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.
Is a cropped MF/LF identical to 35mm?
-
A
- Thread starter tomfrh
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Sinar P2 8x10 Metering Back & Bellows
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica 90mm f2.5 Summarit-M
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
Sold Minolta 7000 (Refurbished) w/ 50mm f/1.7
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale FS: RARE Nikkormat FS body for Parts or Repair
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Sold GONE!...FREE for Shipping Cost: Polaroid 110 Pathfinder Camera Body for Parts or Repair
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
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.
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 a lab, shooting test targets sure, you would probably be able see some difference, so what? In the wild I doubt that you would. Other factors would matter more.
In the wild the 35mm camera is more likely to be handheld than a larger camera. A well supported camera has a big advantage over hand held. Generally no mirror slap on a 4x5, mirror up is typically used more IMO on top of a tripod.
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. Also if you showed up, in the wild, with a 4x5 and a normal lens or a 35mm with a normal lens both will have roughly the same angle of view and cropping would be proportional.
A Rodenstock large format lens brochure from about 25 year ago mentions that if a 'good picture' means that you need a lens delivering at given contrast at 20 lp/mm on sheetfilm, for 6x7 you need a lens delivering 20 lp/mm, and for 135 you need a lens delivering 40 lp/mm at the same contrast level. OTOH, if one is looking at spatial frequency resolution (not same contrast) the 20 lp/mm on sheetfilm equates to 65 lp/mm from 135 format
It is difficult to equate LF to 135 in part due to the very different magnifications needed and the different levels of contrast to compare.
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.
MattKing
Moderator
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.
What changes with format, if angle of view remains constant, is that the same scene can be spread across a lot more silver molecules with the larger formats.
I Agree!
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.
A Norman Koren web site statenent, " A 24x30 inch print from 4x5 would have the same detail as an 8x10 from 35mm. It can be extremely sharp! This result is in substantial agreement with Dead Link Removed." http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
The 24" print from 4x5 is produced from about 6.5x enlargement of 4x5, the 8x10" print is produced from 8.5x enlargement of 135. So the large format lens only needs to deliver 3/4 of the resolution of the 135 format lens, to provide 'same detail'.
The 24" print from 4x5 is produced from about 6.5x enlargement of 4x5, the 8x10" print is produced from 8.5x enlargement of 135. So the large format lens only needs to deliver 3/4 of the resolution of the 135 format lens, to provide 'same detail'.
I just found testing of different lenses for different formats http://www.photodo.com/topic_138.html :
"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."
- 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."
What you are forgetting is the sharpness given to any image by edge effects, and micro vs macro contrast. Since these effects may vary from format size to format size, you may see a big difference between format depending on what the manufacturer did with any specific product.
I've shown examples here before. If you are interested and can't find the old stuff or follow this statement, I can "enlarge" on the subject.
PE
I've shown examples here before. If you are interested and can't find the old stuff or follow this statement, I can "enlarge" on the subject.
PE
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.
That's very interesting! Thanks.
its amazing how well the 35mm tmax 100 performs compared to 4x5 Tri-x. Tri-x is pretty rough!
Yeah but if it's not on a tripod so what?
If it's not focussed perfectly so what?
If the lens isn't set at "it's best" aperture so what?
If you are using 400 speed or faster film in a 35mm camera so what?
Your assumption and thought is a fun experiment for understanding the way things work. So what? It's a special circumstance, not the norm.
Last edited:
Assume the cameras are stationary and focussed.
Sure you might get slightly more lens resolution with a lens for a 35mm camera.
How does that change your photographic practice?
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.
The more questions and queries being thrown up, the less sense is being made. markbarendt in #42 makes a number of salient points.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks Poisson.
While it is interesting to understand how the individual parts of a system work, it's actually more important to understand the limitations of the system and it's use in the wild.
For example my Nikon prime lenses provide their sharpest results in the f4 to f5.6 range, but I'm an "f2 and be there" shooter. There are times I might consider using the "best" apertures but that's the exception, not the rule.
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.
That's my whole point, I am the wildcard with regard to the quality of my photos.
This seems to have devolved into a lens issue when it really started as a film issue or question, it seems to me.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |