MF vs LF Lenes

bob haight · June 27, 2002

Following up on an earlier post, would not the fact that the 6 x 7

image on a rollex back is being made more from the center of the LF

lens as opposed to the MF lens which has goes to the edges to make

the same image, result in a sharper image from LF? Distortion and

unsharpness tends to increase as we approach the edges of the lens

due to extreme bending of the light. In LF we can avoid the edges for

sharper images. Any thoughts?

peza · June 27, 2002

<a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</a>

On the other side - get sharp print is not as easy as it might look, even from utterly sharp slide/neg..

4000DPI scanner THEORETICALLY resolves something like 79lp/mm, practically it will be lower.. Bigger means better.

hyperfocal · June 27, 2002

I think in relative terms, the best medium format lenses are have better resolution than the best LF lenses, but not by a huge number of MMs/inch. I used to shoot a Pentax 6x7 and found the lenses to be very sharp, better than even the center section of my best LF lenses. I think the Hassie and Mamiya users will tell you the same thing, e.g., focus both at the optimum aperature for resolution, take the shot, then measure resolving power for the center of each image. The LF lenses are good, but not quite up to the MF ones, IMHO.

However, if you shoot MF for landscapes, you will quickly find that the best lenses are quickly compromised because they can't be aligned to adjust the focus plane for to maximize sharpness( increase apparent depth of field). Take the best 80mm Ziess Planar and use it for a shot where you need 5' to infinity in focus, and you'll wind up soft somewhere (assuming no flex body). LF solves this problem, more than making up for slighly less lens resolution.

*** Yet you need to consider the focal length of LF lens needed on a 6x7 roll film back to give you the angle of view you need. Not sure about this, but I suspect that to get a LF equvilent of a 90mm 6x7 lense when using a 6x7 back, you'll need something different than a 90mm on your LF camera. Perhaps somebody can give us a list of what 4x5 focal lenses used with a 6x7 back would correspond to in MF lens terms. I've always wonderd about this ...

I would think that it all depends on whether or not you need the tilts or not. If you don't and just want to save wieght/cost on film, you may be better off shooting MF gear, assuming you have access to it.

H

noshir_patel · June 27, 2002

A 90 mm lens is a 90 mm lens for purposes of angle of view at a given film size (within tolerances... not counting wierd lenses like fisheye).

If your film size is 6x7, it doesn't matter what 90mm lens you choose for angle of view (assuming full coverage).

bj_rn_nilsson · June 27, 2002

Well, in short the answer is No.

Let's compare a couple of examples. (Being swedish, I feel more comfortable comparing with Hasselblad.) A 150 Sonnar, new or 30 years old, will produce sharper images than any 150 mm large format lens, even at the center (i.e. the 6X6 area). As most MF cameras doesn't have any tilt/swing/shift, the lenses are constructed for preforming at their very best over all of the (relatively) tiny negative area, with the relatively small illumination angle (maybe 15-40 deg.). With my Hasselblad I really don't care if the lens would be soft and unsharp outside the given 6X6 cm.

On the other hand, even a mid-class LF 150mm lens have to perform quite evenly over more or less 5X7" (some 75 deg or more). Most people wouldn't accept the lens going noticeably softer in the corners even with a bit of shift/swing/tilt. In order to make this possible lens manufacturers do compromise. As LF film normally isn't enlarged as much as MF film, the resolution doesn't have to be as high for an LF lens.

I've actually tried it with a 'blad/Sonnar150 and a Sinar/Symmar 150 with a 6X7 rollback side by side. The 'blad negatives were sharper when it came to counting "facial hairs" on huge enlargements, but the difference wasn't that great. Before testing this I did expect the LF lens to be the better performer as well, so your question is indeed relevant IMO.

There are of course more parameters involved in this topic, but the MF lenses are better for MF cameras. Being very general, the smaller the negative a lens is intended for, the sharper it is, as the negative needs it. I.e. Minox lenses are incredibly sharp, but they hardly cover a normal fingernail. You can find other threads in this forum discussing "digital" lenses from Schneider/Rodenstock, where the coverage vs. sharpness issue is discussed.

There was a hype some 15 years ago where it was very popular to mount 'blad lenses on 35mm cameras. They probably lost in quality, but on the other hand they hopefully were happier photographers. And feeling good about your gear does indeed make you a better photographer.

george_jiri_loun · June 27, 2002

It does, in fact, matter what kind of lens you use for a given format (6x7 for ex.) For the simple reason that lenses for different format have different size of the circle of confusion. Lenses for smaller format (which often needs bigger magnification for the given print size) are calculated with a smaller circle of confusion. LF lenses have bigger CC because you don't magnify the negative so much for the same print size. Therefore it can be wiser to use a MF lens for MF work, rather than LF lens. Taking a LF lens for 35mm film can reveal the difference of CC in the final print.

mark_windom · June 27, 2002

I shot a Pentax 67 and a Pentax 645 for several years and was always very impressed with the quality of the lenses. I now shoot an Arca-Swiss 69 using a 67 roll film back and a variety of modern LF lenses. In comparing the results I'm getting with the LF lenses vs the MF lenses I see little difference in practical terms, i.e. when comparing them on a light table with a 4X Schneider loupe which is what the majority of photo editors will be doing when evaluating my images for publication. Perhaps when comparing the lenses by counting lines/MM the MF lenses will win out but I'll gladly take the increased control over perspective and DOF the A-S with LF lenses gives me when compared to the MF cameras I've used.

lukasz_zandecki1 · June 28, 2002

Hi, Hyperfocal, here is a table for you

<tr>

35mm

</td>

4,5x6cm

</td>

6x6cm

</td>

6x7cm

</td>

6,5x9cm

</td>

6x12cm

</td>

4x5"

</td>

angle of view

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

wideangle

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

12mm

</td>

20mm

</td>

24mm

</td>

25mm

</td>

28mm

</td>

35mm

</td>

42.5mm

</td>

123°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

12.7mm

</td>

20mm

</td>

25mm

</td>

26mm

</td>

29mm

</td>

37mm

</td>

45mm

</td>

119°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

13.2mm

</td>

21mm

</td>

26mm

</td>

27mm

</td>

30.5mm

</td>

38mm

</td>

47mm

</td>

117°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

14mm

</td>

23mm

</td>

28mm

</td>

29mm

</td>

32mm

</td>

41mm

</td>

50mm

</td>

114°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

15.5mm

</td>

25mm

</td>

30mm

</td>

32mm

</td>

36mm

</td>

45mm

</td>

55mm

</td>

109°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

16mm

</td>

26mm

</td>

32mm

</td>

34mm

</td>

38mm

</td>

47mm

</td>

58mm

</td>

106°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

17mm

</td>

27mm

</td>

33mm

</td>

35mm

</td>

39mm

</td>

50mm

</td>

60mm

</td>

104°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

18mm

</td>

30mm

</td>

36mm

</td>

38mm

</td>

42mm

</td>

53mm

</td>

65mm

</td>

100°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

20mm

</td>

33mm

</td>

40mm

</td>

42mm

</td>

47mm

</td>

59mm

</td>

72mm

</td>

94°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

21mm

</td>

34mm

</td>

41mm

</td>

44mm

</td>

49mm

</td>

61mm

</td>

75mm

</td>

91°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

24mm

</td>

39mm

</td>

47mm

</td>

50mm

</td>

55mm

</td>

69mm

</td>

85mm

</td>

84°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

25mm

</td>

41mm

</td>

50mm

</td>

53mm

</td>

58mm

</td>

73mm

</td>

90mm

</td>

81°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

28mm

</td>

45mm

</td>

55mm

</td>

58mm

</td>

65mm

</td>

82mm

</td>

100mm

</td>

75°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

29.5mm

</td>

48mm

</td>

58mm

</td>

61mm

</td>

68mm

</td>

86mm

</td>

105mm

</td>

72°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

31mm

</td>

50mm

</td>

61mm

</td>

64mm

</td>

71mm

</td>

90mm

</td>

110mm

</td>

70°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

32mm

</td>

52mm

</td>

64mm

</td>

67mm

</td>

75mm

</td>

94mm

</td>

115mm

</td>

68°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

standard

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

34mm

</td>

54mm

</td>

66mm

</td>

70mm

</td>

78mm

</td>

98mm

</td>

120mm

</td>

65°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

36mm

</td>

58mm

</td>

70mm

</td>

74mm

</td>

82mm

</td>

104mm

</td>

127mm

</td>

62°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

38mm

</td>

61mm

</td>

75mm

</td>

79mm

</td>

88mm

</td>

110mm

</td>

135mm

</td>

59°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

42mm

</td>

68mm

</td>

83mm

</td>

87mm

</td>

97mm

</td>

122mm

</td>

150mm

</td>

54°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

47mm

</td>

75mm

</td>

91mm

</td>

96mm

</td>

107mm

</td>

134mm

</td>

165mm

</td>

50°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

51mm

</td>

82mm

</td>

99mm

</td>

105mm

</td>

117mm

</td>

147mm

</td>

180mm

</td>

46°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

56mm

</td>

91mm

</td>

111mm

</td>

117mm

</td>

130mm

</td>

163mm

</td>

200mm

</td>

42°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

59mm

</td>

95mm

</td>

116mm

</td>

122mm

</td>

136mm

</td>

171mm

</td>

210mm

</td>

40°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

tele

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

68mm

</td>

109mm

</td>

133mm

</td>

140mm

</td>

156mm

</td>

196mm

</td>

240mm

</td>

36°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

76mm

</td>

122mm

</td>

149mm

</td>

157mm

</td>

175mm

</td>

220mm

</td>

270mm

</td>

32°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

85mm

</td>

135mm

</td>

166mm

</td>

175mm

</td>

195mm

</td>

244mm

</td>

300mm

</td>

29°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

101mm

</td>

163mm

</td>

199mm

</td>

210mm

</td>

233mm

</td>

293mm

</td>

360mm

</td>

24°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

120mm

</td>

193mm

</td>

235mm

</td>

248mm

</td>

275mm

</td>

346mm

</td>

425mm

</td>

21°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

135mm

</td>

218mm

</td>

265mm

</td>

280mm

</td>

311mm

</td>

391mm

</td>

480mm

</td>

18°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

150mm

</td>

240mm

</td>

293mm

</td>

309mm

</td>

343mm

</td>

432mm

</td>

530mm

</td>

17°

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

170mm

</td>

272mm

</td>

331mm

</td>

350mm

</td>

390mm

</td>

489mm

</td>

600mm

</td>

15°

</td>

</tr>

</table>

Lukasz Zandecki (PL)

renze_dijkema · June 30, 2002

But wat about macrophotography? When I take subjects at 1:1 ratio,

will there be a great difference between a Scneider S.A. 121/8 and a

Pentax 645 120/4 macr

Sign In

MF vs LF Lenes

Recommended Posts

bob haight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

peza

Link to comment

Share on other sites

hyperfocal

Link to comment

Share on other sites

noshir_patel

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bj_rn_nilsson

Link to comment

Share on other sites

george_jiri_loun

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mark_windom

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lukasz_zandecki1

Link to comment

Share on other sites

renze_dijkema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Explore

Forums

Learn

Job Opportunities