Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 20:05 -0600 14/12/98, Eric Welch wrote:
>>2 / Is there some "chart" or system to help rate
>>the ACUTANCE / EDGE DEFINITION
>>of a given lens, objectively ?
>>Or RELATIVE to others designs ?
>>Would this relate to some "threshold" point
>>in a M.T.F. curve, even subjective ?
>
>Do we care all that much when a negative is so large how "sharp" it is?
>Wouldn't there be more important corrections for minimal magnification
>increases of medium and large format compared to 35mm?
[ . . . ]
>Eric Welch
I meant EVEN for 35mm (135) lenses ?
Not just the "other" formats . . .
Looking for acutance-specific info !
In other words : is there a given, generally accepted
point in A-N-Y M.T.F. curve,
or A-N-Y OTHER type or set of graph(s), that de facto
mean a guarantee, more or less, of a certain
level of acutance / edge definition / "fidelity" / other
positive "traits" of lenses that "makes"
a given lens design or model a "classic"
that represents an historical achievement ?
Or some technical or engineering factor or value
other than a M.T.F. curve that serves the same
purpose : classifying lenses by general degree
or level of performance, ACUTANCE-wise ?
When performance gets stratospheric
as LEICA lenses now can deliver,
it's not such an obvious "thing" to DISCRIMINATE
the DOMINATING model or design . . . on "specs"
VS a technically oriented photo exhibition
which would allow the more subjective appreciation .
"Even then ..." may well be your immediate answer !
Yet another way of expressing the question:
would a LEICA connoisseur be readily and repeatably able to
say: "This is a Summicron 35mm f/2 -ASPH - M shot"
VS "this is a 35mm Summilux-R f/1.4 FLE shot"
VS a non ASPH Summicron or Elmar or Elmarit shot,
VS another famous "classic" LEICA design,
a Noctilux perhaps,
or some other LEICA lens model / focal
per general "signature" and /or degree of excellence ?
Or, for better or worse,
even allowing non-LEICA originated shots in the picture ...
[ Perhaps adding such a constraint as mandatory
16" x 20" enlargements (for discussion purposes) ...
from the same enlarger / lens combination, same lab technician
and similar fresh photo-chemicals. ]
Geared towards ISOLATING some abstract notion of optics based
"ACUTANCE", specifically [ which i don't recall ever
having read about (being ever in need of broadening
my overall proficiency at "evolving" such an "eye"
and photography related knowledge ) ] . . .
Much as a "nose", who would instantly, or just about,
call out various exotic high end perfumes...
wines, beers. or whatnot ... : hybrid roses ..., printing inks ...,
chocolates..., Dare VS Peek Frean cookies !
Leica science VS Leica art !
A. J. Q.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It ain't easy being a Frog !
Kermit