Sharpest MF lenses in different focal length ranges

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am not a medium format photographer (maybe thinking about taking it up, but that's for another time).<br>

However, right now I'm working on a scientific project for which we need to acquire the highest resolution medium format lenses available. They'll be mounted to DSLRs through adapters, so we can use any brand (or mix of brands) for which adapters are available. As I understand it, that rules out RZ67 lenses, for instance, with their bellows focusing and leaf shutters. Maybe a leaf shutter on its own could be jammed open or removed, but we do need to be able to adjust the focus and aperture (so no AF only lenses).<br>

What we are looking for is lenses with minimal distortion, ideally with wide apertures that still offer good performance, and - most of all, and to the exclusion of all else - outstanding resolution. After that, a larger image circle is better than smaller, but anything from 6x4.5 upwards is still good. <br>

We've already identified the Mamiya 645 300mm f/2.8 APO as an utterly fantastic lens to cover our needs for long focal lengths. Unless anyone can suggest anything better, we'll almost certainly be using that lens, with its 645 format and reported 70+lpmm across the field even close to wide open.<br>

That leaves a need for something in the medium focal length range (80mm to about 130mm) and a wide angle option (under 80mm). We may look for a 150 or 200mm lens too, but looking at the experimental setup the wide lens is probably going to get most use. <br>

In terms of price, cheap is always good, but we are not looking to economise on quality. </p>

<p>I'd be very grateful for any advice on the very sharpest MF lenses that might fit our needs.</p>

<p>The Zeiss 300 mm 2.8 FE Super Achromat power pack lens that was designed for the Hasselblad 200 series cameras is probably one of the highest resolution medium format lens ever produced. At a price tag of over $17,000.00, it's no wonder that this lens is top drawer in every respect. The Zeiss 180 CFE 4.0 lens for the Hasselblad 500 and 200 series bodies is another spectacular example of a lens that represents the highest order of resolution amongest medium format lenses. If my memory serves me correctly, Zeiss made a 300 mm 2.8 APO lens for the Contax 645 that was also capable of extraordinary resolution. <br>

For the medium focal length, the Zeiss 110 mm 2.0 Planar lens made available for both Hasselblad and the Rollei 6008 series is another top contender as far as resolution is concerned. For the wide angle focal length, the Zeiss 50 mm 4.0 FLE lens has better than average resolution. </p>

<p>Hi, Rupert,<br /> I'm not sure why you need the highest resolution *medium format* lenses available, but if that is the criteria, <br /> take a look at the Zeiss Biogon 38mm for Hasselblad, Schneider Super-Angulon 40mm f/3.5 for Rollei, Schneider 80mm AFD for Rollei, Schneider 90mm Symmar for Rollei, the Zeiss 120mm Macro for Contax, the Zeiss 250mm SuperAcromat for Hasselblad, the Zeiss 350 Tele-SuperAchromat for Hasselblad and as Dale rightly pointed out, the granddaddy of them all, the Zeiss 300/510mm Tele-SuperAchromat.<br /> If you are looking for some of the highest resolution lowest-distortion lenses available, I would suggest taking a look at a Cambo or Arca DSLR setup with Rodenstock HR Digaron-S lenses. The small image circle should make the Digaron-S lenses ideal for your needs.<br /><br />I've owned most of this stuff (certainly excepting the SuperAchromats) and can tell you from experience that the digital view camera lenses are in a league above.<br /><br />HTH,<br /> -Brad</p>

In medium format as in most other formats, the often overlooked 'standard' lenses are the best performers you could find.

The latest, Interal Focussing version of the Zeiss Distagon f/4 40 mm made available in Hasselblad mount is a top performer as far as resolving power is concerned.<br><br>You wrote something about jamming open or removing leaf shutters, Rupert, but leaf shutter lenses made for SLRs typically have the shutter 'jammed' open by default, and all you need is a mount adapter.<br>You do need lenses that offer a way to shut the aperture manually, else you will be restricted to full aperture (and then a lens like the f/2 110 mm Planar mentioned is definitely not in the class of high performance lenses). But i think most of the ones available will have that feature. Yet it probably is better to check.

<p>Allow me to second everything that Q.G. has said.<br>

<br /> Q.G. is quite right about standard lenses being often both high performance and typically overlooked.<br /><br />Q.G., good call to at least point out the Zeiss Distagon CFE 40mm IF for Hasselblad -- it is my hands-down favorite 40-45mm wide angle in MF in terms of resolving performance (and operational feel).<br>

<br /> But, Rupert, given distortion is something you expressed you wanted minimized, be warned it suffers from unusually strong distortion (up to triple that of some other designs, even Zeiss' own non-IF variants).<br>

<br /> I also concur on the 110/2 Planar. A great portait lens, but not one known for a particularly high resolving power.</p>

<p>In the 150 or 200mm range you might consider the 180mm f2.8 Zeiss Jena Sonnar--extremely sharp, relatively inexpensive, but VERY heavy.</p>

<p>Richard Avedon used RZ with Sekor 100-200 zoom, so I think it has to be a good choice.<br>

<a href="

<p>This is all very useful information.</p>

<p>I'd looked into the Zeiss Super Achromat for the long focal length candidate, but it is astonishingly expensive and clearly very rare; that means there's not a great deal of information available on its performance. Frankly, I've seen some opinions and testing stats on the Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 APO that make me question whether the Zeiss lens could conceivably offer much more, and the Japanese model is readily available at much more reasonable prices.<br>

I'm looking into the shorter Zeiss lenses with the greatest interest. I know that Zeiss makes superb optics, but I'm slightly concerned that I've heard that they are sometimes deliberately slightly under-corrected to improve the look of the bokeh; that might make for a great photography lens, but is not so good for scientific uses as a more straight-up design, potentially maybe a Japanese rather than European optical style.</p>

<p>The short lens is really the most important, so I'm particularly interested in the options that have come up in the 40-50mm range - the 38mm Distagon is maybe a little too extreme, but still very relevant. Here I've seen some amazing things about the Mamiya 7 lenses in 43mm and 50mm as well as the Schneider and Zeiss options mentioned here, but as that's a rangefinder camera I'm worried that the shutter might be a problem (thanks for setting me straight about SLR leaf shutters, Q.G. - thinking about it, that should have been obvious to me). I've seen tests putting their resolving power at 120lp/mm, which is enough for us to be getting full resolution performance from a Nikon D800E.</p>

<p>The reason why we need medium format lenses is that this is for a computer vision setup where the camera will be shifted automatically behind a fixed lens. That's also why we're happy with 645 but even happier with 6x6 or 6x7 - more shift distance. Really, we can correct for distortion in the software so that's a secondary concern; less just makes it easier for us. However, there's not much we can do in this setup if the resolving power is too low (there are possibilities with superresolution and subpixel shifting, but it's a lot better if we can get the most possible out of the glass before getting into complex algorithms like that).<br>

I've also just had a chat with my colleagues, and a bellows focus lens is an option if the performance makes it worthwhile. It'll make it slightly harder to calibrate the machine after installation, but that's a one-time hassle that we can put up with. The Mamiya 50mm ULD is an option on the table for us. <br>

One a sidenote - I am aware that every lens I've brought up has been by Mamiya. I don't know why that is, I honestly have no particular affiliation to the brand and I've never used any of their products. Maybe their lenses are indeed among the best (although I also note that none of you people who know more about it have mentioned them!), or maybe Mamiya users are more into posting impressive claims on the internet regarding the resolving power of their lenses...</p>

<p>Thanks again for the all the suggestions so far, and please feel free to add any more.</p>

<p>Having tried and still using many Mamiya and Zeiss lenses, I can tell you that in wide angle no Mamiya comes close to Zeiss. They are good lenses, but simply not as good.<br>

The Zeiss Distagon 40mm CFE FLE is one of the best if distortion and resolution are equally important for you. If resolution is much higher in your priorities, the Zeiss Distagon 40mm CFE IF is slightly better, with more distortion. (It is also significantly more expensive). The IF has in fact a higher resolution than the 38mm Biogon. The Distagon CFE FLE resolution is as good as the 38mm.<br>

As you mention software, do not forget that yes, you can easily correct distortions in software but every time you do it you loose on resolution.<br>

Because of this, if both resolution and distortion are important for you, I believe that the Zeiss 40mm CFE FLE is the best choice: very low distortion and very high resolution.<br>

In a different class, one lens nobody has mentioned which has one of the highest resolution on the market is the Zeiss Planar 100mm f/3.5. No significant distortion.</p>

<p>Responding to the need for a lens in the 80 to 130mm range, with high resolution and low distortion:</p>

<p>Consider also the Hasselblad 100mm Planar if working at a large distance (essentially infinity).</p>

<p>If working close, consider the 120mm Makro-Planar.</p>

I use a 120mm Hasselblad lens that is really sharp at less than infinity. I always have to go back to my notes to see

which lens made such a high resolution image, and it turns out to be the 120mm. One more, not mentioned, is the 60mm

Hasselblad lens. Also have a look at some of the newer medium format schneider and rodenstock lenses. The mtf charts

are amazing. And finalky, I have seen some images shot with the Mamiya 7 system. I think the 50mm is a pretty smokin

lens.

<p>Wow! Once again, thanks to Paul, Rob, and Michael (who posted since I last said thanks).</p>

<p>If the stats I've seen for the Mamiya 7 50mm and 43mm are true (120 lp/mm across the frame wide open), then that looks unbeatable. However, I understand that the leaf shutter is closed while the lens is not in the camera, and I don't know how easy it would be to make it permanently open or to remove it altogether. It would seem a real shame to do permanent damage to such a fantastic lens, and any major surgery could harm those finely tuned optics.</p>

<p>Other that that, I'm getting a strong impression that the consensus opinion is that the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses really are superior to cheaper glass in general. A voice in the back of my head is saying "cognitive bias", but I'm inclined to be heavily swayed by the opinions of a significant number of people with wide-ranging experience.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all!</p>

<p>Mr. Griffiths…</p>

<p>There are a lot of opinions out there about lens sharpness. Some of them might even be based on direct knowledge. Most seem based on magazine review buzzwords, folklore, and brand loyalty (“I’d rather push my Ford than ride in your Chevy.”)</p>

<p>The below tag will take you to a full sized Nikon 9000 scan from a Mamiya 7 II with the 80mm F:4 lens. The Nikon 9000 only scans at an equivalent of about 78.7 lp/mm. Under a good quality 60X scope one can see detail not brought out by the scanner. To my old eyes, the scope seems to show about twice the detail/sharpness of the scanner. So I’d give the lens a conservative rating of more than 120 lp/mm ON VELVIA (a sharp color positive film).</p>

<p>The closest side of the Jeep under the Les Schawb Tires sign, is 248 meters away from the camera lens. Look at the wheels. The sign is at 251 Meters, and the window frame on the building behind them is at 425 meters distance. All distance measurements were made with a Nikon laser precision rangefinder. The film is Fuji Velvia 50.</p>

<p><a href="

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>I love German glass but there is some competition out there. I love the Rodenstock 150 APO Sironar- N made for Linhof and the Schneider 21mm f/4 Super Angulon-R made for Lecia. These are good benchmarks for comparing other lenses. <br /> As a Pentax 67 shooter since 1988, I have a good idea of which lenses in this system can compete. The 55mm latest version (Distagon-like) is quite sharp, as is the 75mm f/4.5 (French looking Retrofocus design). The fast 105mm f/2.4 (Double Gauss) is quite sharp as is the 200mm Pentax (Ernostar variant). There are several others that I have not mentioned.</p>

<p>Are these as sharp as the Schneider 21mm? Not quite but then again you can't use the 21 for your project.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Other that that, I'm getting a strong impression that the consensus opinion is that the Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses really are superior to cheaper glass in general. A voice in the back of my head is saying "cognitive bias",</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rupert, this is some truth to that. But what you need to be aware of, when you ask a question like your original post, is generational differences in camera optics, and how they (unknowingly) skew people's perceptions.</p>

<p>So you'll find people saying "I tried Mamiya and Pentax, then Hasselblad/Zeiss, and the latter was much better". And I'm sure it was. But when were these lenses designed/made? The 1960s, 1970s or early 1980s? Once they settled on Hasselblad/Zeiss, did they ever go back later and try a Mamiya lens from the 1990s? If they did, they would probably be in for a (very pleasant) shock!</p>

<p>So you can certainly believe the hype about the Mamiya APO lenses of the 1990s. They are as stunning as people say. My 200/2.8 APO is, on aerial image examination with a high power eyepiece, completely diffraction limited at f4. No other lens I've tested is that good. The 300/2.8 APO should be in the same league.</p>

<p>Gentlepersons:</p>

<p>Opinions are like rectal orifices. Everyone has one. But… Who in their right mine would argue with an opinion when all they had were actual tests with real pictures to look at instead?</p>

<p>Opinion wins every time!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html</a></p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. Remember the wise man who said “I’d rather push my Ford than ride in your Chevy.”</p>

<p>Just as a point of interest, IMAX uses Hasselblad Zeiss lenses on the IMAX cameras. The glass is re-mounted in barrels designed for the IMAX camera; the optical formula is unchanged.</p>

<p>The image is projected onto a screen size of 72 feet by 52.8 feet. It's of very high quality.</p>

<p>Medium format lenses were never really as sharp as their smaller, more compact 35mm format (Full Frame) lenses. Nothing scientific, but reputation says that the Hasselblad 100mm CF and 180mm CF were the sharpest lenses in medium format (not including the 38mm that was fixed on a camera). I found that the 120mm CF makro planer was as sharp as a Nikon 85mm lens even at infinity. The 180mm, to my disappointment, was sharp at infinity at f/11 but amazingly not as sharp as the Nikon 28-300 at the same focal length and aperture. I haven't tried the 100mm lens.<br>

So that said, I have not seen or tried any of the Hasselblad/Fuji lenses from the H-series and they're most certainly as sharp if not sharper than their CF equivalents since they're more modern and "made for digital." <br>

So everything is relative. Not sure about other brands of medium format lenses.</p>

<i>"Medium format lenses were never really as sharp as their smaller, more compact 35mm format (Full Frame) lenses"</i><br><br>... is something that goes around since many years ago, but is a reversal of the observation that 35 mm lenses have to be sharper than medium format lenses to be able to equal the results medium and larger formats produce.<br>An incorrect reversal.<br><br>"Made for digital" = "as sharp if not sharper" is another incorrect statement, partly the same confusion as the one about 35 mm format, partly just wrong.

<p>Since I haven't used any Hasselblad/Fuji modern glass I can't comment, but the Nikon zoom 28-300 was a newer designed lens that was "made for digital." The lens IS sharper than the 180mm Carl Zeiss lens which was considered one of the sharpest and best Hasselblad lenses ever made. <br>

<br />Hopefully you'll be able to see these photos:<br>

This one was taken with a 180mm lens. Notice the slats on the church --<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2169600537/photos/1238955/hassy-180mm-lens-test-on-d700-closeup<br>

Here's the one taken with the 28-300 lens. Remember, the 28-300 is supposed to be a dog in terms of image quality. Now look at the slats on the church. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2169600537/photos/1238953/28-300-lens-test-on-d700-closeup<br>

You'll find it's well defined whereas the ones taken with the 180mm not so much. So if a "dog" of a lens can beat out a $3000 medium format lens (at one time it cost that much) then imagine what a real good lens would do.</p>

<p> </p>

Nathan,<br>Some 35 mm format lenses are superb and better than some MF lenses. And vice versa. There is no hard and fast rule, and that <i>"Medium format lenses were never really as sharp as [etc.]"</i> is incorrect.<br>(The original version of that however is correct: <i>"35 mm lenses have to be sharper than medium format lenses to be able to equal the results medium and larger formats produce"</i>.)<br><br>The suggestion that you are comparing <i>"a dog"</i> against <i>"one of the sharpest and best Hasselblad lenses ever made"</i> would be belied by (i haven't looked at your test results) your test results.<br>But be that as it may: there are lots of tests and as many discussions about the validity of such, and we don't need to have another one of those here.

<p>Nathan,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This one was taken with a 180mm lens. Notice the slats on the church --<br /><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2169600537/photos/1238955/hassy-180mm-lens-test-on-d700-closeup" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a><br /> Here's the one taken with the 28-300 lens. Remember, the 28-300 is supposed to be a dog in terms of image quality. Now look at the slats on the church. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2169600537/photos/1238953/28-300-lens-test-on-d700-closeup" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the EXIF info below the photos can be trusted, you shot the Hasselblad lens wide open at f4 and the Nikon lens stopped down to f11. That would not be a fair test. The Nikon got a further small advantage by being set to 190mm vs. 180mm.</p>

<p>Taking the photos at face value, perhaps the Nikon shot has a bit more contrast, but my eyes can't perceive any difference in resolution. The large 8.45µm pixel pitch of the D700 should not be troubled by any decent lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So that said, I have not seen or tried any of the Hasselblad/Fuji lenses from the H-series and they're most certainly as sharp if not sharper than their CF equivalents since they're more modern and "made for digital."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the HC lenses were made for 645 film. They date from a time when digital backs were much smaller in area than 645 film. Only a few recent HCD lenses could be said to be "designed for digital", insofar as they deliberately do not attempt to correct certain optical aberrations like bad distortion & lateral colour fringing & heavy vignetting, on the assumption that they will be corrected automatically (DAC) in software...and the HCD lenses have a smaller image circle which will only illuminate the sub-645 sized digital backs. Older HC lenses can benefit from DAC too, but the difference is that they were not designed to <em>rely</em> on it, and the designers did their best to correct all aberrations, so they can be used with film backs on the appropriate H-series camera.</p>

<p>Unfortunately there's no mechanical link on the D700 and the Hasselblad lens so the only thing the D700 can do is report that it's a 180mm lens and the max aperture is f/4. That's why it looks like I shot it at f/4 and not f/11 like I had indicated. So, I would say it was a fair comparison. One of these days whenever I get a chance I'll do the same comparison with all my 'blad lenses just to see how they compare with the Nikon equivalent. </p>

<p>Here's a sample result from the new Opticfilm 120 scanner shooting a test target. This is at 10,600 dpi (well, it's only really 5300dpi of detail uprezzed but you get the gist). Mamiya 7 I using the 50mm lens at f/8... And if you check the film under a microscope the resolution goes all the way up to 11 (well - only ten really but it sounds better if you say 11 - more rock'n'roll). <br>

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/opticfilm-wet-wide.jpg<br>

Colleagues who test lenses have said that it's as sharp as any 35mm lens and with results like this I have to believe them. This means the lenses is resolving at a pixel size of approx 3 micron over a 6x6cm area - quite remarkable really. <br>

If you want to see what that looks like compared with an 80Mp IQ180 using top of the line Rodenstock digital lenses, here's a sample. <br>

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra400_cms_06mic_8000-vs-4000.jpg<br>

Considering the scanner is only getting about 70% of the full resolution it's pretty impressive. <br>

Tim</p>