Prime lens quality and 12" x 16" enlargements.

[Markok765]

I agree, Lee.

I have a 75mm/4.5 Ektar that is a five element design and every bit as sharp as my six element 80mm/5.6 Componon.

My mistake

 

[naturephoto1]

All I know is the US rep for Rodenstock jumped on me for saying all the top of the line MF lenses are 80mm. He was talking about the N not the D model of the lens. But this was a few years back.

Nick,

No problem. Presuming I have the latest .pdf download of the Rodenstock enlarging lenses from Linos, the current offering appears to be the 80mm f4.0 Apo Rodagon N for 6X7.

Rich

 

[Nick Zentena]

No worries. I guess they kept hearing from people like me saying 75mm wasn't the good stuff -))

 

[chorleyjeff]

I must gently disagree with Roger over the question of d

However, in many ways your question is irrelevant since you should be trying to satisfy yourself and not the gallery visitors. I rather get the impression that you want us to provide the excuse for you to embark on the purchase of MF goodies, but that must come from within.

On the contrary. My inclination is to sell the MF stuff and buy high quality prime lenses for 35mm but I can't help feeling that I should strive for higher technical quality alongside the elusive creative element. Also I am finding that lugging MF equipment up onto the hills is a bind that would be eased by carrying lighter equipment but am bothered at potentially compromising quality too much.
I take the point that I should take pictures for my own satisfaction.
Cheers
Jeff

 

[chorleyjeff]

A 12 x 16 image from Delta 400 or 100 ( or Kodak T Max films )
is well within the reach of a competent photographer. It isn't THAT hard, and lots of folks can do it.

Can you tell the difference between prints made in MF and 35, side by side ? Well, sure. Does that make the 35mm image inferior ? Of course not. Does that make MF superior ? No.

Here's the unspoken reality: you can make superb images from 35 in conditions that are impossible to make ANY image from MF.

When and where you make pictures is the real question.
Sunny days on a tripod, MF.
Handheld at twilight, 35mm.
In between, that's up to you.

Thanks for reminding me that it's all a compromise and MF is as much a compromise as 35mm.
Cheers
Jeff

 

[chorleyjeff]

I thought for a minute I was going insane. I answered this thread already today, and it doesn't show up. The same thread appears on 35mm forum and medium format forum too. I answered the thread on 35mm forum.

1. size matters. always.

2. When in doubt, see point #1.

Rick

I put it on 35mm and MF forums because I assumed I would get answers from 35mm and MF users each with their own point of view.
Sorry to confuse.
Cheers
Jeff

 

[naturephoto1]

Jeff,

The question of handheld at twilight can or can almost be approached by a Mamiya 7/7II. The one drawback is the speed of the lenses, however, a monopod would probably make that possible. Additionally, a Rolleiflex TLR or like could also very possibly be used under these low light conditions as the Mamiya 7/7II but would only have the option of a single rather than an assortment of lenses.

Rich

 

[BruceN]

Marko,

It doesn't help people (or your credibility) for you to give out misinformation. I have two 75mm f:4.5 enlarging lenses, one made in Japan for Omega (Omicron-EL), and another from Isco in Germany. This wasn't too uncommon a focal length for 6x6 enlargers at one time.

Lee

Darn it Lee, ya had to go and spoil it for me! I figured that, if they didn't exist, the 2 I have would suddenly be worth a fortune.

Bruce

 

[Ray Heath]

what's better?

there is always something 'better'?

prime over zoom
mf over 35mm
4x5 over mf
and on and on boringly

just do the best of what you want to do using what you've got

sure, a 16x20 view camera making only contact prints is (???) the ultimate, but try doing candid street photography

so a 16x20 enlargement from 35mm is not pin sharp, who has good enough eye sight to notice from the appropriatte viewing distance