Prime lens quality and 12" x 16" enlargements.

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by chorleyjeff, Aug 5, 2006.

  1. chorleyjeff

    chorleyjeff Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chorley, Lan
    Using a prime lens on 35mm and taking all the care normally associated with MF eg use tripod etc, would most people be able to differentiate an enlargement to 12" x 16" from say Delta 100 on 35mm and 4.5cm x 6cm negatives? And would a 35mm Delta 100 negative produce as good a result as MF on Delta 400? I assume that an expert could see a difference but would a viewer in a gallery be able to differentiate when the prints were mounted behind glass?
    If anyone has practical experience around this question your advice would be appreciated because I am in a dilema whether to invest in primes for my 35mm or expand my MF kit.
    PS at the moment I have a 75mm Bronica PE lens and I would get Minolta primes.
    Thanks

    Jeff
     
  2. Markok765

    Markok765 Member

    Messages:
    2,266
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Location:
    Ontario, Can
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    You have to remember the quality of the enlarger lenses, or use the 80 or 90mm and, push the enlarger up more,
     
  3. chorleyjeff

    chorleyjeff Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chorley, Lan
    Thanks
    Assume 50mm and 75mm 6 element enlarging lenses.
    Jeff
     
  4. Markok765

    Markok765 Member

    Messages:
    2,266
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Location:
    Ontario, Can
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    They still could be diffrent, BTW, there is no 75mm enlarging lens, but it still would be differnt, even from the same makers.the 800 would have to cover 6x6 so would be diffrent than the 50mm which has to cover a smaller format
     
  5. Amund

    Amund Member

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Marko, your answer isn`t even remotely relevant to his question....


    I`d take 645 Tri-X negs over 35mm Delta 100 any day. A 12x16 from 645 is enlarged three times less than the 35mm neg, and finer grain can`t make up for that IMO....
     
  6. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    The 75mm Zenzanon PE lens is wonderfully sharp, and only very few prime lenses for 35mm can produce better resolution on film even in perfect conditions. Then taking the enlargement factor into account, the only way you can get a sharper 12x16" print is by using an even bigger film. Say a 12x16" camera...
     
  7. Amund

    Amund Member

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I`ll second the sharpness of the 75mm PE. It`S very sharp.
    I recently had a Hasselblad with the 80mm Planar C T*, and the PE is at least as sharp, if not even sharper...
     
  8. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Jeff,

    Yes, I think most photographers would be able to see the difference and tell you what it was, while most non-photographers would see the difference and not be able to tell you.

    My personal view is that 12x16 is over-enlarged from 645 (7x), never mind 35mm (12.5x); I'd want at least 6x7cm (5.6x), even with Delta 100, and possibly 4x5 inch (a bit over 3x).

    Then again, I like small prints.

    Cheers,

    Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
     
  9. Dave Miller

    Dave Miller Member

    Messages:
    3,894
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Middle Engla
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    You would be able to tell the difference, and certainly by direct comparision. Developer choice could make as much difference as that between 35mm, and 4.5 x 6. I doubt that your average punter would have a clue what they were taken with, or printed on. Gallery people are generally more interested in who took it rather than print quality.
     
  10. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Amen

    R.
     
  11. chorleyjeff

    chorleyjeff Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chorley, Lan
    I'm corrected.
    I have a 6 element 80mm Schneider and a 4 element 50mm Nikon but for sake of comparison assume equal quality lens.
    Jeff
     
  12. chorleyjeff

    chorleyjeff Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chorley, Lan
    Thanks Roger
    I've read your books and I know you could tell at a glance. It's the second half of your first sentence that gives me food for thought.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  13. chorleyjeff

    chorleyjeff Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chorley, Lan
    Thanks Dave
    I put some 12" x 16" mono prints in frames behind glass in pub/restaurant gallery last month. They were from MF negs and in the not very good light I felt the quality didn't show, and other venues I can use for display eg library, visitor centre also don't have good light. Of course in a good quality venue quality (or not) of printing would be easier to see but I'm a long way from using that sort of display area.
    Cheers
    Jeff
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Marko,

    It doesn't help people (or your credibility) for you to give out misinformation. I have two 75mm f:4.5 enlarging lenses, one made in Japan for Omega (Omicron-EL), and another from Isco in Germany. This wasn't too uncommon a focal length for 6x6 enlargers at one time.

    Lee
     
  16. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,341
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A 12 x 16 image from Delta 400 or 100 ( or Kodak T Max films )
    is well within the reach of a competent photographer. It isn't THAT hard, and lots of folks can do it.

    Can you tell the difference between prints made in MF and 35, side by side ? Well, sure. Does that make the 35mm image inferior ? Of course not. Does that make MF superior ? No.

    Here's the unspoken reality: you can make superb images from 35 in conditions that are impossible to make ANY image from MF.

    When and where you make pictures is the real question.
    Sunny days on a tripod, MF.
    Handheld at twilight, 35mm.
    In between, that's up to you.

    Conventional thinking is usually misleading.

    Every morning, I make a couple pictures in a wooded glen
    a couple miles from my home. I use a 35mm camera and 400 film.

    All wrong, according to those who preach only viewcameras are correct
    for nature pictures.

    Every morning, I catch fleeting sunlight in the forest
    when I stop my bicycle for a moment
    to soak up the splendid moment
    before resuming my 30 mile ride.

    I shoot at 1/30 @ f/1.4.
    With a 645 camera, that's 1/8 @ f/2.8,
    which is impossible without a tripod.

    Lazy me, I pack the 35.

    It's all up to you.

    good luck.
     
  17. Dave Miller

    Dave Miller Member

    Messages:
    3,894
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Middle Engla
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I must gently disagree with Roger over the question of degree of enlargement, whilst excepting that it is a very personal call. I am not generally a lover of visible grain, or poor definition in a print, although I accept that occasionally it can add to an image. I have, within my own small collection, prints ranging from 5 x 4 and 10 x 8 contacts through to 16 x 12 printed made from 35mm, and do not feel that any of them could be described as oversized. Remember that a larger print is intended for a greater viewing distance, and it’s only us fanatics that rub nose-grease on them. Content, must always be given greater weight than technique, the latter being easily learnt, but putting passion into a picture is a precious gift few of us possess, certainly not I.

    However, in many ways your question is irrelevant since you should be trying to satisfy yourself and not the gallery visitors. I rather get the impression that you want us to provide the excuse for you to embark on the purchase of MF goodies, but that must come from within.
     
  18. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
     
  19. Nick Zentena

    Nick Zentena Member

    Messages:
    4,679
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Italia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    To me an 11x14 from 6x4.5 looks like a 5x7 from 35mm. I'm not sure about doing things the MF way. Fuji makes an autofocus little 645 that must be closer to a point and shoot then to some of the big 35mm when it comes to technique.

    But everything has it's place. Use what works for you and ignore us -)
     
  20. ricksplace

    ricksplace Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Thunder Bay,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I thought for a minute I was going insane. I answered this thread already today, and it doesn't show up. The same thread appears on 35mm forum and medium format forum too. I answered the thread on 35mm forum.

    1. size matters. always.

    2. When in doubt, see point #1.

    Rick
     
  21. naturephoto1

    naturephoto1 Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,819
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Location:
    Breinigsvill
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Rick,

    You can't find it because Jeff is running the same thread in 2 different threads, in the medium format and the 35mm forums. It has gotten a bit confusing with people participating in one or the other.

    Here is the other thread:

    http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=30424

    Rich
     
  22. ricksplace

    ricksplace Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Thunder Bay,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I agree, Lee.

    I have a 75mm/4.5 Ektar that is a five element design and every bit as sharp as my six element 80mm/5.6 Componon.
     
  23. Nick Zentena

    Nick Zentena Member

    Messages:
    4,679
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Italia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    And Rodenstock makes a 75mm APO lens. I guess thier top of the line MF lens.
     
  24. ricksplace

    ricksplace Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Thunder Bay,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks Rich.
    Took a little searching but I found it. Thought I was having an almost senior moment. (sounds better than a flashback...)
     
  25. naturephoto1

    naturephoto1 Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,819
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Location:
    Breinigsvill
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Nick,

    Unless things have changed Rodenstock offers the 75mm f4.5 Rogonar S for 6X6 lens for enlarging. If you are referring to the 75mm f4.0 Apo Rodagon D 1X and the 75mm f4.5 Apo Rodagon D 2X these are duplicating lenses intended for .8-1.2X for 6X6 and 1.2-2.5X for 6X7 cameras. I have the 2 75mm Apo Rodagon D lenses for usage for close-up/macro work for use on 35mm and 4X5.

    Rich
     
  26. Nick Zentena

    Nick Zentena Member

    Messages:
    4,679
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Italia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    All I know is the US rep for Rodenstock jumped on me for saying all the top of the line MF lenses are 80mm. He was talking about the N not the D model of the lens. But this was a few years back.