which one's sharper?

MattKing · Sep 2, 2006

Frank-G said:
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.

Frank:

3 questions:

1) Are either of the lenses unacceptably unsharp? (one can tell that with 4x6 prints).

2) Are you doing technical work where lpm resolution is the most important criteria?

3) Do the lenses exhibit different characteristics, such as ergonomics or bokeh or a myriad of others that make one clearly more suited to what you like to photograph?

IMHO, if the answers to questions 1 and 2 are not yes, than question 3 is by far the most important, because it is most important to your photographs.

Pick one, take lots of photographs with it, learn how to get the best out of it, and how to enjoy it the most.

Then post again, to tell us what you have learned.

Matt

Frank-G · Sep 2, 2006

1) No.
2) Yes, sometimes, like this month.
3) Yes, but I prefer the best.

I'm using the Nokton 50 only because I'm selling the 40mm and 90mm. Thinking of perhaps picking up another Nokton 50 or even a Zeiss or Leica. To sum things up, I only wanted to get a simple answer from a simple question. I like to keep things simple.

Stephanie Brim · Sep 2, 2006

"Best" is, and always will be, a relative term. What's best for you may not be best for someone else.

Frank-G · Sep 2, 2006

Best in terms of sharpness. That was the question. Thanks.

Roger Hicks · Sep 2, 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.

An interesting aside here is that the camera can make a significant difference. The same 38/4.5 Zeiss lens on a Hasselblad SW and an Alpa consistently delivers higher resolution on the Alpa because the Alpa is easier to hold steady. Not my research -- Zeiss's.

Likewise, on several weeks' acquaintance, my wife Frances Schultz became convinced that she can hold a Zeiss Ikon a good deal steadier than a Bessa and possibly steadier than a Leica M-series. As she has a 'benign essential tremor' (medicalese for 'shaky hands., but don't worry about it') this is important to her.

I agree broadly about 'meaningful' differences but I do suspect that under ideal conditions -- which can happen often enough to make a difference -- the difference may be detectable. As if it mattered. Who cares about hand-held shots of test targest? In effect, I'm agreeing with you, just adding a rider.

Finally, there is a 'sparkle' which sets aside the very best lenses and enables you to pick out trannies shot with them with a moderate degree of reliability. The 75/2 Summicron does have a magic that none of my other Leica or Voigtlander lenses, nor the Zeiss lenses I have used for a few weeks (i.e. all of them except the 85/2, for which I am still waiting) reliably matches. I'm not saying I can spot it every time -- just that I can see it often enough that I actually paid my own money for the 75/2.

Cheers,

Roger

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 2, 2006

I agree with Roger's observations.

I had a fantastic Bessa II 6x9 camera with Heliar, but the whole left handed arrangement with the trigger on the door didn't work for me in the horizontal position, and it was very hard to hold steady, though it was fine on a tripod or for verticals. I wanted it as a handheld camera, and didn't want to be limited to verticals, so I sold it, despite the fact that it had a great lens.

The Zeiss 135/3.5 Planar for 4x5"--it's got the sparkle.

ZorkiKat · Sep 2, 2006

Frank-G said:
1) No.
2) Yes, sometimes, like this month.
3) Yes, but I prefer the best.

.

Re #2- wouldn't an SLR be a better beast for technical work where the highest resolution values are of prime importance?

Why force the issue of getting the 'best in terms of sharpness' when postcard prints are concerned? A print that size wouldn't show the differences between a shot made by a triplet like an old Industar and say, a Summicron. Not that the differences are that great anyway.

IMO, RFs were meant to be used in a more casual way- in instances where getting the picture is the greater concern than anything else- the lens' actual lpm values included.

Jay

Roger Hicks · Sep 2, 2006

ZorkiKat said:
Re #2- wouldn't an SLR be a better beast for technical work where the highest resolution values are of prime importance?

IMO, RFs were meant to be used in a more casual way- in instances where getting the picture is the greater concern than anything else- the lens' actual lpm values included.

Dear Jay,

A lot depends on what you mean by 'technical work'. Unless you're going close, I'd have thought that a top-quality RF probably has all the advantages, with easier and more accurate focusing and lenses that are easier to design (no compromises to clear the flipping mirror).

Getting the picture is always the primary concern, and if I want maximum quality, I can't think of an SLR that will beat my Leicas, though the best may equal them. As I can't afford both an M-outfit and and R-outfit (actually I'd probably go for Contax, which I had on loan for a year with 35/1.4, 35/2.8 PC and 100 Makro) I just use M. Actually, even if I could afford both, it's too much to carry, so I'd go for the Ms anyway.

For maximum resolution, go to a bigger format AND a camera that holds the film flat. For instance, 95 lp/mm with a 38/4.5 Biogon on Alpa 44x66 (masked down from 56 x 68 because the Biogon won't cover more).

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

DBP · Sep 2, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
An interesting aside here is that the camera can make a significant difference. The same 38/4.5 Zeiss lens on a Hasselblad SW and an Alpa consistently delivers higher resolution on the Alpa because the Alpa is easier to hold steady. Not my research -- Zeiss's.

Likewise, on several weeks' acquaintance, my wife Frances Schultz became convinced that she can hold a Zeiss Ikon a good deal steadier than a Bessa and possibly steadier than a Leica M-series. As she has a 'benign essential tremor' (medicalese for 'shaky hands., but don't worry about it') this is important to her.

I agree broadly about 'meaningful' differences but I do suspect that under ideal conditions -- which can happen often enough to make a difference -- the difference may be detectable. As if it mattered. Who cares about hand-held shots of test targest? In effect, I'm agreeing with you, just adding a rider.

Finally, there is a 'sparkle' which sets aside the very best lenses and enables you to pick out trannies shot with them with a moderate degree of reliability. The 75/2 Summicron does have a magic that none of my other Leica or Voigtlander lenses, nor the Zeiss lenses I have used for a few weeks (i.e. all of them except the 85/2, for which I am still waiting) reliably matches. I'm not saying I can spot it every time -- just that I can see it often enough that I actually paid my own money for the 75/2.

Cheers,

Roger

Agreed, but that 'sparkle' is not something that tests of lens sharpness will tell you. And some lens and film combinations seem made for each other, like Tri-x and a 50/2 Nikkor. Not having shot with the Summicron in question, I am in no position to comment further.

DBP · Sep 2, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Jay,

A lot depends on what you mean by 'technical work'. Unless you're going close, I'd have thought that a top-quality RF probably has all the advantages, with easier and more accurate focusing and lenses that are easier to design (no compromises to clear the flipping mirror).

Getting the picture is always the primary concern, and if I want maximum quality, I can't think of an SLR that will beat my Leicas, though the best may equal them. As I can't afford both an M-outfit and and R-outfit (actually I'd probably go for Contax, which I had on loan for a year with 35/1.4, 35/2.8 PC and 100 Makro) I just use M. Actually, even if I could afford both, it's too much to carry, so I'd go for the Ms anyway.

For maximum resolution, go to a bigger format AND a camera that holds the film flat. For instance, 95 lp/mm with a 38/4.5 Biogon on Alpa 44x66 (masked down from 56 x 68 because the Biogon won't cover more).

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

For very close or very far, an SLR is the best tool. In between, rangefinders and TLRs have a lot of advantages. It occurs to me that if you really wanted to use Leica M glass close in, it would not be that hard to fabricate a bellows with an M-mount on one end and some other mount (e.g. M42) on the other.

bruce terry · Sep 2, 2006

Camera movement. Inherent in a RF being used right. So don't waste your time fretting about sharp. Maybe "bokah", maybe "contrast", definitely the way the camera holds steady, definitely the image in front of you, but sharpness? Come on!

Roger Hicks · Sep 3, 2006

DBP said:
For very close or very far, an SLR is the best tool. In between, rangefinders and TLRs have a lot of advantages. It occurs to me that if you really wanted to use Leica M glass close in, it would not be that hard to fabricate a bellows with an M-mount on one end and some other mount (e.g. M42) on the other.

By 'very far' I assume you mean long lenses, with which I certainly wouldn't argue. For landscapes (for example) there's clearly no disadvantage in using (say) a TLR or a rangefinder.

As for close-ups, actually, I already have both a Visoflex (so I can use M-lenses and many others on an M) and a BPM bellows with an enormous range of front and rear adapters so I can use virtually anything on virtually any SLR. But I can't really see any great advantage in using Leica lenses for close-ups (except the 65/3.5 Macro-Elmar, which I have) instead of a macro lens in SLR fitting.

Then again, I'd argue that a small view camera (or even a big one) is at least as good as an SLR for close-ups, though you have to set the bigger image against the reduced depth of field -- and against the latter, movements may help.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · Sep 3, 2006

DBP said:
Agreed, but that 'sparkle' is not something that tests of lens sharpness will tell you.

Very true. At last photokina a Zeiss lens designer told me that no matter how sophisticated your design tools, you can never fully predict how a lens will behave.

On the other hand, Ilford did quantify 'sparkle' in a black and white print. As I recall it's something to do with the MTF at surprisingly low resolution figures, but I have to confess that it was so technical that although I could understand it while it was being explained, I could not retain it in my memory or reconstruct it.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks · Sep 3, 2006

bruce terry said:
Camera movement. Inherent in a RF being used right.

Dear Bruce,

Eh?

Why does an RF have to have camera shake?

There is nothing at all wrong with putting an RF camera on a tripod. What I like about 'em is that they're sharper than most (maybe all) SLRs when you do put 'em on tripods AND they're also a lot better for hand-holding. Of course they're also smaller and lighter, which is important when you're travelling, and easier to focus.

Incidentally, there's a new section in the Gallery at ww.rogerandfrances.com, of the Barge Museum at Faversham, shot with a Bessa and a Nokton -- but I'll start another thread about that.

Cheers,

Roger

DBP · Sep 3, 2006

I rarely use a tripod in 35mm, and almost never with a rangefinder. I know there are tripod purists out there who insist on using one at all times (and that Roger is not among them). But if I am using a tripod I am usually shooting with a long lens or MF/LF, the notable exception being using the 15/4.5 Heliar. I just find that once I am making the effort of carrying a tripod, I might as well carry medium format as well.

rfshootist · Sep 3, 2006

DBP I know there are tripod purists out there [/QUOTE said:
A purist I am not, but I know that a sharp photo is not an almost sharp photo and that if you want to see what these expensive RF lenses really can achieve for 35 mm format you must give them at least a chance.

That does NOT mean that I always take a tripod or monopod with me, but I do so always when the circumstances allow me the use of one of both.

I don't feel like getting burned at the stake for saying my true opinion about this RF myth of allegedly sharp photos @ 1/4 sec free hand, and I don't want to open a can o' worms in the forum either , so I better stop here.

bertram

Claire Senft · Sep 3, 2006

I would conjecture that either lens used with HP5 in a 4x6 print would be capable of showing a difference between a dog's black eye or brilliant blue eye.

bruce terry · Sep 3, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bruce, Eh? Why does an RF have to have camera shake? There is nothing at all wrong with putting an RF camera on a tripod. What I like about 'em is that they're sharper than most (maybe all) SLRs when you do put 'em on tripods AND they're also a lot better for hand-holding. Of course they're also smaller and lighter, which is important when you're travelling, and easier to focus.

Roger - Agree entirely. I've used Ms and NikFs over the years on tripods for all sorts of reasons including max sharpness.

My point is in your last sentence: small, light, traveling, quick focusing - what RFs are mainly about - which doesn't include a slow-you-down tripod or flapping mirror (except maybe for the day trip to the Inca Ruins or the still-life of your Grandma's vase). I still feel, within it's true mission, the hand, the balance of a RF with it's attached lens is more important to print result than the "sharpness" of any modern glass.

Asides::
> Had a M5 with an old (not the sharpest thing) 50lux. The combination of the two was biggish but it was the steadiest RF/lens match I've ever used in-hand, and on-screen transparency sharpness was truly impressive.
> A previous M3/35lux didn't do that nicely - the combo was want to wobble forward and backward like it had an axis of it's own (Bush). I worked hard (Bush) at steadiness but the slight on-screen blur usually ate-up the lens' potential sharpness. Tripod shots of course were fine.
> Then there was a M3 connected to a compact 35cron: light, yet as rock-steady in-hand and on-screen as the heavy M5 combo.

For me, with a rangefinder, at slow speeds, it's balance, whatever the brand.

Bruce

Roger Hicks · Sep 3, 2006

bruce terry said:
I still feel, within it's true mission, the hand, the balance of a RF with it's attached lens is more important to print result than the "sharpness" of any modern glass.
For me, with a rangefinder, it's balance, whatever the brand.
Bruce

Dear Bruce,

I fear we disagree slightly about its 'true mission'. Yes, a major reason for preferring RFs is their small size, lightness, etc., but to me, as I can take many of the same pictures with a rangefinder as with a reflex, the 'true mission' is being versatile enough to do what I want for the majority of pictures I want to take. At this point, sharpness does matter.

I may have misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize, but if you re-read your other post you will see that you do rather imply that if you put an RF on a tripod, you aren't doing it right. That was the bit I was arguing with -- and clearly you weren't saying that as you too use a tripod when appropriate.

Once again, my apologies if I have appeared more aggressive or didactic than I intended: this is all too easy on the internet.

Cheers,

Roger

bruce terry · Sep 3, 2006

Hey, Roger, and any others, no didacticism taken or intended - it's been a fun conversation....and I learned a new word!

Bruce

DBP · Sep 3, 2006

rfshootist said:
A purist I am not, but I know that a sharp photo is not an almost sharp photo and that if you want to see what these expensive RF lenses really can achieve for 35 mm format you must give them at least a chance.

That does NOT mean that I always take a tripod or monopod with me, but I do so always when the circumstances allow me the use of one of both.

I don't feel like getting burned at the stake for saying my true opinion about this RF myth of allegedly sharp photos @ 1/4 sec free hand, and I don't want to open a can o' worms in the forum either , so I better stop here.

bertram

No argument, I've just read a few too many articles implying that if you aren't carrying a tripod you aren't serious.

Bill Mitchell · Sep 3, 2006

DBP said:
No argument, I've just read a few too many articles implying that if you aren't carrying a tripod you aren't serious.

Is that a Leica Table-Top tripod in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

JLP · Sep 4, 2006

Just checking Frank-G's portfolio. Now i know what he is talking about. Impressive!

which one's sharper?

MattKing

Moderator

Frank-G

Stephanie Brim

Frank-G

Roger Hicks

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

ZorkiKat

Roger Hicks

DBP

DBP

bruce terry

Roger Hicks

Roger Hicks

Roger Hicks

DBP

rfshootist

Claire Senft

bruce terry

Roger Hicks

bruce terry

DBP

Bill Mitchell

JLP

which one's sharper?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency