High end glass - worth it for ISO 400 film?

[ptpdprinter]

I thought I had made very clear that this thread was supposed to be about good vs. excellent rather than crap vs. good lenses.

Could you objectively define good vs. excellent lenses?

 

[Bob Michaels]

When was the last time the success or failure of a photograph turned on the resolution of the lens? .............

Excellent point.

And let us not forget that the technical results of using a larger negative even with a mediocre lens will knock the socks off anything shot in 35mm even with the very best lens. (whatever "the very best lens" means to you)

 

[retinax]

Could you objectively define good vs. excellent lenses?

Whether or where to draw a line I consider secondary to whether or not such an effect exists and anyone has actually noticed it.
I'll quote myself from above, "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."

 

[retinax]

When was the last time the success or failure of a photograph turned on the resolution of the lens? I am not talking about depth of field or focus, but the actual resolution of the lens.

Are you talking to me or the people who said high-end glass is always worthwhile? Anyway I think no-one said resolution was a quality that makes or breaks images.

 

[retinax]

My Leica 35mm Summarit makes Fuji 400H look "digital" with very crisp details and high contrast edges. Compared to other decent lenses like my 40mm Sonnar, pictures are not as detailed and seem to result in more grain and less vivid colors.

Do you mean the 40 Sonnar pictures are "not as detailed and seem to result in more grain and less vivid colors"or indeed the ones from the Summarit? It the latter, could sharpening in scanning be the cause of the high edge contrast? Because increased grain from the same film sounds a lot like that.

 

[retinax]

So your question is about resolution?
Don´t get your point yet.

And sharpness. From the OP: "Do you notice a lot of differences in sharpness and resolution when using ISO 400 films or do they eliminate the differences between good and excellent lenses?"
Again, of course resolution and sharpness are not the only and often not the most important differences between lenses.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Lots of vague talk of "good" vs. "excellent" lenses, yet the determination seems entirely subjective with different photographers arriving at different conclusions.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Whether or where to draw a line I consider secondary to whether or not such an effect exists and anyone has actually noticed it.

If you can't define the difference objectively, perhaps you could give us some examples of "good" lenses and some examples of "excellent" lenses, and how the selection of ISO 400 film stock might or might not show differences. Maybe if you can only see the difference when shooting test charts on black and white microfilm, it's not really an issue.

 

[presspass]

If you're looking for tonality and have harsh lighting, the older the lens, the better the print. I'm talking about ASPH Leica lenses vs, some pre-war uncoated ones. I can get a better print - more open shadows, no blocked highlights, from a 35mm 3.5 Elmar than from an ASPH Summilux. Is the Elmar as sharp as the Summilux? Probably not. But sharpness is only one quality in the final darkroom print. I don't think a sharper image with lousy contrast is better than a photo that's marginally less sharp but with good tonality.

 

[DominikDUK]

Tri-x outresolves many modern high end optics near 100 lp/mm apo summicron 75 lp/mm the best optic is still the Tripod microscopic camera shake has an effect on resolution.

 

[NeonKnight]

Do you mean the 40 Sonnar pictures are "not as detailed and seem to result in more grain and less vivid colors"or indeed the ones from the Summarit? It the latter, could sharpening in scanning be the cause of the high edge contrast? Because increased grain from the same film sounds a lot like that.

Sorry, I meant to say that the Summarit's images look more vivid and show less grain.

I generally shoot 400 speed film and overall using super high quality lenses just makes the pictures seem more "clear". It's probably because the Summarit is so resistant to flare.

 

[Axel]

And sharpness...

"Sharpness" is just a subjective impression and not measurable like resolution is.
No idea wich relation could exist between film sensitivity and sharpness.

 

[LCSmith]

I don't like the look my 50 summilux asph gives on bw film. The images are so sharp so as to seem unreal. That's not the look I'm going for with bw film prints.

 

[JP Owens]

As far as sharpness of "high end" glass with 400 speed film, the way to see the difference writ large would be to shoot the same scene with the same lens on a film camera at 400 IS, and on a full frame digital camera at the same ISO. I've done that. As the size of the print goes up, the difference becomes quite dramatic. Grain kills sharpness. And grain covers a lot of ills in lens designs.

But, as has been noted, "high end" glass has differences other than sharpness with consumer level lenses that result in a very different look, regardless of what ISO film you shoot with. Most Canon "L" glass, for example, is so much better than the consumer level equivalents that it's obvious just looking through the finder that you are using a lens at of a different caliber.

Investment in good glass in never a bad deal. There really is a difference, no matter what medium you are burning the light onto. While I might decide a high end lens is overpriced and refuse to buy it, but there is still clearly a difference.

 

[sepiareverb]

Having made many 16x20" prints from HP5+ negs shot at 800 and run in Microphen and Perceptol and shot with different lenses I can say absolutely. Between the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH vs a Nikon Ai'd 50/1.4 the Leica wins every time. Detail is delivered to the film, and when printed well, on an aligned enlarger so that grain is crisp across the print details are resolved in say fine tree branches vastly better with the Leica glass. The Contax G 45 as well.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I understand and totally respect that each of us has our own objectives from our personal photography. Some say their photography is only for themselves. But it is informative to also know what the general public is looking for. I suggest you go to a photo exhibit and politely discuss with other visitors what they think, what they like / dislike about the photos being displayed in general terms.

See how long it takes to find a public viewer who likes / dislikes a photo because of the lens resolution or contrast. Because of the boken. Or, that the corners are sharp / unsharp. One who thinks about grain or a digital look. Try to find any viewer who cares about any of those technical issues. Try to figure out if everyone is impressed by the photos taken using a high dollar Ohmygoshigon lens or the ones where the photographer used the most pedestrian equipment but spent time understanding his subject.

Again, no problem is you are in that little group of camera people who are interested in technical details. I just think it is worthwhile to acknowledge that you are quite unique among the population of those who look at photos.

 

[sepiareverb]

I find that most people don’t notice when prints don’t have crisp details very much, true. But when they see prints that do have crisp details, above and beyond what one might consider normal, they do notice that. I have had many people comment on the level of detail in my larger prints, disbelieving that they could be from 35mm film. And some of these folks are people who I respect very highly as photographers/printers.

 

[Bob Michaels]

.............. And some of these folks are people who I respect very highly as photographers/printers.

Bob, I get your point but wonder how important are photographers/printers in evaluating our photos. They are a minuscule part of the population.

 

[maggieo]

You know, I would have agreed 100% with the "you get what you pay for" thing with regard to lenses and how they work on film, until I started shooting with a $30.00 Jupiter-8. It's actually kind of amazing with ISO400 films.


Trendwood Park, October, 2011 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Empty Chair, August, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Plastic Patriot, March, 2011 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


MCB iPhone Oven, October, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


On The Move, September, 2010 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

Maybe the Sonnar design is high-end, but affordable.

 

[sepiareverb]

Bob, I get your point but wonder how important are photographers/printers in evaluating our photos. They are a minuscule part of the population.

Agreed. But not everyone who remarks on the detail evident in the prints is a photographer. Regular folks notice it too, but the people who have difficulty believing it is 35mm film are geeks like us.