My 35mm lens is sharper than my Rollei; and a question

[asimrazakhan]

<p>... per square centimeter the 35mm image is sharper.</p>

<p>I am not picking any fights here. I just want to share my findings with you. And I love medium format.</p>

<p>Both cameras had Provia 100F slide film.</p>

<p>I took some sunny desert photos with a 1969 Rolleicord that i think has a 3.5 lens (i don't have the camera with my right now so I can't give any more specs). I was shooting at f/11 with a fast shutter speed.</p>

<p>I took the same/similar photos with my Pentax LX using their top of the line 31mm f/1.8 Limited and 77mm f/1.8 Limited.</p>

<p>I cut the Rollei 6x6 slide down to 40x40 and mounted it onto a Superslide. So I was using the sweet spot of the lens... the center. But yes, I know I am losing the MF advantage by doing this.</p>

<p>When projected, all the pentax images blew away the Rolleicord. The colors are much richer and they are sharp from edge to edge. The Rollei was a bit dull and not sharp... especially the edges (even considering I cut off about 1.5 cm off the height and length). For example, in the pentax photos I could count the eyelashes on the camel. In the Rollei photos it was a bit blurred.</p>

<p>Now I understand that I'm not printing these photos and instead I'm projecting to approximately the same size. Also, by cutting the 6x6 image, I'm losing the medium format advantage. </p>

<p>But I wonder, if we are talking per square centimeter of film area, are there any MF lenses that are as sharp as 35mm lenses even if the MF image were cropped down to 24x36mm? I'm guessing a Mamiya 7 lens, a Hasselblad 100mm lens, and even the Rolleiflex 2.8 would be as good as a 35mm lens.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Possibly not - after all, they don't have to be. The much larger negative or sensor means that the medium format image doesn't have to be enlarged anywhere near as much as does the small-format image, and so the need for fine resolution for a medium-format lens is far lower.

 

A more realistic comparison would be to use each lens to capture a full-sized negative and then compare final images of the same size.

[bueh]

<p>This is not news. 35mm lenses have a lot more resolution -- as Jean-Yves said, because they have to. And the Rolleicord sports a venerable Tessar-type lens, which is no match for modern bleeding edge optics like the Limited series from Pentax. And maybe, just maybe, your fifty-year old Rolleicord lens is not properly aligned anymore and needs a CLA after all these decades...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

[Duplicate removed]

[q.g._de_bakker]

[Duplicate removed]

[q.g._de_bakker]

Oh darn... That old thing yet again...<br><br>No Bueh, what you are saying is not true. It would be news if it were.<br>It's true that they have to, but by no means that they are.<br><br>In real life (as opposed to internet mythology), there are many 35 mm format lenses that are sharper than many MF lenses, and many MF lenses that are sharper than many 35 mm lenses. There is no general rule, based on things like "have to", or "don't need to".<br><br>On the whole, because there are so many 35 mm format lenses, compared to MF lenses (and i mean more designs, more 'types'. Not numbers of individual lenses produced), the balance is in favour of MF lenses.<br>This is helped a lot by the fact that many 35 mm lenses are cheap affairs meant to be sold for little money to people not willing/able to spend much, while MF lenses - on the whole - are aimed at the photograper with a bit more spending money. So they could spend the extra effort to make them great that they could not (because too expensive) for many 35 mm format lenses.<br><br>But again: there is no general rule.

[bueh]

<p>Sure about that, Q.C.? Except for very outstanding lenses (i.e., like Mamiya 7 gear) medium format gear is considered inferior MTF-wise to good 35mm primes -- at least that was the status quo when I was studying resolution charts and the like. Then again, it's been a while and consensus may have changed. Personally, I couldn't care less how many lpmms a lens has as long as I like the picture results.</p>

<p>And I guess we can all agree that a 100-year old Tessar-design on a fifty-year old camera is likely to produce less resolution than Pentax' latest computer-aided design primes with 21st century multi-coatings...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes. Sure about that.<br>MF lenses are only considered inferior by those who bought (and still buy) the myth you have mentioned. Not by people who know both 35 mm format and MF lenses.<br>It all grew out of that "they have to be better to equal (!) the results you get with larger formats". People mistook (and still mistake - you for one are an example) that for "they are".<br>It has never been "consensus", except in as far as that many people wrongly believed that, i.e. consensus in holding a false belief. Not one that was founded in, or descriptive of fact.<br><br>The Tessar design never was particularly 'great'. Simple. And fast. And cheap.<br>But even so: that does not automatically mean that a modern lens, designed with lots of computer aid, is better. It all depends on what the lens maker wanted to produce. So even that lens you mention could be less good than an age old Tessar.<br><br>Coatings - multi or single - don't make a lens better in a way that a coated lens could resolve more detail than an uncoated sample of the same lens. Another myth, that whole malarky about coatings. ;-)

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I am with Q.G. here -- there is a lot of variation in both 35mm and medium format. I have used my Hasselblad lenses on my Nikon, and they often perform better than the Nikon lenses (for example, the 110/2 Planar is sharper than my 135/2 DC). I think it is fair to say that all else being equal, it is harder to design a superior medium format lens, but as QG noted, it is also a more demanding customer base than 35mm, so there are fewer poor lenses (at least in the modern MF cameras). <br>

But I would also say that in general, this does not matter so much. The very best 35mm lenses will give you a sharp image down to the grain of the finest grained films, but so will the very best medium format lenses. Since medium format has so much more film area, if your concern is overall image quality, then medium format with good lenses will beat 35mm with great lenses. If you are shooting with an old folder with a misaligned triplet lens, sure, a Leica will give you a much sharper image, but it will be grainier! <br>

If you are just interested in what the very best non-scientific or military photographic lenses are period, that is a different question. Are the Zeiss Superachromats sharper than the Leica 180mm APO Elmarit-R and 280mm APO-Telyt-R? Are the 38mm Biogon and 43mm Mamiya sharper than the 25mm Biogon ZM or Leica 24mm f/3.8 Elmar? Interesting questions perhaps, but ultimately format size trumps lens quality when it comes to sheer resolution. Distortion, contrast, vignetting, out of focus look -- all those are a different story. </p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>I've heard this comment made a lot, and it makes logic sense.<br>

<br />But...if it were true, wouldn't MF digital have died entirely in the last few years? The sensors are barely even full frame (not even close in most cases), absurdly expensive, and poor at higher ISO's. The lenses are slow, the systems heavy and unwieldy. By all statistics, a 35mm-based system should be able to trounce with its faster glass, lighter weight, and higher sensitivity sensors.</p>

<p>And yet, MFDB's still hold their ground based on ultimate performance. If the lenses weren't up to snuff, I doubt this would be the case.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The smaller the image circle, the easier it is to make the lens - that's why you can get such a good small-sensor DSLR lens so cheaply and Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad are so expensive. Pentax Limited lenses are some of the best for 35mm, so it's not surprising you can get better per-area resolution with one than with a TLR lens. But looking at the whole image from a Rollei you can get fantastic results.</p>

<p>Are the Rollei images extra-bad, like there's something wrong with the camera?</p>

[jtk]

<p>It's generally recognized (urban legend and various reporst fwiw) that Pentax Limiteds, particularly the 77, are among the sharpest available lenses, same league as current Leica (which means well beyond Canon and Nikon primes). It's not surprising that it'd be twice as sharp (literally) as a 1969 Xenar or Xenotar (that Rolleicord), or any Planar (Rollei or Hasselblad 2.8). </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I think that while the best 35mm lenses are probably slightly sharper there is really not a lot in it. Your TLR lens is quite and old optical formula. I find my Fuji GX680 lenses - especially the 180 f3.2 are as sharp as almost any 35mm lenses I own - perhaps the 90mm F2.8 Contax G series lens is sharper but this is an exceptionally sharp lens. Here are some crops taken from my 5DII - one using the Canon 85 F1.8 at F5.6 - this is the sharpest Canon lens DXO Mark has tested. the other is using an Mamiya 55m F2.8 lens on a TS adaptor - also on the 5DII. Both crops are about the same size and have been compressed at 50% so they will display on screen.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Now the Mamiya</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>On the web posts I just made the Canon lens appears to be slightly sharper but full screen in Adobe PS 5 (this is on a 27 inch Mac display) myself and three other people cannot decide which one is sharper. I suspect that if we tested them we would find the Canon slightly sharper but they are very close. Since the Mamiya 55mm F2.8N lens is pretty cheap I suspect that a good quality Hassleblad or Contax MF lens will be very close to the best 35mm lenses.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>It should be said that the Canon lens does produce more contrast which makes it look sharper in the web crops.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>A high quailty 35mm lens will resolve more lines per milimeter than a high quailty Medium format lens. Further a high quility medium format lens wll resolve more lines per milimeter than a high quality large format lens. Take the same picture with the 35mm lens, the medium format lens and the large format lens, enlarge the whole negative for each format uncropped and the print quality will be best for large format, 2nd for medium format , and worst for 35mm. Further if you cut the large format negative and medium format negative down to the size of a full frame 35mm film negative, the 35mm negative will have greater resolution, and if the 2 cut down negatives are enlarged they will not be as good as the full frame 35mm negative. The point however is that do to the larger negatives for medium format and large format, when you enlarge the negs to the same size print(say 16x20) all 3 formats full frame(no cropping) the print with the least magnification, the large format neg, produces the highest resolution print. Likewise the print from the medium format neg when enlarged full frame will have higher resolution than the 35mm negative. Thats why quailty of prints the same size are best from large format negs, 2nd best for mediun format, and worst for 35mm negs.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>I've been using my mamiya lenses on my Nikon D700 with excellent results. The sharpest photos I have ever taken were with my 150mm 2.8 mamiya lens. I believe the mamiya lenses are cheaper because they are simpler in design, but the glass is comperable in quality to zeiss or any other top quality lens.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

[<i>"A high quailty 35mm lens will resolve more lines per milimeter than a high quailty Medium format lens."</i><br><br><b>Only</b> high quality 35 mm format lenses that outresolve high quality medium format lenses that do not resolve as many lp/mm as those high quality 35 mm format lenses do resolve more lp/mm than those high quality medium format lenses that do not resolve as many lp/mm as those high quality 35 mm format lenses.<br>While conversely, <b>only</b> high quality medium format lenses that outresolve high quality 35 mm format lenses that do not resolve as many lp/mm as those high quality medium format lenses do resolve more lp/mm than those high quality 35 mm format lenses that do not resolve as many lp/mm as those high quality medium format lenses.<br><br>See how simple 'real life' is?<br>;-)<br>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>This is getting silly! (voice off: What d'you mean "getting"????)</p>

<p>You have to compare like with like. So a good place to start would be with the well-established 6 element double-gauss design that's used for "standard" lenses in both the 135 and Rollfilm formats. This is a design that's reached maturity and doesn't vary too much in performance between formats or even between manufacturers.</p>

<p>My own tests on such lenses, using fine-grain B&W film, show that medium format is clearly able to reveal more detail in the same subject, shot at the same distance, using lenses of similar quality and giving a similar angle of view. Using a 5"x4" large format camera reveals more detail still. But what we're really testing here is obviously the capability of the film/lens combination and not the lens alone. As an aside digital sensor technology seems to reveal much more about lens quality than film ever did.</p>

<p>None of the above should come as any surprise, since it's well known that final image resolution is governed by the characteristics of both the film (or sensor) and the lens. So if we take the film out of the equation, what we're actually doing is proving the simple optical theory that lens aberrations scale with the focal length of the lens, and its performance scales inversely.</p>

<p>In other words; if a particular lens design could deliver a theoretical 200 line pairs per millimetre in a 50mm focal length, then scaling the exact same design up to a focal length of 75mm will give you a maximum theoretical resolution of 133 lppmm (= 200 * 50/75). Therefore comparing the resolution <em>per unit area</em> is completely pointless - otherwise why bother using a larger format at all?</p>

<p>In addition, perceived image quality is not all about resolution. The overall "cleanliness" and smoothness of tone that a larger format gives contributes greatly to the impression of quality. There are other considerations such as depth-of-field and diffraction effects that alter with format size, but perhaps we'd better leave those for another thread.</p>

[rashed_s]

<p>I could not find my Contax 28MM lens from Ziss any better or sharper than my 50MM from Hasselblad used on my hassleblad 503CW or even used with the 500 C/M, the same thing apply to the Hasselblad pan 45MM lens which I used a lot last Nov. for landscape in Sri Lanka. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"I could not find my Contax 28MM lens from Ziss any better......."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which proves what? That film is the limiting factor to resolution? Tell us something we didn't already know.</p>

[peter_e]

<p>The OP question was NOT about the combined effects of lens and film size, but the effect of using MF lenses alone. This is relevant to those of us who use MF lenses on 35 mm DSLR's. Lenses are designed for a specific film/sensor size or image circle, striking a compromise between quality near the center and the periphery. Based on this asumption, given everything else being equal (type of lens, glass used etc) the dedicated 35 mm lens should give better results on a 35 mm camera. It was said above that larger lenses are more difficult to make. This should translate into cost only, not final result (the laws of optics don't change with the size of the format).</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Indeed.<br>MF lenses are <i>not</i> more difficult to make. They are more expensive.

[waldo_lee]

<p>From your description of the testing situation, it seems a bit casual: "I took some sunny desert photos with a 1969 Rolleicord that i think has a 3.5 lens (i don't have the camera with my right now so I can't give any more specs)..." If you want to do valid tests, you cannot be casual. Cameras need to be on tripods. You should use cable releases, etc. You must really think through what apertures are comparable--for your purposes--between 35mm and 6x6 formats. Little things like making sure that film tension across the pressure plate is optimum really matter. Assuming that the cameras' focus systems are in good alignment, you must make a number of identical exposures, each time re-focusing, and then select the best examples of what you're likely to achieve when following good practise.<br>

I'm not going to get into all the arguments about why one camera or lens is reputed to be better than another, but I will say that real-world tests are harder than most people think. It's not wise to just assume that camera focus systems are properly set up. It can be quite a revelation to get a camera back from a quality repairman and have it finally perform the way it ought to. If I had a penny for every time someone made the wrong conclusion about which lens or camera performs best due to invalid testing, I'd be wealthy.</p>