View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:48 pm Post subject: Maximum sharpness of old lenses |
|
|
wolan wrote:
Hi,
I recently read in a forum that, as a general rule, modern lenses have their maximum sharpness around f5.6-f8, while old lenses peak typically between f8 and f11.
Is that a correct statement in your opinion?
Thanks. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
No, they all vary depending on the design criteria. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
In my experience, the triplet and tessar designe, are better at F/8 to 16
While the planar design is better at F/4 to 8.
The tessar design should be sharper than the planar one at F/16 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's impossible to make accurate generalisations as different Planars and Tessars were designed with different requirements in mind, for instance, the Planar 1.7/50 was designed to be good at both infinity and middle distance, whereas the Makro-Planar 2.8/60 is optimised for very close up. Same with Tessars, such as the 'normal' Jena 2.8/50 or one of the tessar-type macro lenses such as the Macro-Prakticar 2.8/55.
Some lenses were designed to be optimal at large apertures, some were designed to be optimal at smaller ones, so you really can't make blanket statements with any degree of accuracy. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10532 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Some setting between wide open and stopped down to diffraction limit. Varies. f/1.4 lens @ f/5.6 should be sharper than f/2 lens @ f/5.6...some macro designs love being stopped way way down, like f/22... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
It really depends on the lens in question, anyone trying to categorize all legacy lenses as less sharp is biased. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 902 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
I've often heard that lenses tend to be at their best 1-2 stops closed down from fully open. I'm sure that's something else that will vary with the lens in question but it's probably a better guide than the old vs new lens one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1633 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
A lot of lenses get better in terms of MTF when stopped down, for example 2-4 stops (depends on pixel size too). This is what I see in my MTF measurements.
But for example I suppose (not yet tested, but seen from others) lenses with aspheric surfaces or very high quality lenses (modern Leica) could be best wideopen or only one f-stop closed.
So no general statement possible.
As others said, it depends on what the lens designer has intended in the design. Projection lenses or other lenses with no iris should better be good wide open _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
It also depends on focal length to a certain degree. Shorter lenses have smaller apertures in absolute terms for the same F number than longer lenses and diffraction is a function of absolute aperture size, not relative. This means that while every lens improves when stopped down, in a wideangle lens diffraction negates this improvement much sooner than in a tele lens. For example from experience I can say that my crop format Samyang 12mm/2.0 (the shortest focal length I have) is probably sharpest at around f/2.8 and definitely not above f/4 where diffraction already starts to play a big part in the final result. On the other hand most tele lenses, 135mm and above, keep improving as you stop down until f/11 or more, simply because of the larger physical size of the aperture. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teemō
Joined: 07 Apr 2016 Posts: 586 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Teemō wrote:
As a simple rule, stop down the lens until it gives you the depth of field you need firstly, and then adjust to have the lowest ISO/highest shutter speed combination to give you your required exposure and to minimise hand shake. Basic photography.
If you have some latitude left, I'd say the lower the F-number the better, due to diffraction.
Think of image sharpness as a competition between the lens' real resolution and the diffraction limit constant. Some lenses simply lose the race earlier than others, focal length and aperture being equal. In that respect, it is as it has always been - test test test! But testing is boring... and difficult because a tested outcome cannot be generally applied to all real photographic scenarios. Stopping down enough may make the edge of the image sharper, but at the expense of the centre. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Almost every lens made, with very few exceptions has a sweet spot that falls somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11. So what if there's a 5.6-8 bias with one lens and an 8-11 bias with another. Is it really gonna matter? Just go out and shoot and be happy. Let somebody else obsess over grain counting or pixel peeping. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst
Joined: 04 Jul 2011 Posts: 497 Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
If you're shooting digital, most likely you can't take advantage of larger apertures anyway due to the pixel pitch. I use a Canon T2i for studio work, and with its 4.3um pixel pitch it has a DLA of f6.7. A stock T2i has an AA filter (mine has been removed) and this decreases the effective DLA by at least a stop to maybe f10. So on a stock T2i, you won't be able to see the sharpness difference between a lens shooting at f4 and f5.6 because the sensor simply can't reproduce the required detail. So why worry about "sharpness"?? _________________ ...See my Numismatic Photography website at: http://www.macrocoins.com
...Primary Studio Cameras: Sony A7Rm4 and Canon HRT2i
...Go-To studio lenses: Nikon 95mm and 105mm Printing-Nikkors; Schneider 85mm Macro-Varon; Nikon 5x, 10x, and 20x Measuring Microscope Objectives; Mitutoyo BD Plan Apo 50x Microscope Objective
...My Go-To Walkaround Lenses: Laowa 60mm Super Macro; Nikon 28-105D (in manual mode for macro); |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10532 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote: |
If you're shooting digital, most likely you can't take advantage of larger apertures anyway due to the pixel pitch. I use a Canon T2i for studio work, and with its 4.3um pixel pitch it has a DLA of f6.7. A stock T2i has an AA filter (mine has been removed) and this decreases the effective DLA by at least a stop to maybe f10. So on a stock T2i, you won't be able to see the sharpness difference between a lens shooting at f4 and f5.6 because the sensor simply can't reproduce the required detail. So why worry about "sharpness"?? |
I'm not understanding. Seems like sensor dla works the other way around - that lens can be stopped to f10 on stock t2i, that f10 shows more detail than f8. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|