> Huh? The Pentax MF lenses are significantly weaker performers than almost any > 35mm prime lens. Eg the FA645 75/2.8, which is an equal performer as the 80mm > Carl Zeiss for the Hasselblad, is worse than any K-mount prime I've ever used. > Of course theres no law saying that larger format lenses must be worse than > 35mm system lenses, but the cost and law of diminishing returns dictated lower > quality from larger covering lenses. The latter due to the fact that the > resultant resolution depend on the interaction of film resolution AND lens > resolution, a larger film area means that the film resolution is the most > important factor. Hence, for smaller formats the lens quality may be paramount > for resultant image quality whereas for larger formats any lens deficiencies > are compensated by more film area.
P�l's right. The smaller the image circle, the higher resolution the lens can be. Virtually all 35mm lenses resolve better than virtually any LF lens. The advantage disappears, though, in light of the fact that the smaller negative has to be enlarged more to get the same size print. So it loses resolution that way. --Mike "Nothing will get rid of raccoon eyes when you are shooting raccoons." * * * Find out about Mike Johnston's unique photography newsletter, "The 37th Frame," at http://www.37thframe.com.
