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

Extremely high resolution lenses for 35mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Ian,
My first thought was a Ultra Micro Nikkor, which are fairly rare, and very expensive. Though, once upon a time, I did bid upon a set of 4, which each came in their own METAL container, and all four set nicely in a velvet lined wooden box. My bid of $80 lasted until the final few hours and then preceded to fly up to $6,000. So, someone did know about them (maybe someone visiting these pages? Very Happy

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/ultra/ulhist.html


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aspen wrote:
Hi Ian,
My first thought was a Ultra Micro Nikkor, which are fairly rare, and very expensive. Though, once upon a time, I did bid upon a set of 4, which each came in their own METAL container, and all four set nicely in a velvet lined wooden box. My bid of $80 lasted until the final few hours and then preceded to fly up to $6,000. So, someone did know about them (maybe someone visiting these pages? Very Happy

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/ultra/ulhist.html


The Ultra Micro-Nikkors were designed for semiconductor photo processing, and are corrected for a particular wavelength of light. None are fully-corrected over a wide range of wavelengths. For a while they could be had for nothing, as the semiconductor fabs shifted to shorter and shorter wavelengths for smaller feature sizes, but then folks "discovered" them. You would have done great with that $80 bid but the $6000 is not uncommon, and I've even heard of singles going for near this amount. Some folks just have more money than they know what to do with...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:


The Ultra Micro-Nikkors were designed for semiconductor photo processing, and are corrected for a particular wavelength of light. None are fully-corrected over a wide range of wavelengths. For a while they could be had for nothing, as the semiconductor fabs shifted to shorter and shorter wavelengths for smaller feature sizes, but then folks "discovered" them. You would have done great with that $80 bid but the $6000 is not uncommon, and I've even heard of singles going for near this amount. Some folks just have more money than they know what to do with...

Hi Ray,
I do agree. If my memory is correct, I believe they have an M39 screw mount but a very short flange distance. The latter point being the crucial one, in that, no one could use them on their cameras. That is, until now, with the mirrorless cams. I did come across very little on the internet. Only s few person at the time had managed to adapt some to their camera. Nothing miraculous in the sampled photos, as one might expect from such a lens.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I know I can reach the 100 lp/mm range with my Sigma 50/2.8 macro and minolta 50/3.5. I know this because of reading the number plate of a car which was maybe 1..2.5 mm high on the slide (the whole car), also reading small texts of comparable size. I also can tell Sensia apart from Agfa second-rate quality.

I also know people used to shoot black white film that can have even more resolution, and you need that resolution because monochrome works by textures not color.

Also when using Kodak negative film, small letters that were actually too small to read (darn orange mask) seemed still sharp. CN has a punch more technical resolution than slide, of course it doesn't look anywhere as good.

Other people have done tests, you may want to search for stuessi (?) and Sigma 50 at sonyuserforum, he used another 50/2.8 model though. Result like 250 lp/mm.

70 lp/mm is really not a big deal UNLESS you really want them at 95% contrast. It's in the nature of the game that resolution peaks out at mtf2 or something. (I think my ricoh TF point and shoot with its plastic lens can do 70 lp/mm peak.)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
See here

http://www.sonyuserforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=104309


There's also this
http://www.sonyuserforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=103508

(torturing lenses with upper right corner)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks guys, this is all exactly the sort of discussion I hoped for.

Ray, I will keep an eye out for an APO lens, I am aware of process lenses, i have a Wollensak APO-Raptar that has a very high resolution, 190lp/mm IIRC, but it's a 541mm so a specialist item and I only use t once in a blue moon. I nearly bought a very cheap APO-Tessar 240mm a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if this type of process lens comes in shorter than 8-inch/240mm, I quite often see 8-inch Wray APO-Lustrars dirt cheap on ebay. I guess the APo type you refer to are APO enlarger lenses?

Let me be clear about what I am wanting to achieve and that may make it easier to guide me towards the type of lens I need:

Light is rarely good here, so an inherently contrasty film is useful to me, and the higher resolution and finer grain of Tech Pan has given me the best results in bad light I have been able to get with BW film. Obviously, Tech Pan is long gone, I am lucky to have a 30m roll of it, expired 1982 but still works perfectly.

This was with Tech Pan and Hexanon 1.7/50, it has the depth and pop of a medium format shot and the sharpness and grain are much better than I have been able to get with films like FP4, Fomapan etc.



Another shot from the same roll, it has no visible grain and the sharpness is exceptional, all the fine detail of the peeling paint is rendered clearly. It looks like it was shot in bright sunlight, but it wasn't, it was dull (it is January at 56.4N, so to be expected) and I couldn't get this result with a 'normal' film:



So, what I want to do is shoot microfilm and use the same development technique that gives me a full grayscale with Tech Pan. Very sharp SLR lenses like the Hexanon 1.7/50 seem to be sharp enough for Tech Pan, the test Jussi posted shows 90-100lp/mm with Tech pan and similar 1.7 or 1.8 50mm lenses. However, Microfilm is higher resolution than Tech Pan, so I think I will need something higher in resolution than a 50mm SLR lens to exploit all of the resolution microfilm has. 160lp/mm for Kodak Imagelink HQ, not sure what Agfa Copex HDP is, but surely at least as high as the Kodak.

Hope that makes it clearer what my requirements are. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A good bang for a buck in high resolution might be Carl Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 T* and Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 90/2.8 with Contax G mount. (200-300€)
Optimum center performance was @F4 with my Biogon copy - a sign that it might be also already limited by diffraction at this aperture.
The Biogon doesn't work nice on your NEX-3 towards the corners though and I don't know if the AF of analog Contax G bodies are sufficient.


100% view: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54671350@N02/7709792376/sizes/o/in/set-72157629503305231/


According to a simple test I saw in a German DSLR forum the Rodagon 105/5.6 is the sharpest "low budget" enlarger lens if I remember correctly (Compared to most common other Rodagons and Schneider lenses in non-Apo-versions).
You can get it for less than 50€
Of course not on the same level the those Apo El-Nikkors etc. though.

C-Claron and G-Claron lenses are very high resolving but they are also very slow so they can't be the top for 35mm
They are sharp, cheap and nice lenses anyway if used correctly (with hood etc.)
Here G-Claron 150/9 wide open on NEX:

As they are optimized for repro work anything which was farer away than a few meters became horrible in IQ though.
They might get really interesting for medium- or large format as they are much cheaper than Hasselblad etc. lenses etc.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Thanks guys, this is all exactly the sort of discussion I hoped for.

Ray, I will keep an eye out for an APO lens, I am aware of process lenses, i have a Wollensak APO-Raptar that has a very high resolution, 190lp/mm IIRC, but it's a 541mm so a specialist item and I only use t once in a blue moon. I nearly bought a very cheap APO-Tessar 240mm a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if this type of process lens comes in shorter than 8-inch/240mm, I quite often see 8-inch Wray APO-Lustrars dirt cheap on ebay. I guess the APo type you refer to are APO enlarger lenses?


My statements about apochromaticity are aimed at relaying my experience that CA is extremely destructive to sharpness. My work has all been done with enlarging/duplicating/repro/macro lenses in the range of M=0.3:1 and above, but I have no reason to think the result would be any different at lower mags or infinity. That said, I don't believe you need APO correction, especially since true APO lenses are nearly impossible to find (I only know of 4-5 that are not process lenses), but you do need to find a lens that has excellent correction. For instance, I use a 75/4 Rodenstock Apo Rodagon-D M1:1 duplicating lens for a lot of my work, yet that lens is NOT APO, but instead a well-corrected Achromat. Its minor aberrations give images a nice "look", actually quite similar to the "look" of many Zeiss lenses. I also have a 105/2.8 Nikon Printing-Nikkor, which is a true APO lens, and it blows everything else away by a wide margin. But the images it produces are sterile and clinical because it adds nothing to the image, no enhancements. It is the ultimate duplication lens, passing on only what it sees. Many enlarger lenses do this as well, and in fact I consider this a required property of an enlarger lens if it is to be considered good quality, ie it should not impart anything extra to the print. But when used as a taking lens, this makes the image look "lifeless" compared with taking lenses that are carefully designed to enhance the "look" of the image in one way or another.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
buerokratiehasser wrote:

70 lp/mm is really not a big deal UNLESS you really want them at 95% contrast. It's in the nature of the game that resolution peaks out at mtf2 or something. (I think my ricoh TF point and shoot with its plastic lens can do 70 lp/mm peak.)


I find MTF2 and MTF5 to be useless measures. I prefer the definition of "resolution" as MTF10, and "sharpness" as MTF50. That said, I see differences in perceived sharpness at digital pixel level with lenses that should be outperforming a 4.3um pixel sensor, so even MTF50 is questionable when "sharpness" matters.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks guys, you've given me something to think about there. I had a Rodagon 90 but it wan't that sharp, I suspect it was decentred. Somewhere, I think I still have a Componon 5.5/100, that's a very sharp lens on the NEX.

Today was very dull, useless to shoot a normal film. I shot a short 14 exposure roll of Agfa Copex HDP13 in my EOS 10qd with Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55. I rated it at ISO 12 and the exposures were on the order of 30secs at f8. I didn't use mirror lockup and I have no idea how this will work, I need to find the correct developing time/temp/agitation for this film first, I suspect it might need to be exposed at ISO 6 to get a full tonal range.

I'll develop it shortly, fingers crossed I get it somewhere close to right and there's something scannable.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found a thread discussing this topic on apug:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/66096-very-high-resolution-lens.html

This info from Henning Serger is very interesting:

Quote:
In general it is possible, yes. With an excellent lens, modern films, exact focusing and avoiding of camera shake extremely high resolution values are possible.

You may have a look at the scientific tests made at Carl Zeiss in Germany.
They are published in the Zeiss camera lens news 17, 19, 20, 24 and 30 (look on their home page www.zeiss.de).
For example they achieved 180 linepairs per millimeter with Kodak TMX, 170 linepairs per millimeter with Fuji Velvia, and 160 lp/mm with Acros 100. With Agfa Ortho 25 250 lp/mm. At an object contrast of 1:100.
In an MTF test Dr. Hubert Nasse, chief optic designer of Zeiss, got 180 lp/mm with TMX.

Or look here, Delta 100 test:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html

My own test results:
I am working with a test chart with quite low contrast, only 1:16, four stops.
Because in nearly all scenes you have at least such a contrast, often higher.
I want to know how good my lenses and films are in low / moderate contrast situations.

With a Zeiss ZF 2/50 at aperture 4 and 5,6 in the centre of the negative I achieved 130 - 150 linepairs per millimeter with Ilford Delta 100.
130 lp/mm are clearly seperated, with 150 lp/mm you can still see a contrast difference. Delta 100 is one of my favourite films since its introduction 1992.
For these tests a developer test was integrated (Spur HRX-3, Spur SD2525, Rollei RLS / CG512, Rodinal 1:50; highest resolution values were achieved with HRX-3 and RLS).

With Kodak TMX and Rollei Retro 80S I got nearly the same resolution, the differences between these three films concerning resolution are so small that they are not really worth to be mentioned. Resolution of Acros 100 is a bit lower, but you can see the difference only under a microscope.
The difference in grain is a bit bigger: Retro 80S has the finest grain, then Acros 100, TMX and Delta are following.

With Rollei Ortho 25 / Adox Ortho 25 (a film made by Filmotec) I got resolution values of about 150 - 170 linepairs per millimeter, with Rollei ATP and Spur DSX ( = Agfa Copex Rapid) 170 - 200 lp/mm.
And with Spur Orthopan UR / Adox CMS 20 (older version of Agfa Copex HDP microfilm) I reached the limits of my microscope: 270 Lp/mm. Probably the resolution is even a bit higher, but my microscope delivers not enough magnification to further analyse it .
These high resolution films are incredible.

Best regards,
Henning


So Henning was able to obtain 130-150lp/mm with Delta 100 and a Planar 2/50. I have TMAX 100 which is a similar emulsion to Delta and I have 50mm lenses that should rival the Planar in sharpness, so I should be able to get similar results, although I'm not going to shoot a test chart and buy a microscope to inspect it, I just want to get sharp scans.

He got at least 270lp/mm with Copex HDP and the Planar, which is very encouraging. If he can get that kind of resolution with the ZF Planar, I suspect I can too with lenses liek the Zenitar M2S 2/50, Topcor 1.8/58 and Hexanon 1.7/50.

So does this mean I don't need higher resolution than the lenses I already have?


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am no expert with lines per millimetre, MTF tests etc., but I suspect that the biggest improvement would come from a high quality scanner rather a more expensive lens.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
some more valuable information from Herr Serger:

Quote:
To exploit the full resolving power of our lenses and films we have to avoid camera shake completely. That means very stable tripod ( I am using a Berlebach Report 3032) and MLU and short shutter speeds (1/250 or even shorter).
Vibrations make a big difference in resolution. I have compared my F90X with my F6. Even at 1/250 on the Berlebach tripod I get much higher resolution with the F6, because mirror and shutter are much better damped and have less vibration (even with the MLU not activated). And with MLU the difference is much more significant of course.


Quote:
The resolution values I have described refer to our tests with the new Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF. This lens surpassed all of my other very good prime lenses so far. Probably it is one of the best 35mm lenses on the market.

Have a look at these data:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/MP_2_50ZF_DE/$File/MP_2_50ZF_DE.pdf

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...w--test-report


So he was using a Makro-Planar, not a Planar, so his figures are higher than I could expect with a 'normal' lens. Perhaps the closest I have to the Makro-Planar is my Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As is stated in a few posts here, your limiting factor may be the rigidity of your setup. I used Nikon for long while for my macro work, but always saw an inherent un-sharpness to the image that I could not get rid of. The Live View image was sharp, but the final image was less sharp, and I couldn't seem to fix it. Then I tried delayed lighting and discovered that a 1s delay would fix the problem. It turns out that even with the mirror up during Live View, the shutter itself was shaking enough to kill my sharpness. I have since moved to Canon, which have EFSC, and this seems to eliminate the shutter shake and my final image matches the Live View without having to play tricks with timing the lighting. Most Photomacrographers fix the problem with flash, but I don't like to be limited to flash and prefer continuous lighting.

All that said, my message is that you may find your camera limits you more than the film or lens due to shaking from the mirror (the bigger problem) or shutter (problem for macro and telephoto especially). Your situation of low light may actually be a blessing, since the long exposure time allows all camera-induced shaking to die down, and for a good % of your exposure to be steady. But for long exposures you must stabilize the camera perfectly (eg add heavy weight bag on cord to your tripod).

Achieving max sharpness is an exercise in details.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This post by Film-Niko sums up why I want to use microfilm:

Quote:
During the last months I have worked a lot with high resolution films in 35mm:
Adox Ortho 25, Rollei Ortho 25, Kodak Imagelink, Adox CMS 20, Rollei ATP and Spur DSX 64.

With the dedicated developers (especially with those from Spur for CMS 20, ATP and DSX) I got outstanding results:
Very good to excellent tonality, extremely fine to unvisible grain, outstanding resolution and sharpness.
I've made very large prints and showed them my photographer friends (all of them with experience in medium format, some doing LF as well):

All of them thougt the prints were made from 120 roll film! But it was 35mm.
With these films and very good lenses you can achieve a technical picture quality which is comparable to medium format.
But you have the flexibilty of the 35mm system.
A very nice combination .


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
As is stated in a few posts here, your limiting factor may be the rigidity of your setup. I used Nikon for long while for my macro work, but always saw an inherent un-sharpness to the image that I could not get rid of. The Live View image was sharp, but the final image was less sharp, and I couldn't seem to fix it. Then I tried delayed lighting and discovered that a 1s delay would fix the problem. It turns out that even with the mirror up during Live View, the shutter itself was shaking enough to kill my sharpness. I have since moved to Canon, which have EFSC, and this seems to eliminate the shutter shake and my final image matches the Live View without having to play tricks with timing the lighting. Most Photomacrographers fix the problem with flash, but I don't like to be limited to flash and prefer continuous lighting.

All that said, my message is that you may find your camera limits you more than the film or lens due to shaking from the mirror (the bigger problem) or shutter (problem for macro and telephoto especially). Your situation of low light may actually be a blessing, since the long exposure time allows all camera-induced shaking to die down, and for a good % of your exposure to be steady. But for long exposures you must stabilize the camera perfectly (eg add heavy weight bag on cord to your tripod).

Achieving max sharpness is an exercise in details.


Thankyou Ray, this is good to know. I have been thinking about how I am going to have to approach shooting this film, definitely with a tripod, probably with MLU. I will be using 28, 35 and 50mm lenses and perhaps a 135mm from time to time.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
As is stated in a few posts here, your limiting factor may be the rigidity of your setup. I used Nikon for long while for my macro work, but always saw an inherent un-sharpness to the image that I could not get rid of. The Live View image was sharp, but the final image was less sharp, and I couldn't seem to fix it. Then I tried delayed lighting and discovered that a 1s delay would fix the problem. It turns out that even with the mirror up during Live View, the shutter itself was shaking enough to kill my sharpness. I have since moved to Canon, which have EFSC, and this seems to eliminate the shutter shake and my final image matches the Live View without having to play tricks with timing the lighting. Most Photomacrographers fix the problem with flash, but I don't like to be limited to flash and prefer continuous lighting.

All that said, my message is that you may find your camera limits you more than the film or lens due to shaking from the mirror (the bigger problem) or shutter (problem for macro and telephoto especially). Your situation of low light may actually be a blessing, since the long exposure time allows all camera-induced shaking to die down, and for a good % of your exposure to be steady. But for long exposures you must stabilize the camera perfectly (eg add heavy weight bag on cord to your tripod).

Achieving max sharpness is an exercise in details.


Thankyou Ray, this is good to know. I have been thinking about how I am going to have to approach shooting this film, definitely with a tripod, probably with MLU. I will be using 28, 35 and 50mm lenses and perhaps a 135mm from time to time.


If you don't use proper care/techniques then you are wasting your time trying to shoot hi res images.

Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:20 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, that is good advice. I need to concern myself with system resolution rather than obsessing on any one part.

Today I did a quick test with Agfa Copex HDP13 in my EOS 10qd with Micro-Nikkor 2.5/55. I used my sturdy Velbon tripod but didn't use mlu or a cable release. I rated the film at ISO 12 and exposures were of the order of 30secs at f8. Light was abysmal, so a good time to see if this film does work well in bad light.

Developed in Microdol-X diluted 1:3 for 30 mins at 25C, 30 secs initial agitation then 5 inversions after 10 and 20 mins. The negatives came out extremely dense, so I think rating this film at ISO 25 or even ISO 50 would be better. Scanned at 7200dpi on my Plustek 7600i, which produces a 67mp file.








PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian keep in mind that your scanner can achieve only something around 3300dpi (~70lp/mm) at best.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ah dammit, you're right. I thought the scanner could do the 7200dpi claimed, which is about 140lp/mm, but after you pointed it out I checked and found this info:

Quote:
Resolution. Plustek specs the 7600's optical resolution at 7200 dpi. That means the CCD can move across the image at 7200 lines an inch. That would deliver a 10,800 x 7,200 pixel image or a 233,280,000 pixel RGB image.

If you're used to scanning prints at 300 dpi, you may wonder why you would ever need 7200 dpi. For a clue, look at the size of your 35mm original. You may scan a 4x6 print at 300 dpi to make a 4x6 print but you have to enlarge a 35mm frame 400 percent to make that same 4x6 print. If your printer really does require 300 dpi resolution of data, that's 1,200 x 1,800 pixels or 1200 dpi optical. Larger sizes require even more scanner resolution.

Our initial scans were a modest 2,400. A 150-dpi printer can make a 16x24-inch print from that data. A 300-dpi printer would, consequently manage an 8x12-inch print.

The advantage of higher resolution scanning is 1) the ability to print a much larger image and 2) the ability to crop a part of the 35mm frame as the whole image. And primarily the later.

Since we were able to scan enough data to make a nice 13x19 print (as big as we print here), we tested resolution by scanning a crop at 7200 dpi, 5400 dpi and 4000 dpi.

While the difference in file size is obvious, we couldn't detect a difference in image information. In fact, one site that tested the 7600i with a USAF-1951 resolution target found that the 7600i has an effective resolution of only 3250 dpi.

But that delivers a 14-Mp image file, enough for 13x19-inch prints.


So the scanner is the bottleneck in the system. Sad

Maybe they will make an affordable drum scanner sometime in the near future and I can achieve 160lp/mm.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
skida wrote:
I am no expert with lines per millimetre, MTF tests etc., but I suspect that the biggest improvement would come from a high quality scanner rather a more expensive lens.

+1000
Even ultra expensive Hasseblad drum scanners are not able to handle these resolutions.
A decent microscope lens on bellows would be the only cheap way to outresolve these extreme resolutions.
Or the classic way with a high end enlarger lens, good paper and perfect chemicals.

Bye the way don't mix "sharpness" and "resolution"! That's an old mistake!
Resolution means how fine details be and you still can see them... but a pic can look very sharp while having a very low amount of fine details etc.
Many enlarger lenses are looking comparable soft on DSLRs/softer than normal lenses. But when zooming to 100% you can sometimes find more details etc.

A word to the Zenitar M2S 50/2 MC - it's an optically wonderful lens - optically the best russian I've ever tried! It's sharp wide open (not thaaat sharp though... there are better modern AF by Nikon- Canon- Sony-..., T* and Leica ones but not for that price Wink) and ultra sharp stopped down to F5.6, it has good contrast, it produces very good crispy colors (which most other russians don't do imho, with a very few exceptions like the really good russian cine lenses) - but it's build is even worse than recent 50mm AF lenses! Haptics are working but it's made from crappy plastic!


PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I understand the difference between sharpness and resolution.

Drum scanners can achieve 160lp/mm and techniques exist to achieve more than this, but it's a bit slow to filter through to the market.

I was fooled by the claimed 7200dpi of my scanner, I should have checked if the claim was valid.

If my scanner could indeed achieve 7200dpi then my question about high resolution lenses was valid. The resolution of the microfilm is around 160lp/mm and the scanner should be able to achieve 140-150lp/mm, but the scanner isn't that capable so it renders my thoughts about higher resolution lenses than what I already have somewhat moot.

The Zenitar is far better in build than the current Canon EF 1.8/50 which is a cheap and very nasty piece of crap, they just fall apart or stop working. I've shot three of them and one copy of the older version with metal mount, on three different EOSs and none of the 4 was what I call really sharp until f4, so not as sharp as the Zenitar at all.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Bye the way don't mix "sharpness" and "resolution"! That's an old mistake!
Resolution means how fine details be and you still can see them... but a pic can look very sharp while having a very low amount of fine details etc.

Many enlarger lenses are looking comparable soft on DSLRs/softer than normal lenses. But when zooming to 100% you can sometimes find more details etc.


Be careful not to read too much subjectivity into the sharpness vs resolution debate, lest they both become meaningless. Sharpness and Resolution are both measures of local contrast, but at different (and arbitrary) points on the scale.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My way of looking at things is pretty simple and prosaic. Physics and maths and theory is all fine and well but it's visual results that count.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
My way of looking at things is pretty simple and prosaic. Physics and maths and theory is all fine and well but it's visual results that count.


I can respect that perspective, and in fact my method of evaluating lenses uses primarily visual results, which I find correlate nearly perfectly with measurements, thus making me believe both objective and subjective perspectives are valid and lead to similar conclusions.

I'm always reminded of Zeiss lenses, which are designed to be as sharp as they need to be but no sharper, with the remaining aberrations intentionally manipulated to give a subjectively pleasing result. I own a superb copy of the Zeiss 74mm S-Planar, and while it is not as sharp or as well-corrected as the 105mm Printing-Nikkor, it produces beautiful images that have far more character. I am sure Zeiss could have made a sharper lens, but they likely would have lost that character which makes their lenses famous.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4