On Mon, 28 Sep 98 13:21:48 EDT, John Rogers wrote:

>> >So, what is the real scoop? Does the average advanced amatuer have to
>> >spend $1000 per lense to get the performance they can live with? I
>> >would be interested in both general comments, as well as anecdotal
>> >comments on specific lenses.
>> >
>> >Thanks for reading this looooong angst-ridden question.
>> >
>> >Rod

>To put another persective on this, I just recently compared an uncoated Kodak F4.5
>51mm anastigmat lens in a 1938 Kodak 25 that I picked up at a flea market for $10
>against a mint Nikkor 50mm F2 in a Nikkormat FT3, by taking the same photo with
>each camera/lens and making 16x20 prints from each for side-by-side comparisons.
>Both with Ilford FP4+ processed in Rodinal 75:1
>
>Surprisingly, there really little if any difference. The Nikkor may have been
>marginally contrastier, maybe half a grade, and that was about it.
>
>In terms of resolution, in both prints were limited not by lens quality but by film
>grain, noticeable under a loupe, looking at distant brick work. (I am looking
>forward to trying this experiment again using APX-25 or maybe tech pan to see if
>the modern Nikkor will show a real edge using a finer grain film.)
>
>The lesson is that while a fine lens is great, unless you are using the utmost care
>focusing, the finest grain film, and the steadiest tripod, it is probably not going
>to make any difference in the final print.

Hmmm, a couple of things...
You didn't say what stop(s) you used with the two lenses (I suspect
that at f4.5-5.6, there would be rather noticeable differences in
image quality, but at f11-22, virtually none... The Kodak was maybe
a Tessar-type 4-element lens (?) - if so, in a slow design, it can
be first-rate (check out the similar-design GN-Nikkor at f8 or so...;-).
The Nikkor is also more than two stops faster, and is
surprisingly good at f2. Also, film alone does not limit image
sharpness any more than lens sharpness alone limits it - improving
either will improve the on-film image sharpness. So, improving the
film characteristics will make both lenses look sharper (though it
may increase slightly their differences...). You are comparing
two fine lenses (stopped down...?), so your conclusion does not
follow from what went before, though I'm inclined to agree with
your conclusion anyway...;-) - which is why I prefer MF, and to
"bracket" hand-held exposures not for exposure, but for sharpness.
A good 10X or so film magnifier is a merciless taskmaster when
it comes to making sharp images...! ;-)