MTF info for Niikkor lenses

[michael_fox]

Can anyone tell me where to get MTF curves and Illumination,

Distortion, Transmittance graphs for Nikkor lenses? I'm particularly

interested in the 300mm f/9 Nikkor M that people on this list seem to

rave about. Other possible interests are 200mm M f/8 and 210mm W

f/5.6 and 450mm f/9.

[richard_ilomaki]

Michael:

 

WHY?

 

Is it not enough that they are good lenses? What will you learn from the MTFs? How will your life change after learning that? My experience with those lenses is that they are sharp and produce excellent results, all without me knowing their MTFs.

 

I think I know what MTF means but I'll bet Weston, Adams et al didn't fuss about MTFs. Adams only official comments were very general and whether he could aford the lenses he used.

 

Cheers from a recovering gearhead.

[ed_candland1]

Geez, maybe the guy's just wondering how the Nikons stack up against the others on the market. It's no crime. ;-)

Here's a page that has some info. As I'm sure you've seen there's not much on Nikon or Fuji for that matter, out there.

 

http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird/nikkor/niklf.html

[ed_candland1]

Oops no MTFs. I was thinking there were....

[richard_boulware]

Holey Smokes: This board should be renamed the 'Technical LF Lens Sharpness and Equipment Board'!

 

Sure, I check out every new lens I purchase. I SHOOT IT...and check the results. If I like it...I BUY IT!

 

A master lens designer once told me to ignore all the technical stuff like modulation transfer function graphs...and just shoot. Great advice that has served me well over my 40 years as a professional. This is kind of getting to be..'I'll show you mine...if you'll show me yours'!

 

I give a hang if the shooter shot through a 'Coke bottle'..as long as it is a good photograph. The idea that a great photograph has to be razor sharp from the end of your nose to infinity...is NONSENSE. Many of the great photographs of the world are exactly the opposite!

 

Anybody on this list ever talk about great photographs..what makes them great, trends, composition, dynamics of visual communication, or anything like that? Just curious!

[michael_fox]

Thanks Ed. Useful info. I can't even find a mention of LF lenses on the nikonusa.com website. I'll try the tech support number on the website tomorrow but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Does anyone know of a number other than the one on the nikonusa.com website to call to get more complete info on LF lenses?

[michael_fox]

Richard I: I appreciate your comment that the 300M is a good choice. That seems to be a common opinion. But, with all due respect, I don't know who you are or what your standards are or what you do with your photos or how large you make them, or how your style is related to what I plan to do. Therefore, I don't know how much weight to give it to give your opinion. That's why I'm looking for objective data.

 

Richard B. While I can guess that the Nikkor is better than a coke bottle, I can not guess if it's better than other choices which may be out there. You wrote a lot but didn't provide any information. BTW, since you mention it, I learned about MTF diagrams from one of Ansel's assistants.

 

To Richard B and Richard I: While I appreciate your points of view, I have neither the time nor inclination to test shoot a bunch of different lenses. In fact, I don't have the camera yet either and won't have it in time to check multiple lenses before I need to leave on a trip.

 

I prefer to find objective criteria, coupled with the subjective comments from people on this forum who have specific experience with the various options and then use both of these types of information to make a responsible selection. I respect that you made your decisions in a different manner. Please respect that others have a different process.

[ed_candland1]

I'm not sure if you'll have much luck with Nikon USA because Nikon doesn't push their LF lenses in the US. As for the rest of the comments. It's very true that all sort of wonderful images have been made with all sorts of lenses, some not sharp at all. If your goal is to make sharp images there's nothing wrong with seeking info. I agree that dialog about photography is infinitely more interesting than gear talk, but on a news groups, short questions on cameras and lens are IMHO easy for people to deal with than long involved discussions on esthetics that are easier to conduct in person.

[tim_atherton2]

> Thanks Ed. Useful info. I can't even find a mention of LF lenses on the

> nikonusa.com website. I'll try the tech support number on the

> website tomorrow

> but I'm not holding my breath.

>

> Does anyone know of a number other than the one on the

> nikonusa.com website to

> call to get more complete info on LF lenses?

>

 

Don't hold your breath - you'll be lucky to find anyone at Nikon USA or Canada who knows anything about their LF lenses. I had a hard enough tiume just trying to get a brochure...

[aaron_van_de_sande]

I have to agree with the other guys.... Here's your poison if you want it..

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[john_cook1]

Everyone is correct in saying that www.nikonusa.com is oriented toward 35mm and hot-damn-whiz-bang digital point-and-shoot for the kiddies.

 

But I have had extremely prompt, courteous, professional replies to my e-mails and telephone conversations. Nikon has sent some very slick, heavy and informative literature by first-class return mail.

 

Our commercial studio has always been equipped with Nikon lenses exclusively, including the darkroom, because they are superior.

[pete_andrews]

The MTF curves issued by lens manufacturers really don't mean much. They're often theoretical design parameters, and not taken from real lens testing at all.<br>Even if makers were to issue MTFs that were taken from real lens measurements, there's no guarantee that any particular sample of lens would have the identical same response.<br>Besides, an MTF doesn't tell you anything about the geometrical distortion, flare resistance or other subtleties that contibute to the overall 'feel' of a lens.<p>It's probably for the above reasons that Nikon doesn't bother to issue MTFs for any of their photographic lenses, not even in their LF lens brochure.

[bob_salomon3]

"Even if makers were to issue MTFs that were taken from real lens

measurements, there's no guarantee that any particular sample of lens would

have the identical same response."

 

ISO 9001. If companies sell to governments, industry, military, etc. the claims

they make must be reproducible by the buyer. The curves an ISO 9001

company publishes are representative of what the lens the buyer purchases

will do. Rodenstock was the first large format lens manufacturer to be

awarded ISO 9001 status.

 

As most do not understand what ISO Certification means I have included a

short clip from the ISO web site.

 

"Both ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 concern the way an organization goes about

its work, and not directly the result of this work. In other words, they both

concern processes, and not products � at least, not directly. Nevertheless, the

way in which the organization manages its processes is obviously going to

affect its final product. In the case of ISO 9000, it is going to affect whether or

not everything has been done to ensure that the product meets the customer's

requirements."

 

The published performance specifications will not guarantee that the lens will

work the way a specific shooter wants. That can only be determined by

actually shooting with a lens prior to purchasing. But it can, and does, help to

show the overall performance level of the lens. Fortunately the poster of the

question lives in California and there are several dealers in both Northern

and Southern CA who rent lenses. Not only do they rent lenses but some may

also rent the TK. And several stock the TK so seeing how the TK works and

lenses perform is not that difficult to do personally.

[ed_candland1]

Richard Boulware,

 

As for this being the 'Technical LF Lens Sharpness and Equipment Board' and no one wanting to talk about 'great photographs..what makes them great, trends, composition, dynamics of visual communication'. I just looked and there's 59 posts on esthetics and 1000 on lens. I guess that says it all.

[richard_ilomaki]

Michael:

 

It matters not a whit who I am or what I have or have nor done?

 

FYI I HAVE several LF cameras and lenses and DO use them for shooting and make 4x5 and 8x10 contacts.

 

I am still puzzled as to why somone would by a lens on specs and not the way it works. It seems to me like deciding on a car from a spec. sheet and not driving it.

 

Cheers

[gary_frost1]

It would be nice to have the kind of detailed specs that Rodenstock

provides on their lenses. (Bob Salomon can send you this)

I doubt you can find this anywhere for the Nikon LF lenses.

...so the next best real-world resolution data that I have found

reliable is: (as Aaron van de Sande already suggested)

 

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[jeffrey_scott]

I'd buy a Ferrari 'Enzo' in a minute just from the specs!

[upscan]

The famous lens designer that poo poohed MTF was a ludite. All manufacturers use MTFs to evaluate and design lenses, including Nikon, who uses it for camera and microscopy lenses. It is in fact a worldwide used method. Nikon has now a website where they do publish MTFs for their 35 mm lenses. The uncertaininty still remains as to whether your copy will be identical to that in the charts since some MTFs are for the design only. I do like to see MTFs where possible before I buy for the same reason that I like to see a size label in underwear before I buy. MTFs do not tell you geometric distortion, etc. which is true, but manufacturers that do include MTF data usually also provide that information. Some manufacturers avoid MTF as they do not like to dry their laundry in public. They let their marketers blow their trumpets instead, a tactic that seems to work on some people, witness one respondent here, it is good, why you want? MTFs give me a generic idea of what I will be working with, afterwards, using the lens will tell me how well the actual unit lived up to expectations. That said, major manufacturers today make excellent products, so it is not from fear of getting bottle bottoms I seek this data. It does help decide, however if you should pump extra money on an 80 SSXL when the data on the SA75 indicates it is about equal. It is no crime to ask manufacturers to describe their products as completely as possible, rather it should be regarded as a consumer's right. Facts are better than marketers BS. NO?

[richard_ilomaki]

Jeffery:

 

Ya,me too, although the specs on an "Enzo" would certainly not be the determing factor-$$$$. I would buy one irrespective of the specs if the determining factor was taken care of.

 

Besides, Nikkor lenses do not attract quite as many Cute Young Things as Ferraris do, so different buying decisions apply. Why do you think I have taken up LF photography? CYTs are no longer a factor in my life.

 

A modification to an old saying is: If you want to be happy for a month, get married, if you want to be happy for a year, take a mistress, but if you want to be happy for life, get an 8x 10 camera and a reasonable good lens and take pictures of flowers and old barns( or grow roses, or repair clocks etc etc).

 

Cheers

[aaron_van_de_sande]

The reason MTF is unimportant is that at f22 all modern lenses will bring in about the same performance. Unless the photographer is doing very specialized work (aerial, short DOF commericial work) other considerations such as price and weight are more likely to come into play. And MTF curves tell us nothing about color correctness or Bokeh, which are as important as sharpness to many as part of their work.

 

--Aaron

[kelly_flanigan1]

at F22 and a 1:10 copy ratio; my 4x5 camera was tested with 3 lenses. The 1946 Kodak Ektar 127mm F4.5 @F22 was sharpest at the center at 80 line pairs/mm; but was very weak at the corners; it is only a 4 element tessar. The Schneider Componon 135mm F5.6 @F22 was very sharp across the entire image; and is my best lens at this copy ratio. The Rodenstock Gerogon 150mm F9 @F22 was just Average across the image; it is designed for a 1:1 to 1:5 copy ratio.

[jonathan brewer]

Julio,......you're complete answer, and many of the points Struan Grey made made things clear for me, not just as to what MTF should do, but understanding what they mean in the whole scheme of things.

 

Everything for me before your explanation was basically a fog, MTF can be misinterpreted, biased in several ways, and misleading. They mean something, they just don't mean everything, and they depend on who's setting them up, and how you consider them.

 

I went back to the lenses you alluded to in you other post and looked at the numbers and instantly saw what you were talking about, thanks, I learned something that I can use and I'll put it in my pocket till I need it.

 

That to some folks, MTF doesn't mean a thing, as to those who want to know, that is it's own reason, nothing else needs to be explained after you say you want to know.

[steve_hamley]

Michael and others,

 

Wow what a thread. I usually don't participate in these, but I actually think both sides are sort of saying the same thing. Michael's problem (I assume) is how to decide what lens to buy (or if), and that decision has to be made by considering data unless we resort to flipping coins or other random mechanisms.

 

The price, weight, image circle are data, and the MTF graphs are data. I don't know any reasonable person who would buy a lens without knowing the price or if it covers the format. Now the real issue is what data is important, and how important are MTFs?

 

If you're backpacking, weight may be more important than MTFs if all the candidates have similar MTFs. If you're bucks down, dollars are relatively more important than MTFs. If other things are not an issue, judging the MTFs may be a valid way to decide which lens to buy, but everyone has to decide what data is important to them.

 

In accident investigation, you gather all the data you can get, and decide the relevance, meaning, and importance later. So I think Michael has a very reasonable request, however, I doubt the Nikkor MTFs will be found. If so, I'd like to see them too just for hoots and giggles - I don't own a LF Nikkor and don't plan on buying one.

 

Thanks!

 

Steve

[michael_fox]

Good summation Steve. I never said MTF was the end-all and be-all. I also asked for Illumination, Distortion and Transmittance data. Other recent posters over the last couple of days have asked about whether center filters are needed, about pin cushion distortion, etc. and this is all covered in the data I asked for. Those that think all lenses work the same at f/22 are just plain wrong as both the objective data and my own subjective experience can demonstrate. Yes, weight, size and cost are other important pieces of the equation - especially weight since my search is for lenses for use in the field. But I have found this info already so didn't need to ask for the forum for pointers to it.

 

So the accumulation of all of these data points is, for me, a good process for narrowing the field to the top two (or so) choices in a given focal length and it saves me a whole bunch of time and expense. Since I'm considering purchases in several focal lengths, it just doesn't make time/financial sense for me to test more than 1 or 2 in a given focal length.

 

As an aside regarding "data", I bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee and ignored the objective Consumer Reports data on the car that said, in a nutshell, that it was a maintenance nightmare. I liked how it looked and drove and my friends who had them were passionately attached to theirs. I've regretted the decision ever since as it spends most of the time in the shop, either for a recall or some other problem. Coming from an engineering background, objective data is an important part of my decision making and any time I've ignored it, I've paid the price.

 

OBJECTIVE data aside, I have found the experience and opinions expressed here (some expressed quite passionately!) to also be invaluable. Experienced photographers are usually passionate about their results but not generally passionate about a piece of equipment unless it's really good. So I consider these opinions to be an important part of the decision. It all goes into the pot to be "shaken, not stirred". Next step - rent a few and make a final decision.

 

I certainly didn't mean to spark such a discussion when I asked what I thought was a simple question. But, I agree with Steve. It's been informative and enlightening.

[aaron_van_de_sande]

<i>Those that think all lenses work the same at f/22 are just plain wrong</i><br><br>

I was referring to sharpness. At f22 most <b>modern</b> lenses have the same amount of sharpness. Unless you are seeking sharpness at wide aperature, mtf numbers probably are unimportant. <br><br>Also, I would never buy a cherokee either. The guy next door to me was actually able to unload his under the 'lemon law'<br>

Aaron