Extremely high resolution lenses for 35mm

[iangreenhalgh1]

I've been playing with a couple of types of microfilm in 35mm, and they have extremely high resolution, I read 800lp/mm for the Copex HDP I have.

Even the sharpest 35mm lenses I have like the Topcor 1.8/58, Hexanon 1.7/50 and Zenitar-M2S can only achieve at best, around 70lp/mm.

So, what lenses are there that can achieve 200-300lp/mm and will cover 35mm? No longer than 100mm. I'm hoping there is an enlarger or repro lens that would be suitable. I have an Olympus 40mm microfilm lens that is 260lp/mm but the back focus is very short, just a few mm and it has no focus or aperture. I'm thinking an enlarger or repro lens on bellows might be what I need.

[Nesster]

I have no idea, but you might find this old article interesting.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4037/4424744296_d8f1039af3_o.jpg
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4025/4424744224_c11828c0dd_o.jpg

[iangreenhalgh1]

That is extremely useful Jussi, many thanks!

Those results match my own results. Pan-X they list as just over 80lp/mm and Tech Pan at just under 100lp/mm. I shot FP4 (similar to Pan-X) and Tech Pan with my Hexanon 1.7/50 (a supremely sharp lens) recently and 100% crops show the Tech Pan is a good bit sharper with tighter grain.

First one is Technical Pan, Second one is FP4, same lens, same development, same scanning, 100% crops.




I have the Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55 they used in the article so I'll try that for closer subjects and one of my sharper normals for infinity shots.

Kodak claim 160lp/mm for the Imagelink HQ microfilm I have so I would like to find a lens that can achieve that, maybe a quality enlarger lens like a Rodagon or a Componon?

[luisalegria]

When you get into these regions of resolution other issues start getting important too, not just lens resolution.

- Film flatness. This is why some lens makers in the old days used glass plates for resolution tests. Film just will not lie perfectly flat; different camera systems had a different film plane standard that was not quite the mechanical film plane measured off the flats of the film guides. And different film will curve differently, throwing off the manufacturers standard.

- Correspondence of the SLR image path with the film plane. This can in fact be significantly off. This is why most old SLR's had thin brass or copper washers behind the screws that hold the lensmount. These are actually shims to adjust the lensmount distance from the film plane. These were individualized factory adjustments for this. If a camera has been serviced where the lens mount has been removed this should, ideally, be redone. Also if work has been done on the groundglass. And this all can change over the years and with use as screws get loose, metal expands contracts and tarnishes with use, etc. Zorki and I think other Russian cameras actually had paper shims for this purpose.

- Accuracy and flatness of the film guides/pressure plate. There may even be individualized shims here too.

- Temperature, humidity, air pressure

[ForenSeil]

Macro:
Olympus PEN Objektiv 3,5/35mm macro - It was the winner of a resolution contest by ADOX
It's made for half frame and it's a few years ago though.

Tele-Macro:
Schneider Kreuznach Makro Symmar lenses for 35mm are also good candidates for "sharpest lens of the world" title
They easily outresolve 30MP Sensors

Wide angle:
All modern Zeiss ZM Biogon lenses have very outstanding center performance.

50mm lenses:
CV Heliar 3,5/50 is known to be one of the sharpest 50mm already wide open (some say it's "THE SHARPEST 50mm")
But stopped down to F5.6 I know that for example the Zeiss Planar T* 50/2 ZM is sharper in center.
And I guess there a few more which are sharper, for example modern 9 element design AF Sony SEL50F18 might be a very good candidate to beat both optically.
On Sonyrumors they announced a new 50/1.4 lens optimized for outresolving their new 30MP+ high resolution sensors.

Enlarger lenses:
Apo EL Nikkor 105mm/5.6 should be a good candidate

[luisalegria]

Another problem is motion.

Mirror lockup and bedding the camera down in sandbags may be required.

[poilu]

the biogon reach 400lp/mm, but as it is diffraction limited, nobody know how much more it could resolve

[fermy]

When you get into any "sharpest ever" discussion, you've got to make your way through the bunch of fanboys and plain loonies. If someone claims 800lp/mm for a lens, while most good lenses are 70lp/mm, you can be sure that either of the following is true
a) these figures are not comparable because they correspond to different contrast levels.
b) the claim of 800 lp/mm is wrong.

CV Heliar 50mm f3.5 mentioned here is a ripoff designed to relieve of money people with more cash than brains. Heliar is a triplet derivative, do you think it has any chance at all to be "sharpest ever" in 50mm given the amount of off-axis rays that one has to deal with in this FL? It's absolutely obvious that a good implementation of double Gauss scheme will walk over this lens away from the center, not to mention a modern computer designed lens with multiple Aspherical elements and ED glasses.

It's probably a lovely lens for portraits. Does it look like "sharpest ever" though ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tychay/6216253580/

Btw, the above Zeiss quoted figures are meaningless, since they don't provide the contrast level for 400 lp/mm resolution. I am sure Zeiss is aware of that issue , so all this 400 lp/mm talk is just marketing at its worst.

Bottom line: be very critical of what you read, when extraordinary resolution claims are made.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks guys, some good info.

I suppose it depends what I can find at a price I can afford.

I would use a tripod for this and the camera I would use has mirror lock-up.

[poilu]

[iangreenhalgh1]

My understanding is less than perfect, but I think what you need to know is the lp/mm at 30% contrast.

I will try some test shots with my Zenitar-M2S which is supposed to be one of the very sharpest normal 35mm lenses and also with the one or two enlarger lenses I have on bellows, I think I have a Componon 80mm somewhere. I do have a Ross Resolux 90mm, not sure how sharp that is though.

I'm basically wondering if a top of the line enlarging lens like a Componon-S or Rodagon-S is sharper than a sharp 35mm SLR lens, and if the enlarger lenses can achieve the 160lp/mm figure. If not, then maybe a repro lens like a C-Claron. I suppose I could look at microfilm lenses, those have very high resolution but I don't think they have apertures (The C and D Clarons don't) and I am not sure about coverage. The 60mm D-Claron is the shortest that covers 35mm I think.

[fermy]

[Ray Parkhurst]

I'd recommend a Printing-Nikkor. I'm not sure what lp/mm it corresponds to, but the 105PN is diffraction-limited at f2.8, is dead-flat across the field, and sharp corner-corner on 35mm. It's also fully apochromatic. It's a touch beyond your 100mm limit, though...Ray

[jjphoto]

[iangreenhalgh1]

This is great info, cheers guys.

I think a shootout with some lenses I already have is in order, maybe the Macro-Nikkor 3.5/55 I have will be as good as an enlarger lens.

I'll keep my eye out for a Printing Nikkor, how much do they usually cost?

[Ray Parkhurst]

[jjphoto]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers guys. The Printing Nikkor is definitely outside my budget.

I suppose it's important to mention that I don't intend to use this lens for macro work, I want to use it as a taking lens at usual shooting distances, approx 1m to infinity.

[Ray Parkhurst]

[Lloydy]

There's a microfiche lens - 'Micron Corp - 17mm-0006 Japan' sitting on my desk doing nothing.

[iangreenhalgh1]

The reason Ray is i thought that was where I would find high resolution, but if they are not good at distance, it might be a blind alley.

That lens sounds interestign David. 17mm sounds a bit short to cover 35mm though and I suspect the back focus will be very short. Maybe one day you can try working out what the back focus and image circle are, holding it in front of the nex is a good way.

[fermy]

Ian, you should look at VNEX thread, plenty of examples of enlarging lenses on NEX are shown there.

I doubt that you will find any lenses that have an edge over traditional SLR lenses in sharpness. After all, if such lenses were available, they would have been equipped with a focusing helicoid and marketed as a taking lens as well. Landscape shooters would certainly appreciate them.

The sharpness of the lens is limited by available technology, not the intended use. Where enlarging lenses might have an advantage, it's in the flatness of the focus plane as it's an important feature for them.

[Ray Parkhurst]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers guys, more good info.

I was just wondering what type of lens I could find that wouldn't cost a fortune that would be able to reach the 160lp/mm resolution of the Imagelink HQ microfilm. Obviously, it would have to achieve this resolution at normal working distances, e.g. 1m-infinity.

I don't know of an SLR lens that will do that, I don't know enough about enlarger lenses to know if any do, Microfilm lenses certainly can but the Olympus 3.4/40 I have is useless for this job due to short back focus and no aperture.

[Ray Parkhurst]