Bob, you\'re missing my point. Of course 135 FF lenses usually have better MTF curves than lenses covering a medium format image circle as anything else would be a waste of money. Due to the larger area you don\'t have to have extremely high performance - when comparing 135 to say 6x7 for equivalent lenses (same angle of view) when you look at the 40 lp/mm for the 135 you should be looking at the 10 lp/mm curves for the 6x7 lens. The fact that you need higher quality glass on a smaller format to maintain quality does not however translate into the max image circle of the lens being inversely proportional to the quality of the output.
The point I was making is that it depends on the lens design and the materials used and not on the size of the image circle. That\'s why it\'s easy to find exceptions. You don\'t even have to look at medium format lenses. For instance the highest performing prime lenses that Canon has are the TS-Es (tilt shift) and they cover a much larger image circle (almost 60mm) than a regular 135. The price for that is that they\'re big, heavy and very expensive.
Bob YILDIRAN wrote:
Any lens you know from MF to compare to the Biogon 25/2.8, or from LF to compare to the Pentax FA 35/3.5? Hmmm?
I\'m not familiar with the Pentax, but since the 25/2.8 is supposed to be the highest resolving production lens ever made, regardless of format, the answer would be no.
Take a look at the resolution power of the Hasselblad lenses in general and compare them to the ones of the ZM lenses for example.
The Sonnar I used was a ZM lens. But OK, let\'s do Planar vs Planar 50/2 ZM vs Hassy V 110/2, keeping the AoV roughly the same:
There\'s definitely a greater difference between the 135 Sonnar & 135 Planar than between the 135 Planar & 6x6 Planar. Having said that, consider this as well: the detail that you on FF 135 resolve at 40 lp/mm you resolve at 15-10 lp/mm on 6x6. So when looking at the MTF chart you should compare the bottom red graph pair (135) with the top black pair (6x6 MF). So for the same detail in a picture the MF MFT is around 90-95% while the 135 is in the 60-70% region.
Bob YILDIRAN wrote:
Any lens you know from MF to compare to the Biogon 25/2.8, or from LF to compare to the Pentax FA 35/3.5? Hmmm?
I\'m not familiar with the Pentax, but since the 25/2.8 is supposed to be the highest resolving production lens ever made, regardless of format, the answer would be no.
Take a look at the resolution power of the Hasselblad lenses in general and compare them to the ones of the ZM lenses for example.
The Sonnar I used was a ZM lens. But OK, let\'s do Planar vs Planar 50/2 ZM vs Hassy V 110/2, keeping the AoV roughly the same:
There\'s definitely a greater difference between the 135 Sonnar & 135 Planar than between the 135 Planar & 6x6 Planar. Having said that, consider this as well: the detail that you on FF 135 resolve at 40 lp/mm you resolve at 15-10 lp/mm on 6x6. So when looking at the MTF chart you should compare the bottom red graph pair (135) with the top black pair (6x6 MF). So for the same detail in a picture the MF MFT is around 90-95% while the 135 is in the 60-70% region.
Aug 08, 2011 at 08:19 AM
Previous versions of denoir's message #9822929 « Switched entirely to Micro4/3 »
