anyone have one of the new super-sharp lenses?

[chris_jordan5]

Hey guys. I've been seeing ads by Schneider about their new line of

super-sharp lenses, made especially for shooting LF film that is to

be drum-scanned. This may have some validity, because I've

discovered that the sharpness limitation in the photographic process

is the sharpness of the lens, not the resolution of the film grain

or the resolution of the scanner. Does anyone have one, or know of

any tests that demonstrate the difference between them and the old

regular lenses?

 

~chris jordan (Seattle)

[guytal]

This sounds strange to me. A drum scanner will easily get to a point where even the finest film grain is visible in the scan. I was under the impression modern lens resolutions are greater than film can capture.<br>

It might be that these new lenses are meant to be used with digital backs, where the sensor area is much smaller than the full 4x5 frame and a high resolution lens will allow it to capture sufficient detail. Just guessing...

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

[chris_jordan5]

Guy, I think you're partially right. Scanners can scan all the way to the film grain and beyond. But what you get when you scan all the way to the film grain is just a fuzzy scan (presuming we're talking about a fine-grained film). As you zoom in on such a scan, the image becomes fuzzy before you reach the film grain. There is never a line that is one film grain wide-- every line, however fine, is made up of many grains, because there is no lens sharp enough to resolve a line that is one film grain wide. Thus, film (and scanners) are not being used to their full resolving capacity because of the limitation of the sharpness of lenses. Theoretically, an ultra-perfectly sharp lens would produce an image on film that you could scan all the way to the film grain, and you could see tiny details made up of individual film grains. But no such lens exists, in fact there's nothing that comes even close (presuming again that we're talking about the finest-grained films). So, I'm intrigued by these new ultra-sharp lenses-- a sharper image on film would translate directly to a print with greater detail.

 

~cj (Seattle)

[wieslaw1]

Chris your problems are not even academic. If I want to see �tiny details made up of individual film grains� I use a microscpoe!

 

If you want to see a line that is �a one grain wide� the line captured on film has to have comparable size. My scanned images are not �fuzzy� when I reach the film grain, and I am not using a drum scanner.

 

If you are interested you may look at this link, and please allow time for loading of 16 sequential images.

http://users.nac.net/wieslaw/zeisstessar/tessar.html

 

 

Yes, there are special lenses for semiconductor processing giving 5000 lines/mm, but it costs a million $ and weights a tonn.

[robert_a._zeichner1]

Could you possibly be referring to the new lenses that are optimized for digital capture?

[robert_a._zeichner1]

http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/digital_photography/ will take you the Schneider page that explains all of the details

[c_p_goerz]

I have a few of those 'new' lenses, they are Goerz Dagors!! ;-)

 

CP Goerz

[dave schlick]

sales hype.. resolution cant be surpassed in the price range they are offering with modern labor and mfg costs. they have some better coatings tho. increases contrast loweres glare etc.. probably some increased resolution, but when you factor in shooter error in focus, lens alignment exposure, etc it really boils down to the individual quality of the settings, trypod sturdyness, wind, etc the same things that plage the little guy and the big guy with all the expensive gismos..its not what you have, its how yo use it ( i think that was said by a woman) good luck dave...

[ole_tjugen]

From what I've heard, the Schneider Digitar lenses are actually slightly LESS sharp than the film equivalents. This is said to reduce some of the digital artifacts like "jaggies" and such. Lenses that are optimized for film are not necessarily optimal for film - and vice versa.

[qdb]

There is a difference, is there not, between contrast and resolution. Didn't Contax and Leica design their early 35mm lenses diferently, one to maximise contrast, and the other resolution?

 

Higher contrast lenses might look subjectively sharper, but in fact resolve less real information. I have no idea if that's at all relevant to the original question, but I guess it does raise the side issue of whether lenses designed for film are best suited to digital capture.

 

Quentin

[michael_chmilar]

Read this Schneider white paper:

 

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/white_papers/optics_for_digital_photography.pdf

 

It explains how a lens can have too much resolution and modulation for a digital sensor. The sensor subsamples the information presented to it by the lens. This results in aliasing.

 

The problem is not as significant with film, since the random grain structure of film trades the aliasing for noise, which is more acceptable.

 

To fix the problem for digital, there are a few solutions:

 

1) Increase the resolution of the sensor.

 

2) Make the sensor's sample points random, rather than a fixed grid.

 

3) Reduce the modulation of the lens at highest frequencies (effectively "dumbing down" the lens to match the sensor).

 

This makes me hesitant to consider using a lens optimized for digital sensors for film work. The design parameters are very different. Digital lens design attacks different problems which are not so important for film. (It also make me question using "film lenses" with a digital sensor.)

 

Film has some wonderful properties: if your lens is better than your film, noise is produced rather than aliasing. While noise is an artifact, it is less obnoxious than aliasing. If your lens is worse than your film, you are merely supersampling it, and no harm is done.

[paul_kent2]

This thread is way off track... perhaps it can be saved. Chris appears to refer to the advert e.g. on p13 of the May/June 2003 issue of View Camera. After a quote from Rich Seiling the marketers write "Even wide open, their advanced aspheric design delivers edge-to-edge sharpness and vibrant colour unmatched by any other large format lens." i.e. you get more and better stuff on your film (hmm). Tech-heads may be interested in testing this.

 

More practically, I would be interested if - say - an 80XL is noticeably better in terms of flare and resolution than an older SchNikoFujiStock 75mm or 90mm at normal shooting apertures of f22-f45.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

The (intro to) the Schneider white paper is a load of rubbish - You do not buy a 5x4, 5x7 10x8 or 6x17 camera and quality lenses to print A4 pictures to be viewed at 250mm!

 

Some subjects you print 4 feet by the width of the wall; and you expect viewers to examine details using their reading glasses, so you print at 360 or 720 ppi.

 

I thought that if anybody still promoted quality in photography, it might have been Schneider.

[michael_briggs2]

It would help if Chris was more specific about the ad that he is refering to. If it is the ad on page 13 of the May/June 2003 View Camera magazine that Paul refers to, that ad is for the Super-Symmar XL 210, 150 and 110 mm lenses. It includes the statement "For images on film that will be digitally scanned and printed, no other lenses in the world can compare." These lenses have been available for a few years and have been discussed MANY times on this forum -- check the archives. They are wide-coverage lenses that use an aspheric surface. Probably the biggest advance over their predecessors (the Super-Angulons) is smaller size and lighter weight. I use a 110 mm Super-Symmar XL; before that I used a 120 mm Nikkor-SW. Both give superb quality images, but the 110 mm SSXL is smaller and lighter. I don't see that film will be scanned (versus enlarged) as a reason to use a Super-Symmar XL -- both people scanning and people enlarging want the best image on their film. Plus I haven't noticed a improvement in image quality compared to the lens I was using. It is a sensible marketing approach by Schneider to stay relevant to people converting film in digital forms.

 

Most people who have answered have been refering to Schneider's Digitar series of lenses. Schneider has designed these lenses for use with CCDs -- direct digital capture. Schneider has some explanations of how they have tuned the MTF curves differently for a lens designed for a CCD, compared to a lens designed for film. But the main reason that these lenses aren't suitable for LF film (at least according to Schneider's specs) is that their coverage is too small -- today's CCDs are a lot smaller than 4x5 film.

 

I am doubtful about the statement "the sharpness limitation in the photographic process is the sharpness of the lens, not the resolution of the film grain or the resolution of the scanner." In most cases grain becomes prominent before the ability of the lens to delivery information has been passed.