). The same pro user using a Nikon FE had better plan on semi-annual repair bills!
Is it worth paying up to 700% more for a more reliable pro camera such as the Canon EOS, rather than a similar featured Canon Rebel? Herbert Keppler of Popular Photography described a tear-down and comparison of these cameras. Most of the observed differences in build quality were rather modest, making it hard to justify the 700% cost difference IMHO. Hopefully it is obvious that if the EOS has twice as high a MTBF as the Canon Rebel, at seven (7) times the price, you are paying a major premium for that pro camera's extra reliability.
Are cameras as reliable as they could be? We have reports of pro Nikon F5 shutters hitting 250,000 shutter cycles and some Canon EOS shutters got past 420,000 shutter cycles. Wow! So while these examples may be atypical, it seems clear that shutters could be made more reliable than the current average of 150,000 cycles (on pro 35mm SLRs). I suggest that the reason cameras aren't made more reliable has more to do with the costs and lack of perceived benefits and market demand for such reliability.
My theory is that the pros accept the need for at least an annual CLA and repair maintenance cycle. They also invest in backup bodies, so that when their heavily used gear goes down, they have another camera to fall back on (or two or three..). Paying 700% more for pro gear to be made twice as reliable would be a bad tradeoff against having a spare camera, which has other uses. Most pros would do at least an annual CLA of their gear, even if the improved MTBFs suggested they could go longer. So long as the typical camera plus backup camera make an annual maintenance cycle, more reliability isn't worth the huge incremental costs.
Serious amateurs can expect about 5 years before a major failure, shooting a roll a day in their Nikon FE class cameras. Given the cost of such repairs, many choose to upgrade models rather than put $150 US or so into a repair on an older camera model. If the manufacturers improved the reliability of their serious amateur cameras to that of the pro camera levels (double MTBFs to 150,000 cycles), it would only result in halving of new camera sales to upgrading serious amateurs, right? And given many pros don't need all the pro features of the pro cameras, wouldn't they also pick the equally reliable and five to seven times cheaper amateur models with the same reliability and features they need?
Finally, for the cheapy consumer camera users, reliability doesn't matter very much. They don't shoot enough film to wear out even the low reliability shutters. Economy measures such as plastic camera and lens mounts don't matter much either, as few consumers change lenses often. Paradoxically, the least reliable cameras are the ones least likely to wear out. The pro cameras are the ones most likely to fail from high use, which partly explains the pros' fascination with camera reliability.
The camera makers know cameras have to be reliable enough, but most non-pro buyers won't pay a lot extra for more reliability. The pro camera users solution to camera reliability is to carry backup cameras. Given the cost differences, I suggest that approach is also a good one for serious amateurs who are contemplating a new pro camera model for its perceived reliability benefits. Instead, consider buying a second and newer serious amateur class camera. Oftentimes, these cameras will have "trickle down" features from the current pro camera model technology (or be ahead of it). The cost is much less, and you aren't paying a lot (700%) for a modest improvement in reliability in the pro models. Unless you shoot a lot of film, you probably wouldn't benefit from this direct investment in higher reliability.
You might expect that a plastic lens hood that costs $300 would be the
ultimate in flare control. Yet a poster
improved his $300 lens hood by putting in $1 worth of black felt to
reduce shiny reflections from the plastic.
How about length? To really reduce flare producing light, an optical rule
of thumb suggests the lens hood should be at least as long as the lens'
focal length. So your 200mm prime telephoto lens should have a 200mm or 8
inch long lens hood for optimal effect. None of the three 200mm lenses I
have with built-in lens hoods are longer than about 2 inches, extended to
the maximum, from the glass. If 8 inches is optimal, is 2 inches
really enough?
And how many of you have any lens hood at all for your zoom lens, where
the need for a lens hood is highest? It isn't because a variable lens
hood can't be designed - Sigma has one design that varys as you zoom the
lens from wide angle to deeper at the telephoto end on some of their zooms.
One of the pro secrets is that using a compendium (accordian-like) lens
hood on their lenses lets them get optimal flare busting action out of
their lens hood and lenses. These compendium hoods can be extended
like a bellows, as needed, to provide the degree of protection needed.
I suppose you realize that an optimal lens hood on 35mm, which is a 2 x 3
rectangular format, would have to be a matching 2 x 3 format lens hood,
right? In fact, many 6x6cm lenses have an outside bayonet mount for a
square shaped lens hood, will retaining an inner filter mount for filter
use without disturbing the lens hood arrangement(s). By comparison,
my 35mm round lens hoods are rather poor shape factor compromises,
right?
Still think your 35mm commercial lens hood is optimal?
One solution is to build your own lens hoods, using the lens hood vignetting tests at our flare related
page.
From a posting by Karl Synder:
Filter UV Light Absorption UV 22% Sky 1A 45.5% UV 15 81% UV 16 86.5% UV 17 97% Haze 2A Virtually all UV light [Source: B&H's "The Professional Photo SourceBook", page 360, Tiffen Filters.]
In general, UV filters don't really do much for haze or for filtering out
UV, and even the skylight filter lets more than half the UV pass through.
In actual practice, this doesn't matter, because most modern multi-coated
lenses are excellent filters for UV, and so need no UV filtering at all.
(See Ultraviolet Photography on the benefits of
uncoated lenses for use in UV photography work...).
If you are shooting at high altitudes where there is a lot more UV or with
older lenses, UV filters might actually help a bit, but a UV17 or Haze 2a
filter would be an obviously better choice if you want to eliminate
UV.
What most people really want to eliminate is not UV but blue light.
Scattering from dust and airborne moisture causes distant scenes to
appear bluer than they really are (for a similar reason, the sky is
blue). While our modern lenses efficiently prevent UV from getting to the
film, they are designed to let the blue light through.
So if you want a filter to penetrate the haze, get a strong haze 2a or
better filter that actually not only absorbs UV light, but also some of
the blue. Or cheat, and use infra-red film and filters to really slice
through aerial haze (that's what the military does with aerial infrared
photos). Using IR film and filters removes almost all of the scattered blue
light which gives rise to the haze effect, along with all the blue
and most other colors ;-).
In short, UV filters don't really filter much UV. Your modern lenses
don't need them to filter any UV, since they don't pass much UV
through modern multicoated optics anyway (under 0.1% without any filters).
Surprise!
What is surprising here is not that there are some differences, but that
they average out to be such SMALL
differences between the average prime or zoom lenses for these hotly
debated manufacturers. Nikon and Minolta are essentially
identical in their average lens MTF/Photodo scores. Surprise!
Moreover, this table also shows how AF primes handily beat AF zooms by
nearly a full grade (0.8+). The statistical analysis suggests that 5 out
of 6 zooms are worse than the bottom (worst) 1/6th of the prime lenses!
Compared to the average zoom lens (3.1), 97.7% of the prime lenses are above
its score (at 3.2). In other words, only one prime lens in fifty is as
bad as the average zoom lens. Impressed yet?
And while there is a 50%:50% chance that a prime will beat a score of
4.0, there is only one chance in fifty (2%) that a zoom will equal or
beat 4.0!
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (�ivind Midttun)
[1] Re: Canon vs Minolta vs Nikon lenses
Date: Mon Aug 23 1999
Calculating the average and standard deviation of the results for
fixed focals and zooms is a bit interesting: Canon lenses may be
slightly better "on average", and fixed focals comes out a lot better
than zooms (as expected). The spread of the quality of the lenses made
by the three manufacturers are similar. Any other conclusions?
Canon Nikon Minolta
Fixed
Mean 4.1 3.9 3.9
Stdev 0.4 0.3 0.4
Zooms
Mean 3.2 3.1 3.1
Stdev 0.5 0.5 0.5
�ivind
Roland [email protected] wrote:
>I hope photodo won't mind but I have been comparing their figures for >Canon, Minolta and Nikon AF lenses. It's an awful lot easier if you can >put those figures side by side so you are comparing like with like. >Literally side by side by opening 3 Notepad windows and shaping them so >they will fit next to each other in three columns. > >I fact I've done just that. Perhaps you would like to try it out. > >Roland .... lots of individual lens comparisons from Photodo values follow...
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
[2] brilliant analysis! Re: Canon vs Minolta vs Nikon lenses
Followup-To: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon Aug 23 1999
Neat! Brilliant analysis and idea! Assuming a normal distribution, we get:
mean stdev -2 -1 mean +1 +2 stdev
prime 2.3% 15.8% 50.0% 84.0% 97.7%
canon 4.1 0.4 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9
nikon 3.9 0.3 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5
Minolta 3.9 0.4 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7
avg= 4.0 0.4 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.7
zoom
canon 3.2 0.5 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2
nikon 3.1 0.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.1
Minolta 3.1 0.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.1
avg= 3.1 0.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.1
In other words, 97.7% of the zoom lenses (at 4.1) are below just over
half (4.0) of the prime lenses. So you have a 50:50 chance that a prime
will beat 4.0, but only one chance in 50 that a zoom will do so! ;-)
Or, 97.7% of the prime lenses (at 3.2) are above the average of the zoom
lenses (3.1), so only one prime lens in fifty is as bad as the average
zoom lens. Hmmm?
Some 5 out of 6 zoom lenses (3.6 at 84%) will be worse than the worse 1
out of six prime lenses (also 3.6 at 15.8%). Or only one zoom lens in six
will be as good as the worst one sixth of the prime lenses.
So much for the myth that today's zooms are "just as good" as primes
for more, see my pages on prime vs. zooms at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/primes.html ;-)
And while I personally don't put a huge amount of stock in single point
MTF scores by photodo or anybody else in my lens selecting, I have to
wonder why nobody else noticed such graphic similarities (between
manufacturers) and differences (between AF zooms and primes) before! ;-)
Nice Job, �ivind Midttun!
regards to all - bobm
[Ed. note: I thought the bell shaped curve for ratings was interesting...] From: "Klaus Schroiff" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Lens testing Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 >Hardly a reliable or controlled process. As is every other survey out there. Again - have a look at the results. e.g. standard zooms (roughly): top-end: Minolta, Canon, Nikkor f/2.8 zooms plus some slower Carl-Zeiss zooms high-end: Tokina AT-X Pros middle: most better consumer grade zooms and Sigma EX low-end: kit-zooms and bottom-end third-party stuff There're ... 2 excellent 5 very-good 10 good to very-good 12 good 12 average 8 sub-average 5 poor 5 very poor ... survey verdicts in this specific class. A healthy distribution I think. I do not claim that these results are 100% accurate - you'll certainly find performance outliers here and there if you do a deep scan. However, it's certainly better than russian roulette - far better. cheers Klaus http://www.photozone.de
From: Alan Browne [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Measurbation: The best Minolta lenses v. Canon, Nikkor Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 I ran a "selective" sharpness scoring of lenses from the photodo database. I selected lenses for scoring based on most of the best Minolta lenses to see how Canon and Nikkor could stand up to them. Photodo looks at sharpness only and the results are weighted. So the final number filters out a lot of quality information. Other attributes of a lens (distotion, bokeh, contrast, build quality, etc) are either not contained or heavilly filtered out of the result. If I made any errors, please point them out to me. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20 f/2.8 35 f/2.0 50 f/2.8 50 f/1.4 85 f/1.4 100 f/2.8 135 f/2.8 200 f/2.8 300 f/2.8 17-35 f/2.8 (f/3.5) 28-70 f/2.8 80-200 f/2.8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This does not match perfecly accross Minolta, Canon and Nikon, so I "best fit" where I could. Where there were several models from one manufacturer, I chose the "best" sharpness version. Canon alternates Nikkor 50 f/2.5M 50 f/1.8 85 f/1.2 100 f/2 105 f/2.8 135 f/2 200 f/2.8L II 300 f/4 17-35 f/2.8 Results: Best lens Count Sharpness "Ties" Lenses Canon: 6 3.77 2 13 Minolta: 4.5 3.66 2 13 Nikkor: 0.5 3.57 1 10 (or tie (0.5 points)) There was one tie between Minolta and Nikkor (20 f/2.8) and two ties between Minolta and Canon (50 f/1.4 and 200 f/2.8) (IOW: Minolta had to "tie" in three cases to get 1.5 points, Nikon had to "tie" to get all of its half-point!) Nikkor did not "enter" in three cases: 200 f/2.8 and 50 f/2.8 macro, so this certainly cost Nikkor at least 1 or 2 points of opportunity. (In two cases, there was no close lens, in one case (17-35) it was unrated at photodo). Standout: Minolta 100 f/2.8M: 4.5 v 4.2:Canon, 3.9:Nikkor The Leica 100 f/2.8M also gets a 4.5 from photodo Leica ElmaritR 90/2.8 gets 4.6 Results: http://www.aliasimages.com/LensComp.xls I did not design this test to make Nikkor look bad (and given the "sharpness points" they did fine.) I selected many of the best Minolta lenses to see how Canon and Nikkor would stand up. I'm sure a re-selection of the lenses would give Nikkor a much better standing. Cheers, Alan
Astronomers often "hyper" film by exposing the film to various inert
gases, usually under pressure. Hypered film performs better in longer
exposure astrophotography too. Reportedly, the film emulsion actually
swells and changes its properties absorbing the gas. But let the roll of
film sit around in your camera bag, and the gas diffuses out and the film
goes back to normal.
There is hope. Some new film technologies (AGFA) promise to extend film
sensitivities by up to tenfold. Use of formic acid related chemicals will
help prevent lowered efficiencies of film when electrons knocked off by
light get "lost" and don't effect the silver grain (roughly 80% of
electrons are "lost" or ineffective in most films today). While CCD
devices will still be more sensitive (and photomultipliers more sensitive
still), at least this will give those of us using film something to look
forward too?
The short answer is that symmetrical lenses and process lenses can work
very well not just at closeup distances, but also at infinity for
landscapes and other uses. So use the prejudice against them to buy them
up cheaply!
For shortwave ultraviolet photography, below 330 nanometers (to around
215 nanometers), quartz lenses may be required (unless you can use
mirrors). However, simple quartz lens elements are available for under
$100 US from sources such as Edmund Scientific Corp.
Another glitch I have found with grey cards is that they can vary by an
entire stop as you angle them from the horizontal by about 30 degrees or
so, depending on the lighting. A better solution might be an ambient light
meter...
[See also Meters Don't See
18%
Gray]
Related Postings:
From: Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Heresy!
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998
Tom Clark wrote:
Some may remember that I shot my RB67 side-by-side, shot-for-shot
against my friends Hasselblad. The film was from the same box.
The shots were framed the same and exposed the same. The same
lab processed both rolls as part of the same order.
When the proofs came back, the variations between the two were
very small and were not consistently in one direction or the other.
In other words, there was more variation due to lab processing than
could be attributed to the cameras.
So I promised to pick one pair and have an extreme enlargement
made of a small area from both cameras. Then I would publish
the results here. Guess what?
Mamiya wins hands down!
My friend says that he probably just didn't focus as accurately as I did.
Maybe so, but I can't find any feature at any distance on his shot that
is in focus at this degree of enlargement.
Tom Clark
Ya know, this general thread ("My esoteric and expensive camera is
better than your esoteric and outrageously expensive camera...") is
becoming most tiresome. I own a 'Blad and I betcha I couldn't
see the difference between 30 x 36 inch prints made from negs on
the Mamiya 7, RZ, Hassy, Rollei TLR, and Rollei 600x cameras. Why
do I say this? Please read on -
Just for snicks, I just bought a very clean, but very old Mamiya C-22
TLR on eBay recently. It has an equally old chrome 135mm lens on it.
After checking shutter speeds (pretty dang close for a critter that
old), I proceeded to shoot a roll of Agfa APX 100 through it, processed
the film in PMK Pyro as usual, and made a small stack of 11x14s.
Keep in mind that I normally produce prints from Hassy or 4x5
view camera negatives - I expected to see quite a noticeable difference.
Guess what? While the old Mamiya is certainly not as sharp and as
contrastly as all the Zeiss glass sitting in my camera bag, it still
produced prints worthy of display - this with a lens whose technology
and design is at least 30+ years old.
Now, if I have to pay attention to see the differences between a 30 year
old lens (that is, let's face it, never been known for being among
the world's best) and a modern state-o-the-art Hassy lens, I seriously
doubt I'll see any *repeatable* differences between the best lenses
made today by the world's foremost lens designers. The truth is,
that film flatness, film resolution, developer type, and lens-to-lens
variations will come into play long before any of the aforementioned
lenses will be a limiting factor.
Hey, I like hardware as much as anyone. If I had the dough, I'd own
all the above just for fun. But folks, you're measuring NOISE not
signal with the kind of anecdotal tests described above.
So, Pax Optica to all of ya, and happy shooting (pardon my fractured
Latin/Greek ;-)))
Tim Daneliuk Work:
[email protected]
And here's another rule ;-)
From: howard [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How far apart in Focal Length should primes be?
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998
Here's the rule.
The distance between focal lengths is inversely proportional to the
amount of money available to purchase more lenses and directly
proportional to the attention span of the photographer with his new
equipment.
Approach to Lens Choices
From: Nick Fiduccia [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How far apart in Focal Length should primes be?
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998
Dennis:
Regarding your question about how to choose your lens sets......
Your set you are contemplating 20, 35, and 85 is OK but, I would
add a 50mm to fill the 85/35 = 2.4X gap in your set. These are cheap,
light, and usually of high optical quality. It may allow you to shoot
in low light conditions because of the wide aperature that these lenses
usually come with. Many do not like the 50 because it gives
a natural perspective which they considered boring. However, it is
one of my most used lenses and one I alway have with me!
One last comment, Roger Hicks once advised getting only one lens
to start with and really learning to use that lens. You should find
this lens meets perhaps 30-50% of your needs. Then, only after
spending a significant amount of time with that one lens, you
will have a good idea what your next lens purchase should be at
which time you should purchase it. This two lens set should meet
50-80% of your needs. After a while of using these two lenses,
you will have a better idea of what third lens would complete
your set! I think this is a good approach to follow if you are
just starting out. I also prefer 4 lens sets. Any more than that
become a problem to juggle in the field!
I think you cannot go wrong with the set you have chosen! Happy
shooting!
-Nick
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] "Superior" lenses (was Portraiture)
Todd Belcher and I have been discussing what makes a lens "superior" in
the absolute sense and whether this is even a meaningful distinction. He
raises some interesting points, and since the rest of the list is
probably already asleep with boredom from the two of us 8-), I'll offer
up this one...
At some point in the late 60's/early 70's or so, lens factories such as
Leitz and Zeiss made a major shift in design philosophy, namely to move
away from maximizing lens resolution (because the overwhelming majority
of the end users didn't/don't typically enlarge beyond 4 diameters or
so) and toward maximizing lens contrast (which enhanses apparent
resolution). They did so by optimising designs which disburse light
energy away from the center of the image points/discs, and concentrate
this energy more around the periphery, resulting in an image disc with a
light airy center and a denser edge. I have a copy of a leitz piece
discussing this change for the Noctilux, and have seen other papers
which document this general shift in design philosphy for other
factories and lenses. I'm not an engineer and I don't know which design
parameter(s) effect this trade off, perhaps someone else can help here
if anyone is interested...
Anyway, in this real-life example of trading higher resolution for
higher contrast, which is the "superior" and which is the "inferior"
lens?
Eric G.
-------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "Superior" lenses (was Portraiture)
This is an old design problem and is illstrated in Kingslakes older book
which someone mentioned in an earier post (Lenses in Photography). It has
to do with the distribution on energy in a point. The higher resolution
lens contrates the energy but has a number of rings around the point, the
high contast version will broaden out the point but reduce the rings. This
has to do with the effects of diffraction. There is a similar compromise
necessary in radar and satellite antennas where the "rings" are called
"lobes". The design process is called "apodization".
For a camera lens, chosing contrast rather than resolution results in
greater acutance or visual sharpness. This is more important for color
than for B&W. As color photography became more dominant the lens makers,
particularly the Japanese, compormised designs more toward acutance than
resolution.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Contrast vs sharpness
...
2. With regard to Contrast versus resolution, the thread has been interesting
reading. One friend of mine who does a good deal of Photography for
publication and switched to Canon EOS. The EOS lenses were great for slides
but he did not like them for B&W. When he grabbed his old Nikon for some B&W
shots and showed them to the editor, his editor exclaimed, "what did you do
get a new lens?" The images look far better. Needless to say, he sold the
EOS and lenses and bought a N90s and Nikkors and has been happy ever since.
I remember a similar story about Rollei, in the 1960s the Zeiss Planar lens
formula was allegedly changed to provide better contrast but suffered in
terms
of resolution. I know the E2.8 remained with 5 elements, but there was a
6-element 3.5 design. Perhaps this is fact or more talk but many I have
spoken with feel the early Fs and Es were far sharper optically then the
later
model Fs. Comments?
Peter K
[email protected]
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "Superior" lenses (was Portraiture)
Mario Nagano wrote:
This search for better color images, should explain why
Rollei adopted Planar/Xenotar lens for their high-end TLRs,
leaving Tessar/Xenar for their basic/intermediate models?
Mario-
I think that there is an alternative explanation here, namely the great
"need for speed" which marketers were pushing lens designers to engage
in at the time. Especially during the 60s, faster lenses were a big
sales point, and an optic which had a max aperture of f/3.5 was regarded
as slow and old...
Also, the post war years brought many more exotic, more affordable
optical glasses into the reach of lens designers, and in many instances
they were able to use them to recalculate even tried and true
formulations into higher standards of performance. For instance, I can
recall seeing the test results of some post-war recalculated
tessar-types getting very close to being apochromatic. I suspect the
"color" labeling was more marketing than anything else, as I can't see
why these changes would not be equally useful in b/w...
Eric Goldstein
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998
From: Fred Whitlock [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks Re: Why the average lens is above average..
Like I said, the differences are often subtle. It's pretty obvious that
the prices are not. I have found the same thing to be true in the world of
audio. A small amount of improvement usually carries with it a large
amount of cost. What you say makes great sense to me. The 105 f2.5 is
good example. It is and always has been an excellent lens. It's available
used for a little over $100 and will outperform any zoom lens ever made at
that focal length. I feel the same way about the old Nikkor 200 f4. Not
only is it excellent optically but it's also small and light compared to
many lenses like the 180 f2.8. If you look at my web site you will see a
photo of the dunes at Stovepipe Wells in Death Valley. They were
photographed with an F3 that I bought used and my Nikkor 200mm f4, a lens I
have owned and used since 1977. I see no reason to replace it. I wore
out my 180 f2.8 this year. It started to rattle it had been used so much.
The replacement I bought was used. Probably the sharpest telephoto lens
ever made for a 35mm camera and I paid less than I would have for a new
prime telephoto of any focal length.
Your attitude is a healthy one. Getting 90% of the results for 10% of the
cost makes sense in anyone's book. It is also very true that even the
slightest amount of motion blur will have an effect far greater than the
difference in performance between any two tripod mounted lenses. Nice to
meet you. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
From: Ken Neely [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica lenses
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998
Hello, David,
It's my understanding that some of the early (EC, S2 perhaps) Bronica
lenses were made by Nikkor. I could be wrong, but that's not the point.
This IS the point - do not become hung up on the foolish "who makes
the best lenses"
discussion. It is meaningless, pointless, indefensible by any reasonable
means.
With respect to lens quality and the quality of images to be had the truth is this:
THERE ARE NO MISTAKES TO BE MADE by buying anything new from a
known manufacturer of medium format equipment. Pretty much the same
situation
with used equipment too, except that condition can be an issue. You
can't tell the
difference between images made by a Hasselblad,
Mamiya,Bronica,Rollei,Fuji,
etc. Neither can anyone else, nor can any machine known to man. This
assumes similar
focal length, identical conditions etc.
Here's the rub - like everything else, there can be bad examples of
anything. You could get a bad lens accidentally passed by an inspector,
from any manufacturer, regardless
of price or reputation.
So my advise is this : make your choice based on the issues that
matter to you.
''The best lens'' issue doesn't really exist, except in the minds of those
who have nothing better to do than defend choices they have already
made.
Me ? I've seen superlative work from virtually every camera
manufacturer known, except Kiev. Don't know anyone who owns one of
those....
Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong....
Ken Neely (of)
Ken Neely Commercial Photography
[Ed. note: here's another opinion...]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: David Johnson [email protected]
[1] Re: Bronica lenses
Date: Mon Feb 09 20:05:34 CST 1998
Ken Neely [email protected] wrote:
So my advise is this : make your choice based on the issues that
matter to you.
''The best lens'' issue doesn't really exist, except in the minds of those
who have nothing better to do than defend choices they have already
made.
I own several 35mm lenses: Vivitar, Minolta, Nikkor, Olympus, and
Yashica.
Believe me or not, the Nikkors are noticeably better in sharpness
and contrast. Even my wife and her brother have noticed without me
telling them what I used. The difference between my best and my
worst lens is not at all subtle. It is quite striking.
Me ? I've seen superlative work from virtually every camera
manufacturer known, except Kiev. Don't know anyone who owns one of
those....
I have taken some great photos with my worst lenses. Sometimes I wish
that these photos were as good as what my better lenses would do.
This is much the reason why I want to get a MF system. I have shot
a Leica and at best is only barely noticeably better than my best
Nikkor. I usually can't tell the difference. I have seen some MF
photos where it is quite obvious they weren't taken with 35mm. If only
the aesthetic elements of a photo mattered and the technical elements
don't, why don't we all just abandon getting any of the expensive stuff
and just shoot 110 or disc cameras (an extreme), or just shoot 35mm
with Phoenix and Sun lenses?
Or is what you really mean is that all MF lenses are competent? I don't believe that is true either. I have seen a new photo taken with an old MF camera (Hasselblad?) that used a lens before multicoating. The contrast was particular poor. I would rather use my multicoated Minoltas in 35mm than that lens in MF.
David Johnson
XLNT
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998
From: David Johnson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon vs Sigma - continuation
I am an advanced amateur and have the budget to get the good stuff without
having to make money with it. If I had a budget like I did when I was in
high school, I would do like I did then: get a Minolta with a Minolta
normal lens and third party lenses for other focal lengths. IMO, Nikon's
strengths are in the lenses and build quality of the N90s and above
bodies. If this is out of your budget, IMO, you would be better served by
Minolta and third party lenses. When you are on a tight budget like I was
in high school, the question is not "bang for the buck" but just being
able to buy any bang. Minolta delivers good bang for the buck and 3rd
party lenses deliver cheap bang. In my experience, it is better to get a
cheap lens than no lens at all. I don't think Nikon is a good choice for
a tight budget.
David Johnson
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998
From: Phil Stiles [email protected]
Subject: Testing my Zooms lenses
I did a lens test the other day with four lenses for Nikon. This was
not an exhaustive or comprehensive test, but I think the results are
worth sharing.
Most of my photos are pictures of people, and my favorite prime
lens is
the 35mm/f2AF. I put the camera on a tripod and put a newspaper on a
wall ten feet away. I shot every lens at f/8 and set every zoom at
35mm. I used T-Max 400 CN. Then, in the darkroom, I enlarged each
sample to 16X20, and wrote the lens on the back of the print before
exposure. After they were dry, I sorted them for sharpness, creating a
hierarchy. The differences were not great from sample to sample, but
were quite evident comparing last to first.
Results:
1. 35mm/f2AF
2. Sigma 28-105/f2.8-4 "aspherical"
3. Nikkor 28-70/f3.5-4-5
4. Nikkor 24-120/f4-5.6
The real surprise to me was the Sigma, although I had been very
pleased with the quality of the images it produces, especially toward the
short end of the range. For a little more than $200, this lens is a real
cost/performance winner. The "build quality" is not great, "cheap
plastic" comes to mind as a description. The focussing throw is a mere
quarter turn, not intended for manual use. At this distance, Pop Photo
recently found it to outperform a Tamron which cost three times more.
Phil Stiles in New Hampshire, where we call Spring "Mud
Season."
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998
From: "Marc F. Hult" [email protected]
Newsgroups: xrec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: MF v LF lens cost:
It seemed to me that there were really two conclusions here: 1) that "aerial
lens resolution[] [tests] confirm that 35mm and medium format lenses
generally
outperform ... large format lenses" and (2) "large format lenses [are] ...
much more expensive [than] 35mm and medium format lenses".
The first conclusion has already been dealt with in part in other posts.
But there also is no data to support the second assertion/conclusion although
elsewhere on the web page there is a comment that might be interpreted to say
that large format lenses are 10 to 20 times more expensive than 35mm lenses.
So here are prices from the March 1998 B and H price brochure (or see
www.bhphoto-video.com) for a ultra-wide, wide, normal, and portrait
lenses for
manual focus 35mm, 645, 6x6, and 6x7cm medium-format, and 4x5" large-format
lenses:
35mm manual focus: Nikon AIS 20f2.8/28f2/50f1.4/105f1.8 530+600+299+650 = $2080 Medium Format: Mamiya 7 43f4.5/65/4/80f4/150f4.5 2600+1600+1300+1800 = $7300 Mamiya 645 35f3.5/55f2.8/80f1.9/150f3.5 1030+660+660+600 = 2950 (no shutters) Mamiya 645 LS 24f4/55f2.8/80f2.8/150f3.5 2110+1620+1300+1590 = 6650 (w/leaf shutter) Mamiya RZ67 37f4.5/65f4/90f3.5/150f3.5 2690+1870+1390+1490 = 7440 Bronica SQ 40f4/65f4/80f2.8/150f4 1800+1440+1100+1570 = 5910 Hasselblad CF 40f4/60f3.5/80f2.8/150f4 4000+2040+1720+2760 =$10520 Rollie 40f4/60f3.5/80f2.8/150f4 5520+3460+1930+3110 =$14020 Large Format (4x5): Nikkor 65f4/90/8/150f5.6/210f5.6 990+790+510+630 = $2920 Rodenstock 65f4.5/90f6.8/150f5.6/210f5.6 1200+920+560+830 = 3510 Schneider 65f5.6/90/8/150f5.6/210f5.6 1200+950+670+950 = $3770
Note that all 12 large-format lenses include a Copal shutter (#0 is $235 at
B&H; #1 is $313) but the 35mm and some of the medium format lenses don't.
Adjusted for the price of the shutters, all three large format sets are less
expensive than any of the 35mm or medium format sets. Surprised ?
Clearly "large format lenses" are NOT "much more expensive [than] 35mm and
medium format lenses".
Hope This Helps (to explain why all this seemed to be a parody) ... Marc
--
Marc F. Hult
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998
From: David Seifert [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] On Rollei Prices
Not exactly true. For reasons I don't fully understand it is now quite
possible to buy new PQ lenses for nearly the same prices (or less) than their
'blad equivalents.
For instance (quoting the B&H Pro SourceBook)
Rollei PQ Hassleblad CF
30/3.5 Distagon 4495 5797
40/4 Distagon 4195 3995
50/4 Distagon 1999 2696
120 Makro-Planar 2999 2774
150/4 Sonnar 2199 2756
250/5.6 Sonnar 2599 2107
I am not sure whether these prices are real (or perhaps grey?) but if so,
Rollei has decided to get in the game, big time. Prices for MF lenses are
shocking to begin with. In the past the prices for the Rollei versions were
absolutely mind-numbing. Remembering that the Rollei versions use the much
more
sophisticated shutter technology and 1/3 stop diaphrams these prices
represent
quite a value. I guess it is hard to use the term "value" when talking about
things with pricetags like this but you know what I mean (grins).
Best Regards,
David Seifert
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Subject: Re: Lens Advice for a beginner
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
I buy mostly prime focal length lenses for two reasons: speed and size.
Unless you spend megamoney for fast zooms, prime lenses are one to three
stops faster on average, and zooms are always more bulky than primes.
Prime lenses are usually just a smidge sharper, it's true, but the
differences are getting less apparent nowadays. They are more durable,
however, and have fewer components to be out of alignment thus they make
a better used purchase. They're also cheaper, one at a time, then zooms are.
The other reason for preferring prime lenses: zooms tend to make you
lazy. Well, me anyway. Peer through the viewfinder, dial that zoom back
and forth, voila! framed and snapped. Problem is that you explore fewer
perspectives that way ... perspective is a function of camera to subject
distance and it doesn't change because you twisted the zoom ring on the
lens. Prime lenses make you move back and forth with respect to the
subject which shifts perspective, from which you can find all kinds of
interesting pictures that you'd miss if you stood in one place with a zoom.
For students interested in photography, I think sticking with one or two
prime lenses is a better learning experience. For folks just out to take
pictures, sure, a zoom is convenient and easier to deal with for the
average picture taking situations.
Godfrey
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (John J. Stafford)
[1] Re: Why Medium Format?
Date: Tue Jul 14 15:35:54 CDT 1998
My gosh, unless you are young enough to outlive the mistake, then don't
sell your 35mm equipment in order to get into medium format. There always
seems to be a time and place for 35mm, even 'old' 35mm equipment.
For example, one day you might just want to shoot something that moves. :)
I mean moves fast. 35mm is quite good for that. Or you may find yourself
in a hostile environment. (but I've always wanted to shoot a riot with a
Linhof press. Right.) Or you just might like to have some fun with the
little format.
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon Lenses - Too Expensive?
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998
The cheapest Tamron used with a tripod will beat out the most expensive
Nikon, Canon or Leica glass.
One advantage of having a pure Nikon system is that everything works the
same. Forcusing rings twist the same way. Filter sizes are somewhat
standardized. Electronic chips should work properly with old, current and
most future cameras.
I do happen to own a Tamron SP 90mm Macro and it is an excellent lens. I use
it with my Pentax and used to use it with my N90s before I sold the thing to
move to Pentax MF equipment.
My impression from owning Nikon equipment is that the cheap consumer Nikons
are somewhat better than the cheap Tamron, Sigma, Tokina lenses. But when
you get to the high grade "pro" stuff, most differences in lens quality are
small compared to differences in the photographer's technique.
Subject: Re: FAST lenses
From: "Jim Williams" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998
>What ever happened to really FAST lenses? > >Canon 50mm F.095, for example? Nikon 85mm 1.4? And _good_ moderately fast >long lenses like 180mm F2.8 (at a _reasonable_ price)?
They're certainly not as popular as they used to be -- partly because fast
films have gotten better, and partly, I suspect, because zoom-lens-touting
photo magazines keep writing articles that say, "You don't really need
those crazy super-fast lenses." Some of it is changes in fashion, too: in
the '50s and '60s, the role model was the crusading photojournalist, and
camera owners wanted to use their cameras to "document life as it is,"
which meant (among other things) being able to take pictures discreetly in
dark places. Along about the '70s -- the Antonioni film 'Blow-Up' might
well have something to do with this! -- the role model became the swinging
model/fashion/commercial photographer. With this kind of 'photo lifestyle'
as the role model, being unobtrusive was NOT a good thing -- what was the
point of being a photographer if the chicks didn't KNOW you were a
photographer, huh, baby? On-camera flash was a great way for photographers
to draw attention to themselves, so it suddenly became a lot more
acceptable than it had been back in the photojournalist-worshipping era.
And who needs a fast lens when you're blasting away with a flash?
That said, I suspect the truth is that the super-fast lenses of the past
were more written about and discussed than actually purchased. Allowing for
that, they may be as available now as they ever were. The 50mm f/0.95 Canon
vanished mostly because it was for a rangefinder camera, the Canon 7
series, and rangefinder cameras in general declined in popularity.
(Incidentally, I have one of these lenses, and -- contrary to what many
people think -- it's really a pretty good performer, as long as you use it
carefully.) But super-fast lenses are far from extinct... Canon and Leica
today both make 50mm f/1 lenses; Canon and Contax have 85mm f/1.2s, and
Minolta and Pentax have 85/1.4s; Nikon, Canon and MInolta have 35/1.4s;
Nikon's got a 105/1.8; Nikon and Canon have 135/2s; etc. As to those
"reasonable-price" 180/2.8s, I suspect that in constant dollars they cost
no more now (maybe less!) than in the days when about the only ones you
could get were the Zeiss Olympic Sonnar and the Isco.
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Bob Atkins [email protected]
Subject: Response to why do aperture ranges only cover 7 stops?
Date: 1998-09-10
Diffraction effects as measured on the film are directly proportional to f-stop, not the physical size of the aperture. The physical aperture size counts, but so does the distance to the film. Both factors are included in the f-stop.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
[1] Re: 35mm vs MF ?
X-Admin: [email protected]
Date: Sat Oct 31 13:41:13 CST 1998
>From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
>
>Another reason for staying with 35 mm is that slides (IMHO the ultimate
>form for color photography) is much more expensive in MF - ridicoulusly
>so compared to 35 mm equipment.
Anders, I agree that slides are the way to go, but in the US it's not
THAT much
more expensive to shoot MF vs 35mm film. Using the B & H catalog prices it
costs $5.29 for a 35 mm roll of Velvia (36 exp) or $8.58 if you include Fuji
processing. You can buy two rolls of 120 Velvia for $6.38 and get 30 shots
using 6 x 4.5 format (32 in some cameras :) and I think it costs me about
$3.25
or so per roll for development at a local pro lab.
So a 50% or so premium for film that's 2.7 x as large area-wise. Not a bad
deal at all! And most of us probably tend to shoot less film with MF ... it
may be very different in Sweden, but in the US it's the cost of the camera
systems, not the film, that keeps many people away from MF, I feel.
Bill
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Nature Photography with 35mm vs. Medium Format
Date: Sat Dec 05 09:56:39 CST 1998
On Fri, 04 Dec 1998 03:54:44 GMT, Jeff Rankin-Lowe [email protected] wrote
>It also depends on what the original poster meant by "nature photography". >If, for example, he was doing wildlife and would be using lenses longer than >400mm (or shorter lenses with a teleconverter), then 35mm is better because >those focal lengths are available. I'm not sure what the longest focal length >medium format lens is, but I doubt that you can get a quality MF lens in a >comparable focal length.
Actually, a new 600mm f4 for a Pentax 67 costs $1,000- $2000 _less_ than a
600mm f4 for a Canon or Nikon at B&H (December 1998 price brochure).
And a Pentax 67 800mm (eight hundred millimeter) f4 (f-four) is available
for _less_ than the price of a Canon 600mm f4. Last I knew, Canon and
Nikon didn't even make a 800mm f4.
ABIK, these particular Pentax lenses don't have ED elements. The 6x7 ED
lenses are more pricey: an 800mm ED with a matching 1.4 converter is
$11,000 at B&H (At $1.00/mm its a heck of a deal ....AND they have a
toll-free number and accept American Express so you can save on the phone
bill and get lotsa frequent flier miles to boot. However I don't think
that 11,000 miles would be far enough to assure my post-purchase safety
...)
HTH ... Marc
--
Marc F. Hult
[email protected]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Dirk J. Bakker" [email protected]
[1] Photo Myths and Folklore (was Re:
+ Disadvantages of 220 film)
Date: Fri Feb 05 18:05:09 CST 1999
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] (DaveVeitch) wrote:
> > Only down side is the emulsion
> > isn't as thick, so it isn't as ridgid when you go to print, and similar
> > problems with storage. DV
>
> this response belongs in rec.photo.mythology
>
Hmmm... rec.photo.mythology.
That's not a bad idea. But instead of a group, I propose the writing,
maintenance and periodic distribution of a document serving the function
of a FAQ, but for photography's misconceptions. A treatise to make Monty
Python proud!
Prime topical candidates would include, but not be limited to:
1. Optics math and related 'thorny' issues ("I was never very good at in
school.") such as:
a. DOF calculation, or how to become a member of the "circle of
confusion",
b. Lens coverage, Image circles vs. lens angle,
c. Lens nodes, and "where to put them? or find them?",
d. Number sequences, or why 2.8 is, in fact, 'larger' than 4,
e. Lens format conversions, or what is "normal",
f. Hyperfocal distances and how to travel them in relative comfort,
g.
2. Mechanics/Design/Ergonomics:
a. Zoom Lens,
b. Telephoto or large focal length lens,
c. Macro Lens,
d. Flash synch speeds,
e. DOF preview, or "What am I missing, if I can't see a thing!?",
f.
3. Electronics:
a. Auto Exposure calculation, or "why Sunny-16 rules",
b. Auto Focus, or the prestige of fighting your equipment, letting
it win and keeping one's composure,
c. Battery power dependence,
d. Practical guide to using pop-up flash from the 363rd row of a
Stadium
4. Standardization:
a. ASA, ISO, and "why I refuse to learn DIN",
b. APS, and group segregation,
c. DX,
d. Why the concept of reciprocity just fails me,
e.
5. Format war "merits", including:
a. Resolution issues, or when is more less, more or less,
b. Aspect ratios,
c. Image scale, or "Is big best?",
d.
6. Camera "Brand" merits:
a. If Nokin is part of a better family, then why is Laika a dog?
b. The definitive treatise on what a PRO camera is!, or is "for",
c.
7. Best Lens focal length, or
a. Answers to "why does my 50mm MocoPikon f/1.4 lens take boring
pictures, and his f/2.0 doesn't?"!
b.
8. Photo Glossary:
a. "Prime", "Choice", "Lean",
b. "Macro", "micro",
c. "Panoramic", (true-, false-, or cropped-),
d. "fast",
e.
9. Visual perception:
a. Why can I live with horizontal converging lines but not with
buildings tipping backwards!
b.Are fish-eye lenses normal? And what focal length lens do fish use?,
c.
10. Practical advise:
a. What film for Argentina?,
b. Should I use a bubble-level from inside my canoe?,
c. How to dodge printing and still get it done,
d. Can I use an umbrella with my flash, if it's raining?,
e.
Then there could be special supplementary topics, such as:
a. how to combine 2, or more, factors and not end up in the looney bin.
b. how to assimilate high-technology concepts overnight, not read the
manual and be ready for that wedding tomorrow.
Simplistic Photographic Answers, Truisms and Other Nasty Misconceptions
Enshrined, we could call it. Or simply SPAT+ONME. Perhaps you can think of
something more dignified? It should be a thing to read and avoid
(consciously) contributing to. The photographic equivalent of the
Flat-Earth Society's Bible. If 'news' of its being updated should ever
reach a subscriber, woe on to him/her that caused its enlargement, unless
due credit is withheld (for a fee/'chantage'), of course.
Seriously now, if you think something along these lines has merit. Have a
giggle and forward samples to me. Feel free to modify, or add to the above
and e-mail me or post to the group.
Dirk Bakker
P.S. This alone could make the proposed photo newsgroup reorganization
unnecessary and reduce traffic by a calculable percentage! Your mileage may
vary.
;o)
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Brian Ellis [email protected]
[4] Re: top 10 myths of photography page URL
+ Re: Photo Myths and Folklore
Date: Mon Feb 08 11:24:34 CST 1999
One of the more interesting photography books I've read is "Controls in
Black and White Photography" by Dr. Robert Henry. Dr. Henry was one of
those people who apparently enjoy running tests and, with his educational
background in medicine and chemistry, was well equipped to do so.
Photography was a hobby and he decided to devise and perform tests to
either support or dispel some of the conventional photography truths (e.g.
the more the silver content of the paper, the richer blacks you can
obtain.) While some of them proved true under rigorous testing, many did
not. Parts of the book are highly technical and were beyond my knowledge
(or interest) but anyone can understand Dr. Henry's conclusions. A very
interesting book if you're into black and white photography and want to
learn some things based on fact rather than myth.
Brian
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Shawn Henry [email protected]
[1] Re: The truth about CB lenses
Date: Tue Feb 09 1999
I would lay money on the fact that none of you folks deriding the new
lenses could actually to the difference if you didn't know it the first
place...
I've owned & shot every thing from Bronica to Hassey to Mamiya to Rollei
(no Pentax yet, but I'll probably buy one soon... The Fuji I've shot, but
never owned...) and given a 6x6 chrome without the notches, I have a hard
time remembering what I used...
After shooting so many different makes, (yes, I've used at least several
35 mm systems as well) I can tell you with certainty that the biggest loss
in sharpness results not from the brand but from the photographer...
Best to all,
Shawn
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Anders Svensson [email protected]
[1] Re: Objective assessment of lens quallity (against price) for Nikon
Date: Fri Feb 12 02:30:22 CST 1999
Neil Mowbray skrev:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Does anyone know where one can find an objective assessment
> (i.e. scientific) of Nikon lenses and third party lenses for Nikon?
>
> Regards, Neil
> [email protected]
Of course you can, what do you want to hear... ?
Problem with "objective" lens quality assesments are that they are hard
and expensive to make (if not too simplified, like the MTF value) and
that even the simple measuring methods (like MTF) consistently shows
that the differences between samples may be bigger than between makes.
Some problems that are reported by MTF (very popular method) are very
serious, some are next to meaningless - and they may still look the same
on the graph... The non flat focal field will look about the same as
real edge unsharpness - one will always show up, the other will "never"
show up in "real-world" use (except for reproduction, ofcourse...).
Therefore, making your own evaluations (from testing, if you have that
inclination), listen to (several, known) experts and try to form an
informed opinion by yourself may be as good as going by published
"objective" lens tests.
Remeber the "bokeh" thread. Lens quality above the easily measured may
be mostly in the eye of the beholder...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
[email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Ed. note: Mr. Bob Shell is Editor of SHUTTERBUG
magazine...]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Source for Rollei 35 filters
...
Any filter, even the best, will degrade the image slightly and change the
focus slightly.
I always tell my students not to use filters except when absolutely needed
if they want maximum image sharpness.
BTW, we tested a lot of filters several years ago and found no relationship
between price/brand and optical flatness.
Bob
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
[1] Myths in Photography
Date: Sat Mar 13 08:37:23 CST 1999
How do these myths get started????
1. X-rays in modern airports used for CARRY-ON luggage will damage film.
No. It's the new CAT scan system used for CHECKED BAGGAGE that will do that.
2. If you travel with film out of its plastic containers, horrible things
will happen.
No, unless you are in a sandy area or around salt water spray. I routinely
travel with 80+ rolls of film and never use the plastic containers except in
high humidity areas like Costa Rica. Even there, they are of little use once
they have been opened.
More myths: I know there are dozens more but these are the two currently
under discussion on this Board. Anyone have more of them?
Peter Burian
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: Russell [email protected]
[1] Re: Myths in Photography
Date: Sat Mar 13 13:36:45 CST 1999
As to myth #1, it does depend on circumstances. First, some airports are
using the newer technology x-ray machines for carry-on. Second, it
depends on the fil m you're carrying. Even the airport signs at LAX say
only that the x-ray will not affect film of speeds 1000 and lower. Since
I occasionally carry 1600 and 3200, I have them hand check it and I've
never had a complaint or problem.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: build quality myths? Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!
Followup-To: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 29 Jan 1999
I think we have all swallowed this "build-quality" myth without much thought
Unfortunately, I have only seen one article (Modern Photography in 70s?)
in which they dis-assembled and compared machining and build quality on many
(prime) lenses between brands. That article reported the astonishment of
the authors that the build quality of lower cost lenses was often much
higher than some of the more expensive bigger name lenses (Leitz was the
major exception - and I'm not a Leica fan ;-). In short, their study
showed that build quality and price were not as closely related as often
stated.
Bob Shell's comments (as a noted repairman/expert) on the tradeoff in
Nikon lenses of ruggedness versus centering is also interesting in this
context. If you "buy" ruggedness at the expense of much higher cost
precision manufacturing, that's one thing. If you "buy" ruggedness at the
expense of centering or sharpness, that's something else!
it will be interesting to see how the tradeoffs for today's light-weight
(low mass) plastic (albeit polycarbonate) auto-focus lenses do in the
ruggedness derby. Again, I haven't seen any tear-downs or comparative
tests other than optical quality (being as good, sometimes better, than
the older non-AF lenses).
I would be interested in any pointers to more recent comparative studies
of lens ruggedness and the tradeoffs involved. My sense of many posts is
that some higher priced third party lenses (Tokina, Sigma) have at least
equal "ruggedness" and mechanical quality, but few folks have noticed
these improvements over the past...
regards to all - bobm
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "bbb" [email protected]
[1] Re: Why are Macro lenses inferior for...
Date: Thu Apr 01 15:52:07 CST 1999
John J Stafford wrote in message ...
>Why are Macro lenses inferior for photographs taken at infinity? >Or is this a fallacy? My medium-format macro lens is just fine >for macro and close-up work, but at infinity it is clearly not >as good as my normal lens. Is it just my lens? > >(Note, I am VERY critical when it concerns sharpness. Something that is >sharp to others is often unacceptable to me.)
John,
Here is what I vaguely remember from university. I hope that it helps:
For various reasons, symetrical lenses tend to perform better at a
reproduction ratio of 1:1, while asymetrical lenses tend to be better at
ratio of 1:n (with n being a number higher than 1).
A true symetrical lens does not have a front and a back, meaning that you
could point either end towards your subject and get identical results.
Macro lenses, although they are rarely completely symetrical, tend to be
more symetrical than non-macro lenses. This is why they may perform better
at reproduction ratios close to 1:1 (relative to non-macro lenses).
An example of a very asymetrical lens would be a retrofocus wide-angle. As
you may know, if you flip one of these around (with the filter ring pointing
towards your film plane and the lens mount pointing towards your subject),
you can get surprisingly good results for reproduction ratios greater than
1:1.
Note that all of this applies in theory only. Modern optical designs are
much more complex than this simple explanation can account for, and all of
the theory in the world can not beat out one proper test of an actual lens.
Bernard
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu Apr 01 20:57:57 CST 1999
From: [email protected] (Rudy Garcia)
[1] Re: Why are Macro lenses inferior for...
In article
For the same reasons that regular (non-macro) lenses don't produce sharp
images at close subject distances.
The design of a lens is a set of compromises. Macro lenses are designed
to optimize the field flatness, due to the narrow depth of field available
at "macro" distances. They are also designed to be sharp at subject to
front nodal point distances comparable to image plane to rear nodal point
distances. This usually leads to designs that are fairly symmetrical.
However, with modern optical designs, macro lenses can also be capable of
producing tack sharp images in non-macro situations.
Another "myth" that still exists is that macro lenses are invariably
slower than their non-macro counterparts. It was certainly true at one
time, but state of the art macro lenses today are on a par with non-macro
lenses.
--
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
...
Maybe it's just me, but my Mamiya 645 kit (camera plus 4 lenses & 1
extra back) weighs about as much as my 35mm kit (2 bodies, 2 zoom & 2
prime lenses plus lots of other junk). I don't really miss anything
other than an equivilent to my 300mm 35mm lens.
I haven't worked it out, but I guess the money I spent on both kits is
probably about the same (maybe slightly less for the 35mm). It's ages
since I shot anything on 35mm.
--
From Nikon Mailing List:
I learned from some media that camera body is only a 'box', the most
important is the lens' quality. If so, then why we need expensive camera
body? I'm using Nikon F60. For example, what's the difference between
F60
and F90 (or F100) for picture's quality?
Welcome some input for this point of view.
Rong-Fa Ho,
Finally, someone else sees the light!
Yes, in essence, the body is just a box to hold film. The lens makes the
image.
Now, having said that, there are some things you get with high-end
bodies, some of which are intangible.
Easy to see features
Higher speed picture taking (F5 is 8 fpm)
Removable prisms
Faster auto focusing
Interchangeable viewfinder screens
Better metering
DOF preview button
Ability to use older lenses
Ability to use AF-S lenses
Hard to see features
Increased ruggedness (switches should last longer on an F5 than on an
N60, for example)
Longer life (Nikon designs shutters for F cameras for 150,000 exposures,
and for amateur cameras for 50,000 exposures)
Improved dust and water seals
If you notice, most of the hard to see features are designed to ensure
the pro (who makes his living taking pictures) can get the picture,
regardless of the conditions he is working under.
I am sure there are a lot of other features that are different between
high-end cameras (F5 and F100 specifically), medium level cameras
(N90s), and lower-end cameras. But, as you indicated, they can all take
the same quality picture.
Colin
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
For the fun of it you should run a test between the 55 f2.8
wide open and the 35 f2 at f2.8 using a subject at infinity
focus. What you will find is that the 35 is noticeably
sharper in the corners than the 55. Up close is another
matter, of course, since the 55 is a macro lens and
optimized for close focus. At f8 they should perform pretty
close to one another. Don't forget the 35 is a retro focus
wide angle and that says a lot. The current 35mm f2 AF
Nikkor is a superb performer. It's my second choice in a
35mm lens after the Leica Summicron for pure performance.
I'm a big fan of the 55 f2.8 and it's one of the few manual
focus Nikkor lenses I've kept for my system, but it's a
macro and it does macro things best.
Fred
...
When I worked in a camera store in 1951 we were supposed to tell the
customers to trade their cameras because a coated lens was essential
for color pictures. I never told them this, because I knew it was
untrue. Uncoated lenses of four elements or less make remarkable
pictures, even of backlit contrasty scenes. Note the torchlite
parades and backlit scenes in such old movie films as The White Hell of
Pitz Palu and Triumph of the Will. (I don't like Hitler but Triumph is
technically excellent) These films were made before lens coating was
invented. Or you can go to http://www.edromney.com/bromoil.html
where two pictures with the sun IN them were made with an Exakta with
a 150mm Meyer uncoated tele lens. There also is shown a backlit portrait
of a little girl made with an uncoated F2.9 Plaubel lens and a waterfall
backlit taken with an uncoated Voigtlander Scopar F4.5. I did extend
the tonal range with bromoil in this print but the others I mentioned
are ordinary BW prints. Older lenses in time acquire a sheen or polish
that has the same properties as lens coating. These precious lenses have
this quality. Don't overlook uncoated lenses just because they are old.
You can buy them for $10 from ignorant people these days . Of course
you should use a lens shade. More complex lenses such as the Leitz
Summar and all zooms really do need coating, but Tessar types ,
Protars, Dagors and older telephotos do very well without lens coating.
Best wishes...Ed Romney
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000
I suspect Ed illustrated his point about coating with b/w because coatings
are not particularly relevant with color.
If I remember the brochures correctly, Pentax promoted their SMC (Super
Multi Coated) lenses not as having superior color correction, which they
don't, but as allowing much more light in, which they do, thanks to
substantial reduction in the amount of light reflected away. The effect is
that a good, wide-aperture lens can be physically quite a bit smaller with
coated surfaces.
Coatings probably affect color, but their real function is to reduce
"flare," which is really an excess of light reflecting from the surface of
a lens. I believe the phrase "color corrected" really -- usually --has
more to do with the choice of glass, and less with coating. It takes glass
elements of different refractive indices to compensate for the tendency of
light passing through non-parallel glass surfaces to exit as a spectrum.
One element has the effect of spreading the spectrum slightly, so the next
one is made of a kind of glass that compresses it just the right amount.
That's an oversimplification but it does illustrate the point.
Before WWII it was widely known that for a lens of ordinary focal length
and aperture (in other words not a lens heavily corrected for some premium
factor), a properly-formulated three-element lens like the Cooke Triplet,
or a well-made Tessar type, all uncoated of course, would provide
impeccable results with color. There are a number of standard texts which
go into the matter in detail. Kingslake is authoritative. I recommend St.
Claire, "Photographic Lenses and Shutters," Ziff Davis (ca 1942) for a
non-technical but comprehensive treatement.
It is unfortunate that many people believe the number of elements, and
presence or absense of coating, automatically determines the quality of a
lens, when in fact an element count greater than three or four is usually
only important in lenses designed for wide apertures or toward the
extremes of focal length. For example in a lens designed for f2.8, six
elements may be needed to equal the performance of a Cooke Triplet at f5.6
or a four-element/three group Tessar at f3.5. ....
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
Mike wrote:
Yes, but not only in a color photo. The lens, bending the rays, won't know
if there is B&W or color film in the camera... :-)
A unsophisticated, simple lens bends rays differently depending on if the
rays are red or blue (or in between). This means that a lens generally
will focus either blue *or* red sharply, but not both. This is countered
by using a clever combination of lenses, with different propertys and
ending up with a lens that focuses all colors reasonably correct.
Depending on what kind of construction and how well the compensation is
done, these lenses are called achromats or apochromats - the popular APO
designation comes from these construction methods.
This has nothing to do (or very little) with anti reflex coatings. Albeit
these can have many colors (gold, blueish, greenish or whatever) these
coatings help with flare and light transmissivity, not really with making
the lens handle different colors of light any better.
So, chromatic aberration, if noticeable, will be seen in black and white
photography as well.
--
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000
....
2. Color correction and coating are two different things. Most
correction is in the lens design and it means no color fringes, that
the focal length for two colors is the same.
Long ago they used to correct for yellow and blue. Now the correction is
shifted towards the red. With BxW film and an old lens you get a
fantastically sharp picture with a strong yellow or orange filter that
knocks out the blue image completely . My barn picture is an example,
made with the Avus w/Scopar F4.5....
You cant do this with color film. The only completely corrected lenses
for color are apochromats . A lens coating, on the contrary, can
merely filter the light , not change focal length
3. Old lenses vs new..New lenses non zoom are generally superior but
slower older lenses can be excellent, sometimes equal new...for example
Kodak Ektars, Anastigmat Specials, Anastons, Zeiss Tessars, Some
Schneider Xenons, Cooke Aviar, older Voigtlander Scopar F4.5....Leitz
Elmar F2.8. ...Leitz 105mm F6.3 Mountain Elmar tele...Some Zenit and
Zorki lenses..F6.8 Goerz Dagor, Voigtlander Collinear F6.3 and the
humble Kodak Anastigmat F7.7 found on autographic back Kodaks in junk
shops. I pay $5 for em. Kodak 203mm Ektar F7.7 is this formula too. If
the old lens is well bloomed from age , has a metallic sheen to it, it
is about equal in contrast to a coated one. Slower lenses are sharper
usually. F4.5 Tessar is usually better than F3.5 or F2.8. F6.3 Tessars
are best of all and are sold at junk prices.. If you get a bad one it is
probably because it was taken apart carelessly for cleaning or maybe
repolished. Don't blame me. Often the center element on Tessars gets
loose and ruins the definition. Zeiss put out a bulletin on this in the
1930's.
Most of these lenses mentioned were rated by Consumers Research and
some were tested by Vern Reckmeyer in the 1934 American Annual. I
reprinted this data in my lens test booklet and much of it is in the
general repair text. They used to teach all this in photo classes but
now the kids learn about Diane Arbus and Minor White instead!! The fun
of the older lenses is that they can be bought for $5 to $10 used
these days, so you can build up quite a battery of lenses at low cost.
4. But remember too, not everyone wants an absolutely sharp lens. Some
prefer Voigltander Heliar , Cooke Speedic F2.5, Meyer Plasmat or the
Plaubel Anticomar F2.9 full open for an atmospheric effect.
5. Don't write off cheaper recent zooms completely. The 75-150mm Nikon
E f3.5 is excellent and relatively cheap. I now use it a lot. That is
enough for now..will probably enrage someone..best wishes..
Ed Romney
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000
It gets rather tiresome me belaboring the obvious to a group that wants
to believe that only the latest cameras and lenses praised by Bob Shell
in Shutterbug are fit to own. A few points to consider: First, These
people don't use lens shades on their Canon Rebels for the same reason
they wear their caps backwards. But they DO work..
Next..many of them are unknowingly simulating an uncoated lens by
always putting an uncoated skylight filter on front of the lens, a
favorite habit of those people who wear solar powered propeller beanie
hats and Howard Stern T-shirts, that I see at trade fairs.
Thirdly, a low contrast or uncoated lens can work rather well with
a very contrasty color film such as the early Kodachrome and some recent
Fuji color films. The uncoated Leitz Summar was rather good with old
Kodachrome. Modern zooms of many elements, and recent lenses with
uncoated skylight filters act somewhat the same. The problem is they
often show an image of the iris diaphragm when pointed at a light
source, which well designed simple older lenses do not. I demonstrated
this with an older , but single coated, 90mm F4 Leitz Elmar with
another picture of the sun in it printed in Camera Shopper a few years
back. But who cares? That is the real question and the reason why
photography is declining.
Yours faithfully, Ed Romney
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
The proof one way or another would be to take photographs with a good,
uncoated lens and compare them to photographs from a good, coated lens, to
see if the presence or absence of coating can always be determined simply
by the results.
If your comparison demonstrates to you that under "all" circumstances
coated lenses give better photographs, then coating is "essential," even
"absolutely essential." If coating helps in many or most kinds of light
conditions, then coating is a "very good thing." If it helps sometimes,
it's a "good thing."
Ed contends, and those of us who are disputing with you agree, that you
will not be able to demonstrate that coating is anything more than a
"good" or possibly a "very good" thing. Ed purports to speak from
experience; I know I certainly do.
Your assertion that no-one would buy an uncoated lens is simply a
misconception. Many knowledgable photographers have no qualms about buying
uncoated lenses (used, obviously). We do so all the time, with alarming
regularity.
Uninformed buyers who are not aware of what coatings are and how they
work, and of their relative unimportance, are the people who would decline
an uncoated lens. Here's another one for you -- a scratch, chip, or crack
on the front surface of a lens does not degrade image quality (however it
does on the back surface). If it is pronounced enough to create a little
flare all you have to do is fill it with black paint, with no ill effect
other than a miniscule loss of light transmission. Uninformed buyers scorn
those lenses; knowledgable buyers buy and use such lenses (assuming of
course they are not intersted in their resale value).
Your unspoken assumption that no knowledgable photographer would buy a
newly-manufactured, uncoated lens may be true. But I would not bet the
ranch on it.
Why is this becoming so tedious?
...
Jim [email protected] writes:
I wouldn't presume to argue with you, but Ron Wisner would:
http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm
A bit of browsing through Kingslake's "A history of the photographic
lens" also suggests that a bias against these classic symmetrical
designs for general use is unfounded. Their natural correction of
coma, distortion, and lateral color is *best* at 1:1, which is what
makes them so good for copy use, but most such designs "exhibit only
very small transverse aberration residuals even when used with an
infinitely distant object".
-j
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
[email protected] (NYCFoto) wrote:
Many process lenses are of the four-element air-spaced "dialyte"
type. The Ronar and Artar are examples. While these lenses are
optimized in design to work at or near 1:1 magnification their
corrections are very stable with distance so they work about as well
at infinity. The main aberration which becomes apparent is coma. Come
is reduced by stopping down. Since the lenses must usually be stopped
down a couple of stope anyway the coma is of no concern.
This type of lens does not have wide coverage. An image circle with
a diameter equal to the focal length is about the maximum. The
published specs usually indicate a smaller image circle at infinity
but in practice the image circle is a bit larger.
The idea that the lenses are "flat field" and that somehow is a
problem with landscape use comes from a minunderstanding. Process
lenses, and their cousins enlarging lenses, _must_ have flat fields
since they are reproducing a flat surface on another flat surface.
Actually, _all_ general purpose lenses are designed with a flat
field as an ideal. However, its possible to improve astigmatism by
allowing some field curvature. Slightly curved fields are acceptable
for normal pictorial use, so many camera lenses, especially cheaper
designs, have some field curvature to make the overall performance
better. A few special purpose lenses are designed to produce a curved
field but its not at all typical of general purpose lenses.
There are some other lens types used for process work. Kodak and
Bausch and Lomb made lenses of the Double Gauss type. These look
similar at first glance to the "Dialyte" type, both having four air
spaced elements, but in the Double Gauss type _all_ the surfaces are
concave toward the stop. I don't know how stable the corrections for
this type are. However, being very slow lenses the probability is that
there is not much performance lost by working at infinity.
This is also true of the so-called Wide Angle process lenses, which
are mostly six-elements in four groups and of the Plasmat type,
similar to nearly all LF lenses made now. Again, while these are
optimized for 1:1 they typically perform very well at infinity
especially if stopped down to a couple of stops.
The reson that change in object distance (or magnification) changes
the corrections of a lens is that the angles the light takes going
through the lens change. There is an optical principle sometimes
called the Abbe Sine Condition which states that a lens with fixed
elements can be corrected completely at only one object distance. For
conventional camera lenses this the distance chosen is infinity. For
enlarging or copying lenses is it whatever distance the lens is
intended to be used at mostly. For process lenses it is usually (but
not always) 1:1 magnification.
Generally the slower and simpler the lens the more stable the
correction will be with distance.
Very fast lenses for 35mm cameras often show noticable degradation
in performance when used for close-ups. Slow process and LF lenses
show very little change in performance.
---
Date: 4 Aug 1999
Norm ([email protected]) wrote:
In my experience it is less expensive to do LF than 35mm. I am currently
only shooting colour transparency. A sheet of 4x5 plus developing is
about $NZ10. That sounds like a lot of money, but it's so easy to
shoot rolls of 35mm film. At $NZ1.10 per 35mm slide I can shoot a
sheet of 4x5 for every 9 35mm slides. When doing wildlife its possible to
shoot a whole roll of film in the time it takes me to put up my
Gitzo tripod. Ok, that's not landscape, but by the time I do several
bracketed shots with the 35mm and possibly try a couple of different
filters plus an in-camera duplicate, not to mention the times I take
35mm and not a 4x5, I'm past my 9 to 1 ratio and LF
ends up cheaper because I thought about it a lot more before comitting
my image to film.
--
[Ed.note: RE: do brands matter?...]
Professionals as a whole don't give a damn about camera brand loyalty.
All they care about is the final image. Asking them which brand of
camera they use, to them is like asking a writer what brand of
computer he/she uses. It is a dumb question.
In 35mm one of the main reasons that almost all pros use Nikon or
Canon is the fact that lenses for them are very common. A pro can
walk into a rental house in any major city in the world and walk
out with a rented Nikon or Canon lens. Ask these companies to rent
you a Minolta lens and you will get laughed at. Same for Olympus,
Pentax, Contax, etc.
Also Nikon has NPS and Canon has CPS, and they send teams to major
events. You can borrow a lens from them on short term, get on the spot
repair service with a loaner camera to use until yours is fixed, and
lots of other perks.
If you are a professional and want to use some other system, you will
not have this sort of support, and you must plan on owning every lens
and accessory you will ever need, and carrying it with you.
Bob
- ----------
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I started with the Nikon SLR. Built up my Nikon system with many lenses
and a bunch of bodies...a GREAT camera system!
Got myself a Nikon S2 rangefinder...liked the rangefinder
concept.It made my photos more "honest".
Got myself a Leica M2, then 3 lenses...GREAT camera system! Opened
up my shooting style and had me carrying a camera a lot more.
Got myself a Crown Graphic 2 1/4 x 3 1/4... nice, big, sharp negs
and transparancies! Beautiful 11 x 14 b&w prints! Taught me much about
patience and control.
Got myself a Horseman VH-R...a high quality, controlable 6x9
camera that delivers beautiful images. THE camera I take when I want
serious art images.
The answer is: One camera or format won't do it all. Choose the
right
"tool" for the job.
Tom
Actually, the Kodak Gray Cards are very precisely dyed and are something
like 17.687% reflective (I forget the exact fraction).
However, photographic light meters are not calibrated for 18% reflectance.
This is the myth. They're actually calibrated for 12.5 - 13 %
reflectance, one half stop less reflective than a Gray Card. That's why
you make a 1/2 stop compensation from a reading taken from a Gray Card.
People ask if I am sure of all this. Well, I'm sure enough that Kodak
hired me to revise the Gray Card instructions last year because they had
omitted the half stop compensation when the instructions were last revised
18 years previously.
BTW, Gray Cards made by companies other than Kodak vary considerably in
reflectance.
Bob
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001
Jerry Coffin [email protected] wrote:
This is a legend. Doesn't matter how often it is told, it is still
untrue. See the following URLs. If you still choose to believe
it . . . it is your choice to do so.
http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/glass.flow/index.html
Think of the mess telescopes would be in were this true. The Palomar
telescope is still superbly figured. Tolerances there are measured in
millionths of an inch over a 200 inche mirror. It was figured before
1950 . . . hasn't "run" yet.
Terence A. Danks
[Ed. note: thanks to Harold for sharing this interesting observation on filters... ;-)
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:44:49 -0400
From: "Harold M. Merklinger" [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Change of URL - Merklinger
...
Bob,
Thanks for the reply!
I was just looking again at your myths page. It reminded me
of another related to filters: a skylight filter is just as good as a
UV filter for screening out UV and offering protection.
Many years ago (perhaps about 1980) I was taking pictures of
some black light "art". I wanted to use a UV filter on my Mamiya
645/80 to suppress any possible haze, but had only a skylight. When
I looked through the viewfinder I indeed saw haze - a pink haze.
Then I noticed that the skylight filter was itself "lit up" - the
filter itself was fluorescing under the UV. I checked all my other
skylight filters and found many that had this problem, including one
with a camera name brand on it!
The main message for me was: don't use skylight filters
unless they have been checked; they may do more harm than good.
I tried at the time to get Modern Photography to publish a
warning, but they declined.
...
- Harold
--
Harold M. Merklinger
[email protected]
Home phone: 902-461-1873
From: "jriegle" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Who has the best primes on average? Look here! - but is it really a big deal?
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002
This is the average scores of prime lenses from the different makes from the
www.photodo.com site. They use MTF tests to grade lenses. MTF or Modulation
Transfer Function, tests are regarded by optical engineers as a very
accurate way to test how well an optical system performs. Do a web search
to learn more about MTF testing of optical systems. To be included in the
list, a make had to have at least nine primes to generate an average from:
Leica M 4.21
Contax 4.13
Leica R 4.09
Canon 4.05
Minolta 3.95
Nikon 3.87
Pentax 3.87
Tokina 3.43
Tamron 3.40
Sigma 3.31
Summary: I'm not surprised to see the Leica M lenses score such a high
average. The craftsmanship (and price) reflect that. I was most impressed to
see the Canon scoring above 4. That is excellent considering the system is
much more affordable than the makes scoring slightly higher. Nikon and
Pentax tied at nearly 3.9 rounding out the camera makers lenses. Primes
scoring 3.5 or above can easily achieve quality enlargements worthy of
professional use. I've used lenses that scored around 3 that imaged very
well. With average scores well above 3.5, the camera maker's lenses will do
excellent for whichever system you choose.
After a rather large gap, the 3rd party makes ring in. The results don't do
them justice, because some of their earlier attempts were not as good as
their later lenses that pull their score down. For example, Sigma's early
400mm f/5.6 lenses scored only 1.5 and 2.5, while the latest scored 3.5.
Considering that, these 3rd party makes will still lag behind the camera
makes.
The argument of the number of samples tested or sample variation is not
valid because they will simply average out in these results.
As photography enthusiasts and/or professionals, we know there is more to a
camera lens than just MTF scores. Flare resistance, geometric distortion,
out of focus rendering, build quality and handling are other important
considerations not considered in this evaluation.
Sharpness isn't everything, but having good tools is desirable. I say this
averaging list is somewhat inconclusive. Sure the Leica came in first as I,
and perhaps many others, would have expected. I'm a bit disappointed that
Pentax did not score better, as I'm a Pentax lens user. The best way to
judge lenses is to look at them individually. Since virtually no one owns
every lens in the maker's line, you can pick and chose the best lenses from
a manufacturer's line. For example, Pentax has three very high scoring (4.6
!) lenses.
Good Shooting, John
From: Alan Browne [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who has the best primes on average? Look here! - but is it really a big deal?
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002
main problem is the word "average".
MTF charts at photodo are great. And if you pour over them, you can learn about
the strengths and weaknesses of a lens. If you rely on the "weighted" score,
then you are hiding information about the lens. It is still a good guide, but
it has been generalised or smoothed for easier consumption. And then to take an
average of weighted results by manufacturer, well that tends to hide even more
information. The dogs drag down the princes.
The order of the lenses below will not surprise many people. (Except maybe
Minolta edging out Nikon in this case, but then Nikon put more lenses up), but a
lens buyer should look at the lens from many spec points and actual user
"happiness" with the lens (with all due weighting of the compentence of the
"happy user"). What will the lens be used for? A lens that is not particularly
good at a popular aperture for most, might be particularly well suited at an
unpopular aperture for a few. That is the value of the MTF charts. It is the
photographer that needs to find the lens(es) that let him make the photography
he needs/wants to make.
As an example, look at the charts for the Canon and Minolta 20mm f/2.8's. Very
close scores with the Minolta 0.1 above, a mere 2%. But look at how smoothly
the Minolta behaves across axis v. the Canon. The Canon could have had an
identical weighted MTF by just increasing those curves a smidgen and yet remain
very "wavy" across the axis . YET: at f/8, the Canon is better than the Minolta
from 0 to about 9�. At 2.8, the Canon isn't as good as the Minolta, but then
the Minolta fades real quick beginning at about 12� off axis and higher to be
worse than the Canon.
So weighted average MTF's might be a quick and dirty way to rank a lens, but
they don't tell the story about how the lens is suited to a particular user.
And then weighting them all by manufacturer...more obfuscation.
End of ramble. I forgot to say thank you for the effort you put into the
roundup. On the other hand, it will give the Leica crowd another data point to
crow about!
Cheers,
Alan
jriegle wrote:
> This is the average scores of prime lenses from the different makes from the
> www.photodo.com site. They use MTF tests to grade lenses. MTF or Modulation
> Transfer Function, tests are regarded by optical engineers as a very
> accurate way to test how well an optical system performs. Do a web search
> to learn more about MTF testing of optical systems. To be included in the
> list, a make had to have at least nine primes to generate an average from:
...
Date: 5 Jul 2002
From: "Joe Schimpanzi" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
> I don't see why a 6008i and a 203FE is a "fair" comparison. For someone who
> has no need of automation, it's a pretty biased comparison, in fact. The
> 501CM kit I got was _less_ expensive than the nearest Rollei equivalent for
> my purposes.
Just to give you an update. The price for a Hasselblad 503 CW as quoted to
me from B&H via E-Mail 5 minutes ago is:
Thank you for shopping at B&H Photo Video
Our current selling price for the:
Hasselblad - 501CM Medium Format SLR Camera Kit (Black) with Folding
Waist Level Viewfinder, Split-Image Focusing Screen, A12 (120) Film
Back and 80mm f/2.8 CFE Lens
is $3,085.00
The price on the B&H web page for a Rollei 6008I with the 80 mm 2.8 EL
(1/500) lens, 120 back, W/L finder, Battery, Charger, Split Screen Finder is
only $2,999.99.
Major savings with the Rollei? No, but your facts are way off the mark.
Need good aim to shoot anything.... This is a comparison of the top of the
line Rollei with the bottom of the line Hasselblad. That's why I didn't
make this comparison from the onset.
I'm in the habit of comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I
suggested the comparison between the 6008I and the 203FE based upon
features. Not your needs of features. Not my needs of features.
> Why are Macro lenses inferior for photographs taken at infinity?
> Or is this a fallacy? My medium-format macro lens is just fine
> for macro and close-up work, but at infinity it is clearly not
> as good as my normal lens. Is it just my lens?
>
> (Note, I am VERY critical when it concerns sharpness. Something that is
> sharp to others is often unacceptable to me.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why even shoot 120/220 chromes?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999
>Well, the market is small because... I have a Pentax 67 and several
lens, I
>like it a lot and the transparencies are fantastic, stunningly better than
>35mm. But I still use 35mm for many things. My Pentax LX and a bunch of
>lenses weighs a fraction of the P67 and three lenses. That can mean a lot
>when you are chugging up the mountains here in Colorado. Although the P67
>can be used on a small Gitzo G126, it prefers the bigger and heavier Bogen
>3021.
John
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999
From: "Colin Povey" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Lens and Body Quality
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
[1] Re: Best general Purpose Nikkor Lens?
Date: Sat Aug 14 09:20:00 CDT 1999
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000
From: ed romney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Lens Coatings, not absolutely essential
From: "David Foy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens Coatings, not absolutely essential
From: Anders Svensson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens Coatings, not absolutely essential
> (Anders..) ..is what your saying here "This has to do with different light
> wavelengths focusing in different plane" mean that in a color photo made
> with an uncorrected lens, that some of the image will be out of focus
> because its a longer or shorter wave lenght ?
Anders Svensson
[email protected]
From: ed romney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Lens coatings, color + old vs new lenses
> Ed says...Maybe I should answer this... to the best of my ability.
> 1. Actually the reason for no color is: I prefer BW... but I'll take
> a sample backlit color picture with an uncoated lens to post
> somewhere in the near future. Will tell you all about it then. Can't
> show any now because we never shot strongly backlighted EVEN WITH A
> COATED LENS with the old contrasty too blue 1940's and 1950's
> Kodachrome. I'll use Kodak Gold or something this time.
http://www.edromney.com
From: ed romney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Lens coating Redux
http://www.edromney.com
From: "David Foy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens Coatings, not absolutely essential
Date: 19 Jan 2000
From: J Greely [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process lenses for landscape?
>Landscapes might suffer if forground subjects are
>included. Does this sound right?
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process lenses for landscape?
>How good are process lenses, like rodenstock Apo ronars, for use as infinity
>focus landscape lenses? Are more general purposes lenses like the Rodenstock
>APO sironar-s's sharper at infinity?Also are the tele nikkors any good
>compared to the rodenstock APO ronars or Apo sironar S?
>Thanks
>Brian
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
[email protected]
From: /dev/[email protected] (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: 35mm - The Ideal Landscape Camera????
: When discussing the relative costs of landscape photography, don't you have
: to take into account enlargers, cost of film, processing etc? I would think
: that in order to really maximize the advantage of MF ot LF you'd have do do
: a lot of this yourself, or have a good pro lab (expensive). With 35mm these
: costs are less for comparable control.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] important info
>From: george day [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] important info
>Date: Wed, Apr 19, 2000, 7:15 PM
>
> Precisely. Most professionals I know are not particularly religious about
> their equipment.
From: T Loizeaux [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.
+ photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] Re: leica or move up to medium format?
Date: Wed Apr 26 01:24:40 CDT 2000
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Photo Myths
From: Terence Danks [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lens cap vs UV filter Re: Do pros use UV filters?
>In any case, glass can and will run over time, regardless of how that
>particular situation came about -- and it doesn't necessarily take
>hundreds of years either. I've seen glass windows in hot climates
>that became noticeably deformed in only a few decades.
http://www.cmog.org/education/EDRUNGL.HTM
http://www.cyber-quest.com/News/Default.asp?Story=6999
http://discuss.pentax.com/pipermail/pentax-discuss/1999/Feb/2615.html
Nova Scotia, Canada
Wildlife and Nature Photography
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001
From: imx [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Myth and anti-myth
It is remarkable that the idea that there is a significant trade-off
between high contrast and low resolution still rides high in Leica lore.
As far as I know no one who holds his view has ever presented demonstrable
evidence or corroboratable measurements to prove this point. Generally a
high contrast implies a high resolution and the other way around. It may
be that a shift in focus plane may change this relationship to a small
degree, but the general correlation is evident. More contrast is higher
resolution. And statements to the effect that a "slight" reduction of
contrast brings a "slight' improvement of resolution beg, nay scream for
evidence.
Now to kill two more myths. Sometimes I feel like Buffy the Vampire
Killer.
I have the Kodachrome films which I used as comparison for the 100 to
400ISO slide film test some weeks ago. Results will kill some preconceived
ideas. The King of all slide films is by now the Kodachrome 64, which
resolves easily 90 lp/mm, much more than the E100SW and even close to the
resolution of TP in normal circumstances. Especially noteworthy is the
excellent acutance, the great clarity of detail and the fine grain. A
disappointment was the K25 which at best was as good as the K64, with a
small gain in grain smallness, but not enough to offset the drop in speed.
The fading out of the K25 then is sensible. No added value. Sorry.
Big surprise the K200, which showed as expected a tight but visible grain
pattern, but a resolution that beats the Provia 400F at 70 to 75 lp/mm. So
the idea that fine grain supports high resolution is as false as the idea
that low contrasr supports resolution.
If you want to test the qulaity of your lenses, there is only one easy
way: use K64! and even K200 will show the defects of most lenses. Do some
actual testing!
I also had the opportunity to test the surfaces of filters on an
interferometer. Results will kill another myth. I used four different BW
filters in several colours (not relevant for testing, but to show that
there must be different batches).
Results? Take a deep breath: NO, absolutely NO image degradation by the
filter as all surfaces of the four filters were absolutely plane to the
highest possible degree. At worst only one interferometer stripe for the
experts.
Of course secondary reflections are possible. But the commonly held notion
that the addition of the filter adds two surfaces and by that fact should
degrade the image quality is simply not supported by measurements.
A well made filter in front of the lens will NOT make a drop of image
quality!
These results show that myths are fine if you wish to cling to stories that
seem sensible because they are repeated over and over again and even have
been 'explained' to some degree. But so the flatness of the earth had its
followers and scientifically based stories. But only measurements bring
the facts.
Erwin