On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 10:16:33 -0500 (EST), Elie A Shammas <eshammas@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>This came to my attention after doing some research on using a MF lens on

>35mm camera. In particular I wanted to use a Carl Zeiss Pentacon on a 35mm

>Contax body.

>

>Looking at two comparables lenses, for example the 80mm in MF and 50mm

>in 35mm. Since MF project the image on bigger area of film, the MF lens

>manufacturers can afford to have more aberrations in the lens design and

>yet get better results on the bigger film. Hence when MF lens is used on

>35mm film, one shouldn't expect better quality than a 35mm lens.

>

>So even though MF lenses are or could afford to be technically inferior

>to 35mm lenses, yet they could produce better images in bigger film. This

>inferiority is clear when MF lens is used with smaller film.

>

>I would like to know what you think about this.

>

>ps. As for the reason why I want to do this: mainly for economics, I can

>own a 300mm Zeiss lens for 1/3 of the price.

It is best to look at specific examples.

While what you say *tends* to be true,

there are numerous examples of larger-format

lenses performing about as well on smaller

formats as good lenses designed for the

smaller format (a Kodak 201mm f7.7 antique

was a surprise, used with a 35mm back on a

5x7 camera - it sure taught me something...!;-).