Sharpest LF lenses so far

[tony_black1]

What are the sharpest lenses in the market(new or old design)in the focal

lenght of

 

65mm ?

 

 

90mm ?

 

 

150mm?

 

 

210mm?

 

 

300mm?

 

 

Thank you.

[ellis_vener_photography]

the Schneider 110mm f/5.6 Super Symmar XL has consistently gotten the top marks for large

format cameras.

 

Everything else you can't go wrong with Rodenstock, Nikkor or Schneider Symmars (too

much fall of in the Schneider Super Angulons for my taste).

[pico]

Zeiss Planar 135mm F/3.5

 

But ya know, you don't need a super-sharp lens in LF unless you are doing recon work.

[brucecahn]

The 110 XL is a great lens. But not, to the eye, as sharp as the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S series. These are made in 100, 135,150,180,210,240,300 and 360. They are the sharpest. But the sharpest lens does not always make the best picture. I prefer the tonality of the Schneider XL's for B&W. In recently trimming down my personal stock of equipment, I kept the 210XL and sold the 210 Apo Sironar S. The XL negatives are a little easier to print because the lenses are less contrasty. That is for silver printing. The extra sharpness and contrast of the Rodenstocks is preferable, to me, for platinum palladium printing.

[tony_black1]

Pico,

 

is that a new or old lens? where can i find that lens? its quite fast for a lf.

[bart feliciano]

The Planar is great, but movements are really limited (not an issue for what I use it for)

 

I found mine at a gavel auction.

[steve_clark5]

Tony,

The Zeiss 135mm F3.5 T* lens has not been manufactured for quite some time. There was never very many of them, and they are fairly scarce, not to mention expensive.

[enw]

I'm not sure there's a perceptible difference in sharpness between modern Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon and Fujinon lenses, particularly if you are not mixing APO and non-APO lenses. Even with that, I have a Schneider 210mm APO Symmar and I'm often hard pressed to see the difference between images shot with it versus my non-APO 210mm Nikkor. The lenses today are simply great. All the other variables in the photographic process impact the sharpness of my images to a greater extent than the brand of lens I may be using.

[michael_briggs2]

I think the reason that people rave about the Super-Symmar-XL lenses is the much smaller

size, somewhat lighter weight and faster aperture compared to the older lenses of the

same coveage (e.g., compare 110 mm SS-XL to 120 mm Super-Angulon or Nikkor-SW),

not any superiority in sharpness.

 

Theoretically the new Apo-Sironar-S and Apo-Symmar-L lenses should be superior to

previous plasmats, for example, the Apo-Sironar-S uses ED glass and Rodenstock's

datasheets clearly show reduced chromatic aberration compared to the Apo-Sironar-N.

But how often does this make a noticably difference in real world photography? Probably

not very often. It may allow you to use the lens at a faster aperture, but usually depth of

field won't allow that. No sharpness difference in photos taken with my Fuji-W and my

Apo-Sironar-S leaps out at me. Maybe a careful experiment would could find a difference.

 

And I've been extremely impressed with my 72 mm Super-Angulon-XL. The coverage is

amazing, and it is plenty sharp. I usually use a center filter, but all lenses of this type

have off-axis illumination falloff.

[pico]

<b>Tony Black</b> <br>

 

<i>is that a new or old lens? where can i find that lens? its quite fast for a lf.</i><p>

Mine are both single-coated pre-*T Zeiss 135mm Planars for 4x5. One came with a Linhof

Super Technika. The other is from a Skunk Works research camera that I salvaged. I was

just plain lucky in both deals.<p>

Yes, the lens is really bright on the ground glass, and sharp corner to corner. However, it

doesn't have a lot of room for movements - just enough for a bit of rise and a few degrees

of rear tilt. The line of coverage has an abrupt cut-off. Somewhere I have an example of

the coverage line. I'll look for it.<p>

(I have never seen the T* version, and I doubt I ever will!)

[gene_e._mccluney]

My question is "why do you need the sharpest lens?". Visual sharpness relates to the

resolving power of the lens, and the reproduction ratio of the print. An 8x10 contact print

of an 8x10 negative can appear "tack" sharp with a very poorly resolving lens, because

there is no enlargement of the negative. A 16x20 print from a 4x5 negative is a very small

enlargement, when compared to a 16x20 print of a 35mm negative. The lens for the

35mm negative would need to be much, much sharper, to give the same "visual"

sharpness in the print. (not considering grain, etc). Ansel Adams prints are "tack" sharp,

aren't they? And this is with 50 to 75 year old lenses that have been "technically"

surpassed for decades.

[tony_black1]

i use mamiya rz 67 and thinking about stepping up to large format, 4x5. and i was wondering if i will be able to see the difference?

 

with my mamiya rz67 i get excellent results but i never blow up a pic to 40"x50". and thats what i am planning to do so, should i try 4x5 or rz67 will be good enough. thats the main question actually. because people say 35mm and mf lenses are sharper then lf lenses. i know there are other facotrs like enlarging the negative so i am trying to figure out the difference.

[michael_briggs2]

" because people say 35mm and mf lenses are sharper then lf lenses." -- depending on the

lenses, this can be true, if only because the typical taking aperture is faster in the smaller

formats, but the difference is smal (e.g., few ten percent)l. On the other hand, the difference

in enlargement factor is larger (e.g., 4x versus 135, 2x for MF) and will dominant. For a

small prints, MF and LF can be very close. For really large prints, LF will be better because of

the smaller enlargement factor.

[sandor_a._feher]

The one you put in front of your camera bory and keep shooting.

[gene_e._mccluney]

A big print from a large format negative will look better for reasons other than using the

sharpest lens possible. The image will look smoother and creamier. This is due to more

film area being used in the original negative.

[AaronFalkenberg]

Not that I want to plaster this all over the forums, but Tony's last comment made it relevant to show. Granted there is improvement with 6x7, but it's still a pretty good comparison.<br><br>

 

Sample: 100% 1.5" crop from a 30x44" wall map.<br><br>

 

6x6: Zeiss Planar 80mm f/11, Imacon 848 6400dpi<br>

4x5: Schneider Symmar-S 210mm f/16, Epson V750 4800dpi

[AaronFalkenberg]

4x5 example.

[tony_black1]

wow! thats a quite a big difference. thanks aaron.

[erol_a.]

That's wild. I regularly print 16x20 from 67 and 4x5, less often 30x40 and up. I've never had that wide a discrepancy between the two.

 

Tony, at 40x50 4x5 will have an advantage, though a good set of printing skills will give you a stunning print from the 67 neg/slide as well. More important than negative size I think is the process of shooting large format - you work differently, even from the RZ, which is as big and heavy as many 4x5 cameras! I'd say though if you're looking for a notably clear jump in quality, you might look into 8x10.