Sharpest lenst?

[bherg]

What in considered to be the sharpest lens out there for 4x5.

And whats given for 8x10/11x14, havent made the decision yet.




Cheers Johannes

 

[Dave Parker]

I guess it probably depends on what you consider sharp, there are many lenses that are so sharp that they will cut paper, but that may not be the look your after, if you define your parameters a bit more, we may be able to help, what types of subjects do you shoot?

R.

 

[bherg]

I guess it probably depends on what you consider sharp, there are many lenses that are so sharp that they will cut paper, but that may not be the look your after, if you define your parameters a bit more, we may be able to help, what types of subjects do you shoot?

R.

I shoot alot of diffrent things, but the sharp lens would be for buildings and landscapes, cityscapes.

With so sharp that they would cut paper, do you mean unpleasantly sharp?


Cheers Johannes

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Do you have a focal length in mind? Artar type lenses are very sharp, for instance, but they aren't really suitable for most architectural subjects, because their coverage is small for their focal length.

So let me guess you're looking for a 90mm for 4x5". You could hardly go wrong with the latest Schneider 90/5.6 Super-Angulon XL or Rodenstock 90/4.5 Grandagon-N, if you have the budget for it.

 

[rossb]

Grandagon N 90mm f6.8, Sironar S 150mm f5.6 both work well for me in landscape work

 

[User Removed]

Sharpness is obtained not only from your lens, but also your film, film developer, and printing paper.

I've shot a sheet of 8x10 Efke 100 film with a Nikkor-M 450mm, developed it in HC-110, printed it on Ilford Multigrade paper. I then developed a duplicate negative made on the same film from the same lens in Pyrocat-HD and printed it on AZO. I did not believe that an 8x10 contact could get any sharper...but it did! You could notice a huge difference between the two prints by just viewing them with the naked eye, no loupe was needed.

Anyways, I've seen some very sharp lenses, however they do not reproduce the tones of the image well. Usually "VERY SHARP" lenses are too contrasty in my opinion.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Like Ryan says, sharpness depends on many variables. There is no single magic bullet. People can test lenses for sharpness to infinitum but that doesn't seem to guarentee any good results.

 

[Curt]

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

 

[John McCallum]

:rolleyes:

In answer to your valid question bherg ...

In my opinion the Rodenstock Sironar-S 150mm (not the 'N') is an excellent normal lens for 4x5 format and very sharp. The Schneider 80/4.5 Super Symmar XL is extremely sharp, and also would be excellent for architecture.

Additionally the SS XL is a particularly fast lens which allows easier focussing in low light conditions - this can be very useful. A suggestion; check any wide angle you decide upon will give sufficient coverage for the kind of photography you wish to do.

 

[Eric Leppanen]

Based solely on subjective testing performed with chrome film and a 10x loupe, I would vote the 240mm Fujinon A as the sharpest 4x5 lens I have owned, followed by the 150mm APO Sironar S. The 240A will cover 8x10 with minimal movement, the Sironar will cover 5x7 with minimal movement.

Among wide angle lenses, my 80 and 110mm Super Symmar XL lenses are quite sharp at working aperture.

These links are also good:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

 

[roteague]

Schneider 80mm f4.5 Super Symmar XL

 

[Curt]

Schneider Symmar 210mm f5.6 = required length by Brooks Institute of Photography for multi subject, portrait, product and lanscape/nature. First lense the 210mm then the 90mm Schneider or the 80mm f4.5 Super Symmar XL that Robert has.

 

[Willie Jan]

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

http://www.f32.net/Services/Equipment/Lenses/lensspecs.html

As mentioned before, the quality of the lens is just one variable in your complete picture.

-lens
-film
-developer
-enlarger
-enlarger lens
-selected paper
-paper developer
-and of course your skill.....

I use:
Super angulon 75/5.6
rodenstock sironar-n 150/5.6
rodenstock sironar-n 240/5.6
Fujinon tele 400/8

 

[Danpv]

I initially bought Rodenstock's 150mm Sironar-S because of the high reviews this sweet little lens has received. I find it to be very sharp, and I would not trade it for anything.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but why should anyone care which lens is sharpest? The original poster would, I think, be better off asking which lenses to avoid and how to do acceptance testing on a newly-arrived lens.

I ask the question and make the suggestion for two reasons.

I've bought what turned out to be badly-abused examples of lenses with stellar reputations. My prizes were unusable. So much for a good name.

I've shot a variety of lenses against each other and have found that the bad ones stood out as bad and that the good ones were very nearly equally good. The differences between the good ones were trivial.

FWIW, what's made a significant difference in the image quality I achieve has been sharpening up my techique, not changing lenses. That said, every lens I acquire goes through acceptance testing before I use it seriously.

None of this is new news, Chris Perez has said it many times.

 

[harleygsb]

I have the Rodenstock 150mm Sironar S and it is very sharp, but the Fujinon A 240mm is my sharpest lens.

 

[Mark Sawyer]

The sharpest lens ever made is a Ries Tripod.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm with Dan: the good ones are all good enough that sharpness isn't really an issue. Also, film flatness and GG register are so variable that beyond about 30 lp/mm you'll never know unless you have a well-set-up vacuum back.

On the other hand, some lenses are 'magic' and turn out an unreasonably high proportion of good pictures. Nor are they always the ones you expect. My 150/6.3 Tessar was the only good Tessar I ever owned, but it was gorgeous. Like a fool I sold it many years ago to buy something newer and 'better'. Equally, I've never really understood the Apo Lanthar mystique. It's a nice lens, sure, and I use my 150 as a long lens on 6x9cm; but not 'magic'.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[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!

Unlike Roger Hicks, I love my 150 APO-Lanthar. But not for its sharpness.

Except for saying that "most lenses are more than sharp enough" (which is true), there's also the fact that a shorter lens will be "sharper" than a longer lens of the same construction.

One of my "sharpest" lenses is a 100 years old Wide Angle Aplanat. Central sharpness at f:16 (max aperture) was a really great surprise to me - and at f:64 it covers at least 9.5x12". It couldn't compete (on 4x5") with a 135mm f:3.5 Zeiss Planar at f:3.5, but why should it?

 

[Ken Lee]

Some lenses are designed for optimal performance when the subject is at infinite distance. Others are designed for close work.

Lighting and the tonality of subject also play a role in our *perception* of sharpness. The same subject, shot under different lighting conditions, can appear quite different. For example, imagine shooting sand dunes on a cloudy winter day, versus late afternoon on a clear day in the autumn.

 

[Ken Lee]

An impression of sharpness can also be increased when the same image contains areas that are out of focus or blurred.

See here. The 300mm Fujinon A is a very sharp lens, but the image appears sharper because of the long exposure, which blurred the reflection in the water.

 

[JohnArs]

My APO Symmar 210 mm is my sharpest one!
Very short behind the 2 Ronars!

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've a Kodak Anastigmat, 7.5" f4.5 that I think is really sharp when stopped down.
I've decided that finding an unsharp lens for lf is more difficult than with 35mm.
Minus the petzvals and true soft-focus lenses. I've heard that the g-clarons are sharp, as are many/most process lenses..

 

[JBrunner]

Restating the obvious, but in my words- Any modern (and allot of known and not so known vintage)name brand lens in decent shape will deliver sharpness. Ultimate sharpness will boil down to your technique, ability, development, and printing methods.

A modest lens in the right hands generally will deliver a sharper image, than the most premium will, when the premium lens is placed in the hands of a clod, once the entire process has run its course.

I call it "operator induced exponential degredation"

 

[Caracalla]

Att:Johannes

Not a bad idea to visit the link below.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-wide.html


Regards
Caracalla