Steve Smith
Allowing Ads
No part of the film knows how much more film is joined on to it. It is only a matter of lens quality.
Steve.
Steve.
It will not be the same. 35mm lenses will show better resolution than the cropped 24x36mm frame from a 6x7 negative.
But then again, in the grand scheme of things it probably won't matter much.
the 135 format neg will have far better detail resolution of the 5' tall subject than would be seen on the 24x36mm crop of the 4x5 neg.
Many of you have said that 135 lenses punch above their weight, and will produce a better image than the same 36x24mm tile taken from a larger format negative.
How different would it be? In your experience how much more of the 6x7 of a 4x5 negative would you need to match the 135 lens? 5% extra linear resolution? 50% extra?
Many of you have said that 135 lenses punch above their weight, and will produce a better image than the same 36x24mm tile taken from a larger format negative.
How different would it be? In your experience how much more of the 6x7 of a 4x5 negative would you need to match the 135 lens? 5% extra linear resolution? 50% extra?
In the wild the only reason to crop a large negative that far is that you had no other choice. Typically a lot more of the 4x5 negative would be used so the comparison becomes apples and oranges.
Be careful using "sharper" here.I hadn't realised 135 is generally sharper on a per area basis. this is useful to know.
Indeed! Cropping 135s out 4x5a isn't something I'm planning to do! (That being said, I do sometimes crop 645 slides to fit 135 slide mounts.)
Really I'm just trying to understand what a square millimetre of 135 is worth compared to a square millimetre of 67 or 4x5. Purely theoretical to help my understanding of different camera systems.
I hadn't realised 135 is generally sharper on a per area basis. this is useful to know.
Be careful using "sharper" here.
Contrast, edge contrast (accutance), resolution all play a role, and all are likely to differ between lenses for different formats.
As will distortions.
And the contributions of the different types of optical aberrations to the different factors as well.
Per Sq mm the characteristics of any specific film emulsion should be identical.
I don't know. Some of those medium format lenses are pretty sharp, Mamiya 6 & 7 for example. Also if you crop from the center then you are getting the sweet spot of the medium format lens.
I think that you are right that in the grand scheme of things it probably doesn't matter much.
I just found testing of different lenses for different formats http://www.photodo.com/topic_138.html :
In considering both lens and film resolution, they stated,
- Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 for 35 mm, a
- Carl Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 (Hasselblad) for 6x6 cm, and
- a Rodenstock Sironar 150/5.6 for 9x12 cm.
"And here is the big surprise: a 35 mm negative taken with the T-Max 100 is sharper than the large format negative taken with the Tri-X! Who would have thought it? It is important to add here that the small format picture was taken with a super sharp lens, the camera mounted on a tripod, and using a cable release; not exactly a free hand shot. But the large format picture was taken using the exact same technique. A 35 mm negative handled in the right way can be very clear, even when compared to large format."
"1) Tri-X in a 35 mm camera with Planar 50/1.4 stopped down to f5.6. The sharpness is nothing you would like to brag about.
2) Tri-X in a Hasselblad with a Planar 80/2,8 stopped down to f11. Much sharper than the 35 mm.
3) Tri-X 9 x 12 in a large format camera with Sironar 150/5,6, stopped down to f22. It is even sharper than Hasselblad.
4) Now over to T-MAX 100. First 35 mm Contax with Planar 50/1.4 stopped down to f5.6. It appears sharper than the 9 x 12 cm Tri-X.
5) 6 x 6 with Planar 80/2.8 and f11 and T-MAX 100.
6) 9 x 12 with Sironar 150/5.6 at f22 and T-MAX 100. This image is the sharpest one, but the difference to 35 mm is suprisingly small."
I just found testing of different lenses for
a lot of posters are saying 35mm lenses resolve finer than bigger formats.
we're assuming of course the subject is the same size on the film. Eg same focal length and subject distance.
Yeah but if it's not on a tripod so what?
If it's not focussed perfectly so what?
Assume the cameras are stationary and focussed.
Well, I was just citing facts from an actual test where resolution between 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 were measured with microscopes under controlled conditions. They did not have Mamiya 6/7 lenses, only Hasselblad which are probably slightly less good in terms of resolution. The 35mm lens was a 50mm Zeiss Planar, which could probably be bested today by a Leica 50mm Summicron or Summilux.
I like facts. The rest is just opinion. I so wish I could find the darned article. It used to be published online.
In the article they used the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 lens. I shot the 1.7 lens for many years. It was said to be a tad sharper than the 1.4. Both are very sharp. I also owned the 80mm Planar they used. The Zeiss 100mm for Hasselblad is sharper. They used a Rodenstock 150mm Sironar for the 4x5. I'm assuming it's the common Sironar N. The Sironar S is said to be the sharpest large format lens ever made.
It would be interesting to see a test of how the sharpest lenses compare.
In the end though it is a moot point. I can't use a 35mm lens on my 8x10 camera.
Has the OP carried out a parallel test to prove the theory introduced in this thread, one way or another, in a definitive way? It cannot be too difficult.
The more questions and queries being thrown up, the less sense is being made. markbarendt in #42 makes a number of salient points.
Oh yes, very moot point. My favorite lens for my 35mm work is probably not the technically best performing one. To me it really doesn't matter. I don't own a single lens that will let me down, but very often I will let myself down when I make crappy photographs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?