Comparing RF & SLR wide open

[besk]

Were you using a tripod and cable release on these shots?

That can make a large difference at slower shutter speeds.

 

[Ronald M]

Mirror shake wil ruin slr sharpness to 1/000 sec. Test with flash or heavy tripod + cable release and mirror lock up.

Then there is issue of retrofocus lenses required which complicate the design.

Test with same film.

 

[mpaniagua]

It all depends on each camera really. My Rolleiflex SL35e can be a pain sometimes, but produces some pretty sharp negative, equal to those from my Leica M6 ant Summicron 35.

On the other hand, my Olympus OM1 sometimes gets unsharp results, mostly due to mirror shake. I've test this by making the same shot, same camera, same lens, same speed and apperture. First one hand held, second with mirror lock and tripod. Result where sharper with mirror lock up and tripod, so no related to lens really.

Rolleiflex sl35e has sharp results at 1/30. Havent tried at slower speeds though.

Regards.

Marcelo Paniagua

 

[jszokoli]

Mirror shake wil ruin slr sharpness to 1/000 sec. Test with flash or heavy tripod + cable release and mirror lock up.

All things being equal, if the image improves as you stop down that would rule out camera motion as your shutter speed is actually slower.

Am I missing something??

Joe

 

[Larry H-L]

In the stop sign photo from the SLR, the curb at extreme lower right looks sharper than a few yards farther away near the bottom center, and the depth of field falls off quickly as you look at the fence at left.

Looks to me that your OC is front focusing significantly.

 

[mpaniagua]

All things being equal, if the image improves as you stop down that would rule out camera motion as your shutter speed is actually slower.

Am I missing something??

Joe

+1 Agree to that.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Bright cloudy day with shutter speeds from 1/250 - 1/1000, so I doubt shutter speed was an issue.

Never heard of front focusing with an SLR still camera lens. If your camera is set up properly, with the ground glass the exact same distance from the lens flange as the film plane, what the lens is projecting on the ground glass is what it's projecting on the film. If it's tack sharp on the ground glass, it should be tack sharp on the film.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Larry H-L]

Maybe you just have a bad sample.

The Nikkor "O" 35mm f2 was widely used and respected by photojournalists for years and years. It was known as a sharp and reliable lens. Most every PJ of that era owned one.

I've never gotten results as soft as you are showing here.

I bought one in 1976 and just replaced it last year with the newer Nikkor G f1.8. Probably 20% of the shots in my old B&W professional portfolio were taken with the 35 f2 lens.

Old film shots:
http://www.hamel-lambert.com/days/index.html

 

[lynnb]

Tim, were the stop sign photos focused at infinity? If not, can you repeat the test with both lenses focused at infinity, at, say, f2.8, 4, and 8? Preferably with a lot of depth + detail in the frame, such as down a tree-lined street with a distant background. On a tripod with cable release, preferably, and mirror lock up on the SLR. The Nikkor-OC stop sign result definitely looks unexpected. As does the unsharp looking close up.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I bought the Nikkor OC 35 last year and have gotten some really wonderful images out of it. Most were shot between f4 and f11. I'm prepping for a project where I know the light is going to be an issue, so I want to get as much out of my lenses as possible, hence the f2.8 and wider tests.

Nice work there Larry, thanks for the link.

Lynn, if I get around to testing these two cameras and lenses again, I'll try your suggestion. Thanks.

Best,
-Tim

 

[John Bragg]

Hi Tim. In low light, the rangefinder will most likely be the best tool for the job. You should be able to hand hold at least one stop slower in shutter speed, so the fact that it has the sharper lens just lends weight to it being your ideal choice for this job.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Did a test today, shooting the same subjects, with a Nikon S2 w/3.5cm W-Nikkor-C f2.5 lens and a Nikon F w/35mm Nikkor-OC f2.0 lens (and Kodak 5222, Double XX). Both lenses were in very good condition.

Take ONE specimen of group A and ONE specimen of group B, and you have a «comparison»?

Is that the (new?) «scientific standard» in the U.S.A.?

Where do they teach that? Faux News University? Breitbart College? Milo's Dangerous Academy?

 

[tunalegs]

Take ONE specimen of group A and ONE specimen of group B, and you have a «comparison»?

Is that the (new?) «scientific standard» in the U.S.A.?

Where do they teach that? Faux News University? Breitbart College? Milo's Dangerous Academy?

Certainly, this would never occur in another country. I can't think of a single time a poster, outside of the U.S., drew a hypothesis about something based only on examples they had readily at hand.
Incidentally, isn't it only Americans who write stupidly bigoted things on the internet about other countries?

 

[tunalegs]

Okay, a couple of samples. Again, Double XX, processed in HC-110. 100% crops of the part of the image I used for focus (which also happened to be the center of the image). Yes I know it's grainy. Both lenses set at f2.8 for all shots.

Close up shot (approximately 4 feet from camera)
Nikon F w/35mm Nikkor-OC f2.0 lens @f2.8

Nikon S2 w/3.5cm W-Nikkor-C f2.5 lens @f2.8

Distance shot (approximately 100 feet from camera)
Nikon F w/35mm Nikkor-OC f2.0 lens @f2.8

Nikon S2 w/3.5cm W-Nikkor-C f2.5 lens @f2.8

Best,
-Tim

It would be interesting, perhaps educational even, to see the whole image and not just a crop.

 

[ferider]

The Nikkor 3.5cm/2.5 is just a very good lens, and short registration distance does make designing a good wide angle much easier. Similar 6/4 design as the 35/2.8 Summaron, which is known to be one of the highest resolution Leica lenses ever made (~400 lp/mm stopped down ?), higher resolution than for instance the modern 35 Summicron ASPH. Only mentioning the Summaron as you can find MTF charts and resolution tables on-line.

Now, resolution is not everything, there is distortion (where your 3.5cm/2.5 will also do better than your SLR lens), and vignetting, micro-contrast, etc., where your SLR lens will do better.

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So: you're comparing two different lenses on two different bodies with two different focusing systems; and single samples of rather elderly cameras and lenses at that. This does not sound to me like a terribly meaningful basis on which to compare all RF lenses with all SLR lenses, even if everything has been recently serviced.

Cheers,

R.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

The Nikkor 3.5cm/2.5 is just a very good lens, and short registration distance does make designing a good wide angle much easier. Similar 6/4 design as the 35/2.8 Summaron, which is known to be one of the highest resolution Leica lenses ever made (~400 lp/mm stopped down ?), higher resolution than for instance the modern 35 Summicron ASPH. Only mentioning the Summaron as you can find MTF charts and resolution tables on-line.

Now, resolution is not everything, there is distortion (where your 3.5cm/2.5 will also do better than your SLR lens), and vignetting, micro-contrast, etc., where your SLR lens will do better.

So: you're comparing two different lenses on two different bodies with two different focusing systems; and single samples of rather elderly cameras and lenses at that. This does not sound to me like a terribly meaningful basis on which to compare all RF lenses with all SLR lenses, even if everything has been recently serviced.

Exactly, and thus, a much more constructive approach than the OP's premature conclusions would be:

«The Pros And Cons Of Retro-Focus Construction»

🙂

 

[Timmyjoe]

So: you're comparing two different lenses on two different bodies with two different focusing systems; and single samples of rather elderly cameras and lenses at that. This does not sound to me like a terribly meaningful basis on which to compare all RF lenses with all SLR lenses, even if everything has been recently serviced.

Cheers,

R.

Hey Roger,

Being a photographer, not a research scientist, I've got a project coming up, and I have the equipment I have on hand. It's gonna be a low light situation, I want to shoot it on film, I want to shoot it with a 35mm, and I have a Nikon F with a 35mm and a Nikon S2 with a 35mm. So I took them out to compare how they would do on the wide open end. And was surprised that the rangefinder lens did better than the newer SLR lens. Now would another sample of the 35mm SLR lens beat another sample of the 35mm rangefinder lens, who knows. But I don't own those other samples, and have no access to those other samples, so I "shot with what I got".

And I posted here, (as I was surprised by the results) to ask if anyone had a theory of why these results might be as they are.

Not trying to make a "Rangefinders are always better than SLRs" thread. Just asking, "Why do you think this came out this way?"

 

[goamules]

TimmyJoe, thanks for attempting to show this, good job. You are running up against what always occurs here during testing. People look for reasons to invalidate your obvious results and conclusions. I've done some comparisons of vintage lenses on digital bodies to reduce the "yeah, but..." questions. You'll still get people pointing out the adapters are different, or that the lighting changes in the 1 minute it takes to change lenses.

I for one thinking seeing is believing. And talk is cheap. You've done the hard part, offered an experiment and a hypothesis. The scientific method demands others try to duplicate/refute your results doing the same experiment. Or maybe the same model lenses, but different copies, and on a digital body. Your hypothesis could have easily been "SLR cameras don't age well....SLR cameras contribute to many poor resolution situations..." etc. But just smug internet writing about how you are wrong holds a lot less weight than looking at your results. To me.

 

[goamules]

Someone with those two lenses, please slap them on a digital camera and take some shots, and we can eliminate blaming the SLR camera or the particular copy of the OP's lenses.