CV 35/1.4 Resolution

[Lauffray]

I've been looking a bit closer at some of my pictures taken with the CV 35/1.4, and I noticed there is some lack of detail in the distance even when stopped down and I was wondering whether for 35mm this is considered normal or if this is a flaw of this particular lens.

Here are a couple of offenders taken recently, and while there are a bunch of other factors here like film used, developer, scanner and jpeg compression I just need to hear some input on this, foliage and grass detail is driving me nuts

PS: these are straight out of the scanner, no processing whatsoever

 

[ampguy]

I can't tell what the reason is from the small size JPGs, but stopping down past about 5.6 on FF 35mm is going to reduce resolution.

 

[gavinlg]

Those scans are reaaaaally flat. They need a serious black boost. I can't see any problems with resolution - can see tree leaves in the distance even in those tiny web examples. Just need to scan with much more contrast.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Handheld? What ISO film? What shutter speeds? Test your lens on a tripod with cable release for different focusing distances and apertures, and still subjects. You'll get sharp images from f/1.4 to f/11. All lenses are sharper than we need.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Lauffray]

It's not sharpness I'm worried about, it's the amount of detail it can keep, here's a larger sample with the blacks boosted a bit
Bigger

 

[ferider]

What film and f-stop ? Seems more like a processing than lens issue. The Nokton is not the sharpest knife in the block (I've systematically tested 2), but sharper than this.

Just for fun, try BW400CN and have it shop-developed.

Roland.

 

[tomalophicon]

I reckon it renders that distant stuff beautifully.

 

[ferider]

Here is a BW400CN Nokton example:

Maybe at f5.6 or so.

 

[Lauffray]

That was TriX at f/5.6 or f/8, developped in Ilfosol 3 (not ideal, but that's what i had)

 

[kossi008]

But you did not focus on infinity, right?
Looks to me like the foreground is in focus. And the hyperfocal distance of 35 mm @ f/5.6 is 7.25 m, so if you focus at, say, 5 m, infinity will not be in focus.

 

[wolfpeterson]

It's not sharpness I'm worried about, it's the amount of detail it can keep, here's a larger sample with the blacks boosted a bit
Bigger

Parc Lafontaine! I live right close. Maybe it's time for a Montreal RFF meet.

Is this printed and scanned or simply scanned? looking at that large .jpg makes me wonder if it's not a scanning issue...

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

It looks great to me! what kossi says makes sense, I agree...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Yes, focus is a few meters from camera on both images, not on infinity...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[photogdave]

I don't think it's the focus that's the concern either, but the resolution.
Please tell us how you scanned it! Looking at the bigger image it looks like a bad reproduction, like a copy neg or newsprint. I bet here is plenty of detail in the original.

 

[Lauffray]

It's a scan from the original negative actually

 

[photogdave]

It's a scan from the original negative actually

MORE INFO PLEASE!!
Flatbed or film scanner? What settings etc.?

 

[rustysheepdog]

MORE INFO PLEASE!!
Flatbed or film scanner? What settings etc.?

I really don't think demanding more information about scanning is going to help . . . Looking at the 'bigger' picture, the point of focus seems pretty much on the bicycle and the depth of field simply cannot extend to infinity. The lack of detail in the background is unavoidable with the aperture used.

 

[ferider]

The OP asked specifically about the lack of "foliage and grass detail", not only about lack of resolution at infinity.

I still think the Nokton could do better there, at the same f-stop, with different processing.

Roland.