Related Links:
Lens Resolution Limits
Lens Reviews
Photozone Lens Reviews

This question is pretty easy to answer. If you are selling photographs to picky art directors and professional clients who are paying standard rates of $150-$5,000 per photo, you can afford to be pretty picky and demanding about the quality of your lenses. You can also tax deduct your lens costs, which is a major advantage over even serious amateur photographers!

Are you selling these photographs, or taking them to please yourself? If you aren't selling them, then how much lens do you need and can you afford?

If you rarely do an enlargement beyond machine made 4''x6'' prints from the drugstore, you won't see the extra quality in higher priced optics.

If you are doing 8''x10'' prints, you can probably still get by with a moderate quality zoom and most prime third party lenses.

Do you need 11''x14'' prints? Start looking more closely at those lens charts in the magazines. The better quality zoom and prime third party lenses will still work well, as will OEM lenses in general.

Are you doing a lot of 16''x20'' or larger prints? In this case, you may need to go to the very best lenses (OEM or third party) at higher prices.

Going to make a lot of 20''x30'' prints? Better plan on changing formats to medium or large format! While many 35mm users make such prints, their prints are unlikely to be truly critically sharp.

However, the saving grace of most 35mm enlargements beyond 11x14 inches is that they are usually viewed from a considerable distance. What if you got close to the 35mm enlargement, and compared against a similar medium or large format derived print? You would see the 35mm print is less sharp and has less tonality and shadow detail.

But by backing off to view the enlargement, you reduce the lpmm needed on the print to appear "sharp". So at double the viewing distance (20 inches vs. 10 inches, say), you only need half the lpmm on the print (4 lpmm instead of 8 lpmm) to appear equally sharp to your eyes.

Some 35mm users will report being happy with the sharpness of their 30x40 inch or even larger enlargements. Maybe so, but I would bet they aren't viewing them close up, or they would see that their enlargements aren't really as sharp as they think!

Quick Tour of LPMM

How can I make the above suggestions? Simple. I know even the best 35mm lenses are hard pressed to deliver 80 to 100 lpmm to the 24x36mm film image. Held at the proper distance, an 11x14 print is considered to be critically sharp if you can have 8 lpmm on the print. An 11x14 print is an eleven-fold enlargement (plus) of the 24x36mm image. To get 8 lpmm on the print, you need 8x11 or 88 lpmm on the film, plus more to allow for losses in the enlargement lens and process. Now any enlargement beyond this point necessarily means that the print will be less than critically sharp.

I know some folks will protest that they routinely make 2 foot by 3 foot enlargements from their 35mm negatives. That's possible, but the image can't be critically sharp (defined here as 8 lpmm on the print). You may be happy with the results, but comparison to a larger format image of the same size print would reveal the latter is much sharper.

Beyond this critical sharpness point, you can't see much improvement in sharpness (although other parameters such as tonality may be noticeably different). So a relatively poor 60 lpmm lens and an excellent 90 lpmm lens can deliver equally sharp appearing prints on a 5x7 inch print.

The other side of the coin is that if you rarely make enlargements beyond 8''x10'', you need only an 8 fold magnification factor (24mm is approx. one inch, times 8, provides 8 x 10 inch print size). Now you only need 8 lpmm x 8 or 64 lpmm on the film, plus some overhead for enlargement lens and process losses. So many third party lenses delivering 65-80 lpmm can be used to deliver the maximum usable quality on your 8x10 prints. Buying multi-thousand dollar OEM lenses won't noticeably improve your 8x10 print sharpness.

The Novoflex series of telephoto lenses are an example of putting your sharpness where you need it. These cult classic lenses are very sharp in the center of the image, but much less sharp at the edges. This tradeoff matches what many wildlife photographers need most. They can always crop out the unsharp edges and rarely fill the frame anyway. But most lenses represent tradeoffs in center sharpness to keep edge sharpness acceptable too.

Beyond Sharpness

Sharpness is only one of the important parameters in defining a good lens. Many relatively unsharp lenses make up for it by having higher levels of contrast, generating the appearance of greater sharpness. You can get published MTF curves and study how to interpret MTF charts to get an idea of lens contrast capabilities.

Multicoating and internal design (e.g., lens baffling) help reduce Lens Flare. Using a lens hood and keeping your lens and any filters used on it very clean can also help. Avoiding direct light sources such as the sun may be helpful in some older, more flare prone lens designs.

Light fall-off is another reason some lenses cost much more than others. It is very hard to get even lighting in the corners of the 35mm image. This problem is especially acute (pun intended) in wide and ultra-wide angle retrofocus lenses used in most SLRs.

Some lens factors are so subtle that many photographers argue about whether they really exist, or are purely psychological. Bokeh or the out-of-focus highlights generated by the lens is an example of such lens debates.

You can achieve greater (or lesser) contrast by making changes in the films you use, the use of lighting to reduce the contrast range in your photos, and how you have your film developed and printed. Other contrast effects are as simple as slight under-exposure (e.g., with slides) or overexposure. These tricks were often used by past photographers who had uncoated lenses to achieve acceptable results despite the limitations of their optics compared to more modern multicoated ones.

Build Quality Surprise

One of the major myths of third party lenses is that they sacrifice build quality to achieve low cost. This statement might have been true with the early lenses of the 1960s and early 1970s. But one of the few articles from that period to disassemble and actually compare a dozen+ third party and prime OEM 135mm f/2.8 lenses came up with some surprising results.

My Views

Despite the hype, what is important is not who made the glass or the lens, but how the lens you have performs. Unfortunately, there are limits to enlargement of 35mm images beyond which critical sharpness will be lost. Most of today's average third party and OEM lenses can do equally well for enlargements up to 8x10 inches (i.e., 65-70+ lpmm). The better third party lenses and most OEM lenses will perform well in 11x14 inch prints (i.e., 85-90 lpmm+). Virtually none of today's 35mm lenses can deliver a critically sharp 16x20 inch print (16+ fold enlargement x 8 lpmm requires 130 lpmm plus enlarger losses).

So if you need and want to do maximally sharp 16x20 prints, you should consider changing to medium format. For one thing, a much lower cost medium format system could deliver a critically sharp 16x20 print. Surprise! Pricing studies have shown that some medium format 6x7 systems are cheaper than similar lens coverage 35mm professional systems (i.e., Nikon F5 vs. Pentax 67).

In my view, 35mm lenses have been optimized to the point of minimal returns for great efforts and monies expended on small improvements. At today's sharpness limits around 80 to 100 lpmm for even OEM 35mm lenses, you can make a critically sharp 8x10 or 11x14 inch print. That is fine for magazine publishing, provided you don't crop too much in the process. The professional needs that extra bit of quality at whatever cost to win commercial users. But beyond 11x14 prints, 35mm is currently less than critically sharp with current lens and film systems. Yet the difference between a 80 lpmm Tamron, an 85 lpmm nikkor and a 90 lpmm Leitz lens is a cost factor of three to five or more for some lens designs. If you really need that extra 10-15% sharpness quality, be prepared to pay 300% to 500% more for it!

Related Postings

>From: "S. Gareth Ingram" [email protected]
>
>So when does it
>become easier to move to medium format instead of trying to squeeze
>every last drop of enlargement from 35mm ?

I shoot both formats ... Velvia (mostly) or fine grained print film (rarely), always on a tripod at f/8 or so when depth of field permits, trying to optimize for large prints. Canon EOS for 35 mm, including two L lenses, and Pentax 645 with 7 lenses for MF.

For my tastes I get excellent 35 mm enlargements up to 11 x 14, 'good' (admittedly subjective) 16 x 20's, and haven't tried it beyond that. However the 35 mm film of the same brand (ie Velvia) is more contrasty than the MF film (I've heard it's because 35 mm uses a thicker base ... not sure).

The 16 x 20's from the MF are somewhat better than the 11 x 14's from 35 mm and I've gone to 20 x 24 without problems (haven't printed above that).

So for my money the crossover point is beyond 11 x 14.

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998
From: "Deric T. Soh" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Battery pack for Nikon F70?

Hi Yusuf,

>24mm adaptall reminded me of the Tamron Adaptall 35-70
>F3.5-4.2 that I originally bought many moons ago for the FG.
>I also have the Nikon 35-80mm F3.5-5.6 (all plastic) which
>was bought with the F70, and since I have the Nikon 24-120
>BTW, I also have a Nikon 50mm, F1.8 and Vivitar 28mm, F2.8
>for the FG.
>My question that bothers me now is, which of the two lenses
>will be the better one for the manual FG?

Since you've got the 50/1.8, speed is obviously not so much of a concern here. But the Tamron is much heavier than the Nikon. If you're doing shots that are less than 8" x 10", I doubt if you'll notice any difference between the 2 lens optically. Question you have to ask, then, is whether the added weight of the Tamron is worth the 1 stop gain in speed.

I travelled quite a bit last year (from New Zealand to Australia to North Borneo/Sabah) with my F601, F3 with MD-4, MF 80-200/4.5, AF 50/1.8, MF 28/2.8 and MF 43-86/3.5, along with a horde of Cokin filters and my Manfrotto (model 055) tripod. It nearly killed me! But it was fun. However, I have recently bought myself a Yashica T5 (with a Tessar T* 35/3.5 lens) for those holidays away, though my main camera remains the trusty F90X. For shots up to 8" x 10", there's little difference between the T5 and my 90X and 24/2.8 AF-D.

I digress but my point is for travelling, its not always a good idea to bring your most prized camera and gear as they can be either stolen or damaged. Furthermore, the main purpose of a holiday is to enjoy yourself. The last thing you need is to worry about your gear and tire yourself out with the weight, especially if you're travelling with friends or others.

>The Tamron was much raved about in the British photo press  
>that time while the Nikon is getting very negative flack at
>the moment.

You must understand that opinions vary from people to people. For example, Bronica seems to be the popular medium format camera in UK but might not be the case in US or Asia. Since you have both lenses, I suggest you take both out for a roll of shots over the weekend to a walkabout in the woods (along with the other stuff you might need, like tripod, filters, etc). By the end of the walk, you would know which to keep.

Cheers!

Regards,
Deric.

From: Jakob Bisgaard [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Telezoom - Tokina or Nikon or Sigma?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998

> I am considering these lenses. Any advice
> 1) Tokina ATX AF 80-200 F2.8 Pro (Nikon D )
> 2) Sigma HSM AF 70-200 F2.8 EX (Nikon D)
> 3) Nikon AF 80-200 F2.8 D
>
> Thanks
> Ron

Hi Ron

If the price difference is small get the Nikon. Incidently I did a test of the Tokina 80-200 the Nikon 80-200 (the old one-touch zoom) and the Nikon AF 180mm f/2.8N. The test slides were examined with a 30x magnifying Carl-Zeiss microscope.

Stopped down to f/8 there was not a lot of difference, but of course the 180 was the best. Wide open there was a somewhat bigger difference, with the 180 easily the best then the Nikon 80-200 at 200 and then the Tokina. All three lenses were good however, and I would any day take the Tokina ATX Pro 80-200 over the slower Nikon zoom lenses such as the 70-210/4-5.6 or the new 70-300/4-5.6. But still of the 3 lenses you listed, get the Nikon.

Cheers
Jakob

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Coatings: T* vs HFT

Dr. James Chow wrote:

> I don't see why coatings would affect sharpness other than a
> reduction in contrast from flare.

Dr. Jim-

Different coatings may effect *perceived* sharpness. From my readings on this subject, I've come across the fact that all things being equal, higher contrast images are perceived as being "sharper" than flatter less-contrasty images, though they may in fact have lower resolution. This, along with the fact that relatively few negatives are enlarged beyond 8 diameters, is why lens manufacturers in the '70s began biasing or apotizing their lenses in favour of contrast over resolution.

Eric Goldstein

From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lens specs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998

>In trying to determine why some lenses are better than others, what is
>the significance of the "Groups/Elements" column listed in all the
>specs?  How do I know what a "10/10" is vs. a "11/13", etc?

The larger number indicates the number of elements (separately-made pieces of glass [or plastic.....;-], the smaller, the number of groups after some of the elements have been cemented together. More air-spaces (less difference between elements and groups numbers) can allow for greater correction of some optical problems, but it can result in more ghosting and flare... With simpler-to-design focal-lengths (like 45-135mm for 35mm), there can be advantages in using fewer elements in slower lenses to optimize image quality. Even with difficult lenses, a good and imaginative designer can make an excellent lens with few elements (the 15mm Zeiss Hologon had only three elements [!!!], and the first-rate Nikkor 16mm f3.5 also has surprisingly few elements, given its extreme retrofocus design). Sometimes one can predict if a lens will serve well for close focus by looking at its lens diagram (symmetry can be good...;-) - and knowing that a cheap version of a maker's particular lens has fewer than the expensive version of their lens with similar specs (like the 5-element Nikkor E and AF 28mm f2.8 vs. the 8-element AIS MF Nikkor) can serve as a guide to image quality, but otherwise there may be little to glean from poring over the specs, I think. It may be interesting, but there is only a loose correlation between number of elements/groups and image quality.

David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Martin Tai)
[1] Re: A question about reasonable resolution??
Date: Sat Dec 05 1998

PETER E HOLDEN wrote:

: > What sort of lines per mm would you expect in a 35mm slide?
: >
: > How about on a print?

A rule of thumb used for determine the circle of confusion of lens set the minimum resolution human eyes deem sharp is 4 line pair/mm on print. So a minium of on film resolution of 4 x magnification should be required.

Due to inevitable loss of resolution through the process of enlargement, a figure of 7 lpmm x magnification is desirable for high quality reproduction on magazines and the like, which are read at close distance (about 10").

For projector viewing, because the viewing distance is much more than 10" the lpmm requirement can be scaled down proportionally.

martin tai

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Steve Hoffmann)
[1] Re: Nature Photography with 35mm vs. Medium Format
Date: Fri Dec 04 1998

>My experience is that 35mm can get to 8X10 but 11X14 is really pushing
>the limit. I was hoping (based on what I had read...) to get to
>16X20 with 35mm.  After my first batch of 11X14 35mm prints, I got a
>med format camera.

You can get very nice 11X14s from 35mm if you use good technique, prime lenses and slow films. Use a tripod, stop down to between f8 and f16 and lock the mirror up if you are doing macro or telephoto work. My 11X14s from Fuji Velvia look great. Going to 16X20 is also possible. However, close examination will reveal grain in 16X20s even with fine grained 35mm films

Cheers,

Steve Hoffmann

rec.photo.technique.nature
[1] Re: Nature Photography with 35mm vs. Medium Format
From: [email protected] (Don Baccus)
Date: Fri Dec 04 1998

PBurian [email protected] wrote:

>Otherwise, buy better lenses, use a tripod and cable release and ISO 50  film.
>You will be impressed with the 11x14 prints you get.

I agree. I shoot MF and 35mm, and practice good technique (I dabble in the national magazine market). 11x14 prints from 35mm that are of very high quality are easily achievable with good technique at the camera *and* the enlarger (the latter implying a good printer if you don't do your own, and if you do, that you invest in a sturdy enlarger and an enlarging lens that's as good as your taking lenses if you do your own).

Now, fine-grained films printed carefully from MF (6x7 in my case) source onto 11x14 is easily distinguisable from 35mm sourced prints of that size, but you have to really look. Sure, many of us shooters will look and see the difference "pop" after practice, but at first I suspect most shooters would have difficulty.

At 16x20, though, assuming you're shooting both formats with finer-grained film, (i.e. slowish), differences will be more obvious.

All this ignores the gratification that comes from seeing an MF chrome on the slide table. Equally, it ingores the lower materials cost for shooting 35mm...

--

- Don Baccus, Portland OR [email protected]
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net

From: [email protected] (Jonas Palm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: A question about reasonable resolution??
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998

> What sort of lines per mm would you expect in a 35mm slide?
>
> How about on a print?
>
> And, I don't me laboratory perfection.... I mean in everyday work with
> consumer type color films.
>
> Thanks, Pete

Slide, in the plane of focus, with reasonable handholding shutter speeds, roughly 50-70 lp/mm.

Prints depend a bit on how they are made, but colour negative film is a bit sharper than slide film, all other things being equal, which roughly evens uout the disadvantage of the print being a second generation image. So roughly the same, 50-70 lp/mm on the print multiplied by the enlargement factor, in my experience, and without any particular care taken.

Jonas Palm

rom: Gary Frost [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tamron or Sigma for Enlargements 16X20?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998

If sharpness and resolution in a 16X20 print is your goal, I don't think that can be achieved with the zoom lens. These results are very hard to achieve with 35mm, the best prime lenses, the finest grain films, and tripod with careful work. With the technique you are describing here, I assume you are hand holding, you will do better to print to 8X12. While print quality is subjective, I would temper your enthusiasm for getting to 16X20 prints.

From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tamron or Sigma for Enlargements 16X20?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998

I am not sure this is completely appropriate for this group, but with a stretch, it may be.

There are three steps here, equally important.

The first is already mentioned, and that is to get as sharp as possible latent image on the film. I assume that B&W is what we still talk about, but this part is the same for any kind of film. The ability to focus correctly and usage of a tripod is very important.

Second step is the developing of the film. Still assuming B&W, there are some tricks that can be utilized to enhance the apparent sharpness, and different developers give different results. Consulting the current literature is a good idea. Look for developers that create nice, distinct grain, as the grain *will* be visible at these enlargement ratios, but also enhance the edge sharpness. Even your own turning and stirring technique can play a part. Basically, don't think about going to a lab for this part, unless you are prepared to pay extra for "special work". But B&W film developing isn't expensive, neither in materials or equipment, and it will give enourmous payoff in the results.

Third is to apply the rules of step one in the enlarging process. You will be having a long distance between the "projector" (the enlarger head) and the paper, and you will also get fairly long exposure times. Both outside and inherent vibrations when enlarging can be a problem. A good enlarging lens is important (but you know that already).

I have made many 50x60 cm enlargments (and bigger) and I was a devotee of Tri-X 400ASA film. What makes it work is that you accept that grain is always visible at these ratios, and that nice, sharp grain usually is better accepted than fuzzy, non distinct (but perhaps less visible) grain. Also, the viewing distance plays part. Hang/display enlargements of this size "on the far wall" so to say, and they will be much more appreciated.

--
Anders Svensson

rec.photo.misc
From: Don Farra [email protected]
[1] Commentary on sharpness, a case for medium format and beyond
Date: Mon Mar 15 1999

I just want to stand up on the soap box here in speaker's corner and talk about sharpness.

This idea came to me while reading a book called Successful B&W Photography by Roger W. Hicks (ISBN 0-7153-9825-3) yesterday afternoon. If you don't already have this book I recommend it, for the straight forward, no non sense approach he has towards photography. He backs his opinions with numbers and experience and provides good insight into the subject of photography.

The author of the book mentioned (on page 26) diffraction limited resolution and listed the max theoretical resolution a lens could give per f/stop. (These numbers are not unique to this book and can be calculated.) It went something like this:

f/2       500 lpmm
f/2.8    357
f/4       250
f/5.6    177
f/8       125
f/11     91
f/16     63
f/22     45
f/32     31
f/45     22

(lpmm is lines per mm)

I then remembered seeing another table (on page 23) that addressed print sharpness at a viewing distance of 10 inches, assuming 8 lpmm capacity of the eye. (Again this is not unique data, I have done the calculations for such requirements using different eye resolutions and have in the past post such here in rec.photo.misc, but here are his findings.) The first number is the calculated number of lines per mm and the second includes an adjustment for the enlarging lens loss.

film format    print size      5x7        8x10      11x14     16x20
-------------                  -------    -----    -------    -------
35 mm                          41/60      64/100   88/140   128/200
6x6                            25/30      35/50    50/80     72/110
6x7                            20/25      29/40    40/60     58/90

For larger format entries, I suggest reading the book. For this discussion I will only address 35 mm and medium format film cameras. Also notice that these numbers are not only for the center performance of the lens, but also include the edge performance.

Now let's combine the two tables and draw some conclusions, mixed in with some of my own opinions *** Remembering that the lpmm numbers should apply for average 3-dimensional subjects with average contrast levels and not for 1000:1 contrast ratio, 2 dimensional, wall mounted test targets.

The second table says if you want to make a "sharp" 16x20 print from a 35 mm camera your camera and lens must have a resolving power of 200 lpmm (center to edge). Now combine that with the first table and you can see that in order to do that you must use a f/stop faster than f/4 and of course use a film that can faithfully record 200 lpmm.

Now I don't know about you, but this combination seems unlikely to happen, to pull 200 lpmm from any 35 mm lens on the edge of the negative at f/5.6 or faster.

Let's look at the next size down, the 11x14 print. To do this with 35 mm film you must, (according to the author) have a camera/lens combination that can perform 140 lpmm at the edge using an f/stop of f/5.6 or faster.

Again I doubt if there are to many camera/lens companies that can claim those numbers, pulling 140 lpmm at f/5.6 or faster at the edges of the film. But I am sure some where it might exist, to this date I have not seen any.

So let's look at the next size down, the 8x10 print. Here the author claims that the camera/lens must record 100 lpmm at the edge and like before we can see that the camera/lens must use f/8 or better to get those numbers. It is possible but then again I have not seen any test report where the lens of any 35 mm camera can pull 100 lpmm from the edges at f/8 or faster. This is not to say it does not exist, but the number or selection of such lens I believe is very limited.

That leaves us with 5x7 print size from a 35 mm negative. Depressing as it sounds the charts shows that to do that you need 60 lpmm and to get that you must use f/11 or faster, and like before the lens must pull at least 60 lpmm from the edge. Here I think there are lenses that can do these numbers and here is where 35 mm can produce a "sharp" print using the author's conventions. But again I feel that the number of lenses is very limited.

What about medium format? If you follow the numbers given it appears that the 6x6 can do a 8x10 and the 6x7 can do a 11x14 given the performance convention set by the author. Personally I would say the human eye can resolve only 3 to 5 lpmm and as such move the print sizes up by one notch.

In my opinion and using some of the numbers given in the book I think that 35 mm can make a sharp edge to edge 8x10 print, that a 6x6 can make a sharp 11x14 print and a 6x7 can produce a sharp 16x20 print. This at a viewing distance of 10 inches with the unaided eye. Of course the further the viewing distance the larger the print can be, since the eye is in a sense, has angular resolution attributes, and only at large distances should atmospheric haze be taken into account.

As with all max sharpness prints, you must take special precautions in order to achieve the results, which may include high resolution film, a near motionless subject (relative to shutter speed), heavy tripod, long cable release, mirror lock up, controlled image contrast and accurate exposure. Nothing anywhere near a everyday shooting situations, in my opinion.

Summary and opinions:

I just pointed out what you may have already knew. That the larger the negative the larger the print you can make, due in part to the lower magnification and resolution requirements imposed on the camera/lens to produce the print with max sharpness. That those same requirements allow the photographer to use a wider f/stop range. That the larger the film format allows a greater selection of film that can record the resolution required. That anything beyond a 4x5 negative has a lower selection of film. That a medium format camera is more useable (speed of use, size and weight) than a 4x5 for most shooting assignments. So if you want to make "sharp" enlargements, select the film format to match the enlargement size desired. If size, weight and ease of use are not a primary concern that a 4x5 camera is the best camera to use to produce sharp enlargements beyond the 16x20 print size.

Thank you for allowing me to speak out on this subject and for listening,

Don

rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected] (Thomas Bantel)
[1] Re: Commentary on sharpness, a case for medium format and beyond
Date: Mon Mar 15 1999

Don,

this is an interesting aspect concerning 35mm vs. medium format. But I don't believe diffraction is the main factor in favor of the larger format. I could even argue, that for classical landscape shots, with a very large DOF from near to infinity, there is no real advantage to the bigger format. You need to stop down more to get this DOF with the longer focal lengths, used to have the same angle of view than with 35mm format. OTOH, you have to enlarge less. The two effects will cancel out. For other types of shots, both formats shot with the same aperture, medium format has the advantage you claim.

IMHO, there is a much bigger advantage of medium format, which shows in those crisp and contrasty medium format shots with an amazing amount of detail. Lenses and film may be able to resolve 200 lp/mm. But, the resolved detail lacks contrast, the MTF of both film and lenses at these resolutions is very small. With medium format, the same resolution on the same size print will "only" need 100 lp/mm. Medium format will need half the lp/mm resolution on film as 35mm format for any print size. Now, medium format lenses *might* have a lower MTF than 35mm lenses at 60 lp/mm. BUT, if you compare the MTF of a medium format lens at 30 lp/mm to the MTF of a 35mm lens at 60 lp/mm, my bet will be on the medium format lens. The same goes of course for the film. It's MTF is much higher at half the lp/mm.

This seems to be a much bigger limitation for 35mm format to me than the diffraction argument. The 1000/(f stop) lp/mm as a limit seem also to be a little pessimistic, AFAIK it's more like 1500/(f stop). And an excellent lens like e.g. the Canon 300 f/2.8L comes pretty close to this limit, even at f/2.8, which would make for more than 400 lp/mm, easily more than most films can resolve.

Thomas Bantel

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Jonas Palm)
[1] Re: Photodo Reliability
Date: Wed Mar 31 1999

"Dean Carroll" [email protected] wrote:

> How accurate are the lens tests on Photodo.com?  Do they follow very closely
> with real-world results?

Whether they say anything significant about the performance you will get from the lens is entirely up to your system and method. If you have a perfectly adjusted system, shoot scenes with no depth, tripodmounted, with infinite resolution film, I would suppose that they would map fairly well to the results you get.

It all depends on what your "real world" looks like.

I use a good system, good methods, and good films, and I have a hard time telling a '3.5' from a '4.5' even using a microscope, because at that point the film influences your results too much. On a final print, there is effectively no difference.

(If you look at the MTF of a film, you'll see that the MTF drops very sharply, but a lens typically extends further. Generalizing horribly, you could say that the lens is 'worse' at frequencies lower than 50 cycles (line-pairs) per mm, and the film is limiting beyond that. Which essentially means that you will see the limits of shooting technique and film before you will be limited by the lens. A Reala 25 might change that slightly. :-)

On the other hand, we are talking upwards of 80-100 lp/mm resolved on the film, so I guess that means that even 3.0-3.5 graders can do very well indeed. Only when you drop towards a '2', can I reliably see that the resolution is lens-limited, using tripods and MLU.

Don't forget about lens flare, distortion, build quality, weight, price et cetera when comparing lenses. In most peoples' real lives, these issues are easily as important as MTF values.

All that said, I study those charts religously, and even let my purchasing behaviour be influenced by them! :-) The idiocy of some people.... ;-)

Jonas Palm

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999
From: Mark Palmer at SF1 x4221 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sharpness

All these comments on sharpness,

It always strikes me that if the your using quality of your camera equipment. i.e. photos take with a Leica versus a Nikon, or Hasselblad versus Mamiya to distinguish yourself, then your photos aren't much good.

Personally I can't tell the difference from a photo taken with a good Leica, Nikon, canon or Minolta camera etc.

I can't tell the difference between a photo taken with a Hasselblad, Pentax 67, or Mamiya etc.

I can't tell the difference between a photo taken with Nikon or Schneider view camera lens either.

I can easily tell the difference between a small format camera photo and a medium format camera and large format camera.

For example,

I find using a ISO 25 speed in a 35mm camera may give the sharpness of say a 100 speed film in medium format. But for many application the ISO25 has far to much contrast and just doesn't look as nice.

I love the medium format, I find the elongated 35mm frame difficult to work with and because the film is so small the cropping ability are limited. The square, can so easily be 645,6 x 3, or just square with very little perceived change in the sharpness, grain or tonality of your picture.

I bought my Hasselblad not because it was sharper than a Mamiya. (in fact I'm not sure it is).

Because I liked it's design.

From: "Spock's Brain" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How do AF Minolta, Canon, Nikon etc lenses compare?
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999

Roland wrote

>But back to my first point (I think), is it not true that the AF lenses
>made by the major manufacturers are "different" in that they give better
>results for different situations and that the perceived equality of
>these lenses is due to an equal spread of preference for the results
>rather than actual optical quality?

Perhaps. But are you going to spend your time and money collecting a 200/2.8 from Minolta, a 300/2.8 from Nikon, a 28-70/2.8 from Canon, and a body from each in order to have actual best optical quality? And are you going to notice that better optical quality when the actual differences are quite small between the counterparts to these lenses, in any given circumstance? While a Minolta 200/2.8 G is rated as the best 200/2.8 lens around according to the test summary page at Photozone, neither the Nikon nor the Canon counterparts are so much poorer that you could use them as soft focus lenses (neither are Minolta optics in general that poor - one of the reasons why they make a real soft focus lens). In fact, I doubt you could see the differences without using something like Royal Gold 25 and blowing the picture up to poster size - and even then I'll bet money that the results will be so similar that any group of people would pick different pictures as being the best. The differences between the major manufacturer's good lenses aren't worth worrying about, not unless you have enough money to buy into all three systems, because no one system has all the best lenses. And if you are going to pay that much money, why not just switch to medium or large format and get serious increase in quality? There is no 35mm lens that is so much better than any other 35mm lens that the difference in quality would be as significant as going to medium format.

From: [email protected] (DLWood2000)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What with this paronoid attitude on quality of lenses
Date: 08 Jul 1999

[email protected] wrote:

>Of course the final photograph is more important than the quality of
>the lens used, but some of us want to make 16x20 prints, so that's
>why the lens quality may be more important to some than others.

You know, I see that in the NG all the time as an admonishment to avoid less expensive lenses. It goes something like this: "That lens (usually some sort of Sigma) is okay, I guess, if you never enlarge beyond a 4 X 6 machine print, but if you are making professional prints that are 11 X 14 or 16 X 20, then the difference will be readily apparent."

What does one do with a print that size?

Wedding photos, maybe? I guess you could also make art prints to sell (or hang in ones home), but I can't see where such a photo would be published that size- except maybe a coffee table book. Also, the local pro lab charges a LOT for such an enlargement where I live.

How many a year do you make, for what purpose, and how much do they cost each? Perhaps you do your own processing/ printing, which I suppose would defray the costs quite a bit.

If you don't mind, I would appreciate some enlightenment on those points. I keep asking myself why I should drop a few thousand more $$ on lenses in order to get quality to make larger prints. I haven't ever made anything from my own stuff more than 8 X 10, and the results have been acceptable with the lenses I own. Thanks.

Dennis

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (J. Jalbert)
[1] Re: Zoom lenses vs. Fixed Focal Length
Date: Mon Aug 16 1999

"StevenQ" [email protected] wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I work at Target's Camera & Sound and I always tell people that Fixed Focal
> Length lenses have an advantage over Zoom lenses because of well, what I've
> read on these boards.
>
> I'd like to get some clarification as to why exactly this is so though.

Steven, the rude answer is this: 99% of those people who are just now purchasing a "good" camera WILL NOT BE ABLE TO NOTICE the difference between a photo THEY TAKE with a prime lens and a zoom lens. Why? First, the most common cause of fuzzy pictures is camera-shake, and it is compounded at long (tele) shots. The other reason is that commercial print services don't print for sharpness. They use diffusion enlargers which always degrade sharpness. So you can tell them they won't notice a difference, but then you might be fired by some bottom line dweller.

For the reason primes are better - well, you already indicated that you know: the reason is all lens designs are compromises. No lens does everything right, and the design with the very most compromises is the one that tries to do the most - the Zoom lens!

From: [email protected] (Raskolnikov)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.ar t,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: It Ain't What You Got -- It's How You Use It.
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999

I use the same rule for photo equipment I do for computer equipment: Don't replace/upgrade anything until its limitations have pissed you off at least twice. How much equipment you need depends on what you're shooting and your expectations. You can shoot decent portraits and landscapes for very little money, especially if none of the money goes for excess automation. My $50 you-gotta-whack-it-to-make-the-meter-come-on Minolta XG-1 and $15 135/3.5 can blow the doors off P & S's costing three times as much. But if you want poster-sized enlargements of polar bears, you're either going to spend an obscene amount of money on equipment, or you're going to get eaten.

....

From: "W Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses?
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999

When I got tired of repairing my Konica and decided to invest in a new Canon system, I found that the zoom that came with the camera did not produce the quality of photos I was used to with my old Konica prime lenses. Next I tried a borrowed 28-105 USM. Quality was better, but still not to the prime lens standard. Finally and tried and purchased the 70-200 L. That is very similar image quality to the primes.

Whether this is the correct decision for you depends on what you are doing with your photography. I use a tripod most of the time and make enlargements to 16x24 inches. If you are making 4x6 inch photos from hand a hand held camera, the lens quality will not be that important.

Scott

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
From: "Andy Hess (CBIZ)" [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: Lenses and Formats

Dear Robert,

I enjoyed reading your lens/film size letters on your discussion page "Lens Quality - How Much Do You Really Need.

For may years I was a professional photographer and ran across some wonderful camera/lens combinations that produced results that exceeded the limits of the film placed in the camera.

1. A 55MM Micro-Nikkor F:3.5, this lens was one of the sharpest 35mm lenses I ever used.

2. The latest 50MM f:2 M Leica lens, This is the only lens that I have ever used that produces flawless 11X14s wide open with Kodak Technical Pan film.

3. 210MM Schneider Symmar Triple Convertible in a shutter, and older lens. Have found no limitations with this lens on a 4X5

4. 355MM APO-Claron F:9 Schneider Lens, from the 50s-60s chrome. Have found no limitations with an 8X10 camera near wide open.

5. 50MM F:ELNikkor enlarging lens for its intended purpose.

6. 80MM F:4 Schneider Componon enlarging lens for its intended purpose.

7. 240MM F:5.6 Schneider Componon, the old one not the "S" in a shutter on an 8X10 for pictorial work with limited movements.

8. 150MM Goerz Dogmar enlarging lens (coated, very old) for 4X5-- This was the first truly sharp enlarging lens I ever used.

9. 150MM F3.5 Schneider Xenar/Tessar-- old (1920s-30s) uncoated in a Compur shutter on a 4X5-- the first truly sharp lens I ever used. Prior to using this lens in school, I did not know what a sharp lens was. Never had one.

Some well regarded lenses I got just poor results from:

210MM F5.6 Symmar S on a 4X5.

8-3/4" Goerz Apo-Artar-- not very sharp

90MM Schneider Angulon

60MM Lens for Hasselblad-- The old one T*--just bad, was never sharp., was very expensive though.

Forgive my lens name spelling errors.

If you noticed most of these lenses are older models. They are wonderful lenses even today!

The worst camera I ever used: The prize goes to the Bronica S2A. The camera would almost leap out of your hand when taking pictures. Never figured out if it was camera vibration or the Lenses. Just say NO to this one!

Best regards,
Andy Hess

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000
From: [email protected] (Gene Windell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: More on 35mm vs MF (Final word?) Uh-huh

[email protected] wrote:

>But to say that, for example, an 8 x 10 print from a 35 mm negative is now
>the the equivalent of one from medium format is nonsense.

I shoot in both 35mm and 6X6, often shooting the same scene under the same lighting on both formats. I would put the break point at the 11 X 14 print size, which is to say that I can almost always get excellent, salable, 11X14 enlargements from ASA 100 or 160 35mm film - but they never match the results of the 6X6 negatives at that print size.

For me, 8X10 is a different story. I can get 8X10 prints from 35mm that, to my eyes, fully equal the 6X6. But only under certain conditions. First, the 35mm film must be perfectly exposed - which means either sheer luck or using an ambient light meter. Because it needs to be enlarged less to get to 8X10, medium format is more tolerant of exposure errors.

Second, medium format retains detail better both in bright highlights and dense shadows. For 35mm to equal medium format at 8X10, you have to compose a scene that contains only medium tones - and avoiding high contrast lighting helps also. Using only prime lenses with an effective lens shade is also a contributing factor. With zoom lenses, the issue is not so much one of sharpness but loss of color contrast and saturation due to lens flare.

In summary, my experience is that 35mm can produce 8X10 prints that equal medium format - if you use only prime lenses, shoot only scenes without bright highlights and dense shadows, meter carefully with an ambient light/flash meter, avoid hight contrast light, and use slow film. Of course, you can't always do all that and often won't want to - which is why medium format will routinely provide better results.

Gene Windell
....

[Ed.note: while related to Leica, would probably apply to many 35mm vs medium format comparisons...]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000
From: Gaz Rowlands [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Leica

I owned an M3 for 6 years and an M6 for 1 year. Ran it as a complimentary outfit to my Hasselblad kit and used it when I wanted to travel light. The M6 was a bigger commitment and I tried to use it as a replacement for my 503Cxi, slower film, tripod, zone system etc. The M6 is a great camera and I used it with enormous enthusiasm.

However, I suddenly realised that two weeks in Scotland devoted to photography gave me results that were unsatisfacory and my medium format negs were largely the only ones I wanted to print. The weak point of the system is the film format and in B&W there is no escaping that, if you're seeking tonal quality etc. I sold all my Leica kit and now concentrate on medium and large format. If I want walk-about I use a Fuji 6x9, or I carry the 'blad with a lens in each of my coat pockets.

Gaz

Date: 12 Jan 2000
From: [email protected] (MDDESKEY)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Leica lenses really better?

> I've never had anyone come up to
>me and say, "Oh yes, that was shot with a Leica," or "No, that wasn't
shot
>with a Leica."

You'll find many prejudiced diehards in this NG who say they can unerringly tell which photos were taken with Leicas. Usually among their own photos. Over the last three decades, double blind tests show that pictures taken with different quality cameras are indistinguishable.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] apo 90 versus 4/150

I did say that Leica pictures deliver comparable quality and sometimes under suitable conditions may challenge 120 format pictures up to 12 times enlargement. An enlargement from a Leica negative to a format of 12x16inch is a factor of 12, The same print for a 120-negative is an enlargement of 5 to 6 times. If under these unfavorable conditions a Leica print can be compared favorably to a Hasselblad print speaks very well for Leica lenses.

Our research specifically and conclusively disproves the above statements. We made the prints, and showed them to a panel of viewers. The viewers decisively and overwhelmingly chose the medium-format prints as being of higher quality at this size. The above conclusion therefore does not stand up to experimental corroboration.

To reiterate the test conditions:

The same scene was shot with a Leica M6 and 50mm Summicron lens very securely affixed to a very heavy tripod. Exposures were made at f/8 on Kodak Ektar 25 film. Prints were made in a very well equipped professional darkroom on an Omega D5 Dichroic with Chromegatrol and Apo-Rodagon 90mm lens (yes--the original one). Scenes were chosen that did not create problems for the inherently high contrast of this film.

These were compared to prints made from negatives made with a Pentax 6x7 camera and 90/2.8 lens, on 100-speed Kodak VPS, handheld. These negatives were printed with the same enlarger on the same paper.

I.e., the small-format prints were optimized for image quality, and the medium-format prints weren't.

Viewers included professional photographers, photography students, professional visual arts people such as art directors and graphic designers, and non-photographers. We didn't direct their conclusions--we simply asked them to choose which print they thought had "better quality" however they chose to define it.

At smaller than 8x10 sizes the 35mm prints won. At 8x10 it was a wash. By 11x14 there was a preference for the medium-format prints, but it was not overwhelming (although the professionals more clearly preferred the medium-format prints). By 16x20--it was very close to 12X--everyone chose the medium-format prints. We didn't make prints larger than that.

Incidentally, we did the same experiments comparing 6x7 and 4x5, with very interesting results, but that's OT for this forum.

I'm sympathetic to the temptation to compare things like MTF percentages and extropolate out to what "should be" the case, but it amounts to wishful thinking--more careful research than that is required to find the truth. There is more to "print quality" than lp/mm.

- --Mike

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000
From: Erwin Puts [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] medium format comparison

It may seem that Mike assumes that I am only a theoretical person, looking at curves and forgetting to do proper experimental research. It is really a pity Mike did not ask for information before starting to accuse me of wishful thinking. May I inform Mike that the same experiment he conducted has been done by me too. A few years ago I was a photography teacher at an institute for the training of professional photographers in the South of France. Here we did this comparison: Leica M with 50mm, Zeiss Contax with 50mm, Hasselblad with 80mm and Sinar 4x5 inch with some Schneider lens, the specs I forgot. All films were 100 ISO B&W (so giving the 35mm cameas a disadvantage!!!). Prints were made with a Durst Laborator for 4x5 inch negatives and a Schneider enlarger lens. We choose as a subject a scene with very fine textural details, very clean highlights to look at the smoothness and gradation of small subject areas. All heavily tripoded on 4x5 inch tripods etc.

The results were studied by 20 students and three teachers and some external professionals. All agreed without any doubt that the best quality had the 4x5 inch prints. Superior sharpness impression, stunning gradation in subtle high light areas and a deep glow no other print could even approach.

The 120mm prints and the 35mm prints were considered about equal. Of course the 120mm showed finer nuances in the highlights where the grain of the 35mm washed away the subtleties. But the 35mm prints were considered the sharper ones.

Now to rehearse: I never said that the Leica picture would be better than the Haselblad picture. I only stated that the Leica picture can compare favorably with the 120 format. Given the huge advantages of the 120 format that is a tribute to Leica lenses and the quality of the current emulsions. So let us keep on track. I did not assert the superiority of Leica against Hasselblad. I only said these two can be compared and that the Leica picture can hold its own.

This episode tells me that we should pool our resources and try to do some really valid and conclusive research. This thread is quite interesting and I would hate to see it spoiled by some unjustified accusing.

Erwin

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
From: "J. Matthews" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 4 inches by 5 inches was - Re: Leica story

Look in a book of landscape photos by Galen Rowell (a fine writer and photographer who uses 35mm), then something by Elliot Porter. Even with 8x10 prints, the differences are unmistakeable. With 35mm, massed rock outcroppings and massed leaves (i.e. trees at medium distance) look simply 'figured in' or smudged. Even more subtle qualities, which others have referred to, like tonal continuity - how smoothly dark colors merge into light - are quite noticeable, even between 4x5 contact prints and 4x5 prints from 35mm. (Not just to my eyes - that would demonstrate relatively little in this context - but in the eyes of completely casual observers, once you tell them what to look for.) It's strange that this should be so, since with fine-grained 35 mm film and relatively small prints, the human eye can't actually see the grain. It's apparently not a mirage; a learned friend once explained how the eye/brain can make out qualititative differences between massed signals at different resolutions, even when the lower resolution falls below the threshold of detectability. Clearly I didn't get it, or I could reproduce his account here, which I grant you gives this account the validity of hearsay; but consider that you may be wrong. If you're curious, I'll ask my friend or look it up and post the explanation. Or one of the more learned participants of the forum can leap in.

There's a game I've played several times with non-photographer friends involving books of landscape photos. None of them picks out the original film format of the enlarged photos *at first* - because shown a picture of Mt. Hood with firs in the foreground, most people see the representation, not the photograph - i.e, - "Mountain with Trees" rather than the actual photograph on the page before them. But point out the texture of the mountain sides cast in shadow and the details of the trees; from that point they've always picked out the landscapes blown up from 35 mm from the larger formats.

There are plenty of applications for which you can't see the difference between 35mm and larger formats, and the distinction between the two is sometimes drawn just to draw the line between 'amateurs' and pros. In my city, it's much easier to sell work from 6x6 or 6x4.5 than 35mm, even for shots of restaurant interiors that eventually end up a mere 2x2 inch. I remember one memorable photo book gave as a primary reason for buying medium format equipment the instant status as serious photgrapher it confers in the eyes of clients... But such silliness aside, the differences are there, and with certain kinds of pictures people like to make - not just immense poster-sized enlargements - they're quite obvious.

Sorry for the long post.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Contax 645 off topic (but Zeiss lenses!!)

I don't know who these guys are, but it sounds like nonsense to me. Some people are so prejudiced against lenses made in Japan that they will "see" differences that aren't really there.

Color Foto has tested the lenses and found them as good or better than Zeiss glass for Hasselblad and Rollei.

The photos I have shot with them are super. Particularly the 120 Makro lens.

Bob

...

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: 35mm - The Ideal Landscape Camera????

PBurian wrote:

> The advantage of a larger image size is obvious in medium and large format.

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but if the advantage is that obviuos, then why not just shoot in medium format or large format. (Note: I'm not saying MF or LF are for everybody or everything, but, if you say, the advantage is obvious for this application, why not select the best tool for the job?)

> But
> otherwise, 35mm is fine for landscape photography as Tim Fitzharris describes
> in his book on this topic.
>
> Problem is that 35mm shooters rarely tend to take the same care that larger
> format shooters do.

Sloppy technique is sloppy technique, regardless of format. Unless you're willing to practice good technique, moving up to a large format will not make you a better photographer.

> 35mm lends itself to quick, hand-held shooting.

Which is, of course, one of the major advantages of the 35mm format. It is also one of the big reasons that 35mm is the "right" format for so many (most) applications.

> Solution: Force yourself to use a tripod 100% of the time. Not just for
> sharpness but also for critically accurate composition and point of focus.

Good advice, but not just any tripod, A GOOD SOLID (which translates into, heavy, expensive, or often both) TRIPOD. In many ways, shooting in 35mm puts more demands on a tripod than shooting large format. I know that goes against conventional thinking (accepted wisdom being the bigger the camera, the bigger the tripod). Just about every large format camera made these days allows you to position the camera back in either horizontal or vertical orientation while still keeping the load directly centered over the apex of the tripod. In other words, the center of mass is balanced and pushing straight down, not flopped off to one side for verticals. Also, a lightweight field camera and compact lens can actually weight less than a 35mm autofocus camera and zoom lens. Longer lenses are commonly used in the smaller formats, and greater magnification ratios are required for equal sized final prints. What this means is that camera shake will be more highly magnified, so it's damping is even more critical in the smaller formats. About the only case where LF puts greater demand on the tripod is under windy conditions. In that case, the large surface area of the camera bellows has a strong resemblence to a box kite.

Sorry, I got a little side tracked there. My main point is that despite the demands a 35mm system puts on a tripod, I often see people pearch a 35mm SLR atop the most flimsy, rickety tripods imaginable. The justification often being, "it's only 35mm". If you want to shoot 35mm landscapes and get the best results possible, spend the money on a GOOD tripod and a GOOD head, and USE IT. Cutting corners on a tripod purchase is false economy. There is little point in spending thousands of dollars on a top of the line 35mm SLR and top notch state-of-the-art glass only to compromise the performance of the system by placing it on top of a $29.95 tripod. Look at what the 35mm pros use. Most use big, sturdy tripods with expensive ball heads. Not because they like spending the money and lugging around the weight, but because they know the quality of their work depends more on a rock solid camera support than on what brand of camera and lenses they use.

A rock solid method of attaching your camera to the tripod is also a must. Something that prevents the camera/lens from twisting is especially important when shooting verticals. Pardon the product plug, but no matter what tripod and head you get, I HIGHLY recommend an Arca Swiss style quick release with adapter plates from Really Right Stuff (RRS). They sell an Arca style quick release that can be adapted to other brand tripod heads. People reluctant to spend more than 50 bucks for a tripod/head will scoff at the idea of spending $40 - $60 for an adapter plate, but it will do more to improve the sharpness of their photos than spending a thousand dollars (or more) on the latest Super APO ED glass. RRS makes a huge variety of custom plates matched specifically to vaious cameras and lenses. Visit their web site, get their catalog, buy their products. They are well made and worth the money.

> What other tips do people have for maximizing the value of 35mm for landscapes?

Slow down and compose carefully. When starting with a small piece of film, there is little margin for cropping when enlarging to the final print size. Fill the frame with the subject and check your corners for light areas or distracting elements that will draw the viewers eye out of the frame.

If there is a visible horizon in the frame, make sure it is level (otherwise, you will have to crop the image unecessarily when printing). A bubble level works best. A gridded viewing screen is the next best choice for getting things properly aligned.

Know your lenses and shoot at their sharpest apertures when conditions allow. Very few lenses are sharpest wide open, and none that I know of are sharpest fully stopped down (due to diffraction). I've seen a lot of people shooting 35mm landscapes at f22 for no other reason than they think maximum depth of field == maximum sharpness. It does not. All modern 35mm lenses will be severly diffraction limited at f22. Shooting at f22 when not necessary will kill your image sharpness. Unless you need the added depth of field, shoot at your lenses sharpest aperture (probably somewhere in the f5.6 - f11 range for most 35mm lenses).

Lock up your mirror and let any vibrations settle before releasing the shutter. We're talking static landscapes here, not action photography or wildlife. There is no need to observe the scene through the lens at the moment of exposure. That mountain ain't going anywhere (St. Helens excepted). It's in the exact same spot it was when you composed your photo. Lock up the mirror, wait for things to settle and then fire the shutter with a cable release on one of those nifty electronic remote releases.

Use the finest grain film you can get. Velvia has been the standard for years and now Fuji has the even finer grained Provia F. Hint, most folks shooting MF and LF landscapes also shoot with Velvia. To me, the thing that often limits enlargement size is visible grain in the final print. The sharpest lenses, best technique, and steadiest support in the world can't overcome the physical limitations inherent in the film's grain structure. Note: I'm not saying fined grain films are the bee's knees for all subjects or all situations. They are not. I'm just saying if your goal is sharp prints, it doesn't make sense to handicap yourself by using a film that doesn't have the finest grain possible.

Keep your lens and filter surfaces as clean as possible. Haze on lens or filter surfaces can effect both sharpness and contrast (reduced local contrast reduces perceived sharpness). Don't put cheap filters on your expensive lenses and don't use filters if you don't need them. It's OK to carry your camera around with a UV or skylight filter on the front of the lens to protect it from damage, but unless there is some reason to leave it on, remove it when shooting. Most filters are NOT multicoated, and even if they are, you just added two more air:glass interfaces to your optical path. Even if the filter is perfect in all other respects, you just reduced your contast for no reason.

Sounds like a lot of work. It is, but most things worthwhile are. Not to keep preaching the large format sermon (we've already established, and agreed, it's not for everybody or everything), but if you're going to go to all this trouble and expense, why not get the maximum return for your efforts and at least consider a LF (or MF) system for static landscapes. Again, not saying it's for everybody, but if your going to lug a heavy tripod around and shoot in a slow contemplative method, it's at least worthy of consideration.

Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: 35mm - The Ideal Landscape Camera?????

....

Besides what Kerry has already stated....

There is no need for the autofocus, auto exposure camera. A simple SLR with prime lenses will do nicely. Put your money in the glass, not the box.

In the beginning, write down your exposure info. It will help you evaluate you efforts later.

Keep your exposures in the lens "sweet spot" to avoid aberations and diffraction. This should be about f/8 for 35mm.

Be sure to always lock up the mirror and use a shutter release. Carry a small chart that details the reciprocity limits of your film and the compensation needed. A watch with a second will be useful as well.

Also, be sure to always use a lens shade, flare can seriously affect contrast, no matter how little.

Use the finest grain film you can find.

Do not be afraid to bracket like crazy. You have gone to the trouble of getting that great shot in front of you, don't be afraid to "cover" yourself. I have yet to meet the meter or photographer that correctly judges every exposure. Be sure to do an "in camera" dupe.

Learn to wait for it. A shot can be ordinary or dramatic depending on when you fire the shutter. With landscape, that may mean sunrise, a cloud, a snow fall etc. If it is windy, wait for things to stop moving.

Carry some macro equipment while you are at it. I have had many trips saved because I bothered to bring a reversing ring for my 645.

When shooting B&W carry a yellow, orange and red filter. They will help in bringing out the clouds and vegetation. Be sure to compsenate accordingly.

Peter Mikalajunas

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 
From: Bob Shell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "Normal viewing distance"

To the experts:

I am discussing "normal" viewing distance for photo prints in an article. I
know I have read somewhere that this is figured at X times the diagonal of
the image, but I can't locate any such reference at the moment. I seem to
recall 3 to 4 times the diagonal being the figure, and that seems about
right from eyeballing an 8 X 10 inch print.

I also remember that the resolving power of the human eye at this normal
viewing distance is only something like 25-30 lines per millimeter. But
I can't find this reference either.

Anyone here know anything about this? 

Thanks,

Bob

Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 
From: Mark Rabiner <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "Normal viewing distance" 

....

This is one of the few mathematical things i remember from photo classes
Bob! I'm sure I've still got it right as its pretty simple even for me. (I
flunked first year highshool algebra) an example is a 50mm lens is a 2
inch lens and 8X is the magnification from a 35mm neg printed full sheet
on and 8x10 print; as the short side of a 35mm neg is roughly an inch. So
it's 2x8 the focal length of the lens times the magnification of the blow
up. Which is a sixteen inche viewing distance A wide angle 24mm lens is a
one inch lens so that's 8 inches back in this example and a 100mm 4 inch
lens would have you 32 inches back.

When you try it out it really seems to be true! There is that somehow more
appropriate viewing distance. A sweet spot. Stick your face right into a
wide angle shot, but climb back for a longer telephoto shot. And that has
made all the difference...:)

Mark Rabiner 

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 
From: Tim Ellestad <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "Normal viewing distance"

The viewing distance for a perspective match or matching the field angle is
the focal length of the lens used to take the photo multiplied by the
enlargement. If a 50mm lens was used to take the photo on 35mm film and the
full frame (36mm) was used to make a 10 inch width print (254mm) then the
enlargement would be about 7 times (laterally) and the "normal" or true
perspective viewing distance would be 350mm (7 x 50mm). This defines that
"magic viewing distance" that delivers the impact of "presence".

Tim Ellestad 

From: "Rae" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lens quality 'pecking order'?
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002



"mike II" [email protected] wrote
> There seems to be a great variance between lens manufacturers' quality
> standards. Is a list available somewhere showing the bad ones? What
> order would these makers of bad stuff be listed? Would the 'Image' line
> be on this black list?
>
> Are these bad lenses of a consistently bad nature or is the problem with
> a lack of consistency even in the same batch of lens models?
>
> My reason for asking is the local availability of used equipment and I
> have no way of knowing how good/bad it is short of buying it. That can
> build a huge pile of expensive junk very quickly.
Every manufacturer has some better lenses and some worse lenses in
their line up.  Additionally some manufacturers have a greater sample
variation between lenses.  Add to this the fact that a used lens may
have been dropped, abused or have fungus (or scratches or any other
problem), and it's pretty hard to give general recommendations.

Anyone who tries to give you any real quantative advice will be flamed
from somewhere (Polson if you mention Sigma, Bret if you knock Canon,
etc,etc).  Your best bet is to work out what mount system you need,
then google a bit.


From: TP [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lens quality 'pecking order'?
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002


mike II [email protected] wrote:
>There seems to be a great variance between lens manufacturers' quality
>standards.

There is often an equally great variance between the performance of
different lenses from *the same* manufacturer's range.

For example, it is true of both Nikon and Canon's lens ranges that
they offer some stellar performers, some excellent mid-range lenses
and some absolutely appalling optics at the lower price points.

Few of the cheap 'kit lenses' sold with new camera bodies have been
made by the camera manufacturer, even though they are sold with the
camera manufacturer's brand name.



From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lens quality 'pecking order'?
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002

mike II [email protected] wrote:
>There seems to be a great variance between lens manufacturers' quality
>standards. Is a list available somewhere showing the bad ones? What
>order would these makers of bad stuff be listed? Would the 'Image' line
>be on this black list?
>
>Are these bad lenses of a consistently bad nature or is the problem with
>a lack of consistency even in the same batch of lens models?
>
>My reason for asking is the local availability of used equipment and I
>have no way of knowing how good/bad it is short of buying it. That can
>build a huge pile of expensive junk very quickly.

It used to be easy...;-)
Nikon made a great range of lenses, with only a tiny
minority of well-known "dogs", and with the vast majority
better than the average of most other lines. Unfortunately,
marketing forces have degraded the line with several
bottom-end cheap AF lenses that are no better than
bottom-end lenses of other lines, lowering the average
(and the reputation) of the maker... If you are interested
in Nikkors, though, look here for evaluations:
www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. Note that for many
lenses, several samples have been checked, and the
variation-range noted (some lenses show very little sample
variation, a few show quite a bit...). Beware the unchecked
cheap f3.5->5.6 zooms, and the cheaper "G" lenses, though...
As for other lines, each has its "stars" and "dogs", with
only a few predominantly excellent - but some of these, like
the Contax line, are very limited in FL choices and are
expensive. Other lines, until recently, were more "cult"
than really good - but this is changing, with new lens
versions that finally live up to their reputations...;-)
The "independent" lines' lenses are generally inferior to
the bulk of the best line's lenses, but may roughly
approximate the quality of the bulk of a lesser camera
line's lenses. These lines are Tokina, Tamron, and
Sigma - though exceptional lenses have been offered by
others (Kiron 100mm macro, Vivitar Series I 90mm macro,
etc.). Cosina-Voightlander are offering very interesting
high-end lenses for Leica screw and bayonette mounts, and
for SLR mounts - which appears to be an exception from
the above...

With all, remember that the "bottom-line" is marketing
(which involves balancing "product" placement, pricing,
manufacturing costs, quality-level-for-price, desired
sales rate, available design and manufacturing skills,
etc.) - no one starts out to "make the best gosh-durn
lenses available at any price, at rock-bottom prices";
the quality/price ratio prevails, with some exceptions,
both up, and down...;-).


David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether


From: [email protected] (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations


>And absolutely nothing about the parameter (negative format) the question
>was about.

Hey as long as the eye sees 8 lines per millmeter the print is sharp.  Standard
view distance is 10 inches.  So it's simple.  A standard view distance of 10
inches, a print that has a resolution of 8 lines per millmeter will look sharp.

 At 20 inches 4 lines per millmeter.  At 40 inches 2 lines per millmeter and so
on.  That why a motion picture 35mm 1/2 frame image blown up to 15 by 40 ft
will look sharp at 40 ft.

Larry


From: [email protected] (Karl Winkler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Getting top quality
Date: 11 Apr 2003 

David Littlewood [email protected] wrote 
> Smo. [email protected] writes
> >Could you put these in order of importance with regards to getting top
> >quality photographic prints:
> >
> >1. Camera
> >2. Lens
> >3. Film
> >4. Film processing lab
> >5. Printing lab
> >
> Hm, a challenge. Can we add a few? Here's my stab at it:
>
> 1 Subject
> 2 Light
> 3 Photographer/composition
> 4 Printing
> 5 Paper
> 6 Film processing
> 7 Lens
> 8 Film
> 9 Camera
>
> Clearly, this is a bit artificial - if the film processing is totally
> screwed, the result is ruined., but in real life the variations are
> usually small. I thus take the order to mean "the importance which the
> variations typically experienced in normal use have in influencing the
> final result".
>
> I would not like to fight too hard on the precise order of some of these
> - 6, 7and 8 are pretty much equal in importance. Some would put 3 at the
> top.

I'm glad someone added subject and light! Without these things, the
rest just doesn't matter. My order would be:

1. Subject
2. Light
3. Timing
4. Composition
5. Exposure
(3, 4 & 5 are really "skill and talent of the photographer" from other
lists
6. Lens
7. Printing
8. Processing
9. Camera

As others have said, many of these steps can ruin the process on their
own. However, many of those same steps, however well they may be done,
don't make a great photograph. I think we've all seen the two
extremes: a truly life-changing photograph that may not be so sharp,
or properly exposed, but the subject & timing are sublime. Then, of
course, we've all seen perfectly exposed, sharp, well printed
photographs that are completely boring. Most of mine are like that, I
think!

-Karl
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler


End of Page

Broken Links:

Lens Reviews (Swedish site) were posted (before 2/2003) at:

http://www.cs.hks.se/~nicke/private/photo/lenstest/