Thanks, Rob. I understand a little better about what you were asking about.
It sounds like you want to know how much money you should spend on lenses (and
maybe what brand) in order to get decent scans.
My suggestion would be buy "reasonably costly" lenses, fixed focal length
rather than zoom if your shooting style can tolerate it, more expensive lenses
rather than cheaper ones, etc. As has already been pointed out, slow shutter
speeds, shooting wide open, shooting at the long focal length end of a zoom,
etc., can give poor results with any lens compared to the results when shooting
conditions with that lens are optimized. I wouldn't recommend selecting lenses
based on the name of the manufacturer. I know that some people swear by Lieca,
or Nikon, or Cannon, or some other brand, but the price you pay for a lens has
more bearing on the quality than does the brand name. Lens quality today is
very good, except for some cheap, variable focal length zooms. Any moderately
priced lens, including those from Sigma and Tamron, should be able to make a
very good 8x10 conventional print. The best 35 mm lens will have trouble
making a really good 11x14. The print size limit for 3!
5 mm lenses is therefore somewhere
in that range, i.e., at least 8x10 but not much over 11x14. With a 2700 ppi
scan, you should also be able to make at least an 8x10, and maybe even an 11x14
based on the number of pixels you have to work with. Most of the image
degradation will be from the scanning (assuming you used a reasonably good lens
at its optimum characteristics). I really doubt that you could see the
difference in scanned images from a "very good" lens vs. an "excellent" lens.
It's the lens quality of a poor lens that would show up in a scan.
Keep in mind that you may someday own a 4000 ppi scanner (as prices drop and
technology improves). That would make scans from "good" lenses look a little
better than from a 2700 ppi scanner, so your invenstment in good lenses might
someday provide a bonus. However, the biggest benefit from moving up to a 4000
ppi scanner would be in the reduced pixelation, and not so much from any
addition detail it might show from a "good" lens.
I use 4000 ppi scanners for both 35 mm and medium format and I have never
noticed any difference in results based on the lens I happened to use, and I
normally make big enlargments (11x14 to 13x19). But I have some very good
Nikon and Mamiya lenses, only two out of 24 are zooms, and I can usually shoot
at medium aperatures from a camera stand using studio strobes.
You don't need to buy a Lieca lens in order to get quality. Check out
www.photodo.com for unbiased lens test data. While I shoot Nikon in 35 mm, I
usually recommend the Cannon system to serious photographers who are buying a
new system. It's not that Cannon lenses are any better (they're equivalent);
it's that there's a bigger variety to select from and Cannon produces more
technological breakthroughs because of their company's size. In other words,
lens quality is only one factor is selecting what lens to buy.
Ron, plan on spending a moderate amount of money on lenses (you don't need the
most expensive, simply stay away from the cheap ones). Check out
www.photodo.com before you buy a given lens. Shoot the lens under optimum
conditions. Don't spend your money on a lens based on the brand name. Plan on
buying a 4000 ppi scanner someday.
Happy scanning!
In a message dated Tue, 6 Nov 2001 6:36:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, Rob
Geraghty <harper@wordweb.com> writes:
> Roger wrote:
> > Lens quality problems are not scanning issues. They're
> > photographic issues.
>
> Well, yes, but how many non-pro photographers look at their films with the
> sort of equivalent magnification you get at 2700dpi? There's plenty of
> people who can afford a film scanner who might not check every frame with
> a loupe.
>
> > Before scanning, you should have a negative or transparency
> > that is sharp.
>
> Agreed. But a photo I might think is sharp, one of the list's Leica users
> might think is funny. I don't say that in a negative way - all I'm saying
> is that everyone has their own standards.
>
> > If it isn't, scanning won't improve anything.
>
> No, it won't. The reason I asked the question "has anyone noticed the
>difference
> in scanned results from photos taken with different lenses" was to try to
> gauge how important the issue of image sharpness really is. If film is
> capable of recording in excess of 6000dpi and I have a 2700dpi scanner,
> leica quality sharpness may not be useful to me because the scanner's
>resolution
> simply can't "see" the difference. I'm thinking of spending a whole bunch
> of dollars on new lenses. If the difference isn't going to be significant
> in the scanned results, then I have lots of other things I need to spend
> money on.
>
> So my question *did* relate to filmscanning. Obviously I'll get better
> results on film if if use better lenses. I'm simply trying to figure out
> whether it's worth the expense for the difference in scans - and at the
> moment all my photos that are being published are going to the publisher
> as scans from my LS30.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
>
