meandihagee
Well-known
i want to print as big as i can (with 35mm) but i'm thinking i should consider more expensive lenses such as the zm 21 for better detail...
any recommendations?
any recommendations?
thegman
Veteran
I generally think the difference in resolution between CV, Leica, and Zeiss lenses is extremely minimal. I can't speak for your lenses, but I don't notice any real difference between most of my lenses, be they CV, Fuji, Leica, or Zeiss.
jerry-harwood
Newbie
Hi, Try if you can get one; Contax G2 + 21F2.8 Biogon- a superb lens, in my view better than the Leica 21. I have the Zeiss, but sold the leica after comparison shots.
I have seen this lens blow up to 5ft by 3ft ! Awesome !
I have seen this lens blow up to 5ft by 3ft ! Awesome !
sper
Well-known
If you're going for resolution as an absolute well then shooting at f8/11 should solve all your problems. In B&W some Pan F is as sharp as the devil himself, and of course in color we have good old(new) Ektar 100 or Velvia 50. Getting the right combination of emulsion and lens is important, as well as your enlarger lens.
Of course a Zeiss 21 may be sharper, but probably not stopped down. I've made 11x14s with the Skopar and I don't want for any further detail than Tri-X can resolve, but that's a modest print size and a chunky grain size.
Obviously the other answer is a Fuji 645 wide, or a Mamiya 7 with the 43mm lens.
Of course a Zeiss 21 may be sharper, but probably not stopped down. I've made 11x14s with the Skopar and I don't want for any further detail than Tri-X can resolve, but that's a modest print size and a chunky grain size.
Obviously the other answer is a Fuji 645 wide, or a Mamiya 7 with the 43mm lens.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
How big is "as big as I can"? I printed this at about 16 x 24:
Faar! by rbiemer, on Flickr
And it looks great to me.
Shot using a CV 21 and Bessa R.
And, once you print it how close are you going to be to the print?
If you're printing digitally, I think your file prep will be more critical than which lens you used to shoot it with.
Rob
Faar! by rbiemer, on Flickr
And it looks great to me.
Shot using a CV 21 and Bessa R.
And, once you print it how close are you going to be to the print?
If you're printing digitally, I think your file prep will be more critical than which lens you used to shoot it with.
Rob
ampguy
Veteran
largest print I have hanging from the CV 21/4 is 11x14, but sharp to the edges, and from the M8. I think f4 or 5.6 was used, along with a fast shutter speed hand held (landscape photo).
skibeerr
Well-known
I have a 60x40 c print taken from a tripod with the CV but that's the limit I think.
Keep in mind that we tend to be more critical about technical quality than the average viewer.
Keep in mind that we tend to be more critical about technical quality than the average viewer.
Mpmckenzie
Member
here's my 2 cents a lot of people on these forums waffle on about leica lens and image quality (they are great but the gap has closed i.e zeiss,cv.) but in the real world off working for a living and having limited funds ,buy what you can afford now and upgrade later, images taken with a cheaper non leica lens are worth more than a leica wish list, look at images of the greats, they are not all technical marvels old lens old cameras old film,also when you view a large print there is a viewing distance to consider ,you can't see all the flaws from a far
THE IMAGE CONTENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IF A LEICA LENS IS USED.
i had a chance to attend an ADAMS exhibit fantastic, did people run up to the prints and critique the images because they had a flaw from not using leica glass (adams used large and medium format) a good photographer can still take a great image with a cheaper lens,sorry for waffling on i hope this helps a little.
THE IMAGE CONTENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IF A LEICA LENS IS USED.
i had a chance to attend an ADAMS exhibit fantastic, did people run up to the prints and critique the images because they had a flaw from not using leica glass (adams used large and medium format) a good photographer can still take a great image with a cheaper lens,sorry for waffling on i hope this helps a little.
Turtle
Veteran
Ive used and own both the CV 21 P and the 21 2.8 ZM (and a bunch of leica and other ZM wides):
The CV can be a corker. My second copy is very good and even in the corners, but my first was an utter dog.
The ZM does beat it in the sparkle department and better corners, but stopped down to F8/11 this is trivial. At F4 is it not; the ZM is lower on vignetting and higher on resolution and thats plain thru a 10x loupe.
If you shoot TriX etc corner issues will still show up and you can go thru a number of copies of the CV before getting one that is good in all four corners whereas my ZMs have all been perfect. All four of them.
I have a 20x16 exhibition print made from Nepan 1600 and the CV P and I love it. The print going up for show soon will be a 20x24 off that neg, but as I say, I now have a good copy. The first was soft down the entire right hand side and while better at F11, was still softer than the left at F4.
With the ZM you are all but guaranteed top notch performance, but you pay for this.
With the CV you are all but guaranteed some deficiencies on FF. My 25 P (first and only copy) has very mild decentering as the bottom right extreme corner is a touch softer than the left at F4 but by 5.6 the difference is immaterial. I still used it because it is 95% amazing at the apertures I used it.
The CV can be a corker. My second copy is very good and even in the corners, but my first was an utter dog.
The ZM does beat it in the sparkle department and better corners, but stopped down to F8/11 this is trivial. At F4 is it not; the ZM is lower on vignetting and higher on resolution and thats plain thru a 10x loupe.
If you shoot TriX etc corner issues will still show up and you can go thru a number of copies of the CV before getting one that is good in all four corners whereas my ZMs have all been perfect. All four of them.
I have a 20x16 exhibition print made from Nepan 1600 and the CV P and I love it. The print going up for show soon will be a 20x24 off that neg, but as I say, I now have a good copy. The first was soft down the entire right hand side and while better at F11, was still softer than the left at F4.
With the ZM you are all but guaranteed top notch performance, but you pay for this.
With the CV you are all but guaranteed some deficiencies on FF. My 25 P (first and only copy) has very mild decentering as the bottom right extreme corner is a touch softer than the left at F4 but by 5.6 the difference is immaterial. I still used it because it is 95% amazing at the apertures I used it.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
unless you plan on using a tripod on a windless day...don't worry too much about it.
...for really sharp and not much more effort use medium format...
...for really sharp and not much more effort use medium format...
ferider
Veteran
^ what he said. If you have a good CV copy, the lens will do easily up to 20" wide or more. If you scan, the scanner will be your limiting factor. Or your film & developer, depending on the process.
meandihagee
Well-known
thanks everyone. i do know that medium format and above will help me get bigger prints. however, a wide mf is beyond my budget.
i want to shoot this project and get decent prints, as big as they can get, not huge stuff. i will be shooting film. another idea i had in mind was to exhibit this photo project on slide projectors, due to the subject that, let's say, usually dwells in darkness.
i would say that in this case there would be no room for error, regarding exposure and stuff, but also on picking the right lens.
i want to shoot this project and get decent prints, as big as they can get, not huge stuff. i will be shooting film. another idea i had in mind was to exhibit this photo project on slide projectors, due to the subject that, let's say, usually dwells in darkness.
i would say that in this case there would be no room for error, regarding exposure and stuff, but also on picking the right lens.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The Contax G 21, the 21/2.8 ASPH are the two I use for large prints, and I regularly print on 16x20" paper. I've not had anyone, including LF photographers complain about IQ- in fact I often hear "This is 35mm?" As stated above it isn't just the lens, but I fully believe the lens plays an important part. I never got results like this from the Nikkor 20/2.8 manual focus lens, and precious little else besides the lens & camera has changed in my set-up.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
99% of the total merit of your photos will be a function of your eye and your vision and will have nothing to do with the equipment.
Of that final 1% that does depend on equipment, 95% of those differences will be gone if you stop down to f5.6. And a tripod may make more difference than lens choice if not wide open.
May I suggest that you may be worrying about the wrong things?
Of that final 1% that does depend on equipment, 95% of those differences will be gone if you stop down to f5.6. And a tripod may make more difference than lens choice if not wide open.
May I suggest that you may be worrying about the wrong things?
rogerzilla
Well-known
The CV 21/4 is up there with the best, and there's no need to "upgrade". It does have a lot of fall-off though.