Hit parade of the sharpest 35mm lenses (NEW RANKING)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In 2006 there was a shootout between different systems arranged by the great friends Michael Reichmann, Charlie Cramer and Bill Atkinson assisted by Chris Sanderson. Jeff Schewe was unfortunately not taking part ;-)

In that test Michael had his Linhof, Charlie Mamiya and Bill a Hasselblad H system. I guess the finding was that everyone was happy with his own gear. The results have been published. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml, so you can check yourself.

You can even reproduce the test if you happen to have a one dollar bill.

Best regards
Erik

I think I still have the files and Michael allows me or any one else who bought the DVD to post files.

Best regards
Erik

Has anybody compared any of these lenses to digital lenses? In the book "Digitale Highend-Fotografie" (2005), the authors present a comparison between a Sinaron W 4,5/65, a Macro-Elmarit-R 2,8/60 and a Sinaron digital HR 4,0/60, with the latter as the clear winner, resolution-wise.
Edit: Oh well. Not quite so clear. The Elmarit and the HR are almost undistinguishable.

[Hening Bettermann]

Hi Erik

thank you for the link. However, none of the four lenses compared is a "digital" lens (or is the Apo Sironar HM? I could not find it on the Rodenstock site). Also, they were compared on a Phase 45 back - something that unfortunately is out of my economical reach. What I wonder is how would a good 35 mm lens compare to a Digitar on a Nikon D800 or a 24 MP full frame DSLR? Obviously, there is no available mount for Digitars to 35 mm cameras. But for some of the longer focal lengths, somebody might have tried to put a 35 mm DSLR behind a view camera.

Good light - Hening.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I may have missed out on the lenses...

Could be that Michael meant APO Sironar HR as he owns such a lens: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml.

You can send him a message and ask.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik

thank you for the link. However, none of the four lenses compared is a "digital" lens (or is the Apo Sironar HM? I could not find it on the Rodenstock site). Also, they were compared on a Phase 45 back - something that unfortunately is out of my economical reach. What I wonder is how would a good 35 mm lens compare to a Digitar on a Nikon D800 or a 24 MP full frame DSLR? Obviously, there is no available mount for Digitars to 35 mm cameras. But for some of the longer focal lengths, somebody might have tried to put a 35 mm DSLR behind a view camera.

Good light - Hening.

[Hening Bettermann]

I settle with the assumption that it is an HR lens, and the HM is just a typo, since there does not seem to be such a lens.

One sentence in the above link seems to show that I had turned the problem upside down:

"But the HR lens line's abilities go beyond even the extreme high definition of Rodenstock's other excellent optics, providing resolution comparable to that of the finest prime 35mm format lenses."

I thought digital lenses, also non-HR, were BETTER than even good 35 mm lenses.

Thanks for the link! This new enlightenment makes this thread on the sharpest 35 mm lenses even more interesting...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Here are the MTF curves of a a HR Digaron-S 100/4 and a Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro Planar. The Zeiss is a lens widely considered to be one of the best on 135.

Please note the following:

1) Zeiss curves are for 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm
2) HR Digaron curves are for 10, 20, 40 and 80 lp/mm

So you should compare the top three curves.

135 format stretches to about 21.5 mm, so you can ignore anything beyond 21.5 mm on the Digaron curve.

So MTF at 40 lp/mm varies between 70% and 60% on the Zeiss, which are very good values.

On the Rodenstock lens the corresponding values are 85%-80%, so the Rodenstock is probably better if judged from these curves.

On the other hand, the Zeiss data are measured while the Rodenstock data is probably taken from lens design calculations, also I don't know if it is for white or monochrome light.

Keep in mind that lenses have other properties than sharpness, the way out of focus parts of the images are rendered is also important. The area of a picture in absolute focus may be very thin!


I also include MTF curves for the Coastal Optics 60/4 Macro that Lloyd Chambers (Diglloyd) considers to be the best lens MTF 40 LP/mm seems to be just below 0.8 at f/5.6. This lenses looses sharpness at f/8. I have a hunch that the Rodenstock data is a bit optimistic. I would expect a truly excellent lens to be diffraction limited at f/5.6 or f/4.

Best regards
Erik

I settle with the assumption that it is an HR lens, and the HM is just a typo, since there does not seem to be such a lens.

One sentence in the above link seems to show that I had turned the problem upside down:

"But the HR lens line's abilities go beyond even the extreme high definition of Rodenstock's other excellent optics, providing resolution comparable to that of the finest prime 35mm format lenses."

I thought digital lenses, also non-HR, were BETTER than even good 35 mm lenses.

Thanks for the link! This new enlightenment makes this thread on the sharpest 35 mm lenses even more interesting...

[Hening Bettermann]

Hi Erik,
thank you for this informative comparison. I conclude that the best digital (MF) and the best 35 mm lenses can be pretty much on the same level.
Good light!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just don't forget, curves are curves and images are images.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,
thank you for this informative comparison. I conclude that the best digital (MF) and the best 35 mm lenses can be pretty much on the same level.
Good light!

[BernardLanguillier]

Sharpness, and in particular corner sharpness, is in fact not well correlated with the success of a lens and it being liked by its users.

According to Photozone, the corners of the Canon 85mm f1.2II are poor (much poorer than the competition at least) but yet, the lens is rightfully considered by most of its users as one of the main reason why they love the Canon system.

This is probably the result of low CA at all apertures and brilliant bokeh. Things that you cannot see on MTF curves.

Of course the application matters here, MTF will be more relevant to landscape shooters, but there is really a lot more to lens quality than sharpness.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ARD]

Sharpness, and in particular corner sharpness, is in fact not well correlated with the success of a lens and it being liked by its users.

According to Photozone, the corners of the Canon 85mm f1.2II are poor (much poorer than the competition at least) but yet, the lens is rightfully considered by most of its users as one of the main reason why they love the Canon system.

This is probably the result of low CA at all apertures and brilliant bokeh. Things that you cannot see on MTF curves.

Of course the application matters here, MTF will be more relevant to landscape shooters, but there is really a lot more to lens quality than sharpness.

Cheers,
Bernard

Totally agree, sometimes I feel people spend far to much time worrying about the slightest flaw of a lens, instead of considering the overall performance. Constantly trying to find the perfect copy, does in my opinion, detract somewhat from enjoying photography, and striving to get the best from what you have. Knowing the limitations of your equipment is a good thing as it will enable you, as the photographer, to adjust accordingly.

[hugowolf]

Sharpness, and in particular corner sharpness, is in fact not well correlated with the success of a lens and it being liked by its users.

Of course the application matters here, MTF will be more relevant to landscape shooters, but there is really a lot more to lens quality than sharpness.

Cheers,
Bernard

I could agree more. With a lenses like Canon's 85 mm f/1.2 II and 135 mm f/2 used for a subject near centre and at wide apertures where the background is rendered out of focus, in portraiture, for example. Then compare this with a macro lens used for copy work.

Brian A