Jump to content

Throw the MTF charts into the bin!


Fgcm

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)


Which is the best way to waste your time?

Staring at the MTF graph searching for any invisible difference, not understanding that in real photography there is much more.

 

Speaking about portraits, if I ask my wife to rate which photo is better, she usually rate the highest those photo taken with older lenses, whose MTF charts would be derided by many readers of this forum. 

 

In my opinion, the only whay to understand what you can do with a lens, is using it for a while and the only whay to exploit the camera to it's limits, is using the right lens for each task. Sometims the right lens is old, scratched, uncoated.   

 


My dear friends, throw into the bin all the MTF charts you saved on your computer!

There is much more than charts and sharpness (whatever sharpness really menas).

 

Who can tell which lens was on my camera this morning when I took this snapshot and how poor is its MTF chart?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your approach. Definitely it is difficult to see differences between lenses. Still I think that you will not be able to avoid using such graphs as you have after all to measure the specifics of a lens. But you will replay to that, that if you do not see the difference there is no nee for MTF. Then I do not know what to anser to that :-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Fgcm,

 

100% with you :)

 

Nice portrait whatever gear was used ... anyway.

 

If in the past I relied on MTF chart that didn't exist by then, I would not buy any lens like (only in 50mm...M, LTM ) :

Summarit 1.5/50

Summar 5cm

Summicron collapsible

SOMNI

Summilux first version

and much more...

 

I always suggest to new M ( or another system ) lens user to try by them selves to figure out if the lens is suitable for their need,

different with other's needs in general.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MTF charts don’t tell you which lens is better, and aren’t designed to do so— to me, they only inform sharpness and astigmatism across different distances from the center. But if one is wondering which lens is sharper, they can be useful.

 

Of course one should not misinterpret MTF curves to mean which lens is better for any particular situation— there are many variables, plus old-fashioned subjectivity, that contribute to which lens is best for a given subject and setting.

 

Sometimes I find the dreamier, less-sharp look of the 50/0.95 wide open (which has rather poor-looking MTF curves, mostly due to field curvature away as one reaches the edges of the frame) to be ideal, while other times a more clinical look (e.g., 50 AP0, 75 noct) is more what I have in mind. It’s nice that virtually all Leica M lenses are capable of delivering excellent photos under the right circumstances.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still I think that you will not be able to avoid using such graphs as you have after all to measure the specifics of a lens.

 

 

Dear Alex,

well, actually MTF charts can be misleading. I haven't the knowledge to fully understand the concepts behind the shape of the lines.

So, what do I look?

I have no rules.

I take some photos and then I decide wether I like what I see or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If in the past I relied on MTF chart that didn't exist by then, I would not buy any lens like (only in 50mm...M, LTM ) :

Summarit 1.5/50

Summar 5cm

Summicron collapsible

SOMNI

Summilux first version

and much more...

 

 

:D

hei, a.noctilux, you are peeking at my cards!

 

I give you a clue: the serial number suggests that the lens was manufactured in 1933 and is f2.

I inherited it from my father who got it as a birthday gift from my grandfather in the fifties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

hei, a.noctilux, you are peeking at my cards!

 

I give you a clue: the serial number suggests that the lens was manufactured in 1933 and is f2.

I inherited it from my father who got it as a birthday gift from my grandfather in the fifties.

 

:lol:

 

I'm impressed, from your grandfather and your father, may I think that is very rare (or only one ! ) heritage, ... Summar 5cm ?

 

As side note, I bought two Summar 5cm (one coated but not "better") and always wonder with results obtained "how was that possible?", a kind of miracle in optic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:D YES!

 

Summar 5 cm. A masterpiece from the thirties.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, actually MTF charts can be misleading. I haven't the knowledge to fully understand the concepts behind the shape of the lines.

 

Lack of understanding does not mean that the charts are misleading. MTF charts are what they are - one tool which informs about the performance of a lens. They are though a 'snapshot' of small facets of a lenses' performance. To be thoroughly comprehensive, numerous MTF charts would be required at all apertures and numerous focus distances. Even so they would give no information about distortion and suchlike. And then the information needs to be applied to the imagery being shot. Its a bit like saying that a car can do 0-60mph in 3 seconds. Informative but it doesn't tell you much about the car other than it accelerates effectively. The problem with MTF charts is that they need to be understood and then they need to be seen as just a part of the description of lens performance and all too often they are misinterpreted and seen as being definitive which they are not.

 

Caveat: I used to MTF test lenses .....

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew several photogs who are using so-so lenses and slow shutter speeds. Thier photos are recognizible in the art circles, including galleries and museums.

In the opposite I never seen interesting picture from those who understand charts. But sharp and distortion free photos are good postcards.

Yet, I don't understand charts, which is unfortunately, but fortunately here is Putz lens compendium book.

It helps me to understand how to use lens without OP method of keep on snapping it until you get its limits. I take it on film, where is no chimping with film.

As for OP photo I wonder if it is soft lens in the corners or lack of DOF. I'm finding blurred right bottom corner unpleasant.

Honestly I don't like lenses soft in the corners at f8. Because I'm not just into "keep it in the middle" snapshots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never seen interesting picture from those who understand charts.

 

Really? So technical understanding = artistic failure? This is one of the sillier comments I've read on the forum.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So technical understanding = artistic failure? This is one of the sillier comments I've read on the forum.

 

Most of my photos are failure. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kf095/  Artistically and technically.

 

You didn't try to read and understand my comment. And made false assumption.

But as person who likes to explain and was teaching adults, I'm taking full responsibility for it.

 

First, it was coincidence what I put my comment right after yours where are you wrote what you used to take photos to draw charts. I wrote without any intention to address it to you, but to OP only. I didn't read your comment before posting, my apologies.

Yet, by taking full responsibility, I checked your site and I'm personally not finding it interesting to me. Please, do not switch to pissed off mode again. I'm not saying yours photos are not artist or bad. All I'm saying what personally I'm not finding them interesting.

Yet, I fully understand why you have to take photos for charts. And let me repeat it again, I wish I could understand those charts.

 

Here is the link to the photog's photos I'm finding interesting:

https://anna-sush.photographer.ru/index.htm?item=595#page2

Many are taken with film Leica and with Summar and 35 Elmar lenses.

She also takes sharp photos of product photography for living by digital rig and those photos are not interesting for me. Or people who takes sharp, all in focus, distortions free landscapes, I'm just not interesting in it. Yes, they need technically good lenses, but I would never make silly assumption what they are not artists.  It just different approach  in photography.

 

I recognize Dusseldorf School of Photography as art, but I'm not finding it interesting.  

Is it silly to like something in art and not to be interesting in another styles? 

Edited by Ko.Fe.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The luminous-landscape site recently re-published an article on contrast and mtf by Mike Johnston. It is a good primer on the subject. The LuLa site is subscription driven, for the princely sum of $12.00 per year.

Jean-Michel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...