High end glass - worth it for ISO 400 film?

[David Hughes]

"I would add: "If you buy quality, you only cry once.", Geoff Burch"

So what do you do when you drop it?

Regards, David

 

[bayernfan]

high end glass isn't just about being technically "better". sometimes it has a special "look" or quality that lower end glass does not exhibit. you hear images described as having "depth" or "beautiful color rendition", etc. these subjective qualities are usually seen in high-end lenses.

 

[retinax]

I'm relieved 😀

Yes, you're right: If the question is *How noticeable is the difference between the $ 7000 piano and the Bösendorfer, Bechstein or Steinway if you record them on a simple tape recorder?*, the answer is: zero, nada, garnüscht!

Of course the simple tape recorder is an exaggeration, but ISO 400 films in 135 are not the analogous of the very best recording equipment either. It'll show some differences for sure, what interests me is how much.
Some participants, sepiareverb for example, have answered my question, others have had a discussion about adjacent topics, it's all good.

 

[retinax]

For 35mm and "full frame" digital, speed and durability matter quite a lot; speed, in particular, if you often shoot wide open. "High end" lenses are often better at full aperture than "low end" ones.

Otherwise, at medium apertures, if you've never dropped a lens in your life... Stick with pretty much anything.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, I was hoping you'd chime in. Do you have thoughts to add about the point at which ISO 400 film comes into play as a limitation on the output, especially regarding resolution and sharpness? Is that point indeed beyond the performance of most lenses, in your experience?

 

[Axel]

My original question in your analogy:
How noticeable is the difference between the $ 7000 piano and the Bösendorfer, Bechstein or Steinway if you record them on a simple tape recorder?

I think you are on a wrong way of understandig film sensibility. It is even not as "simple" as a tape recorder.
And the formula "high end lens" leaves way too much space for speculations and various interpretations.

 

[retinax]

NSS. Still not sure where most camera manufacturers' lenses fall on the high end/low-end (excellent/crap) scale though. No one wants to say.

I don't want to say indeed. My choice of words might suggest that I think there is such a scale, so that was a bit unfortunate, I don't care really if we have the same underlying definitions here because I hoped that specific lenses would be mentioned in replies. If this were scientific work, we'd be at the stage of a pre-study upon which an actual survey, which is supposed to have results that can be generalized, would be designed. Here it's all anecdotes. So why would I limit the available input by saying "Voigtländer vs. Leica" if there might be people out there who have something to say about Pentax vs. Schneider or Jupiter whatever vs. Zeiss Sonnar?

 

[ptpdprinter]

So why would I limit the available input by saying "Voigtländer vs. Leica" if there might be people out there who have something to say about Pentax vs. Schneider or Jupiter whatever vs. Zeiss Sonnar?

Because if you just say high-end/low-end no one knows what you are talking about. I asked for some objective measures about fifty posts back so we wouldn't get into brand name arguments, but no one wanted to go there either. As it stands, we are just speaking in truisms. Excellent lenses are better than good lenses. Who'd have thunk?

 

[retinax]

Because if you just say high-end/low-end no one knows what you are talking about. So we are just speaking in truisms.

We don't have to, everyone is free to ground the discussion by talking about specific lenses, which I thought would happen anyway. My choice of words stems from my initial assumption that the point at which high ISO film might begin to obscure differences between lenses is pretty far toward the high end of the quality continuum. It was perhaps not the best way to put the question, considering how for example all 50s are created more equal than other FLs and because I'm really interested in how film might (or might not) equalize between lenses and would like to hear everyone's experience as to where that might happen on the lens quality continuum as well as one the film sensitivity continuum.

 

[retinax]

I think you are on a wrong way of understandig film sensibility. It is even not as "simple" as a tape recorder.
And the formula "high end lens" leaves way too much space for speculations and various interpretations.

I was exaggerating, ISO 400 films are pretty good. But there must be a reason why people (even in this thread, but generally in the past) suggested copy films for lens testing, no? Or what am I mistaken about? And feel free to talk about any lenses you've tested or seen good tests of, just forget about high end or not if that's an obstacle, I'm sure anything will be interesting.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I was hoping you'd chime in. Do you have thoughts to add about the point at which ISO 400 film comes into play as a limitation on the output, especially regarding resolution and sharpness? Is that point indeed beyond the performance of most lenses, in your experience?

My overall view is that hand holding matters a lot more than ISO 400 -- and that ISO 400 is much more likely to be hand held.

Purely on the basis what I've seen over the last 50 years or so, the "1/ISO" or "1/ASA" rule is substantially worthless, even with a 50mm lens. Too much depends on focal length, personal health, whether we're tired/ hungry/ out of breath/ frightened... That's before you start on exposure, development or subject matter

There are just too many variables, and they're all cumulative. With any given film, of any speed, on a tripod, of a test target, a "high end" (sharp, contrasty) lens will deliver different results from a "low end" (soft, low-contrast) lens; and by any objective criterion they'll be "better".

How much this matters in any given picture is another matter.

And, as I've already said, "high end" lenses can survive more abuse. My 35/1.4 Summilux survived a 6 foot drop onto cobbles in Prague; the late Geoffrey Crawley's spent six months in the bilges of his boat, though it did require a clean-up afterwards.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve M.]

"Do you notice a lot of differences in sharpness and resolution when using ISO 400 films........"

That question is too broad. Every lens is different in terms of sharpness and resolution (and a high end lens does not necessarily mean either, as it may mean better IQ, bokeh, anything). The film speed is irrelevant. But, that's the short answer.

 

[retinax]

"Do you notice a lot of differences in sharpness and resolution when using ISO 400 films........"

That question is too broad. Every lens is different in terms of sharpness and resolution (and a high end lens does not necessarily mean either, as it may mean better IQ, bokeh, anything). The film speed is irrelevant. But, that's the short answer.

"...or do they eliminate the differences between good and excellent lenses?" was how that question goes on, so what I really want to know is if you have have noticed such a phenomenon, or to what degree. I still don't think that's too broad but "The film speed is irrelevant" answers it then.

 

[Sumarongi]

Let me try another analogy, now including the humble drugstore ISO 400/27° film:

If one has to take notes, explicitly on very cheap scribbling paper, do you honestly recommend them they might use their most luxurious fountain pen, their say $ 1750 Sheaffer, or Cross, or Pelikan, or Montblanc, or Lamy?

Yes, or no?

 

[retinax]

My overall view is that hand holding matters a lot more than ISO 400 -- and that ISO 400 is much more likely to be hand held.

Purely on the basis what I've seen over the last 50 years or so, the "1/ISO" or "1/ASA" rule is substantially worthless, even with a 50mm lens. Too much depends on focal length, personal health, whether we're tired/ hungry/ out of breath/ frightened... That's before you start on exposure, development or subject matter

There are just too many variables, and they're all cumulative. With any given film, of any speed, on a tripod, of a test target, a "high end" (sharp, contrasty) lens will deliver different results from a "low end" (soft, low-contrast) lens; and by any objective criterion they'll be "better".

How much this matters in any given picture is another matter.

And, as I've already said, "high end" lenses can survive more abuse. My 35/1.4 Summilux survived a 6 foot drop onto cobbles in Prague; the late Geoffrey Crawley's spent six months in the bilges of his boat, though it did require a clean-up afterwards.

Cheers,

R.

I sure agree about hand holding, that's why I asked about ISO 400 film - I suspect ISO 400 in 135 is a sweet spot for general hand held photography. I don't plan to drop my lenses but would feel better dropping something easily replaceable rather than something somewhat more sturdy, but much more expensive, thank you very much . 😛

There seems to be a consensus that differences between lenses will always (well, at wide apertures) show on ISO 400 film.

 

[retinax]

Let me try another analogy, now including the humble drugstore ISO 400/27° film:

If one has to take notes, explicitly on very cheap scribbling paper, do you honestly recommend them they might use their most luxurious fountain pen, their say $ 1750 Sheaffer, or Cross, or Pelikan, or Montblanc, or Lamy?

Yes, or no?

Huh Pelikan or Lamy were the brands we were used in 3rd grade, I didn't know they also make luxury pens. Anyway I don't follow this analogy and have no opinion at all on which pen to use 😕

 

[Sumarongi]

Huh Pelikan or Lamy were the brands we were used in 3rd grade, I didn't know they also make luxury pens.

Yes, they definitely do 😀

Anyway I don't follow this analogy and have no opinion at all on which pen to use 😕

For the ghastly cheap scribbling paper, even I use just some cheap ink roller, a pencil, or even a ball point (if *nothing* else is at hand).

Better now?

 

[retinax]

Yes, they definitely do 😀

Oh. Well their cheaper products had their share in making sure I won't become a fountain pen afficinado, ever. Come to think of it, I's suggest using one's favorite pen in any case because I assume the joy of using it is the main reason for owning it. Can you unveil what this means in film and lens terms now?

 

[Sumarongi]

Oh. Well their cheaper products had their share in making sure I won't become a fountain pen afficinado, ever. Come to think of it, I's suggest using one's favorite pen in any case because I assume the joy of using it is the main reason for owning it. Can you unveil what this means in film and lens terms now?

^^ vide supra, I've edited 🙂

 

[retinax]

I see, so one shouldn't use ones best lens on cheap drugstore film for fear of wearing it out?

 

[ptpdprinter]

Some people enjoy using their favorite pen (lens) irrespective of the paper (film) they are using.