|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut
I agree that comparing 35mm and medium format is apples and oranges...
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.
Yes, Leitz Focomat V35 uses unique projection system.
Its a well known fact that Rodagon way outperforms Nikkor.
-
OK I'll throw in a comment based on my experience as far as enlarging lens's are concerned. Having tried a number of Nikkor's 50mm 2.8 and 80mm 5.6 and Focotar of various focal lengths and versions. The Focotar is the perfect enlarging lens for 35mm format, the 40mm for instance delivers a sharpness and contrast that I appreciate. It is capable of picking out the details in the negative and producing what I consider is an honest print, for I'm not waylaid by technical lp/mm and all that, my negative is projected as is nothing more and nothing less. It a personal comment based on my experience and I'm sure may would disagree.
-
Well, this discussion has moved from camera lenses to enlargers and lenses. How stable the platform is which the enlarger lens, film and easel is mounted to makes a vast difference. Unless your enlarger is attached to concrete, I doubt you are getting anywhere near the maximum out of it. Even with concrete, if you live in a city or are near a highway, you still aren't. There is far to much vibration in the ground.
But, in reality, this entire discussion of 200lpm is simply laughable. We're getting all hung up over a camera lens and body format which is typically HAND-HELD!!!! For those who anchor their cameras to concrete blocks when shooting landscapes, there is a very slight advantage, but we're really getting into fringe uses and applications. As our friend from S.A. says there is no substitute for raw film size.
Are Leica lenses better than other lenses of similar price/spec? Most of the time the answer is yes. MOST of the time, but not always. But do Leica lenses render the scenes differently? Absolutely. This is also a reason why I choose to use the system I use. It's the way the lenses draw. With Leica, a strip of negatives hanging up to dry tend to look different than those shot from other cameras. The contrasting and tonality curves are quite different.
There is life outside of resolution tests.
Back to the subject at hand. Rangefinders taking over the bag. I don't quite have that problem yet. I'm getting my primary kit (OM) built up with some serious glass and bodies. I'd get Leicas if I didn't have OM-4T and OM-3Ti bodies. Some of those Zuiko F2 lenses are also right up there with Leica glass. The only thing left is operational and I've been trying to change my shooting style to mimick that of rangefinder shooting.
Ken
|
|
Adv Reply
