Why do we talk such rubbish about lenses?

[yulia_s_rey]

Lens resolution is so far down the list of things I care about that it doesn't even register.
I'd have to become a much better photographer first to do my crappy lenses justice... ...

same here. Hopefully I can reach that point at some point in my lifetime. The only exceptions, are, naturally, unless your a Kubrick-type and need to go to NASA to get your Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 to film in candlelight. But, then again resolution wasn't the main concern for that picture-speed was. In my opinion, photography is all about orchestrating many variables (including lens type, processing, and so on) to be able to communicate effectively (and emotionally) with your intended audience.

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Pointless article, and not even proof read (unless he really did shoot 400 speed film the odd film speed of 40). The macro lens is specialized for macro why shoot at infinity for comparison?

No typo. The film is Firstcall 400S (same as Rollei Retro 400S) and it's rated at 40 ISO for development in Spur's HRX and Acurol-N. The macro lens has a stellar reputation outwith it's close-focusing range. Mike Johnston said this about it, "Here's one lens that's utterly forgotten yet absolutely magnificent: the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2 Macro. You can use it as a normal lens and I promise you, you will never use a better 50mm. No matter what name is engraved on the barrel." You can read the whole article here but be warned that you might find it a bit pointless, too.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml

 

[Ian Grant]

Lens manufactures release resolution data on their lenses. If I am going to spend my hard earned money then I want to make the best decision. Published lens resolution charts give the buyer that information.

There can be problems here. few years ago in the 1980's Hoya released a series of lenses Multi-coated some fixed FL others zooms, Under test they had excellent resolution so you'd assume good information for buyer,

No so, resolution is only part of the issue, more practical tests are also needed to get a balanced overview. The Hoya range was extremely prone to flare the Multi-coating wasn't to every air/glass surface. Hoya quietly ceased making the range and went back to the drawing board, they released a completely new range of lenses under their Tokina brand name.

My experience which I guess most here would agree with is that the standard lenses from all the larger manufacturers are all capable of producing high quality results and I found no noticeable differences between early 55mm Takumars and later Multi-coated 50/55mm Pentax lenses, nuances at wider apertures.

So when selecting a lens a balanced approach that combines resolution testing an practical field testing is the most reliable. Bruce's practical approach is a valid opinion because he's using high quality lenses from 2 manufacturers who have an excellent reputation for their lens quality.

Ian

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

No typo. The film is Firstcall 400S (same as Rollei Retro 400S) and it's rated at 40 ISO for development in Spur's HRX and Acurol-N. The macro lens has a stellar reputation outwith it's close-focusing range. Mike Johnston said this about it, "Here's one lens that's utterly forgotten yet absolutely magnificent: the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2 Macro. You can use it as a normal lens and I promise you, you will never use a better 50mm. No matter what name is engraved on the barrel." You can read the whole article here but be warned that you might find it a bit pointless, too.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml

Man I had to google the film and dev and came back full circle to that website. What a whacky combo with such a pull. I take back my comment on the proof reading, I should have google researched it a bit before posting. Thanks

 

[dorff]

Lens resolution is so far down the list of things I care about that it doesn't even register.
I'd have to become a much better photographer first to do my crappy lenses justice...

Yes and no. For some images, resolution is important. It may however not be the kind of image that you would make. So your statement may be perfectly accurate for you, but for someone else it may be top of the list.

Some people really get into test charts and data. I'm sure at 20X one can easily see a difference. But I still don't care. Photography is too much about expressing an emotion for me to have time and patience to even worry about technical stuff.

Having used an enormous array of Nikkor and Nikon-mount lenses, the good lenses do tend to stand out over many images and many hours of use. Not every single image and not every single circumstance, but on average, it is much more pleasant to use superb rather than mediocre lenses, both in optics and handling. If you have gear confidence, it frees you to think about the task or motive. There are many other facets that are arguably more important, so that whatever I spend has to be within the context of what improves my photography the most, for example workshops to acquire and hone skills, and trips to good destinations. I don't object to clinical gear comparisons, as they have their uses, but I do object to pretentious babbling about whether gear discussions are prudent or not. It leads nowhere.

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Man I had to google the film and dev and came back full circle to that website. What a whacky combo with such a pull. I take back my comment on the proof reading, I should have google researched it a bit before posting. Thanks

No problem. It's not exactly a mainstream combo - I might be the only person on the planet using it! Firstcall 400S/Rollei Retro 400S is quite contrasty and can lack shadow detail. Using it at 40 ISO and developing in HRX solves both those problems. Plus, Firstcall 400S is the cheapest film in the UK so it's good to find a way of getting the most from it.

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Lens resolution is so far down the list of things I care about that it doesn't even register.
I'd have to become a much better photographer first to do my crappy lenses justice...

Some people really get into test charts and data. I'm sure at 20X one can easily see a difference. But I still don't care. Photography is too much about expressing an emotion for me to have time and patience to even worry about technical stuff.

Just had a look at your gallery, Thomas, and there are some lovely pics there. You're obviously managing to wring every last ounce of quality out of your crappy lenses!

 

[xtolsniffer]

I always enjoy reading lens reviews, whether you worry about them afterwards or not is obviously an issue. On dark winter afternoons I have sometimes done a few lens tests to use up the ends of a film, and have even shot the odd test chart - it's always interesting to know whether the bargain you recently acquired with balsam separation is useful as a lens or a paperweight. I used to crawl all over the MTF charts looking at lp/mm values at centre and edges, worrying about if I might pull more resolution by shooting at f/11 or f/8, but I stopped worrying in the end. The one issue I found from my idle tests is that a shot of a test chart by a lens that shows higher resolution may actually produce a worse negative/chrome as so many other things are at play. Real-world tests out in the field are much more meaningful. In terms of 'sharpness' most of the primes I've used from a range of brands are actually excellent (old zooms are a different matter - some are great, some terrible!), but the issue I have found for my lenses is flare, some flare much more easily than others. It's nice to know what your lenses can, and cannot, do.

 

[markbarendt]

... the lens should never be an excuse for making poor photographs.

Neither should our films, developers, camera bodies, flash units, meters....

It is almost always us.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes and no. For some images, resolution is important. It may however not be the kind of image that you would make. So your statement may be perfectly accurate for you, but for someone else it may be top of the list.



Having used an enormous array of Nikkor and Nikon-mount lenses, the good lenses do tend to stand out over many images and many hours of use. Not every single image and not every single circumstance, but on average, it is much more pleasant to use superb rather than mediocre lenses, both in optics and handling. If you have gear confidence, it frees you to think about the task or motive. There are many other facets that are arguably more important, so that whatever I spend has to be within the context of what improves my photography the most, for example workshops to acquire and hone skills, and trips to good destinations. I don't object to clinical gear comparisons, as they have their uses, but I do object to pretentious babbling about whether gear discussions are prudent or not. It leads nowhere.

Yes, obviously the lens has to work well and be an item we have confidence in. That's why I mostly retired my Pentax SLRs. Amazing cameras but not as reliable as they once were.

I think an amateur like I might have a different view than a professional, most likely, and my take is that if the lens works well - go make photographs and pay your attention to what's in front of the lens. In front of the lens is where 99% of the improvements are.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . So when selecting a lens a balanced approach that combines resolution testing an practical field testing is the most reliable. . .

Yes, indeed. A quick test for resolution, distortion, and vignetting can warn us of lenses at various apertures to avoid in certain situations. Long ago Leica tested every lens, although not with film. They used an appropriate transilluminated high resolution transparency in the film plane and observed the projected image. I've done this with an improvised test jig. It takes only seconds per lens, and uses no film. The results did affect my choice of lenses for various situations. Such a test does not provide practical information about bokeh or intentionally soft focus lenses. For that we should take photos in realistic conditions. Most of the tests we endured in school are long forgotten; some reenforced knowledge of lasting value.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Of course there are visible differences between different lenses. Vignetting and corner sharpness are two obvious examples. Another is bokeh smoothness.

The variety of film you use can however have a greater impact on the image, for instance when it comes to the finer nuances of contrast and colour.

Optical differences are much more obvious in digital photography. I obviously use my legacy lenses on digital bodies. Those photos show differences that aren't all that clear on film.

Obviously

 

[thuggins]

This "review" has serious methodology problems. He uses a no name, 400 speed print film that is the "cheapest film in the UK". The he scans it and expect that after all of this to glean some information about lens quality! I have also tested the 50MIJ agains the standard Zuiko 50f1.8 and 50f1.4 using Kodak VS and there is definately a difference when the slides are viewed directly under magnification.

Also, Zuiko lenses are like sex. Even when they are not very good, they are still pretty good. Back when photo magazines did tests and reviews of lenses, Zuikos consistently came out at the top of the heap.

I have seen many images blown up to ~4' x 6' (yes, that's feet, not inches). At this size the lens quality is very apparent. Some of this images still retain sharp details while others are so muddy they are painful to look at.

 

[blockend]

If people aren't getting what they need out of their 35mm lenses, chances are something other than sharpness or resolution are the issue. It's usually an inappropriate choice of film and developer, or a change of film format that's needed. Chasing brand magic dust, and the law of diminishing returns that follows such investments, is rarely a wise use funds. The best is a term that should be left on the test bench, and not confused with real photography.

 

[ntenny]

Having used an enormous array of Nikkor and Nikon-mount lenses, the good lenses do tend to stand out over many images and many hours of use. Not every single image and not every single circumstance, but on average, it is much more pleasant to use superb rather than mediocre lenses, both in optics and handling.

Oh, no question there. I just don't see that resolution per se is a critical form of lens quality---for most of us, most of the time.

I mean, I like lenses, I have a medium-sized zoo of the things, and I have strong personal views on which tools go well with which jobs. (Sometimes they surprise me, like the old rapid rectilinear that turns out to be a pretty good near-macro lens.) But color rendition, contrast, vignetting, bokeh, and so on are all much bigger players in those differences than resolution is.

I have three different 50mm Canon lenses, and I can't tell the difference except that the 50/2.5 is a touch sharper than the two 50/1.8s (one EF, one FD; might be the same optics). That's measurable in resolution, I expect, and it's noticeable in real-world shooting, so I use that lens preferentially. But in that case it's nearly the *only* difference among very similar lenses, and I think nobody disagrees that all other things being equal you might as well use the sharper lens. At least for conventional "representational" photography.

(Perceived sharpness and resolution aren't really the same, of course, but they interact. A poorly-resolving lens won't look sharp to the eye.)

-NT

 

[Bruce Robbins]

This "review" has serious methodology problems. He uses a no name, 400 speed print film that is the "cheapest film in the UK". The he scans it and expect that after all of this to glean some information about lens quality! I have also tested the 50MIJ agains the standard Zuiko 50f1.8 and 50f1.4 using Kodak VS and there is definately a difference when the slides are viewed directly under magnification.

It's a "review", as you put it, of the lenses as I use them. I'm sure you'd agree there's not much point in me testing them according to how you'd use them. From past experience, if it doesn't show up in a 3200dpi scan it certainly won't show up in a 10x12 print which is as big as I'd generally go from a 35mm neg. Might there be differences in a 4'x6' print? Personally, I don't know and I don't care. I would never print anything like as big from 35mm and I don't know anyone who ever has. If I ever had a need for a print that size I'd use large format, certainly not 35mm.

The "no name" film is rebranded Rollei Retro 400s as I said in a reply earlier in this thread which you may have missed. Think Arista Premium 400 which, for those of us in the UK, is a "no name" version of Tri X. Regular readers of my blog are aware of the Firstcall/Rollei thing but you're right: I should have said it again for new readers, particularly those from overseas. I'll amend the post accordingly.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Resolution is one of those things that people don't miss until they need it. What is the point in using a special developer like Neofin Blue if you are not using an excellent lens?

 

[snapguy]

There's the RUBbish

Why do we talk such rubbish about ... rubbish? We should think recyclables.

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Resolution is one of those things that people don't miss until they need it. What is the point in using a special developer like Neofin Blue if you are not using an excellent lens?

You might use Neofin Blue with an average lens to get the benefit of edge effects which don't do much for resolution but certainly might make a print appear sharper. As Anchell and Troop say, "resolution is a poor guide to perceived sharpness". If you're having trouble grasping this then this Zeiss paper might help:
http://www.forums.camera-info.com/contaxinfo/pdf_files/Zeiss-Resolving_power_and_contrast.pdf

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Resolution is one of those things that people don't miss until they need it. What is the point in using a special developer like Neofin Blue if you are not using an excellent lens?

To explore the full resolution of a lens you need pristine conditions. You need something like TMax 100 (or sharper), a camera lens at optimum aperture, a very sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up, and a sharp developer.
I shoot this way - never...

I've seen what large magnification does to my negatives, and 20x24 from 35mm negatives is usually as large as I like them. 16x20 is better. That's from HP5+, Tri-X 400 or TMax 400 in Xtol or D76. The film is definitely the limitation here. It takes TMax 100 / Acros / Delta 100 to have enough resolution in the film where the lens becomes the limiting factor (in 135 format anyway).

There have been times when I've shot on tripod at night, and I have revealed some weaknesses particularly in Cosina Voigtlander lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 Nokton is not a technically good lens, very unsharp at the corners, even at f/4 or f/5.6. But I really don't care. The prints come out wonderful, and that's all that matters.

For somebody more inclined to shoot technical photography, like product photography, catalog stuff like interiors, architecture, or someone who shoots for things to be printed bill board size it's a different story. They might need the best of the best. But for most people I opine they simply will never even get close to making photographs where the lens is the limitation.

 

[blockend]

35mm has a look and a ratio. All the lenses I've tried - which is a lot - look more like each other than anything else. There's a limit to what a 36 x 24mm negative can resolve. It's simpler to just go larger than bust your head wringing the last ounce out of the small format. Printing 35mm bigger than 16 x 12" is technically difficult.

 

[Ian Grant]

Resolution is one of those things that people don't miss until they need it. What is the point in using a special developer like Neofin Blue if you are not using an excellent lens?

I don't think any of us would disagree with that. Apologies Gerald if my previous post seemed to disagree, I was really adding there's other factors like flare etc.

Aside from the Meyer Domiplan I've never come across an optically poor quality standard lens for a 35mm SLR or Rangefinder camera standard lens of around 50-55mm.

Yes resolution can differ particularly at wider apertures, but micro contrast of a lens can be equally as important. My highest resolution 50-55mm by a long way is an f2 50mm Summicron however with small prints a Japanese lens might initially appear to be sharper due to higher micro contrast.

Perhaps a point that many miss is a good photographer works with the equipment he/she has and make the most of it, chopping and changing equipment in search of better images just doesn't work until you can be 110% sure why you need to make a move.

It's rare for me to use 35mm these days, I've been predominantly a 120 and LF user since 1976 and my 35mm usage reduced significantly over a decade, it then became almost a diary after that. However it had become important to get the best from any format and 35mm was my guinea pig for film & dev testing and that also meant some lens testing. None of my lenses fail me (old and new), some have quirks

Craft is the most important skill in any art form, particularly photography, a good craftsman (or woman) will adapt to get the best from the equipment available.

Back around 1970 I had my first magazine cover my lens was amazingly sharp, a great performer, a Helios on a Zenit E. Later I used a Pancolor (I have one again) and the best 35mm work I've printed was shot with a Pancolor (and Sonnar & Flektagon).

The post is about standard lenses and reality is unless you're using very slow films and a tripod lens quality is not really an issue move to wide angles and telephotos things change.

Ian

 

[Aron]

I'm a bit late and I'm not going to say anything new.

From past experience, if it doesn't show up in a 3200dpi scan it certainly won't show up in a 10x12 print which is as big as I'd generally go from a 35mm neg. Might there be differences in a 4'x6' print? Personally, I don't know and I don't care. I would never print anything like as big from 35mm and I don't know anyone who ever has. If I ever had a need for a print that size I'd use large format, certainly not 35mm.

A 3200 dpi scan can be one thing and another. On a relatively cheap flatbed or even a good dedicated film scanner this is roughly twice as much resolution as the scanner is able to provide optically: the 3200 dpi scan won't look significantly sharper, if at all than a 1600 dpi one. A drum scanner kept in good condition is significantly better at the task, but the real, top quality still comes from optical wet-printing.

It's worth to take a look at Henning Serger's posts on APUG, he's got long experience doing resolution tests in a practical, but objective way.

I took a quick look at the datasheet of Rollei Retro 400s and while its resolution is good, it's not in the same league as the already mentioned 100 (and 400) speed CCG/T-/Sigma-grain films, assuming 1:1000 as the test object contrast.

I don't mean the test is critically flawed, but it only offers value to those who have a similar photographic system.

A neat topic, excellent posts.

 

[Trask]

Some of my favorite photographs that I have taken over the years was with a lens that is deemed a mediocre lens with as many weeknesses as strengths according to the experts.

So even though the consensus seems to be that it's the photographer, not the lens, I'll bite -- what lens did you use?

 

[pen s]

Well, in the hands of David Burnett even a single element plastic 60mm f8 lens can create some interesting results. Actually, I like his Holga results better than his photographs taken with a 4X5 Speed Graphic mounting a Aero Ektar.