which one's sharper?

Tom Stanworth · Aug 31, 2006

Donald Miller said:
Enlarge them a lot larger (11X14 or even 16X20) then examine them under magnification to make your own determination. Any chunk of glass will probably give you acceptable results at 4X6 print size.

I agree about the enlargement but not the magnification as I have never viewed and image this way. I see no reason to go beyond using the MK1 Eyeball as close as you like against whatever your max print size is likely to be..

I also dont understand how a question can be made regarding quality when a person owns both lenses and can see for themselves....if you are not printing beyond 6x4 it is a bit of a non-issue for the lenses mentioned and if printing beyond this size one can always, well, look at the prints!

Tom

Donald Miller · Sep 1, 2006

Tom Stanworth said:
I agree about the enlargement but not the magnification as I have never viewed and image this way. I see no reason to go beyond using the MK1 Eyeball as close as you like against whatever your max print size is likely to be..

I also dont understand how a question can be made regarding quality when a person owns both lenses and can see for themselves....if you are not printing beyond 6x4 it is a bit of a non-issue for the lenses mentioned and if printing beyond this size one can always, well, look at the prints!

Tom

If you haven't tried it, you might consider doing it. It's amazing what a 4X or a 10X loupe will show.

Frank-G · Sep 1, 2006

Since I have a couple of 10X loops, I'll give it a go a little later tonight. But first I have to go out and buy some Holsten.

rfshootist · Sep 1, 2006

Frank-G said:
Since I have a couple of 10X loops, I'll give it a go a little later tonight. But first I have to go out and buy some Holsten.

Holsten knallt am dollsten.

But take care , dosis fecit venenum sola (Paracelsus)

bertram

Frank-G · Sep 1, 2006

7%!

I tried the loop thing with several 4 X 6 prints. Can't tell. I think both of these lenses are about equal, except that the 'cron seems to resolve richer contrast.

jmailand · Sep 1, 2006

Funny how it hasn't occurred to anybody here that any of these lens are only going to be as sharp as your enlarger lens and it alignment with the easel and negative holder. At 4x6 you'd need the eyes of eagle to tell the difference any way.

James,

Roger Hicks · Sep 1, 2006

Frank-G said:
7%!

I tried the loop thing with several 4 X 6 prints. Can't tell. I think both of these lenses are about equal, except that the 'cron seems to resolve richer contrast.

Dear Frank,

If you're only making 4x6 inch prints, and you can't tell with a 10x loupe (note spelling), why do you CARE?

Cheers,

Roger

Dan Fromm · Sep 1, 2006

Bragging rights, Roger, and sheer bloody-minded obnoxiousness.

Lee L · Sep 1, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Frank,

If you're only making 4x6 inch prints, and you can't tell with a 10x loupe (note spelling), why do you CARE?

Cheers,

Roger

Smart money says it actually is a 10x loop, that he has more than two of them.

Lee

Tom Hoskinson · Sep 1, 2006

loopy??

Roger Hicks · Sep 1, 2006

Dan Fromm said:
Bragging rights, Roger, and sheer bloody-minded obnoxiousness.

Dear Dan,

Oh, bragging rights. I can be REALLY GOOD at that as long as it's only equipment. I've just paid for the 75/2 Summicron I had on test (had to, or Leica wanted it back), and I really like the 38/4.5 Zeiss Biogon on my Alpa.

Trouble is, when it comes to pics, most cameras are as good as I am, or better. At least I can direct people to the galleries at www.rogerandfrances.com but to be honest those pics don't tell you a lot about my INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE CAMERAS AND LENSES.

Cheers,

Roger

Lee L · Sep 1, 2006

Tom Hoskinson said:
loopy??

Tom,

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the computer programmer who died in the shower.

lather
rinse
repeat

But loopy could work too. Go with your personal preference.

Lee

Stephanie Brim · Sep 1, 2006

I have half a mind to close this.

Frank-G · Sep 1, 2006

Loupe - thanks for correcting me on this. See? Old dogs do learn new tricks.

DBP · Sep 1, 2006

The thing that always amazes me about discussions of this sort with regard to rangefinders is that anyone bothers. The properties of rangefinders are best suited to handheld photography in ambient light. I submit that no human can hand hold any camera steady enough at fairly slow speeds (say, under 1/1000) for the sharpness difference between a Voigtlander, a Leica, and a Zeiss lens to be meaningful. So the only important questions are which look you prefer (e.g. bokeh) and ergonomics.

Frank-G · Sep 1, 2006

Ergonomics of the Nokton 50 is good; the 40mm 'cron is not. Both seem to have very good bokeh, though.

Dave Wooten · Sep 1, 2006

DBP said:
The thing that always amazes me about discussions of this sort with regard to rangefinders is that anyone bothers. The properties of rangefinders are best suited to handheld photography in ambient light. I submit that no human can hand hold any camera steady enough at fairly slow speeds (say, under 1/1000) for the sharpness difference between a Voigtlander, a Leica, and a Zeiss lens to be meaningful. So the only important questions are which look you prefer (e.g. bokeh) and ergonomics.

Yep,I could not agree more....!

All one needs is an old Yashica Lynx 14 with its 45 mm f 1.4 Yashinon DX lens ( a good light grabber)....pick it up for less than 100 bucks, and go for those ambient and low light shots, if you know what you are doing and aren't shooting from a galloping horse, your results will rival the legendary best...

John Koehrer · Sep 1, 2006

Stephanie Brim said:
I have half a mind to close this.

Steph,
I've been fighting this for about 10 minutes now & can no longer resist.

Which half?

Frank-G · Sep 1, 2006

So I see that no one here knows which one's sharper but know how to make wise-_ss cracks.

The Nokton 50/1.5 seems very sharp. How does it compare with Leica's 40/F2 'cron?

Dan Fromm · Sep 1, 2006

The question "which is sharper?" reminds me of the story of the man who was sentenced to death and offered his choice of means of execution.

One alternative was to be tied to four horses, one limb to each horse, and pulled apart. The other was to be broken on the rack and then burned alive.

The condemned man's response? They are both very bad.

And so it is with lenses.

Frank-G · Sep 1, 2006

Yeah, well; I think I'll ask one of the experts like Camquest Stephen G. or Rapidwinder Tom A. I'm sure they have the answer.

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 1, 2006

Do you own both? It seems you're in a better position to compare than the rest of us, if you do.

Frank-G · Sep 1, 2006

Yes, I own both. I can't tell with my 4 X 6 prints nor via scanning with my film scanner's highest setting. I should have the answer soon.

Tom Hoskinson · Sep 2, 2006

You just told us the answer - you can't tell the difference.

Frank-G · Sep 2, 2006

I can't tell the difference via 4 X 6 prints and via scanning. This does not mean one is not sharper. Besides, 4-eyes is no expert.

which one's sharper?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency