Resolution

[kyrcy]

I have read that lenses for 35mm film cameras because they were not designed for prints of large sizes have lower resolution than modern lenses for digital cameras. How accurate is this statement?

[newst]

It's a lazy exaggeration. Some legacy lenses are exceptionally sharp. Some modern lenses aren't. The only way to answer your question is to select a lens and do your research.

After re-reading the original post I see that I misinterpreted the question. The premise itself is wrong. They were making large prints from 35mm photographs for as long as there were 35mm cameras. Art displays, museums, advertising, politics and who knows how many different disciplines used large photographic prints.

[memetph]

Do you mean that they were designed for small prints ?
I don't understand the logic of this statement.

[scsambrook]

kyrcy writes :
I have read that lenses for 35mm film cameras because they were not designed for prints of large sizes have lower resolution . . .
I think this idea dates bck to the early days of 35mm photography when a phtographically acceptable enlargement of 20x30cms was exceedingl difficult to produce and the norm was for much smaller prints. The problem though was not the ability of lenses to record fine detail but with the emulsion and developer combinations then available. Although some makers may have fitted lenses of lower quality, both Leitz and Zeiss (and other firms as well) produced high class optics which even today produce excellent images in digital cameras. Indeed, the quality of early 35mm format optics really only became apparent when film emulsions and developer chemistry began to improve substantially in the late 1950s. In tracking the evolution of camera optics we often forget that the lens was only the first link in a chain of factors governing image quality.

[tb_a]

[Lightshow]

[dan_]

[tb_a]

[kds315*]

[buerokratiehasser]

0. as stated by forum members before me, OPs statement is not entirely true, and is more false than true - people trade 180/2.8 and 50/3.5 macro lenses for a reason. Some are pretty good. BW photography needed some resolution for textures.

BTW. Peak resolution of course means MTF/contrast reaches zero. Usually rather gradually on film, meaning it doesn't look as sharp as the same megapixel resolution from digital.


That said, of course not all lenses are that impressive and some newer sensors can indeed outperform lenses (even at f8).

1. Old zooms are usually not so good. Newer zooms with better technology and computer optimization can be very much better. Rockwell raved about the Nikon(?) superzoom, I don't think you will find 18-200 or 300 or whatever it is in any sort of acceptable quality from the analog age.

2. Old tele/telezooms often hit a certain "resolution" treshold. For instance, two of my -300 zooms get soft at about 200mm on APS-C 10 Mpix.

3. If you adapt old lenses the crop factor works against you. Crop factor of 3 or 4 with EVIL means pain.

[Gerald]

I think that today's lenses are, on average, significantly better than those from the era of the film. No doubt, the best lenses of the past are excellent even by today's standard. This is the case, for example, of the Zeiss "Olympia" Sonnar 180mm F2.8 which was designed in the '30s.

Many current lenses have excellent performance already at full aperture. In contrast, most lenses from yore need the aperture be closed 2 or 3 stops for optimal performance. However, if you use a good prime lens from 30 or 40 years ago at F8, you'll hardly notice a difference in performance to a modern lens.

In the era of photographic film, people made routinely big prints, but already with 24cm x 30cm it was possible to distinguish a good lens from a mediocre one. I do not know if people make today larger prints than they made before. What has changed in the digital era is the capacity to scrutinize (pixel peeping ) a picture. The pixel peeping made the photographers more critical with the resolution of their lenses.

The current best lenses are optically better than lenses from 20 or 30 years ago because of the following technological factors:

a) cheapening and consequent increased use of aspherical lenses
b) cheapening of special glasses of low dispersion like ED, SLD, ELD, etc.
c) development and dissemination of exceptionally good programs for designing optical systems.

In short, today's lenses are better because manufacturers are able to make better lenses at an affordable price. But that goes for almost all products that depend on the advancement of technology.

[dan_]

[buerokratiehasser]

>"In short, today's lenses are better because manufacturers are able to make better lenses at an affordable price."

Mhm-hmm, for zooms .. for primes like 135/2.8 it's still economical to buy MF and adapt. Probably more a pricing issue together with inflation.

I remember when the 42 Mpix Lumia came out and all the Canon owners went maan that got to me muddy that picture look at my $2000 lens collection yadda yadda quality yadda.
It was simply the usual 1:6 P&S sensor only times 2x2. A plastic lens from a $40 P&S does 8 Mpix on these 1:6 crop sensors (on the short end). And the lens to illuminate the Lumia sensor didn't even need to zoom, it was probably some intern at Zeiss who laughed about the easy spec. :) Should be surprised if that lens cost more than $20 per unit.