Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

High resolution, anyone?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:04 pm    Post subject: High resolution, anyone? Reply with quote
Hi all,

I am trying to learn more about which lens qualities
that are the most important for my kind of "work" (= play).
This morning, I read an old post from forum member no-X, that
"the first batch of Zenitar 50mm ... had resolution
slightly over 70/45 (>double the 44-2!) ..."

Is there anyone who has dived deeper into the abyss
of "high resolution" -- preferably regarding lenses
that could be used on my Canon 600D (I have adapters
for M42 and Nikkor already).

Sincerely,
twinquartz


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It doesn't matter how high the resolution of a lens is as long as it's at least as high as your sensor. The maximum sharpness your sensor can produce is obtained when the resolution of the lens is equal or greater to that of your sensor. I have a Zenitar M2S and several Helios 44s and while the Zenitar is a very sharp lens, on my NEX-3 I can't see any difference in sharpness between the Zenitar and my best Helios, this will be because they both have a resolution higher than my sensor.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Same thing with film and scanning:- crap film and poor scanning and looking at results (with no crops) on a computer monitor will be an equalizer in comparing lenses


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It doesn't matter how high the resolution of a lens is as long as it's at least as high as your sensor. The maximum sharpness your sensor can produce is obtained when the resolution of the lens is equal or greater to that of your sensor.


In a recent article entitled Do sensors outresolve lenses - or vice versa ? (Amateur Photographer, 10 March 2012, pp 60-61) Prof. Bob Newman, the magazine's photo-science consultant, concludes ...

... the idea that a sensor outresolves a lens (or vice versa) is a simplification to the point of error. Improving either sensor or lens will always yield benefits in resolution...

Dr. H. H. Nasse of Zeiss, writing in the article How to read MTF Curves Part II ( http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf ), talks about ...

... the misconception that only the resolution limit of the system (camera + lens) determines the image quality and that it is identical to the resolution of the weakest link of this chain. This is not the case, though, since the (MTF) curves are multiplied....


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yet most of us continue to seek and value the sharpest of lenses. It's like saying a woman doesn't have to be good looking, but what do we really think? If your lens outresolves your sensor, great, you are going to be okay when you upgrade your sensor.

I personally love very crisp lenses, then I look at the other characteristics of the sharp lenses. And I admit I like beautiful women.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No matter how good a lens is, it's going to produce mediocre resolution figures on a 6 mpx body.
Having a very good camera body is essential to get the most out of your lenses.
The Nikon D800 is a clear winner nowadays, if we speak of DSLRs. More resolution is simply better, always.
Just make sure you pair it with high quality lenses, especially in sharpness.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ilguercio wrote:
No matter how good a lens is, it's going to produce mediocre resolution figures on a 6 mpx body.


OK, but increasing the resolution of the lens increase the resolution of the system (camera+body)

Quote:
Having a very good camera body is essential to get the most out of your lenses.


Thats right. But it's true for ordinary lenses as well as very good lenses.

Quote:
The Nikon D800 is a clear winner nowadays, if we speak of DSLRs. More resolution is simply better, always.


If you want resolution - yes. And providing other factors such as cost and noise are acceptablr.

Quote:
Just make sure you pair it with high quality lenses, especially in sharpness.


You will get an improvement even with ordinary lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:06 pm    Post subject: Re: High resolution, anyone? Reply with quote
twinquartz wrote:
Hi all,

I am trying to learn more about which lens qualities
that are the most important for my kind of "work" (= play).
This morning, I read an old post from forum member no-X, that
"the first batch of Zenitar 50mm ... had resolution
slightly over 70/45 (>double the 44-2!) ..."

Is there anyone who has dived deeper into the abyss
of "high resolution" -- preferably regarding lenses
that could be used on my Canon 600D (I have adapters
for M42 and Nikkor already).

Sincerely,
twinquartz


Welcome twinquartz!

I think nearly all lenses will be sharp enough unless you have more specific requirements. The greater problem imho is obtaining accurate focus, especially with lenses faster than f/2.8, using only the standard 600D focus screen...a faster focus screen (or live view) is required.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They are right, with a small dslr, about any lens stopped to f8 is good.

It is true that the MTFs do multiply, however, digital has 100 % almost to the end, then drops fast. For all practical purposes, that's a multiplication with 1.0. And when the lens resolves much more than that, it's on its "plateau" sloping slightly off 90% or so, it won't yield a lot to pop in a better lens with 92 % plateau.

If you want the best buy Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, stop it down to f4, f5.6, f8, and use film. There may be other worthy lenses but I know the old one (UC) personally and read a report someone made with slow s/w film with the newer version. The resolution is insane.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
buerokratiehasser wrote:
They are right, with a small dslr, about any lens stopped to f8 is good.

It is true that the MTFs do multiply, however, digital has 100 % almost to the end, then drops fast. For all practical purposes, that's a multiplication with 1.0. And when the lens resolves much more than that, it's on its "plateau" sloping slightly off 90% or so, it won't yield a lot to pop in a better lens with 92 % plateau.

If you want the best buy Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, stop it down to f4, f5.6, f8, and use film. There may be other worthy lenses but I know the old one (UC) personally and read a report someone made with slow s/w film with the newer version. The resolution is insane.


You must be thinking of Gigabit film and in theory may be able to resolve 600 l/mm

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/analog-processing/7817-gigabit-film.html

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/gigabit-film-gigabit-film-is-slow.html


PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not sure it can do 600 lp/mm, probably not

you can see the test here
http://www.sonyuserforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=104309

if I read that one right this thing (the "new" one) is diffraction-limited even at 5.6, peaks at f4 320 lp/mm. Never mind that you won't find any scanner that can scratch that resolution off film, and (good, Fuji) color reversal film dies at about 130..150lp/mm

unfortunately German
it was slow adox cms film, not Gigabit


PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
correct me if i'm wrong, but if the original poster's point was to stick the lens on tubes or a bellows, then a high resolving lens is absolutely appropriate, correct?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
enliten wrote:
correct me if i'm wrong, but if the original poster's point was to stick the lens on tubes or a bellows, then a high resolving lens is absolutely appropriate, correct?

You are not wrong! That is one of the intended uses.

@iangreenhalgh1: you are partly correct.
A certain lens/sensor combination can never achieve
a resolution that is higher than that of either the lens or the sensor.
But using a better lens, one can come closer to the maximum
allowed by the sensor.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bye the way resolution and sharpness are two different shoes.
Resolution is only the ability to catch details. There are many lenses with very high resolution which are looking less sharp than a lens with the half resolution. Sharpness is mostly a mixture of acutance, contrast and resolution.
That's the reason why you can add some sharpness in post-processing; contrast can be increased and acutance can be faked with an unsharp mask around structures.

Enlarger lenses like the Rodagon- or Componon Series have a comparable very high resolution for a cheap price for example but often they don't look sharper than "normal" lenses on a first look.
They can be used with an M42-bellows and M39-M42 adapter ring on your camera for great macros and close-ups from ~1:2 to ~1:15 bye the way. A hood and some post processing to conform contrast/acutance are recommended.

twinquartz wrote:

A certain lens/sensor combination can never achieve
a resolution that is higher than that of either the lens or the sensor.
But using a better lens, one can come closer to the maximum
allowed by the sensor.

+1
even a comparable low-resolution-lens will always catch more details when used on better sensors.

For example an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a upgrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by let's say ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.


With a Zenitar you're very far away from the maximum you could reach with a 18MP sensor.
But if stopped down to optimum (~F5.6) the Zenitar will be imho better than the Helios 44 for example, especially in the 100% crop.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
For example with an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a updrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.

Can you tell us how your calculations work ?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:
For example with an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a updrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.

Can you tell us how your calculations work ?

That's only an imaginary example for clarification. The real mathematical function will be always different from lens to lens and not easy to calculate them exatly because in reality a 16MP won't always have the double resolution of an 8MP sensor due different size of the bayer array, build-in noise reduction and several other factors.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:14 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
sichko wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:
For example with an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a updrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.

Can you tell us how your calculations work ?

That's only an contrived example. The mathematical function will be always different from lens to lens.


But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ?

I presume our German friend used the basic formula
1/total = 1/lens + 1/sensor


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:

But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ?

Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve)


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
sichko wrote:

But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ?

Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve)


OK. Thanks.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The (in center) sharpest lens I personally know are is the Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 (available in Contax-G- and Leica M mount)
It's so sharp that the diffraction seems to already limiting the resolution above F4 on NEX
Unfortunatly you can't adapt it to DSLRs due large rear element and short register distance, it works only on NEX, MFT, Leica M oder other digital mirrorless digicams.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:21 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
sichko wrote:

But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ?

Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve)


I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that. I now suscribe to the I know it when I see it approach.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that.

Suum cuique, or as the French put it: à chacun son goût
(which a British comedian translated into everyone has his gout).


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
twinquartz wrote:
woodrim wrote:
I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that.

Suum cuique, or as the French put it: à chacun son goût
(which a British comedian translated into everyone has his gout).


The translation I found is to each his own. Gout is something I've had too - you don't want that!!!


PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:
sichko wrote:

But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ?

Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve)


I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that. I now suscribe to the I know it when I see it approach.

I like that. Cool
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2