With this mind-set you will be certainly satisfied with 8x11mm miniature format, or 18x24mm half-frame, or pinhole photography. Fine for you if you are satiesfied with it. Nothing wrong with that.
I see good pictures or what I consider bad pictures and it has more to do with the photgrapher than the camera / lens.
To expect to be a good photographer and more important to get outstanding pictures, nothing replace practice, not even a $8,000 APO lens which is very close to the bottom of my priority list.
Which of the modern lenses have you tested on film, and in real side-by-side tests to equivalent older designs?
I ask because none of the modern lenses I have tested have shown a "sterile" look on film. Just the opposite! The results have been much more pleasing (reasons see my answer below).
What I have experienced is a more "sterile" look in digital imaging, and the extent being dependent on the camera/sensor and software used. And then it happened both with older and newer lens designs.
I use my older 50mm Nikkors very seldom nowadays. Mostly I am using now the Zeiss ZF 2/50, because it produces much more pleasing images with
- much better colour rendition
- much better bokeh
- much better three-dimensional impression
- improved separation of sharp-to-unsharp areas
- better sharpness and resolution at f2 and f2.8
- better contrast over all apertures
- more even performance over the whole frame (better performance outside the middle and at the borders)
- better build quality.
All of the modern lenses I use render images in a more pleasent way than my older lenses. That is why I am using them.
Look at the advantages and improvements I have listed above for the Zeiss ZF 2/50. That are typical advantages and improvements I see on about all of my modern lenses compared to my older ones.
Of course with some lenses some parameters are more distinct than others.
Best regards,
Henning
As someone who is also running an independent photo test lab in which films, sensors and lenses are tested (and some other equipment), I can clearly say "yes". It makes lots of sense.
And as a film photographer you can often even benefit more from modern lens designs than digital photographers.
Because of the following reasons:
1. The resolution of digital sensors is limited by the Nyquist frequency, but film is not. The Nyquist frequency is a physical limit which cannot be surpassed in digital photography. For example the Nyquist frequency of a 36 MP 24x36mm sensor is 102 lp/mm. The Nyquist frequency of a 45 MP 24x36mm sensor is 115 lp/mm.
In reality the real resolution of a lens+sensor combination is mostly 5 - 20% lower than the Nyquist frequency, dependent on camera software and whether an AA filter is used or not.
So even with the best lenses you cannot surpass the Nyquist frequency!!
But there are several high-quality films which offer higher resolutions than 100 lp/mm and 115 lp/mm at lower medium to higher medium and high object contrast details. And with the modern lens designs you can fully use / exploit these excellent high resolution values!
Just to list the most important of them: ADOX CMS 20 II, ADOX HR-50 and SCALA 50, TMX, Delta 100, Acros 100 I/II, Agfa Aviphot Pan 80, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Fujicolor C200, Superia X-Tra 400, Portra 160, E100.
2. One of the major and most significant advantage and improvement with the latest, modern lens designs is the much improved performance at open aperture and at 1-2 stopped down aperture. And the progress made in this area is really huge and easily visible.
Most of these modern and improved lenses can be used without any problems at open aperture, with already very good sharpness and contrast. Stopped down only one stop the performance is even better with "very little more to wish for". And with an only two stops down aperture you often already have a perfect performance (lots of the new lenses are only diffraction limited).
And all that means in real shooting conditions:
Because of these much better performance at wider opened apertures you can now use a better, lower-speed film instead of a higher speed film. You can often use ISO 25/15° or 50/18° instead of ISO 100/21°.
Or instead of using ISO 400/27° you can go down to ISO 100/21° and can benefit from the much better detail rendition of the lower-speed films.
I am organising film photographer meetings on a regular basis (well, before the pandemic of course, and hopefully after it again). And in these meetings I also show the photographers comparison test pictures in blind tests. And in lots of these tests the shots made with the modern lenses on high-quality low- to medium speed 35mm films (tabular grain type) were considered superior to medium format shots made with older lens designs on medium speed and higher speed films with classic emulsion types.
The design progress in lens design of the last 30 years is by far one of the best things that happened to film photographers.
Best regards,
Henning
I admit that my personal experience has been limited to results obtained from dslr's.
But I have also seen many film scans from these modern, "improved" lenses (including here) that while technically excellent, have repeatedly left me cold.
P.S. Can you tell me what resolution limit of Pan F plus is, and what film stocks currently beat it?
Unfortunately for people like me who don't like geometric distortion, correcting this in normal and short focal length designs seems to have been of relatively low priority.
Interesting observations Henning. What are the best new manual focus nikons youve seen?
In my standardized resolution tests with an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops), shot on the Zeiss ZF 2/50 at f5.6, and developed in SPUR HRX, I've got 115-130 lp/mm. I've got the same resolution, but with finer grain, with Acros I and II.
If you want higher resolution than that Delta 100, TMX, ADOX HR-50 / SCALA 50, Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 and of course the resolution-record film ADOX CMS 20 II are the way to go.
And for colour Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and 100.
Best regards,
Henning
Tragically, Zeiss Milvus ZF lenses are all in medium format category in terms of size+weight, killing the primary advantage of 35mm format - portability. 600g+ for a normal f/2 prime... if I am in the mood to lug around a beast like that, I'll grab a 645 camera.
They still have the properly-sized Planars f/1.4 ZF2 for 50 and 80mm, I wonder how much worse they are vs their obese Milvus counterparts.
Well, once upon a time I bought several Zeiss ZF.2 lenses to potentially replace my Nikon lenses. This was before the Otus/Milvus age. One of these was the 50mm f/1.4 Planar as a replacement for the Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.4. Build quality was excellent, but long story short it was no better optically than the Nikkor.
Well, I have not used most of those but I think it depends on how you define low/minimal/negligible. I have read that type of description many times and found it to be significant enough to be unacceptable given the price point. Interestingly one of the best I have used in 24mm focal length is the Canon TSE II.
Huh. I would have thought that Pan F was of higher resolution than Delta/TMX.
And what about Ektachrome E100?
I guess Leica should be applauded for at least pushing the envelope while also keeping lens size down.
It's too bad they also insist on making lenses few can afford.
Sorry I wasn't implying they're equal. What I meant to say that if I'm packing a bag with photo equipment, I might as well reach for a medium format camera. IMO the purpose of 35mm equipment is to hang on a shoulder invisibly and not even owning a backpack
My Nikon kit consists of the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S and 50mm f/1.8 AI-S Japanese pancake. They are both compact and weight nothing. I'm having a hard time wishing for more as far as image quality is concerned.
I don't like the feel of aperture/focus rings though. The internet says "AI-S lenes are build like tanks" but they feel cheaper than anything else I own (Hasselblad/Zeiss CF, M-lenses from Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss, Fuji digital X-lenses and Canon L-lenses).
Hello Mark,
I agree. And we just have to consider that this new APO lens has not the "average enthusiast" as a target market, but those limited number of photographers who want just the best optics technically possible, and in a very small and compact size.
And concerning the price it should also be considered that these lenses are designed to serve for many decades. Even the next generation(s) will be able to use them. Leica lenses are very sustainable products.
Not as my former cheap third party lenses, which have started to "falling apart" just after 20 years of very cautious and careful use.......
Well, that is a bit unfair, as Leica has meanwhile introduced a whole line of affordable lenses: the Summarit M line. Very compact lenses all with a f2.4 max aperture.
In general I find it quite amazing how Leica has increased the whole M camera line with different cameras and even much different lenses to cater to quite different customer groups (including film photographers; the demand for Leica M film cameras is by the way strongly increasing and meanwhile so high, that Leica's film M production is running at full capacity, and nevertheless demand is surpassing supply).
If someone would have told us 20 years ago, that the M system would have this great variety in 2021, we probably would have said he is totally crazy.......
Best regards,
Henning
Your preferences for the highest technical image quality is obviously very strong and that’s fine, but you do come off as beating a dead horse a bit. If someone enjoys shooting Tri-X with a 50 year old lens they’re not going to suddenly decide that Adox CMS 20 is a better choice because the resolution is higher.
Furthermore the resolution of your lens or film have so little to do with the creation of a successful portfolio of images that it’s hardly worth discussing.
Your preferences for the highest technical image quality is obviously very strong and that’s fine, but you do come off as beating a dead horse a bit. If someone enjoys shooting Tri-X with a 50 year old lens they’re not going to suddenly decide that Adox CMS 20 is a better choice because the resolution is higher. Furthermore the resolution of your lens or film have so little to do with the creation of a successful portfolio of images that it’s hardly worth discussing.
I’m a bit surprised to hear this about AI-S lenses but I don’t have extensive experience. My first Nikkor was the 35mm f/1.4 AI-S and it felt very solid. Not quite Leica feel but very good. However this is the only AI-S lens I’ve owned. I eventually sold it for the AF-D 35mm f/2. That was obviously a step down build-wise, but a step up optically and in the end that’s what matters most to me. I then tried the Zeiss ZF2 35mm f/2, which is beautifully built and a better performer at wider apertures. But I never shoot at wide apertures anyway so that feature is generally lost on me - and it distorts more than the lowly AF-D Nikkor so I went back to using the Nikkor.
Yes, the entire Summarit range was discontinued several months ago. The 35/2.4 was my first Leica lens and it's been a good performer. I do, however, think the 50mm was priced too close to the Summicron for it to make much sense.From the looks of it, all the Summarits have been discontinued.
But what I find very strange in lots of forum discussions is that this statement "resolution does not matter" is always only said when the topic is higher-quality 35mm film work.
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?