That one is lovely.
It helps to keep in mind that if the quality judgement is based on the
print then there is an extensive system involved well beyond the lens.
A lens can easily resolve hundreds of lines/mm while typical color and
B&W films resolve in the range of 100-135 lines/mm in very high contrast
areas but only half of that or less in low contrast areas. The
enlarger, paper and development process combine to lower the resolution
even more. You never get more out than what you started with... only less.
The "system" resolution between lens and film is given by the formula
1/S = 1/L + 1/F where S is the system resolution of lens and film, L is
the resolution of the lens and F is the resolution of the film.
If the lens resolves 200 lines/mm and the film resolves 80 lines/mm the
final resolution is 1/200 + 1/80 = 1/0.0175 = 57 line/mm. If we double
the resolution of the lens to 400 lines/mm we have 1/400 + 1/80 =
1/0.015 = 67 lines/mm. So a presumably much more expensive lens with
twice the resolution only delivers an 18% improvement on the film. But
if we'd have had a film resolving 100 lines/mm we'd have gotten the same
67 lines/mm on the film using the less expensive 200 lines/mm lens.
So, the lesson is to pay more attention to your film, perhaps, than the
lens. Same rules apply for sensors.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/31/2012 3:39 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 1:35 AM, Moose wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2012 5:04 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>>> ...
>>> People should stop obsessing about lens differences, and focus on
>>> their composition and light :-)
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Great advice - and especially so from you. ;-)
>>
>> Moose
>
>
> Indeed... As time moves on and I move further and further away from my
> digital days, my only metric is what a photograph looks like on a
> print. By this metric, the most significant contributor of print image
> quality for me these days is film format size, and not lens quality.
> Of course certain lenses like the Zuiko 90/2.0 have an indescribably
> great rendering on B&W film, but even the lowliest junker of a
> standard lens on my Mamiya RB67 produces a print that is so far
> superiour as for comparison to be totally meaningless. And then lets
> not talk about large format.
>
> My 1:1 *macro* shots on large format, with my throwaway (wort probably
> $50, scratched etc) 1950 Schneider-Kreuznach Convertible Symmar 150mm
> standard lens, are of superiour technical quality to anything I can
> achieve with the OM system. This is an example which i could never
> achieve with the OM system, never mind with film pushed to ISO1600.
>
> http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/150/a/e/twice_bitten__not_shy_by_philosomatographer-d3hky2o.jpg
>
> I subsequently upgraded to a modern APO-Symmar 150/5.6 - one of the
> great Large Format lenses - and the differences between these lenses
> are mostly meaningless. I'm glad I kept the old junker, and I use it
> often. Because it has a self-timer :-)
>
> Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
