The fact that after Summitar and Summicron there is nothing even slightly better is quite significant.
Apo Macro Elmarit 100 mm and other Elmarit teles are excellent also.
My SLRs narrowly outnumber my rangefinders, bit the rangefinders get more use. Smaller, lighter and more portable than their mirrored cousins.
But I know I've missed some shots that an AF SLR would have nabbed. Just need to improve my RF technique.
As for lens resolution, it really doesn't matter if a medium format back or large format film holder doesn't keep the film flat...
Pardon my ignorance, but I have been wet printing B&W negatives from 35mm (Leica, Olympus, Nikon), Medium Format (Mamiya, Linhof panoramic), and Large Format (using T*ED Nikkor and APO Schneider lenses) for a couple of years. The notion that a Leica rangefinder could even approach the quality of medium or large format is utterly ridiculous - if you even try to push this point any further, you will reveal yourself to be nothing more than a Leica Fanboy. Yes, the 50mm on my Leica is, from a technical perspective, probably the best lens I have, but only just. It's not a Leica lens, but it does outperform any Leica lens (and being a 50mm f/3.5, it should). The OM Zuiko 250mm f/2.0 - which I use a lot - is probably as good "on film" - even at f/2.0. It's a near perfect lens.
Originally Posted by georg16nik
However, the 5% that these lenses are superiour to my best medium- and large format lenses, can in no shape or form make up for the vastly larger film area. It's just ridiculous to even try, so let's not go there. The high resolution numbers you quote from Zeiss (yes, I am well aware of these tests - it was with the ZM Biogon 25mm f/2.8) are at an impossibly low contrast ration, and simply not suitable for general photography. On the other hand, I can push ISO 400mm film in my large format camera, and produce a print with superiour contrast and acutance to any print from any 35mm setup, especially if one had to use a modified microfilm with crappy contrast characteristic to try and capture 200lp/mm or above. Some decent articles have been written about this.
Your brand snobbism goes to the extreme if you think that if I do not print through a Leitz Focomat enlarger, I am not "getting it". If you knew anything about this yourself, you'd know that, at any reasonable magnification, we are fully diffraction-limited. Furthermore, I actually used a Leitz Focotar enlarging lens in my (perfectly aligned) Omega D5XL enlarger, and promptly sold it when I started using the later EL-Nikkor enlarging lenses. Not only are they consistent across small, medium- and large format, but (for example) the EL-NIkkor 50mm f/2.8 (last version, designed by the designer of that unrivaled feat, the Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 - Mr. Mori) is superb. Anybody who thinks another enlarging lens, versus this lens, will produce inherently better prints, is a liar.
Lastly - some people here have the mistaken notion that medium or large format cameras cannot keep the film flat. If anybody on this planet consistently shoots at a wide open aperture, it's me. It's part of my style. This requires very precise positioning of the film plane. I have never had any issues. If you could see these prints, you'd realise that no little Leica 35mm could ever produce these, no matter what film inside or lens upfront:
Let's consider this silly, silly debate around a Leica 35mm being better than medium or large format closed, right? If you're serious about your darkroom work, 35mm just doesn't cut it. Still, I carry my Leica M3 around everywhere, it's a jewel to use.
Last edited by philosomatographer; 11-14-2011 at 01:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Actually, there a few of us who pushed 135 format to the max, MaximusM3, Thomas Bertilsson, Henning Serger, Film-Niko and many others..
As Massimo wrote it many times, with Leica the limit is the film.
There was a thread by Thomas Bertilsson http://www.apug.org/forums/forum41/9...ate-about.html
post #6 have an interesting read http://www.qpcard.se/BizPart.aspx?tabId=76
Also, we participated in a thread about Highest resolving power BW film, chemistry, paper http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/9...try-paper.html
Since You have't printed with Leitz Focomat V35, there is no way to know what I am talking about.
There are other good enlargers and lenses as well. Omega, Nikon are not one of them, thou.
As far as rangefinders, Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer are the best of the best.
Its pretty much started from those companies, as Voigtländer is the first camera manufacturer in the world.
After WWII, everyone else stepped onto those companies experience and patents.
You are probably to Young and/or unexperienced to know what I am talking about.
No pun intended.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If the limiting factor is film... isn't that still a limit? I don't think anyone is debating that there are 35mm lenses with higher resolving power than medium/large format lenses. Its the print that matters in the end.
Assuming we're enlarging 35mm/120/4x5/etc sufficiently large, the resolving power of the 35mm doesn't matter at some point compared to the film size difference. The medium/large format lenses don't need as high a resolution unless you assume the same magnification ratio as with 35mm.
With Agfa Copex-Rapid or Adox CMS 20, developed in their dedicated developer the limit is seriously lifted.
Originally Posted by Brian Legge
They are keep improving the situation.
Awesome resolution and gradation.
If You dare trying it.
That's great for you, it really is. But I don't appreciate your abrasive and insulting tone.
Originally Posted by georg16nik
I just told you, I have printed through a Leica enlarging lens, and much prefer the nikkors. (or what - are you telling me the physical enlarger body "makes all the difference" ?) You really are welcome to go ahead and play with your 35mm, and I actually have no real interest in convincing you otherwise. By your own admission, you are not really up to shooting larger formats - and that's fine by me. Applying your own words - only once you master ("master" - not "use once a year" like you said you do) larger formats, will you have any way of knowing what I am talking about.
To the original poster, I am sorry that the argument with this abrasive, combative fanboy has derailed the intent of your thread. I am not going to debate the matter further with him in the hope that discussion on the original topic returns. My final word on your topic: My rangefinder camera(s) have also kinda taken over, but that's because my Linhof Technika is a rangefinder
No worries, no insult and as I said no pun intended.
Enlarger is not just the lens. There are other important parts as well. Focomat v35 is unique.
Linhof Technika is a great camera, I used to have Linhof Super Technika but somehow, along the way replaced it with the Sinar P.
I agree that comparing 35mm and medium format is apples and oranges...
Originally Posted by philosomatographer
However I have used many enlarging lenses (unfortunately not the Focotar) and found that the Nikkor 50mm 2.8 was at the *lower* end of the 5-6 element design range, easily beaten by the basic Componon and Rodagon models.
In fact, the 4 element Meopta Anaret came close to the Nikkor, but that's more a great compliment for the Anaret rather than a negative for the Nikkor.
I also used the 4 element Nikkor 50mm 4.0, but that was very disappointing (maybe the doggiest Nikon product I've used).
About enlargers: I do see differences between models, obviously between condenser and diffusion designs, but also not all condensers are created equal.
I certainly find it possible that the Foctar enlarger could have a "superstar" condenser system which makes a visible difference (we are talking about an entire projection *system* here) and I've heard claims about its quality from several reliable sources as well.
M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa