Second sharpest after Mamiya 7?

[Steven Lee]

The resolution of the 250mm Superachromat is diffraction limited from wide open. It's literally impossible that any of the M7 lenses can out-resolve it.
But as I said, nit-picking.

I am a Hasselblad fanboy, but MTF for all these lenses are published, and Mamiya 65mm is sharper wide open in the center than Superachromat.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Some camera and lens combinations are easier to hand hold than others. I do well with my Hasselblad and 60mm lens, as well as My Mamiya 6. The shutters on the Mamiya 6 & 7 are particularly free of vibration. I also think that Mamiya lenses have somewhat more contrast, which contributes to apparent sharpness.

Yes,contrast has much to do with apparent sharpness. Actually, it's all MTFs are about.

 

[GLS]

I am a Hasselblad fanboy, but MTF for all these lenses are published, and Mamiya 65mm is sharper wide open in the center than Superachromat.

Much caution needs to be employed when comparing published MTF charts between different manufacturers, as the methods employed can vary. Unless you can confirm all the relevant parameters of the two tests, any side by side comparisons of the resulting charts do not have much meaning. In addition, many manufacturers will publish computed MTF graphs rather than real-world results from actual lenses, which are always lower, and this can be another confounding factor during comparisons. I know for a fact that Zeiss publish the real-world data; I don't know what Mamiya's practice was in this regard.

Bottom line though: if we believe Zeiss' claim of the Superachromat's real-world resolution hitting the diffraction limit of white light (250 lp/mm at f5.6), then how can that be bettered? It's not possible. Moreover, anything other than document films will limit the resolution of the imaging chain more than any of the lenses being discussed will, so as a practical point it's somewhat moot anyway.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What's the quality differences between Mamiya M7 and Mamiya RB67 lenses, if any?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just a tiny tweak in film choice or how you specifically develop it can outweigh all these nitpicky alleged distinctions in modern lenses. And even using that same roll of film differently, for example, in 6X9 versus 6X6 cropped to 645, means you end up with twice as much information, and not tweezer sized MTF distinctions. But I'd defy anyone with the most expensive Hassie lens they own to make a visually sharper 16X20 print than I can do with negs from Pentax 6X7 lenses. In teles, the later Pentax ones are probably even better; and even their later wides are superbly crisp, at a fraction of the price.

Often the same people will spends thousands of dollars for a taking lens, and then not even bother with a glass negative holder; so what's the point? Or the shot will be published as a few square inches in some magazine. Throw in large format film into the same equation, and it's Godzilla against Bambi. My gosh... practical logistics outweigh all this silly MF lens performance talk. Nearly every post-60's MF lens has been designed excellent to begin with. These were pro systems. Plastic toys using 120 film are a recent innovation.

 

[villagephotog]

Much caution needs to be employed when comparing published MTF charts between different manufacturers, as the methods employed can vary.

Just seconding this, because the practice of comparing MTF graphs derived from different, and almost always unknown methodologies is so widespread. It just doesn't tell you much, at a granular level.

This was really brought home to me when I was playing around with Zemax lens design software and discovered it contains 4 (if memory serves) different mathematical models for computing MTF on any given lens design, all of which presumably provide at least slightly different results. It shouldn't surprise us that measuring something like MTF is not a straightforward process, and can vary by method, operator, equipment used, etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Often comparative DIY MTF's are just a function of how bleary-eyed one was at the time. Half a dozen or more common errors could be recited.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Just a tiny tweak in film choice or how you specifically develop it can outweigh all these nitpicky alleged distinctions in modern lenses. And even using that same roll of film differently, for example, in 6X9 versus 6X6 cropped to 645, means you end up with twice as much information, and not tweezer sized MTF distinctions. But I'd defy anyone with the most expensive Hassie lens they own to make a visually sharper 16X20 print than I can do with negs from Pentax 6X7 lenses. In teles, the later Pentax ones are probably even better; and even their later wides are superbly crisp, at a fraction of the price.

Often the same people will spends thousands of dollars for a taking lens, and then not even bother with a glass negative holder; so what's the point? Or the shot will be published as a few square inches in some magazine. Throw in large format film into the same equation, and it's Godzilla against Bambi. My gosh... practical logistics outweigh all this silly MF lens performance talk. Nearly every post-60's MF lens has been designed excellent to begin with. These were pro systems. Plastic toys using 120 film are a recent innovation.

Thank you, Drew. Finally an intelligent overview of the factors in the imaging chain. This "sharpness" business is often a bunch of internet doodoo. Any modern (mid-late 20th century) lens made for medium format will do an excellent job.

 

[craigclu]

FWIW- I am a sharpness nut job and have some of the contenders here (plus APO enlarging lenses, glass carriers, VersaLab laser alignment, etc). I have a small M7 kit (50/80/150) and all these optics are superb. I also have a Bronica RF645 kit (45/65/100) and I can say that these stand by well with the M7 glass in resolution. My GSW680III Fuji hangs right in there, too. Subtle differences seem to be that the RF645 shows more separation in light clouds that seem to go blank in the Mamiya and the 6X7 and 6X8 format advantage begins to show a small difference at 11X14 and up.

These are fun musings around the campfire here but the reality is that so many things affect system sharpness such as film flatness, slr mirror alignments and mirror slap. I've always enjoyed the hair-splitting discussions on the Leica groups, then finding that 90% of the commenter's shooting is hand-held on Tri-X at 800 in Rodinal. Their conclusions leave very little legitimacy to their narratives.

 

[Pieter12]

The sharpest lenses I have are the Leica S. Digital, not the applicable to this discussion.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Works both ways - doesn't necessarily mean those dedicated Leica S lenses would be as sharp with respect to film instead. Heck, for the right price, there is an outfit just 10 minutes right up the highway from me which routinely makes lenses which make every single brand of lens described here seem like a crude toy by comparison. Just bring along your NASA, NSA, or DEA credit card. And I assure you, handholding these won't be an option. "Medium format" in that context might be something like the James Webb space telescope.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I've always enjoyed the hair-splitting discussions on the Leica groups, then finding that 90% of the commenter's shooting is hand-held on Tri-X at 800 in Rodinal. Their conclusions leave very little legitimacy to their narratives.

Ah, yes, the doofuses who "test" lenses, but handheld the camera. Duuh....

 

[DREW WILEY]

.... Or citing the superior MTF of tiny format lenses, then assuming that the aphid's eyeball will capture more detail than a far larger format of an eagle's eyeball. Size matters; common sense apparently doesn't.

 

[campy51]

There are no sharp lenses and I have the pictures to prove it.

 

[dave olson]

I'll say the Pentax lenses for the old 6x7 are equal to the others mentioned.

 

[George Mann]

Ah, yes, the doofuses who "test" lenses, but handheld the camera. Duuh....

Not to mention only judging them on their wide-open performance.

 

[George Mann]

Bottom line though: if we believe Zeiss' claim of the Superachromat's real-world resolution hitting the diffraction limit of white light (250 lp/mm at f5.6), then how can that be bettered? It's not possible.

Which is beyond the resolution of any recordable media.

 

[Steven Lee]

@George Mann that's not how resolution works. You can absolutely benefit from a high MTF lens drawing on a low MTF medium. @craigclu your comment regarding pushed Tri-X in Rodinal is also a miss. Easy with the superiority complex, fellas. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from those "Leica groups".

Back to enumerating the sharpest lenses we've seen, I want to nominate Bronica PG series for the-always-neglected GS-1 system. I do not have any manufacturer MTFs to point you to, but in my experience they are absolutely on the same level as CFI Hassy/Zeiss glass, at least the 65/110/150.

[EDIT] "In my experience" simply means that my reproduction/magnification limits kick in before I bump into the optical performance ceiling of these lenses.

 

[Hassasin]

This has digital discussion written lol over it

There are so many things that can affect final so-called sharpness, it is squarely moot to consider MTF‘s for any lens with exception of technical work where it might be valid. This is not to say all lenses are equal, and some images work extremely well with pin point sharpness.

But then any lens will still go sharp, within own limitations, only in a single minutely thin plane of focus. DOF helps, but no better than asking a chicken to move in order to make her sharper.

Instead of considering the sharpest, read: usually most expensive, glass made, consider some tilting instead to cover your sharpness needs. Like Flexbody as an example, without going into full swing of things of LF gear.

Then there is the mentioned tripod, and all other choices to fit the sharpness requirements.

In the end the question remains, what makes the image ?

 

[George Mann]

In the end the question remains, what makes the image ?

For me it's either a clearly definable subject, or an image that somehow moves the viewer.

 

[Hassasin]

For me it's either a clearly definable subject, or an image that somehow moves the viewer.

Do you need THE sharpest glass to "clearly define" a subject?

Bragging rights aside, majority of modern lenses fall into sharp/very sharp category, especially for film use and the inherent other factors affecting final sharpness.

 

[Steven Lee]

In the end the question remains, what makes the image ?

Eyelashes. Tack sharp eyelashes! Everyone knows that.

 

[GLS]

Which is beyond the resolution of any recordable media.

Not quite true. CMS 20 II can reach it at typical contrast ratios encountered in normal subjects.

@Henning Serger confirmed this in is own tests, recording 240-260 lp/mm for this film at a subject contrast ratio of 1:4 (i.e. only two stops).

without going into full swing of things of LF gear.

I see what you did there

 

[Hassasin]

Eyelashes. Tack sharp eyelashes! Everyone knows that.

As are some other parts of human body

 

[dave olson]

Sharp, sharper, sharpest. This lens, that lens, what is sharp. Charts will tell you lab results. Field images will give real world. Studio work will give you something else to compare. As a retired editorial and stock photographer I had to deliver sharp images. Mostly transparencies. Whenever possible I preferred to use a tripod, knowing that one aid would go a long way in giving me what I needed. I was shooting both 35 and 120. I could generally get by handholding 35 unless macro/micro. I used and still have a rather nice collection of Canon L glass. Sharp, very. In 120 I have Pentax 6x4.5 auto and all are sharp on a light table. I also have some Hasselblad glass, Pentax 6x7 glass, Rollei 6x6 TLR glass, and Mamiya 7 ll glass. I've shot in the studio, in the field, and photographed a sheet of newsprint on a wall. All my lenses are naturally sharp, which is the sharpest out all my lenses, I don't know.