The quote below came up on rec.photo.film+labs. It brings up something
I've often wondered about, to wit:
If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners can
resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior
to good zooms? It would seem at first glance that the extra lens
sharpness of a prime would not translate into extra image sharpness.
I use several zooms for, of course, their convenience, but also have
three primes that I use often.
This isn't meant to start a flame war. I've seriously wondered about
this for some time.
Thanks,
Joe
"If you use film, the only thing you will be testing is the film itself
since film see only about 10 to 20% of the resolution the lens will see.
"An example: A typical f4 lens will have about 500 lines per millimeter
with noon daylight summer sun. Most picture type ASA 50 to 400 films
will record betweent 50 to 100 l/mm from this 500 l/mm image or about 10
to 20%.
"Special aerial recon films can do up to about 350 l/mm or 60+% but ASA
ratings are down under 10."
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
