Lens "resolving power" lines/mm, etc., what do you prefer?

[Forest_rain]

I've read that the "resolving power" of lenses has increased over time, as manufacturers have improved their lens designs, coatings, and manufacturing. You can measure the "lines/mm" higher in newer lenses, supposedly.

I recently took some pictures with my Vitomatic II from the 1950's, and I quite like the results (picture 1). Please disregard the "glow" I need to clean the lens, it has some residue. I notice that compared to picture (2) picture 2 appears to be "super sharp" and almost "too perfect" for my liking. Picture 2 was taken with a Minolta AF 50mm 1.7 from the '90s. Actually, picture 1 is also pretty sharp, but I can tell that the overall effect is very different, and I like the "less perfect" aspect of it.

What do you think? Can you see any difference between picture 1 and 2? Personally I think picture 1 looks a little "grainer" and has less resolution. But the grease on the internal elements might also be interfering with the image as well, maybe not a fair test.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I think you need to step away from the computer, learn to ignore technical details and make some photos that say something and look good to your eye.

Are you familiar with Henri Cartier Bresson? Robert Capa? Robert Frank? Eugene Smith? Walker Evans? Dorothea Lange? They and many others seems to do OK in photography with cameras that today would be considered inferior.

I can assure you that none of them ever worried about "resolving power" lines/mm, etc.,

Are you familiar with the photography of Fred Smith, John Brown, Jerome Levinstein, or Butch Jones? Don't worry, no one else has ever heard of them either. They worried about technical details.

 

[Beemermark]

I think a computer image would look good from a Kodak 110.

 

[peterm1]

I have never really been a pixel peeper so tend not to be too worried about whether a lens test shows that Lens X has a higher resolution than lens Y. Pure resolving power is only smallish part of the overall image output to my way of thinking. Having said this of course I like images to be "sharp enough". I think it also depends very much on the type of image being made and the purpose of the image. So for example I have often favored older lenses which have lower technical resolution when tested. For example I especially enjoy the look given by lenses with Sonnar designs for portraits especially. They are "sharp enough" without being critically sharp but but also give a kind of rounded softness to images that especially suits portraits and people shots. And a lot of early simple 4 element triplet derived lenses - Tessars, Elmars, Color Skopar etc give surprisingly good results too without ever having a reputation for having a brilliant resolution of fine details. But they do have quite good resolution of coarser details which may account for their look - your first image seems more like this to me. (Combined with the fact that it is clearly stopped down substantially and this helps image resolution too). I think the Vitomatic you mention had simpler design lenses like this - I recall having an old Vito and it had a Color Skopar.

In terms of your two images here I think I prefer the look of the second image overall, which seems to match the subject - a portrait. Part of it may be that the lens looks to have been shot wider open compared to shot 1 though. I am not familiar with the Minolta AF 50 f1.7 lens you mention but I do know that many of the Japanese MF lenses in 50mm f1.7 of the decade before - the 1980s- were rebadged Zeiss designs based on their Planar design made under license in the Tomioka plant by Yashica for themselves and for other Japanese makers to be sold with their camera bodies and badged as their lenses. These are very high quality lenses optically (though they vary a bit mechanically depending upon the price point of the specific camera body they were going to be used in. For example I have a Ricoh badged one which is brilliant optically but "plasticy" in build and a Konica one that is second to none both optically and mechanically) and these lenses are capable of producing high quality images even today. It would not surprise me to find that your slightly later Minolta one mentioned is based on the same Zeiss design.

BTW can I ask where the first image was made. I am curious - it reminds me of somewhere but I am not sure where.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

This is a non issue. Go take photos and don't care about the lp/mm BS. If you want to be a technician, find a camera repairman to apprentice under. If you want to be a photographer, take photos.
Read up on confirmation bias as well.
Phil Forrest

 

[jsrockit]

There's nothing wrong with geeking out about equipment. BUT, you will get push back from people who think the art of photography is more important than technical concerns. I'm actually more like the guys above... I only care about equipment to make photos with. A lens is either good enough or not. technical concerns get boring quickly.

 

[charjohncarter]

There thousands of lens (maybe millions since Japan got into the game) that take great pictures, I own some of them and half the guys think that they are junk. Yet nobody could tell the difference between them in a wine-like blind tasting. Clean your Vitomatic lens and continue to enjoy your Minolta.

Also, I'm certainly not a lens expert, but the evidence of grain in an image, isn't a quality in a lens that I've ever experienced.

 

[lynnb]

Before you clean your dreamy Vitomatic II lens I suggest you make some dreamy, glow-y portraits with it! I like Pictorialists, so line pairs/mm aren't so important to me. YMMV.

Enjoy your picture making. Each picture is an opportunity to say something. It's usually satisfying if what you're saying is interesting, emotional or memorable. Have fun, regardless.

 

[Prest_400]

I do agree with the opinions above, however do recognise the importance of a good base quality. If I can get the maximum resolution in a lens, then great. Similar with film choices. I tend to use T-Grain ISO 100 films, if I'm going slow, better get the best of it.

However, I'm a cheapskate and most of the lenses I've shot with had something "off" and have never shot with an extraordinarily high performance reputed lens (Pehaps the Zuiko 50 1.8 MiJ) ie. Zeiss, Leica or exotic variations of Japanese manufactures. Infact I've never owned a 50mm 1.4 despite often wanting it, and remembering that under available light!


Remember that low contrast doesn't mean that the lens is low resolution. That #1 shot might not be the best suited subject, but the glow could be quite fitting for a portrait shot. Then, I had a great Holga shot where the flare and aberrations are what make the picture and a sharp rendition would be boring.

 

[icebear]

If an image sucks, typically the resolution of the lens is not the most pressing issue 😉

 

[retinax]

If scans of this low digital resolution are all you want, you will not run into resolution limits of any lens that's not a toy camera.

 

[chipgreenberg]

There's nothing wrong with this line of question. How sharp a lens is (or isn't) is part of picking the right tool for the job. No, a technically perfect photograph won't make a poor image good, but we've all had images we wish were a little sharper. Maybe it was the lens, I was too lazy to use a tripod, wish I had a bigger format, etc.