Are lenses that are considered good for digital also good for film?

[PhotoJim]

And yet it allows the 8x10 to capture the highest resolution ever seen in a commercially available device!

Absolutely - because while large format captures fewer line pairs per mm, it has an awful lot more millimetres to play with.

 

[Arthurwg]

I know i will catch some heat for this from some of you but while Zeiss lenses are well-built, in terms of optics they lack character so much. I had a Biogon 35mm 2.8 which simply lacked character, a look if you will.

I think the "character" of Zeiss lenses comes from their beautiful tonal separation and range. I believe that's the Zeiss "look."

 

[locutus]

In theory a lens designed for digital could leave certain aberrations for automatic digital correction, but I’d be curious to see any examples of that actually happening, i.e., an image made with the same lens on a full frame 35mm digital body and film body showing something like really excessive curvilinear distortion

They do exist....now.

Essentially, with a DSLR you are still limited by having to provide geometric correction that looks good enough in the viewfinder not to be too offensive.

With newer camera's where all viewing is through a EVF that shows a image that has already been corrected this goes completely out of the window.

For example on the L Mount platform, the 24-105mm zoom has such strong and complex distortion at the wide end that i couldn't ever imagine disabling correction.

That said, unless you explicitly disable it you would never know as it's corrected throughout the whole pipeline of viewfinder -> on camera preview -> editing -> output.

Also, in my personal testing the 24-105 f/4 is sharper then my Summicron-R 50 at f/4 so i suppose the engineers know what they are doing

 

[George Mann]

I don't know if a 8x10 lens resolves more than a 35mm lens on that 36x24 patch the smaller lens will cover.

The majority of opinions say that the 8×10 lens would resolve less do to it's primitive design.

Even medium format lenses are largely considered to be inferior.

 

[George Mann]

Absolutely - because while large format captures fewer line pairs per mm, it has an awful lot more millimetres to play with.

Which is exactly my point!

 

[film_man]

The ignore button is such a wonderful thing.

 

[George Mann]

The ignore button is such a wonderful thing.

Where is this button you speak of?

 

[BradS]

The majority of opinions say that the 8×10 lens would resolve less do to it's primitive design.

Even medium format lenses are largely considered to be inferior.

a modern plasmat (aka planar) is inferior ?
to what?
and in what way exactly?

 

[George Mann]

a modern plasmat (aka planar) is inferior ?
to what?
and in what way exactly?

I wasn't specifically referring to every available lens design.

 

[BradS]

I wasn't specifically referring to every available lens design.

Well, then what are you trying to say?
You made a general statement condemning most, if not all, large format lenses as being primitive and implied that they are therefore inferior.
So, again I ask, large format lenses are primitive? to what? and in what way?

 

[George Mann]

Well, then what are you trying to say?
You made a general statement condemning most, if not all, large format lenses as being primitive and implied that they are inferior.
So, again I ask, large format lenses are inferior? to what? and in what way?

and in what way is the Plasmat (aka Planar) design primitive exactly?

This sounds like a troll! Your modern planar does not represent the pool of antique large format lens designs that I had previously referred to.

Use your head!

 

[BradS]

This sounds like a troll! Your modern planar does not represent the pool of antique large format lens designs that I had previously referred to.

Use your head!

You did not specifically mention antique. You made a blanket statement. I asked you to clarify. Your response seems a bit defensive.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of non-extreme focal length, Large Format lenses designed in the past 40 years or so are based upon the Planar design (Plasmat and Planar refer to the same design).

So, can you please explain to me, in simple words that even I can understand, in what way the plasmat/planar design is primitive and inferior?

 

[George Mann]

You did not specifically mention antique. You made a blanket statement. I asked you to clarify. Your response seems a bit defensive.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of non-extreme focal length, Large Format lenses designed in the past 40 years or so are based upon the Planar design (Plasmat and Planar refer to the same design).

So, can you please explain to me, in simple words that even I can understand, in what way the plasmat/planar design is primitive and inferior?

I am not going to play your stupid little games of misrepresentation!

Show me a large format lens that will out-resolve a good 35mm prime, or take your trolling somewhere else.

 

[BradS]

I am not going to play your stupid little games of misrepresentation!

Okeeey....
I infer from this that you were just vomiting bull shit...which is perfectly fine...but maybe, in the future, you can try to be a grown up and just admit it. I think that you'd find it much less embarrassing.

 

[George Mann]

Okeeey....
I infer from this that you were just vomiting bull shit...which is perfectly fine...but maybe, in the future, you can try to be a grown up and just admit it. I think that you'd find it much less embarrassing.

Embarrassed by your pointless trolling? Not on your life!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

And yet it allows the 8x10 to capture the highest resolution ever seen in a commercially available device!

No. First, there are larger formats than 8x10. Second, "resolution" and "information" are different concepts. 8x10 might capture more information, but if you know of any lens with a 300mm image circle that can resolve 250 lp per mm (not unheard of for 50mm lenses for 35), please tell me about it.

 

[George Mann]

No. First, there are larger formats than 8x10.

Which may have been common over 100 years ago. Have you actually seen one of these formats make an image with a modern, high resolution film?

Second, "resolution" and "information" are different concepts.

Interesting. Does this difference at least partially explain why film can capture more information than digital?

8x10 might capture more information, but if you know of any lens with a 300mm image circle that can resolve 250 lp per mm (not unheard of for 50mm lenses for 35), please tell me about it.

Does your claim not validate my contention?

 

[BradS]

No. First, there are larger formats than 8x10.

Which may have been common over 100 years ago. Have you actually seen one of these formats make an image with a modern, high resolution film?

Does Ilford Delta 100 qualify as a modern high resolution film?

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ULF-2020-Items_Participants.doc

 

[George Mann]

Does Ilford Delta 100 qualify as a modern high resolution film?

It's acceptable. I would prefer a transparency. But who has used it in an ultra-large format?

Is there a high quality analog print made from it?

 

[alanrockwood]

a modern plasmat (aka planar) is inferior ?
to what?
and in what way exactly?

Just as a technical matter: although plasmats and planars are both 6-element designs in their basic forms, I believe the arrangement of the elements is different and the strengths/weaknesses of the design trade-offs are different.


A plasmat has cemented doublets as the outer elements and single element lenses as the inner elements. A planar has simple lenses as the outer elements and cemented doublets as the inner elements. I think a plasmat typically has a smaller aperture and is designed with a wider angle of view in order to work well with shifts and tilts on a large format camera. I think a planar is designed with a narrower field of view, with the main design goal being large aperture.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[BradS]

Just as a technical matter: although plasmats and planars are both 6-element designs in their basic forms, I believe the arrangement of the elements is different and the strengths/weaknesses of the design trade-offs are different.


A plasmat has cemented doublets as the outer elements and single element lenses as the inner elements. A planar has simple lenses as the outer elements and cemented doublets as the inner elements. I think a plasmat typically has a smaller aperture and is designed with a wider angle of view in order to work well with shifts and tilts on a large format camera. I think a planar is designed with a narrower field of view, with the main design goal being large aperture.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

No actually, I think you are spot on. A plasmat is Planar turned inside-out. Thank you. I’ve learned something.

 

[BradS]

It's acceptable. I would prefer a transparency. But who has used it in an ultra-large format?

Is there a high quality analog print made from it?

Ilford still produce and sell film in ULF sizes. People buy it. People definitely still use modern film in their ULF cameras. They make prints in the darkroom using all kinds of interesting processes. There are even some who participate here.

off the top of my head,
Jim Fitzgerald, Vaughn, Kerik....there are many others. If you’re interested you could start a new thread asking who does ULF today.

 

[MattKing]

The 11x14 users are mostly contact printing of course.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...you were just vomiting bull shit...

As that troll you were responding to always does.

The most valuable relevant observation was posted a bit earlier in this thread:

The ignore button is such a wonderful thing.

 

[BradS]

As that troll you were responding to always does.

The most valuable relevant observation was posted a bit earlier in this thread:

Indeed. Like I said, It's ok to spew bull shit but one needs to take care not to consume the bull shits regurgitated by others.