Those are exactly the lenses I settled on for my 5x7 photography in the field. Fujinon A 180 for wide angle and macro, and Nikkor 300 for a longish-normal. Good stuff.
Last edited:
Those are exactly the lenses I settled on for my 5x7 photography in the field. Fujinon A 180 for wide angle and macro, and Nikkor 300 for a longish-normal. Good stuff.I could cite similar instances. For example, my Nikkor M and Fuji A large format lenses usable on 4X5 or even 8X10 film in most instances, when used for a 6X9 roll film back, equal or even exceed the performance of my dedicated MF lenses, which are darn good themselves.
but the beauty of large negatives, regardless of lens aberrations, is their ability to show a wider range of tonality....to me that is far more important that any degree of clinical sharpness.
I will go along with that, but bigger format kit usually has a drawback or two, weight and bulk come to mind. Having passed my biblical theoretical age of 3 score years and ten a while back I am offloading all my bulky kit and but can still produce images up to 12x16 from 35mm although don't do many - I don't have the space!
One body/lens, plus a couple of extra prime lenses is all I need to have fun - plus of course a carbon fibre tripod.
I'm with you BMb, My point was simply about tonality. The thread has been about medium format, and i'm not a sharpness freak...on the contrary I prefer lens character above all and am a huge fan of Tessars. As far as luggng gear around, my photographic interests don't lie within 100 yrds of the truck and i do far more medium format work (& even some 35mm)...so i understand you point of view entirely.
Weight?... You betcha, at 73 and headed out with a backpack full of 8x10 gear tomorrow, it makes me question my sanity. But who wants to waste a lot of time and money just to use some exercise machine in a stinky gym? I have my game plan : carbon fiber tripods in lieu of my heavy wooden Ries ones, an inevitable default to my lightest 4x5 down the line, or my MF gear (Fuji RF's are wonderful). I'm good with it all. But when it comes to enlargements, there's nuthin' like 8x10, or as fun as shooting that while I still can.
BM is right, this is pointless.
A tripod is the most important device to improve "sharpness." Internet fantasyland is full of clowns who claim to have "tested" lenses, and then you see they hand-held their camera. Duuh....
The point, Neil, is that the sheer increase in film surface progressing upward from 35mm to 645 to 6X6cm to 6x9, and then way up into 4x5, 5x7, and 8X10 inch film, overwhelmingly surpasses the relatively minor differences in lens resolution as focal length increases relative to perspective angle. And some large format lenses are extremely well corrected. I knew a telephoto specialist who used a 360 Apo Nikkor process lens
on a big Toyo 8x10 camera with a Nikon 35mm film camera at the film plane position, because it gave sharper and better corrected images than any dedicated Nikon 35mm tele. He would know; he was once a Nikon as well as Celestron telescope dealer. I own a set of Apo Nikkor barrel process lenses too, and can attest to that fact. Those things were designed for extremely precise apo correction necessary to the printing industry, having higher standards than ordinary photographic applications.
But for those addicted to calculations : 35mm film is 86 sq cm; 4X5 is 1250 sq cm. Now let's imagine one has a rather poor 4x5 lens with only half the resolution of the 35mm equivalent they're comparing it too. Even that would still be 7 times as much detail capacity as the smaller camera. Godzilla stomps Bambi every time. I'm multi-format myself, all the way from 35mm, through 6X7 and 6x9, and up into 4x5 and 8x10 film, so know darn well what's involved. And I don't personally own a large format lens in any focal length with aberrations. They're all extremely well corrected.
I could cite similar instances. For example, my Nikkor M and Fuji A large format lenses usable on 4X5 or even 8X10 film in most instances, when used for a 6X9 roll film back, equal or even exceed the performance of my dedicated MF lenses, which are darn good themselves. There's a lot of mythology out there, along with a number of really poorly done DIY lens tests which don't even factor pertinent variables. Then you've got those folks who want to compare the sharpness of a large format lens made with a horse foot rasp in 1877 to the latest 35mm lens they paid $4000 for the previous week, which they don't really need anyway, because they either skimp on the price of a decent enlarger lens, or just post web images. It gets downright silly at times.
Yeah, a good tripod is important too, but not if you stick some wobbly head on it, like the tiny stem of a deficient ball head - what I call a "bobble-head". Something is only as good as its weakest link.
Many agree that the Fujinon 80 f3.5 in the Fuji 6x6/6x7 folder is the sharpest on the market.
Weight?... You betcha, at 73 and headed out with a backpack full of 8x10 gear tomorrow, it makes me question my sanity. But who wants to waste a lot of time and money just to use some exercise machine in a stinky gym? I have my game plan : carbon fiber tripods in lieu of my heavy wooden Ries ones, an inevitable default to my lightest 4x5 down the line, or my MF gear (Fuji RF's are wonderful). I'm good with it all. But when it comes to enlargements, there's nuthin' like 8x10, or as fun as shooting that while I still can.
I prefer large prints of far better resolution than what any Mamiya can do; 5x7 and larger leaves it in the dust, especially combined with the best large format lenses. My complete 5x7 kit weighs 10 pounds, so not much weight difference either.
Talking about large prints...
A few years ago, I had a large print made for the opening image of the show around my then latest book "Paris Dans Mon Gand", the cover photo of it.
The Photo was shot with my Linhof Technorama 6x17 and a Schneider Super-Angulon 90mmF5.6 on Tri-X (@1000ASA in X-Tol 1+1), handheld at t1/125 sec F16 (my preferred setting for that camera) and no center filter.
I made the scanning, wet on an Epson 750. The print, made on Hahnemühle Fine Art paper by a specialised company, was 2,1 meters long and 70 cm high (=1:3), that's 14 700 cm2.
It was the first time I saw an image of mine printed that large and was blown away by it's unimaginable sharpness!
I think that sharpness must be a combination of camera concept, film flatness, film & processing, printing & finishing, LENS and practice...
View attachment 341863
Talking about large prints...
A few years ago, I had a large print made for the opening image of the show around my then latest book "Paris Dans Mon Gand", the cover photo of it.
The Photo was shot with my Linhof Technorama 6x17 and a Schneider Super-Angulon 90mmF5.6 on Tri-X (@1000ASA in X-Tol 1+1), handheld at t1/125 sec F16 (my preferred setting for that camera) and no center filter.
I made the scanning, wet on an Epson 750. The print, made on Hahnemühle Fine Art paper by a specialised company, was 2,1 meters long and 70 cm high (=1:3), that's 14 700 cm2.
It was the first time I saw an image of mine printed that large and was blown away by it's unimaginable sharpness!
I think that sharpness must be a combination of camera concept, film flatness, film & processing, printing & finishing, LENS and practice...
View attachment 341863
PS: at the time I didn't mind the weight, I even dragged my Linhof Kardan GT with 4 lenses plus a tripod and a bunch of cassettes in a backpack all day long, but now a Hasselblad SWC is about the maximum I can lug around and hold steady...
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?