Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>There are a couple of issues to consider here. > >The first is that even the highest quality medium format lenses are not nearly >as sharp as the best 35 mm lenses. Accordingly, the advantage of medium >format is significantly reduced by this. > >Secondly, the resolution of film has so dramatically improved that the >advantage of medium format has been reduced by this also. The lesser lens >quality of medium format is the limiting factor. Improved film does not has >as much advantage to medium format as it does to 35 mm, because of the >limitation of the lenses. 35 mm lenses can take better advantage of the better >films. > >However, in my opinion, high quality medium format equipment can produce >prints that are somewhat sharper than those taken with the best 35 equipment. >This is evident in prints larger than 11 x 14. > > What you say is true. Basically, if you make the same size of prints with a 35mm and a medium format, you will get the same quality with 400 asa and the mf as with 100 asa and the 35mm, at least roughly and with a Blad for instence. Nevertheless, the mf lenses are most likely not usable at full aperture because of the film that is not really plane...And their full aperture is always smaller that what you can get with say, a leica lens. If you need DOF, the mf is better but if you like some out of focus, go for a leica! I remember shooting at f/2.8 with my blad's 80mm planar and getting poor results. Then I understood that it is not a lens problem. With the blad lenses, there is a way to stick them on a Contax 35 mm camera. This should be the way to really check them wide open. Thib.