Thank you for the responses so far, if I'm not directly replying to your post, please interpolate from the replies to those who made similar points
😉.
High end glass is
always worth it, no matter what film you use. Buying really good lenses is a far better investment for you than either the film or the camera.
That and a good tripod.
How's film not better investment than all equipment?! I thought that was forum consensus, at least as long as we're not having GAS ourselves
😎
Kidding, you mean the differences between lenses matter more than those between films? That might stir some controversy if we're talking good vs. excellent glass, not bad vs. good!
Does “high end glass” mean it’s gotta come with a high price?
Not necessarily, I left that up for your own definition. Whether you read it to mean "differences between lenses I'd consider good and lenses I'd consider excellent" or "differences between <20 $ vs. >20 $" or "differences between <2000 $ vs. >2000 $", all interesting.
I own a 50mm f1.4 Canon lens I use with my digital stuff that I’ve had made pretty large photographs. It cost me less than $400.00 new and It’s always on one of my Canon cameras.
Here is info on it from B&H:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html
For film:
Doesn’t make much of a difference what ASA film I use. Quite a few components are necessary for my photography with camera, lens and film just a few parts I consider.
Cool so you'd say better stick with film that allows fast shutter speeds because visually they're not that different?
I think there's some confusion here:
I think the implication is that ISO 400 film may obscure the sharpness/acutance possible by some lenses (ostensbily high-end and expensive). That's conflating potential sharpness with "high end". I would expect a "high end" lens to be more than just sharp....and oddly those other qualities were sort of discounted in the OP. A high-end lens will hopefully be well corrected for a variety of abberations and errors as well as optimizing acutance. So for me, the argument falls apart.
I have a cheap lens that is amazing tack sharp in the center, and very much not sharp as you move away from the center. I also have a high-end lens that is quite sharp across the entire field, but probably not quite as sharp as that central spot of the cheap lens.
But for the "masking effect" of film. Yea, I occasionally read about certain lenses that were sharper than "the emulsions available at the time of their production". Still, simple sharpness helps when using grainy film. Getting all your wavelengths to focus with similar sharpness is really helpful.
I was indeed assuming high end lenses to be sharper on average. Of course there are exceptions and that should be most evident at wide apertures and at the edges of the frame, sure. Why you read my post to mean sharpness/resolution was the only criterion for high end I don't know.
I was postulating that sharpness and resolution would be the only qualities that might be obscured by grain. So doesn't it make sense to talk about these qualities exclusively in this context? That does in no way imply that other qualities are not important in a lens.
Please give my question a charitable reading. Perhaps I wasn't expressing myself very well, English is not my first language.
No question that sharpness helps even using a grainy film. It would be interesting to know if anyone has noticed a limit beyond which more sharpness, that a given lens is capable of delivering, does not help.
Edit: I see how the thread title lead to your reading of my question. Yes, without doubt there are qualities other than resolution and sharpness that make high end lenses worthwhile, so I didn't chose a good thread title.
