I spend a lot of time (foolishly) concerned with sharpness and busting my eyeballs with loupes and grain focusers and in my experience the Xenotar and the Planar on 2.8 Rolleis are sharper than anything I have for my Nikon. That is probably not true for most MF lenses. My Pentax 67 lenses have the peculiar quality of looking very sharp in print even though they clearly are not that sharp under a loupe.
Dennis On Nov 16, 2009, at 18:55, eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
A brief discussion arose in the Pure Silver list about 135 film in MF cameras (ie my Rolleiflex and Yashica). I said I found that my TLRs do a better job on my 135 film than my Canon FD lenses. I was asked what I based that on, as (apparently) lenses made for 135 cameras resolve more lines than lenses for 120 cameras... I found some supporting documents online for this, but I still think my Rollie makes better 135 negatives than my Canons do. Am I imagining the sharpness and contrast improvement? Am I the only Rolleikin user who thinks this?Even if it's true, I don't really care. I'm fond of the TLR method, and the results suit me just fine, but I'm curious.If I run a test, do I compare my 80mm Planar with my 100mm FD lens? Elias
