Nikkor 50mm or 35mm Lens?

snegron · Oct 11, 2006

mhv said:
That makes more sense and explains your constraints better. You could devise a test by using just a few people in the center and corners because you know that a) the center of lenses is always sharper and b) the corners are always the less sharp. I suppose getting the details on the face matters, hence your question for sharpness. Try to position yourself at an appropriate distance from your subjects, as would happen in the real situation, expose shots at all the relevant apertures, and have mega-hi-res scans made or prints the size that you need, and frankly that should tell you a good deal already.

Just my 0.02$

I think this might be the only alternative I have at this time. I had the thought that the flatness of field with each lens might have some impact on edge to edge sharpness as well. There is a slight distortion on the edges of the 35mm focal length that is not as apparant with the 50mm lens. I can correct this slightly with proper positioning of subjects/camera and obtain sharper images by stopping down a bit, but I wonder if my subjects on the ends will be out of focus with the 35mm due to its slight lens curvature? I wonder if the subject's faces on the edges will look slightly out of focus with the 35 more so than with the 50mm?

Paul Howell · Oct 11, 2006

snegron said:
Paul Howell said:

It would make sense from an optical point of view to use my RB76 with a wide angle, the problem arises during scanning. I currently have an Epson 4870 Pro flatbed scanner. I plan to do batch scans with it. Batch scans are only possible with 35mm frames, not 120. When a medium format scan is made on my scanner, it can only be done one frame at a time. There is no way to scan more than one medium format frame at a time on my scanner. Yes, I could go out and spend a small fortune on another scanner that would permit me to batch scan several medium format frames at a time, but it would not be cost effective and would be extremely time consuming. The most cost effective way of obtaining multiple group shots is with 35mm film. I also own DSLR's, but again, quality is important to me.

Click to expand...

What size prints do you need to make, or you going to give out a digital file, and how many differnt shots are going to make? I do very little with my DSLR so all of my comments are filtered though my analog mind set. Do you need just one really good shot or is this like school photos of lots of classrooms?

snegron · Oct 11, 2006

There are actually two projects I had in mind that include somewhere in the area of about 150 to 200 group shots. The final prints will be mostly 8x10, maybe 4 or 5 might have to be 11x14. One project will be about sports teams, the other will be about factory workers. The sports teams will be mostly in color, while the other will be mostly black and white. The team shots will be about baseball, basketball, football, and soccer teams. I thought about digital, but I am not happy with group shots taken with my DSLR's. Film, IMO, produces much better results especially with skin tones. The scanned negatives look better than the ones out of the camera in my case. Also, printing will probably be done either by a lab or myself from the scanned negatives.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Oct 11, 2006

snegron said:
I think this might be the only alternative I have at this time. I had the thought that the flatness of field with each lens might have some impact on edge to edge sharpness as well. There is a slight distortion on the edges of the 35mm focal length that is not as apparant with the 50mm lens. I can correct this slightly with proper positioning of subjects/camera and obtain sharper images by stopping down a bit, but I wonder if my subjects on the ends will be out of focus with the 35mm due to its slight lens curvature? I wonder if the subject's faces on the edges will look slightly out of focus with the 35 more so than with the 50mm?

Also, take into consideration that with the 50mm you are farther from the subject than with the 35mm for a similar composition. OTOH edge sharpness is less good on a wideangle lens. Once more: "try it" !

Paul Howell · Oct 12, 2006

snegron said:
There are actually two projects I had in mind that include somewhere in the area of about 150 to 200 group shots. The final prints will be mostly 8x10, maybe 4 or 5 might have to be 11x14. One project will be about sports teams, the other will be about factory workers. The sports teams will be mostly in color, while the other will be mostly black and white. The team shots will be about baseball, basketball, football, and soccer teams. I thought about digital, but I am not happy with group shots taken with my DSLR's. Film, IMO, produces much better results especially with skin tones. The scanned negatives look better than the ones out of the camera in my case. Also, printing will probably be done either by a lab or myself from the scanned negatives.

For an 8X10 or 11X14 I doubt that you see any difference between the 35 and 50mm. An alternative to shooting test targets is to find a brick wall, shoot with both lens at what you think your working F stop will be, use a tripod and slow to medium speed film, make some prints than let your friends rate the shots (blind) and run with the answer.

Dan Fromm · Oct 12, 2006

snegron said:
There are actually two projects I had in mind that include somewhere in the area of about 150 to 200 group shots. The final prints will be mostly 8x10, maybe 4 or 5 might have to be 11x14. One project will be about sports teams, the other will be about factory workers. The sports teams will be mostly in color, while the other will be mostly black and white. The team shots will be about baseball, basketball, football, and soccer teams. I thought about digital, but I am not happy with group shots taken with my DSLR's. Film, IMO, produces much better results especially with skin tones. The scanned negatives look better than the ones out of the camera in my case. Also, printing will probably be done either by a lab or myself from the scanned negatives.

11x14 from 35 mm? Only if your acceptable print quality is low. 8x10 is pushing hard. If you need prints that large, give up and use your RB.

MarkS · Oct 12, 2006

Don't base the quality of your work on the convienence of post-production. No one who sees the final product will ever care how much work it was- they will only see the print. Use your RB. I spent two years, '79-'81, shooting group portraits for a yearbook studio; high schools and colleges. The standard practice was to use a Bronica ETR (6x4.5) camera, Tri-X film, and two big Metz flashes. It worked very well, the pictures looked great as 8x10s and reproduced well, and the studio made a lot of money (even if I didn't). That was a long time ago, but the principles haven't changed.

snegron · Oct 12, 2006

I think that what I dread the most is the time I will spend scanning each negative from my RB. Also, getting only 10 frames per 120 roll makes it just that more time consuming. Although I could probably get a few 220 backs for my RB, but I am still left with the problem of scanning each frame individually.

Stephanie Brim · Oct 12, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
11x14 from 35 mm? Only if your acceptable print quality is low. 8x10 is pushing hard. If you need prints that large, give up and use your RB.

Using the right film, 11x14 should be more than fine. I wouldn't use Tri-X, but Pan-F or Efke 50 would likely produce great results at that size.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Oct 12, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
11x14 from 35 mm? Only if your acceptable print quality is low. 8x10 is pushing hard. If you need prints that large, give up and use your RB.

Not necessarily, I've printed 11x14 out of Tri-X in XTOL 1+1 and the results are well within what's expected of 35mm. If you have a good lens, a good grip, proper dev and printing abilities, then it's not too demanding.

David Douglas Duncan worked on a 35mm when he made War Without Heroes and the photos were printed at 11x14 size. Even in reproduction the pictures have gorgeous tones.

Dan Fromm · Oct 13, 2006

mhv said:
Not necessarily, I've printed 11x14 out of Tri-X in XTOL 1+1 and the results are well within what's expected of 35mm.

Going to 11x14 from 35 mm requires a little over 9x enlargement. This means that to get 8 lp/mm in the print you need 72 lp/mm in the negative. It isn't easy to achieve 72 lp/mm on the negative in any format with any film. The lenses we use don't deliver enough contrast at that resolution.

Ray Heath · Oct 13, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
Them's weasel words. Low expectations shouldn't excuse poor results.

Going to 11x14 from 35 mm requires a little over 9x enlargement. This means that to get 8 lp/mm in the print you need 72 lp/mm in the negative. It isn't easy to achieve 72 lp/mm on the negative in any format with any film. The lenses we use don't deliver enough contrast at that resolution.

well, yeh, if you photograph line pairs and stand really close to the print you might notice

Dan Fromm · Oct 13, 2006

Ray, I've seen advertisements on buses that had been shot with 35 mm. If you stand back far enough, anything is acceptably sharp. But we usually can't prevent people from looking closely.

Ray Heath · Oct 13, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
Ray, I've seen advertisements on buses that had been shot with 35 mm. If you stand back far enough, anything is acceptably sharp. But we usually can't prevent people from looking closely.

so what's your point

Dan Fromm · Oct 13, 2006

Ray Heath said:
so what's your point

Ray, my point is that acceptable image quality in the final print depends on, among other things, how close the viewer stands to it. What will pass muster at ten feet might not at ten inches. That's why I went up from 35 mm to 2x3 and may eventually move from 2x3 to the next logical larger size, 5x7.

At ten inches, less than 8 lp/mm in the print looks fuzzy.

I can't for the life of me get acceptable prints from my best negs when I go up much larger than 8x. And that's with as meticulous technique as I can manage and shooting at a good aperture. So I somewhat doubt the original poster's sanity for wanting to shoot groups with 35 mm.

Clearer now?

Dan

Ray Heath · Oct 13, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
Ray, my point is that acceptable image quality in the final print depends on, among other things, how close the viewer stands to it. What will pass muster at ten feet might not at ten inches. That's why I went up from 35 mm to 2x3 and may eventually move from 2x3 to the next logical larger size, 5x7.

At ten inches, less than 8 lp/mm in the print looks fuzzy.

I can't for the life of me get acceptable prints from my best negs when I go up much larger than 8x. And that's with as meticulous technique as I can manage and shooting at a good aperture. So I somewhat doubt the original poster's sanity for wanting to shoot groups with 35 mm.

Clearer now?

Dan

so why stop at 5x7, why not 20x24?

oh oh, i know why not build a camera as big as your house

Nikkor 50mm or 35mm Lens?

snegron

Paul Howell

snegron

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Paul Howell

Dan Fromm

MarkS

snegron

Stephanie Brim

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Dan Fromm

Ray Heath

Dan Fromm

Ray Heath

Dan Fromm

Ray Heath

Nikkor 50mm or 35mm Lens?

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency