Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Christer Almqvist <christer@almqvist.net> wrote: > If you test with 400 film it will be difficult to say anything about > the performance of the lens used. With 1600 it will be almost > impossible. What you need for testing is 100 film, top notch > development ..... and a good tripod. And the final step for me > is not looking at the negative with a loupe. The acid test, the > reality proven final step is looking at 16x enlargements (my V35 > does not go further on the base plate) shot with different lenses > (or films or whatever you test) side by side. Preferably the same > subject and the same light. Make sure the area of the negative > you want to scutinize at is at the center of the negative holder in > your enlarger, otherwise our enlarger lens may be your limiting > factor. (I know nothing about scanners.) > > Of course, YMMV I've never done a formal lens test. When I try out a lens I just use it as I would any lens I already own. *I* bought it, or may be buying it, so it has to perform under the conditions I subject lenses to. If the differences between two lenses can only be seen with slow(er) film on a tripod at 16x24" or larger then those differences aren't important (to me). For me that's medium format territory. I can see differences between my Kobalux LTM 21 and Zeiss 21 Biogon in handheld pics taken on XP2 Super (ISO 400) and Delta 3200 and printed at 6x9". Some lenses have distinctive looks and this comes through even with fast film and shaky hands. This kind of difference I am interested in. - -Dave-