large format lens resoluton

Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
format lenses?

I have often wondered about this.

Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or Nikon lens worth
it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?

Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
format lenses?

It depends. An example a 50mm Nikon lens at f-8 is exactly the same as a 50mm
Hasselblad at f-8.

A 250mm Nikon lens for a 35mm camera might be twice the resolution at f-8 as a
250mm lens for a 4x5 camera.

Larry

For what it's worth:
Sometimes "better" large format lenses will match the resolution of
"good" medium format optics. There's really nothing standing in the way
of their actually matching in terms of image quality.

A friend showed slides taken using his LF Schneider 110XL to MF shooters
and they were quite surprised at the resolution and constrast. They
said the 110XL "felt" like a "good" MF optic.

With the prices of used equipment on the open market being shockingly
low (thanks to digital), any of the lenses you mention could/should be
quite good. Including Caltar optics. There's a potential lemon in
every bunch. In general, manufacturing QA has improved over the years
so the chances of finding something poor are fairly low.

Try various optics for yourself and see. Though I'm personally partial
to Fuji LF lenses for their consistant quality, resolution, and
contrast, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Nikon all offer fine optics.

- Chris


Gary Banuk wrote:

Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
format lenses?

I have often wondered about this.

Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or Nikon lens worth
it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?

Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
format lenses?

I have often wondered about this.

Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or Nikon lens worth
it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?

Resolution has to do with the fineness of the
lens, sharpness, and and it's capabilities of
making a finer and sharper image on the peice
of film, and hence, finer resulting blow-up.

Caltars are made by Rodenstock for Calumet
http://www.calumetphoto.com/ and have been
made by other companies for them in the past.
A Caltar II-E (cheaper) lens will have less resol-
ution capability than standard and higher level
lenses. And I think the II-E lenses are made in
Japan, probably by Congo:
http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html
Cheaper still (some) are Congo-made Osaka
lenses: http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/ .
But I wouldn't worry about it too much
as Ansel Adams made images with much older
technology lenses back in the 20's that were of
incredible quality as art. It's all in the darkroom
technique really, this includes chemicles,
developing times, papers, toners, all balanced
by him. It is an art.

The difference's you may be looking for are
in focal length and image circle sizes that are
projected toward the film by the lens. What
creates "focal-length" of the lens is film size.
you can probably easily figure out the rest.

Hope this helps,
Alex

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:42:34 GMT, Gary Banuk
wrote:

Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
format lenses?

I have often wondered about this.

Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or Nikon lens worth
it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?


Offhand I would have expected lenses for LF to be
not quite as sharp (overall) as lenses for MF or 35
mm. I'm a newbie to LF but I've been quite pleasantly
surprised by the sharpness of the first LF lens in my
kit, a Nikon SW 90 f/8 (per Kerry Thalmann's "future
classics" designation.)

I scan my LF transparencies at 2500 dpi on a
Microtek 2500. Offhand, they seem as sharp as
my 35 mm and MF at that resolution. If I were able
to scan LF on my "better" scanner, maybe I'd see
a difference -- or maybe not.

[Or if I were willing to hack up one of my LF negatives
to stuff into my LS-8000 scanner G.]

Here's a full-frame (heavily downsampled) from the
Nikon 90, followed by a small detail from the same
frame, at full resolution.. Scanned on the Microtek at 2500.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/kitchen2.jpg
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/kitchendetail.jpg

The Caltars aren't necessarily "inferior" -- AIUI, the
Caltar 'N' is made by Rodenstock (or is it Schneider?)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Gary Banuk wrote in message . ..
Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
format lenses?

I have often wondered about this.

Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or Nikon lens worth
it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?

1. Not often. But it doesn't need to be. Here's why:

A common 35mm lens will resolve about 90 lp/mm.
A common 4x5 lens (like a Symmnar) will resolve about 60 lp/mm.
BUT ... enlarge 4x5 to 8x10 and you still get 30 lp/mm on the print.
Enlarge 35mm to 8x10 and you end up with about 12 lp/mm.
Coupled with the project grain of enlargement scale and 35mm
deteriorates
even further.

This leads to ...

2. Sometimes. It depends on what you want out of the print.
The nicer APO lenses will get well-over 100 lp/mm resolution -- better
than most 35mm lenses. And they'll do this over the full film area!
But they're also $1000 to $3000 lenses.
Some of the smaller lens producers have re-badged major names and
one can get some quality bargains out there.
Personally, I like Fujinon for b&w and Schneider for color.
But we each have our preferences.

The neg is sooooo big that even an average performer like a Schneider
Symmar will give you some outstanding results.

Now go shoot and enjoy the results,

Collin

I hope it is not inappropriate to interject the assertion that lens
resolution and MTF metrics are largely irrelevant to pictoralists who seek
"sharpness". In other words, a picture made with the sharpest lense, at
it's optimal aperture, with perfect technique on the finest grain, higest
resolution film and developed optimally does not necessarily make a print
a pictoralist can consider remotely "SHARP".

Or am I just spoiling another optical-bench-racing thread?

On 3/25/2004 8:29 AM jjs spake thus:

I hope it is not inappropriate to interject the assertion that lens
resolution and MTF metrics are largely irrelevant to pictoralists who seek
"sharpness". In other words, a picture made with the sharpest lense, at
it's optimal aperture, with perfect technique on the finest grain, higest
resolution film and developed optimally does not necessarily make a print
a pictoralist can consider remotely "SHARP".

This sounds a bit like touchy-feely photography to me: if what you say is
true, then how *does* one make a print that a pictoralist (or anyone else for
that matter) considers sharp? I mean, if you use a sharp lens at its optimal
aperture on fine-grain film, etc., how could you *not* get a sharp result?


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

In article , David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 3/25/2004 8:29 AM jjs spake thus:
[...]

This sounds a bit like touchy-feely photography to me:

Me? Touchy-feely? I quit skinning a bag of necrotic road-kill to read this
and be called touchy? Glad I didn't waste time washing my hands first.

if what you say is
true, then how *does* one make a print that a pictoralist (or anyone else for
that matter) considers sharp?

Okay, seriously - do you want a tome or the short answer? First clue is
the scope of the assertion - it's for pictoralists, not optical-bench
racers or recon mavens (sometimes) - in other words, pictures for human
beings, not machines.

I mean, if you use a sharp lens at its optimal
aperture on fine-grain film, etc., how could you *not* get a sharp result?

Quite easily. Accepting hard information metrics for this moment, I assert
that you can discern more information detail from certain grainer images
than the same images rendered in a perfect, fine-grain print even when
keeping the same highlight and shadow values (letting the midranges fall
where they may). The former are sharp. The later are not.

Can post a page of clarification if you like, but it should be apparent.

Hi

Just to confuse matters, remember most 35mm lenses will produce a 500 lines
pairs per millmeter aerial image at f-4 in noon summer sun. Now take this 500
lp/mm image (l/mm for short) and place it on T-Max 400 and you get about 70
l/mm system resolution.

Now blow up that 35mm frame to full frame 7x10 print and you have a print
resolution of about 10 l/mm. The eye sees about 8 l/mm average and can see the
difference between 8 l/mm and 16 l/mm side by side. However, it can't see the
difference between 16 l/mm and 32 l/mm side by side.

Larry