Sharpest lenst?

[bherg]

Thank you for all of the replies.

Ofcourse i understand that it has to be stable with a good tripod and so on. And that the lens is only one part of the equation.

Maybe the question was kinda naive, just like what camera is the best.


Anyway, i think i got the answers i needed.

Cheers Johannes

 

[xtrout1]

Come on Curt... Tells us who the couple were.
We won't tell anyone.

 

[bherg]

Come on Curt... Tells us who the couple were.
We won't tell anyone.

Now i dont follow...


// J

 

[xtrout1]

I have that one, it's from a short run of Goerz Dagor that was tested to be the best ever produced and was set aside and put in a temp. and hum. controlled vault until it was given to my great grandfather. I have it insured for $40,000 and have only taken it out for testing and it produced the perfect print, a contact print, printed on Azo, original production run, and Amidol, given to me by a famous photographer whose name I can't say.

The portrait that I shot was a very wealthy couple and that print is now worth more than $5,000,000 on todays market if they were to put it up. It is so unusual and the subject so famous that I have signed agreements to keep them secret for 50 years. So Don't look for the best lens because I have it. Just get one and do some work and don't worry about my lens.

Curt

Come on Curt... Tells us who the couple were.
We won't tell anyone.

 

[bob01721]

"... that print is now worth more than $5,000,000 on todays market..."

Wow! I wasn't aware that any photographic print could fetch that much. Must be nice.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

its all been said before....film, dev (acutance or fine grain etc)

I found that in terms of resolution, my Nikkor 90mm F8 at f11/13 is the best I have used, however, my (sold) rodenstock 65mm f4.5 produced very sharp looking images. I dont think it had the resolution of the Nikkor, but perhaps there was something about the contrast that gave the illusion of great 'sharpness'. ALL my 5x4 lenses have appeared sharp (enough) and the differences have not been terribly aparrent. Only coverage/illumination for focus has been an issue for me (such as the 65 F8 Super Angulon I had in the Compur 00. Soft at the edges as my ebony film area was off centre by a few mm (designed that way) but with the minimal coverage it softened two corners. On the other hand the huge coverage of the Nikkor 90mm f8 has meant that shooting a distant scene with no movements required and everything at infinity means I can shoot at moderate aperures such as f11-13. See the Perez links for what the 90mm Nikkor does at F11! Still, in a print the difference over f16-f22 at normal print sizes is fairly irrelevant.

 

[Ole]

Any good Tessar-type lens made in the last 50 years is sharp. I've got a great 210 Xenar I really like, in some situations it's almost too sharp!

Umm yes. In a fit of GAS, I've bought another 210mm Xenar. This one's a f:6.1 one, the old one was f:4.5. The Compound #3 shutter for the old Xenar will from now on house my 355mm G-Claron (I bought an old one on purpose, to fit in a Compound shutter), and use the new one. According to Chris Perez it's surprisingly sharp. From my experience with Tessars and clones, I'm absolutely sure he's right.

So at the moment, my 4x5" lineup is as follows: 90mm f:8 Super Angulon, 121mm f:6.8 Leitmeyr Weitwinkel-Anastigmat, 150mm f:4.5 APO-Lanthar, 180mm f:5.6 Symmar, 210mm f:6.1 Xenar, 240mm f:5.6 Symmar, 300mm f:5.6 Symmar, 355mm f:9 G-Claron.

Humphf. I need a real wide wide-angle...

 

[removed account4]

Wow! I wasn't aware that any photographic print could fetch that much. Must be nice.

i was thinking the same thing ... :confused:

 

[cperez]

Ole, after you shoot your 210 f/6.1 Xenar, let us know how you like it.

Even wide open mine is brilliant. Simply sharp contrasty brilliant. I keep the wee-Nikkor 200M around just in case I "need" something really small and light. But the 210Xenar is seeing more and more use these days.

... I've bought another 210mm Xenar. This one's a f:6.1 one...