In article <323DC61C.7BC7@clemson.edu>, paditha@clemson.edu says...

>Lens sharpness is indeed a hot topic. The general advice is that "spend
>more money if you can on the lenses than on the body itself". However
>I'm curious about one aspect which does have a bearing on sharpness and
>is usually left out (probably with good reason).
>
>Would I be correct in saying that the sharpness of the output (whether
>slides or prints) is actually dependent on
>1. the resolution of the film and the format (35mm, 4 x 5 etc.)
>2. the lens used on the camera
>3. the resolution of the lens used in the enlarger/projector.

Yes... If you improve film sharpness (by improving
the film, or enlarging the format) without improving
the lens, sharpness will improve; if you improve
sharpness in the taking lens while using the same
film and format, sharpness will improve; if you do
not improve the projection lens which is used to
make the final image, sharpness will not improve.

>Why is it that one always assumes that the lenses used in the enlarger
>or the projector match the sharpness of the lenses in the camera?
>Wouldn't the sharpness used in the slide projector or the enlarger
>(prints) affect your final output? I might be using the highest quality
>pro lenses made by Leica or Canon L glass (etc.) but if the projector
>lens used, isn't that great when it comes to corner to corner sharpness,
>wouldn't it make the edges blurred?

Yes, but the difference between an average and a superb projector
lens is noticeable, but not large (and soft corners are more often
due to film curvature than to bad projector optics [you can usually
refocus to sharpen the corners]). The difference between an average
enlarging lens and a superb one, when both are used at optimum
apertures, is miniscule (and often not worth worrying about).

>So whether we are talking about slides or prints I think the final
>output is only as good as the qulity of all 3 (or 4) components in the
>entire reproduction process. Kind of an upper bound I guess on the
>quality

Some of the components do not limit the result.....

>MTF tests for the lenses are great but what do we know about the quality
>of the lenses used in the development/projector? the Kodak projectors I
>saw had Ektanar lenses of f/3.5 or 2.8 and different focal lengths. Does
>this compare well to a Leitz lens?

Maybe well enough.

>Is this correct or the final satge (enlarger /projector lens qulity) is
>not as important?

The final stage is not as important, for one reason: you cannot go
back and sharpen an image made poorly in the first place, no matter
how good the projector or enlarger lenses are, but if the original
image is of good quality, you can always view it with better optics
when they are later available.
Hope This Helps