Lynn wrote:
> The old, slower lenses show their "stuff," and the smaller format
> tends to drop some of the detail. This leads me to think that the
> lensatics and medium of the target picture is *still* more
> important than whatever scanner you use, if the scanner is
> competent in the first place.
I have a couple of old and AFAIK not particularly great K-mount
lenses which I can use on my MZ5. The clarity of photos taken
with the f1.9 50mm lens in particular seem *vastly* better than
photos taken with the Sigma 28-80 AF zoom. Even when the
autofocus is spot on, it doesn't seem to get close to the 50mm
in sharpness. On the other hand, the 50mm seems to have a bad
case of red colour fringing which is very noticeable when scanned.
Anyway, my point is that scanning has shown me how important the
quality of the lenses can be. You can't expect stunning results
out of the scan if the quality of the image isn't there in the
first place. I can't help wondering how much of the "problem"
with scanner softness is actually softness of the image on the
film.
Until I can get hold of a really good fixed focal length
lens and take a few photos with a tripod, I don't think I'll
know for sure.
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
