Most clinically sharp 4x5 lenses?

[jamie drouin]

Curious if there is a consensus for the most clinically sharp 4x5 lenses in the 90mm,

135mm, and 150mm range? I'm talking about the type of lens that renders objects so

sharp they almost cut your eyeballs, with less interest in ones which create a sense of

'presence' or delicate color rendition. Huge coverage is not high on the list, but wider

apertures would be helpful for focusing.

 

I'm looking at a project that will involve rather large color prints (40x60") and am

getting lost trying to gather info on lenses that fit my bill.

 

Thank you very much in advance,

Jamie.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Rodenstock, Nikon & Schneider all make lenses that fit your needs. A bigger question

mark is the method for going from transparency or negative to print.

[Troll]

Schneider Xenotar and Zeiss Planar in 135mm or 150mm versions, but 40x60 isn't that big a deal from 4x5 (just over 10X enlargements). Since you obviously don't already have them, why not shoot 8x10 where any good lens made in the last 50 years will do just fine. Kodak Commercial and Wide-Field Ektars come to mind.

[john_kasaian1]

Jamie,

If you can live with a barrel lens, try a Konica Hexanon---Ouch!!

[kelly_flanigan1]

The ancient WW2 Kodak Ektar 127mm F4.7 is clinically sharp in the central zone; say a 6x6 cm area. I have three of them; and have measured them at 80 line pairs/mm; in the very center. BUT these are 4 element tessar type designs; tack sharp in the center; with only moderate coverage. Mine are only a horrible 15 line pairs/mm; at the edges of a 4x5 frame! They were really made for 3x4 cameras; but were "pressed" into the cool job of a 4x5 press camera.<BR><BR>A Xenotar 135m F2.8 is a nice fast glass; with great edge sharpness. <BR><BR>The 178mm Kodak Aero Ektar F2.5 is sharp over an entire 4x5 frame; at infinity; and with infrared!<BR><BR>With some shots at a 1:10 ratio; ie a 35x45" subject; 3.5x4.5" image; Here my best lens is a Schneider Componon enlarging lens; which we use to shoot maps with. <BR><BR>

[tor_kviljo1]

Answer is relatively simple: You need the lenses where resolution is THE major asset. Thus, You are really looking for rather (no pre-war stuff....) modern lenses for aerial photography. These lenses - designed for high-resolution on thin base (only place where LF thin-base film is used) film in vacuum-flattened magazines gives tremendous resolution. I have seen the MTF figures for the "normal lens" for the Leitz 9 1/2" camera used on FOTONOR (Norwegian aerial survey company) airplanes - they were absultely stunning. But then the lens were wery heavy, nearly no back focus, & well above the $$ 20.000,- mark... However, the lens is able to give tremendous resolution (it's used wide open) and readability of ground on pictures photographed in scale 1:10000 or 1:20000 (ttyical scales for mapping photos). Surplus aerial lenses can be found, og the smaller ones readily mounted in front of a Copal-Sinar shutter for LF use. Zeiss (Topogon - the Biogon is a simplified copy of that one), Leitz & Kern (Swiss) is master brands of aerial photography. Linhof made 4"x5" & 70mm cameras for aerial photography, and used Zeiss lenses for those as long as Zeiss did supply LF lenses. When Zeiss left the ordinary LF market, Schneider lenses (Rodagons) were used instead, but the Zeiss sets fits much higher prices used, and are considered superior. Schneider never made any aerial optics as I know about. Aerial lenses is found on e bay frequently & in government-surplus warehouses (http://www.surplusshed.com/ ). Among others, the gigantic 90mm version (4"x5" coverage - but over two kilos...) of the Zeiss Biogon have sometimes floated out from these places for a few hundred $$.... Good luck!

[tim_curry]

As already stated, most modern lenses are capable of doing what you need. One brand I favor, which has not been mentioned, is the Fujinon series of new lenses.

 

Also as already stated, your choice of film may have more to do with a quality image than the lens itself. I would think you will be using one of the finer transparency films available and a good lab to do the work.

[jason_greenberg_motamedi]

The reason that there is no consensus here is that there is no answer. Most lenses are

designed with a particular purpose, and consequently perform best when used to that

goal. So, the question is, what are you photographing? Is it at 1:1 or 1:15? Flat or round?

 

Another issue is diffraction, at f/32 most lenses will perform about the same. At

f/

11 however the difference may be large. I have a Fujinon-A which is very sharp at f/22,

but leaves quite a bit to be desired at f/11. At the same time, I have a 11" Petzval Portrait

lens from the 1870s which on 4x5 film at f/3.6 is MUCH sharper than my much-touted f/

3.5 Xenotar. By f/5.6 however the Xenotar is much nicer.

 

So what is my point? Lenses are designed to do specific things. A general purpose lens will

be a compromise. ALL of the modern plasmats (Sironar, Symmar, W, etc) will perform

about the same. If you are REALLY concerned you need to buy a number of lenses and test

each one individually.

 

Of course, as mentioned above, the better answer is to use an 8x10 with a modern

plasmat lens.

[jim_galli4]

I was in Bishop California about 3 weeks ago when the Galen Rowell gallery was having a reception. There are many 40X60 inch prints in there that began life as 35mm film in a Nikon. The fact is that with a print that huge with exaggerated Velvia colors the contrast from the bright colors and the normal viewing distance kick in to fool the eye. What WAS nice was that Vern Clevinger (local eastern California artist) had some of his prints made with his 4X5 there also. While not as purely audacious (by purpose) as Rowell's it was fun to be able to show the people I was with that there is indeed a difference between a print made from an excellent 4X5 chrome, and the smaller chromes. Vern uses a perfectly ordinary Schneider 150mm APO lens and you can get your eyeball 8 inches away from one of his huge prints and admire the full detail. 8 inches away from Rowell's = mush. <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/">Kerry Thalmann's</a> large format page and excellent discussions about lenses are a valuable use of your time. I'll surmise that he would choose a 135mm Rodenstock Sironar S to fill the demand. Maybe he'll comment.

[dave schlick]

actual resolution tests can be viewd on this photography site.. go to large format lens tests.. they are individual lens tests and do not show a group from each of lense type .. http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/ .it should sort out the real sharpness of most popular lenses.......you will see that resolution is manufactured into the lenses and as new lenses and more modern mfg processes have come about quality lenses have become more financially available.. be sure to look at the hassalblad ziess lenses in medium format for comparison.. for what youve asked i would point to the nikon as shown a very fine lens on this web site... but like a rifle if you own the most accurate rifle in the world but cant shoot it strait, its still inaccurate.. the tripod with solid camera is very important here, getting the focus/apeture/ correct, a perpendicular(square) lens board to keep edges sharp ,picking low haz/polution days,, etc etc. we went to yellowstone last year and there were alot of forest fires.. im still not sure if i did a lousey job or got bit by the smoke on some of the shots.. .. good luck dave..

[dan_fromm2]

Jamie, you can't accomplish what you want with 4x5, even less with 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. First think about what's possible in the best of situations, then, perhaps, think about which lens to use.

 

You say you'll shoot 4x5 color, enlarge to 40" x 60", and want the prints to stand close scrutiny. Ok. You'll enlarge by at least 12x. The received minimum is that the print must have a resolution of 8 line pairs per millimeter to stand close scrutiny. So you'll need roughly 100 lp/mm in your negative or transparency.

 

You've been directed to Chris Perez' site. Nice site, bad news for you since none of the lenses he tested cut 100 lp/mm with a high contrast target. Worse news for you, since your subject is likely not to be as high contrast as the USAF 1951 test chart Chris used. Worst possible news for you, since the b/w film Chris used is sharper than any color film.

 

You reach your goal as stated with the gear you intend to use. And it gets worse. If your subject has much depth, you're in still more trouble. At f/16, the best you can get is, in principle, around 100 lp/mm. If you stop down further to get more depth of field you'll not be able to get the resolution you need in the plane of best focus. Resolution will be worse away from it.

 

All this supposes that your technique will be meticulous. Perfect control of motion, both camera and, if needed, subject. Perfect focusing. Optimal exposure. Movements, if used, exactly right. Practically speaking, your aspirations are toast.

 

If, though, you accept J. S. Greenberg's suggestion and go up in format, you might be able to accomplish what you want. If you go to 8x10 and have to enlarge only 6x, you'll need 48 lp/mm on the negative. Not as easy as you'd like, but possible. 16x20 might be a better bet.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[Troll]

Dan, I don't know what's wrong with your arithmetic, but your conclusion is wrong. It is possible to get critically sharp 40x60 prints from 4x5. Just read the post right above yours for one sample. Incidentally, I wonder if this whole thread is response to a troll?

[lloyd_lim]

Bill,

 

Dan's calculations are correct...if you want a 12x enlargement and you want it to be critically sharp at 6-8 lp/mm then it stands to reason that you must start with at least 72-96 lp/mm (ignoring lossess from enlargement etc). That is mathematics. There are no 4x5 lenses that can reach 96 lp/mm from center to corner in real life, given that we usually shoot at f22 or so..

unless the photographer is always shooting at f11 and below, and still getting the depth of field needed for the shot. How realistic is this scenario then, in real life shooting?

 

having said that, it is possible to get sharp prints at 40x60", but this means that it would not be at the 6-8 lp/mm resolution asked for. How much resolution is perceived depends on the image, but it will never be at 6-8 lp/mm, hence, never at the level of "critically sharp" that is asked for.

 

The question is : what resolution and photography process will meet the needs of the original poster, given the limitations of current technology?

 

(and yes, it sure smells like a troll :)

[dan_fromm2]

Bill, Lloyd, I take your point about the possibility of a troll. Questions about how to do the impossible always raise the evil thought.

 

On the one hand, the candidate troll hasn't had the courtesy to reply to the many thoughtful responses his/her/its question received.

 

On the other, many real people post questions here that are at best ill-considered and not all of them acknowledge responses.

 

Jamie, where do you live and what do you eat? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[kelly_flanigan1]

A LONG focal length lens on a 4x5" camera can produce a "clinically sharp" image; over the entire frame. My 300mm F4.5 Xenar; when used on a 4x5 camera; uses only its central region; where it is very sharp across the entire frame.

[Troll]

LOL! Two points to DAN for that heading!

[davidv1]

You guys should check out www.JamieDrouin.com before asking if he's a troll. I'd say he's got a handle on what he's doing.

[jamie drouin]

Hello everyone,

 

First, sorry for not jumping back in sooner. I don't spend a lot of time back-n-forth

on this site, and typically find it interesting to see where a thread goes after a few

days of hearing from several photographers.

 

Second, thank you very much for everyone's input. Yes, it was a somewhat evil

question to first ask, but I am far more familiar with Leica and Hasselblad lenses than

the wide open world of large format choices. After weeks of looking at several sites,

posts and stores I was no further ahead in my quest to find out if there were definite

'gold standard' choices in 4x5 lenses. I really did not want to go down the road of

testing lenses myself: it's far too costly and I find 'testing' an absolutely boring

experience (no offence to those who find it an invaluable experience...people like

myself rely on your research!).

 

As for being a troll, I suppose being relatively new to this forum and not being

terribly talkative then I could be easily mistaken for one. Sorry if my intentions were

not clear.

 

Best regards,

Jamie.

[jamie drouin]

Oh yes, and to answer Dan's questions: downtown & vegetarian, with a particular

fancy for thai cuisine.

 

With regards to stepping up to 8x10" it comes down to weight and bulk. I am very

aware of how much I can lug around before it starts becoming counterproductive

(creatively speaking) and 4x5 is definitely the max. Given unlimited wealth and a

healthier lower back it wouldn't even be open for debate: I'd use 8x10.

 

Best, Jamie.

[lloyd_lim]

Going by Christopher Perez's site, the sharpest in the 150mm range would be the Sironar-S.

 

For 110mm, the suggestion would be 110mm Super Symmar XL.

 

If you look at Kerry Thalmanns "List of future classic", the 90mm/8 Nikkor would be the one for 90mm.

 

Other respondents have specified that the 150mm and 120mm Digitar are the sharpest around, but they do have a small image circle.

[michael_briggs2]

<p><i>Curious if there is a consensus for the most clinically sharp 4x5 lenses in the 90mm, 135mm, and 150mm range? </i></p>

 

<p>Jamie, by now you have probably figured that there is no consensus about which LF lenses are the sharpest. (I'm excluding optics that only a government could afford.) That's probably because the differences in resolution between modern LF lenses used at typical taking apertures (e.g., f16 to f32) is very small, so there is no clear leader based on resolution. My advice is to buy a current lens and not to worry about sharpness. You own technique will be more important than differences between manufacturers.</p>

 

<p>I suggest a modern optic because there have been improvements and you seem to want the best. For medium and long focal lengths, resolution is an area where the improvements are probably quite small. Probably the biggest improvement in recent decades is multicoating, which will increase contrast, which will increase the perception of sharpness. The design of wide-coverage lenses has improved the most over decades.</p>

 

<p>Since you are so concerned about sharpness, I suggest the minimal testing of taking several photos of the same subject at various apertures and just looking at prints or the films with a loupe. A good subject is a brick wall. This will show you which apertures give results that are acceptable to you. Getting the desired depth-of-field is more important than using the optimum aperture, but a few test photos will give you knowledge to make choices when you are making actual photos.</p>

 

<p>One way to get an approximation of the resolution that you can expect from 40x60 inch prints from 4x5 is to use one of your smaller format cameras and make a film with an excellent lens used at f16, then to make a X10 to X12 enlargement. This print won't have the same visual impact as a 40x60 print, but it will give you an approximation of the detail that you could expect.</p>

[jamie drouin]

<i>One way to get an approximation of the resolution that you can expect from

40x60

inch prints from 4x5 is to use one of your smaller format cameras and make a film

with an excellent lens used at f16, then to make a X10 to X12 enlargement. This

print won't have the same visual impact as a 40x60 print, but it will give you an

approximation of the detail that you could expect.</i><br>

<br>

Excellent suggestion...thank you!

[van_camper]

------------------------

One way to get an approximation of the resolution that you can expect from 40x60 inch prints from 4x5 is to use one of your smaller format cameras and make a film with an excellent lens used at f16, then to make a X10 to X12 enlargement. This print won't have the same visual impact as a 40x60 print, but it will give you an approximation of the detail that you could expect.

---------------------------

 

I't might give get you in the ballpark, but that's all. Enlarging and what is recorded on film are 2 different things, and lines/mm for optics doesn't explain the whole story. On 35mm, an important shadow area may be recorded within maybe 1 sq/mm. That SAME shadow area on 4x5 film will record over a 20x greater surface area (that means more information in the shadows). In other words it's easier to lay down more detail over a larger area then you can over a very small area, and it won't strain the limits of the film either in terms of lines/mm. This is why a 4x5 lens does not need the same lines/mm to achieve the same results in smaller formats. I remember reading where a large format lens because of the above principle only needs (from what I remember) about 6-8 Lines/mm to achieve the same results as a 35mm format lens. Well, since 4x5 is about 20x bigger then 35mm, the 35mm would have to perform at a level of about 120-160 L/mm (6x20=120), which is out of range for film.

 

A better way of looking at it is to compare some of your sharpest images taken with a good lens. If you are happy with one of your 20x24 prints for sharpness (using a 645 format equals 3.94 sq/in), then a 40x60 PRINT compared to a 20x24 print has only 5x greater surface area, yet the 4x5 negative has 20sq/in instead of 3.94 sq/in...so your FILM has 5x more surface area also. Although med format lenses are a bit sharper, remember there will be less information(and magnification). This is why snow crystals in a landscape in flatlight are impossible to record in 35mm, hard in 645, and easy in 4x5. You could enlarge both formats 10x, and in one you'll see the detail and in the other you won't.

 

40x60 print= 2400 sq/in

20x24 print= 480 sq/in (5x difference)

 

 

645 neg = 3.94 sq/in

4x5 neg = 20 sq/in (5x difference)

 

I really DO NOT see what the big deal is about printing 40x60" with 4x5. Were splitting hairs. I've seen many prints at that size, they all look great! Also images on 8x10 film looked great in the old days, but with new improved films of today, the 4x5 is more then enough to do the equivalent job. I sense more worry, just do it! You will be happy. If anything, the negative and lenses are not the issue regarding sharpness! Under an enlarger you will lose sharpness from vibration at this magnification (you need it to be sturdy). If scanning, the quality of the scanner, and the size of the file will be the determining variable. Add sharpening these days, and the prints can be better then ever.

 

As for sharpness tests, I once did 30x40 equivalent enlargements (not digital) from b/w on sheets of 8x10 paper (section of a map) for the lenses I own (Nikkor 90,Schneider 150 and 300, and Nikkor 360). I could not see a difference at all, all tack sharp, and from different mfrs.Also the lines on the map were very sharp(no blurring of edges). It's been a long time, I think the tests were at f/16.

[michael_briggs2]

There are effects in scaling between film formats that go linearly, and effects that go with area, but for the original question of sharpness I think linear scaling will be closer to reality than by area.

 

4x5 film is smaller than its nominal size, and filmholders waste some of the film, giving a useable region of at most 95 x 120 mm -- dividing by the useable area of 35 mm (24 x 36 mm) gives an area ratio of 13, rather different from 20.

[van_camper]

----------

"There are effects in scaling between film formats that go linearly, and effects that go with area, but for the original question of sharpness I think linear scaling will be closer to reality than by area." ---------------

 

A difference? How? Please explain! All your doing is using a different way of applying ratio analysis (by area or linear...still were talking about ratios ). End result=Same!