I have never made it a point to do a lens test, but I have been shooting for
a while...
I have shoot T-Max p3200 @3200 with a Nikkor 300/2.8 (high school football)
and despite the grain, the images where sharp. It was VERY obvious where the
point of focus was in the image, it could be found by looking at the grass
in the image. The grass in the foreground would be soft, it would come to a
sharp point, and then soften again.
On the other hand, one time I borrowed a friends 70-210 zoom (not Nikkor but
another major lens manufacture) and was shooting. After making a print (I
was shooting Tri-X) I looked at the print, I saw the softness in the
forground. I saw how the image began to sharpen. Before there was a sharp
point, the image began to soften again. This, by my definition is a soft
lens.
I believe that if I did a test between the Nikkor 300/2.8 and this other
lens both shooting p3200 @ 115000ASA (one stop faster the 6400 ASA) that
there will still be a noticeable difference in sharpness between the two
lens. With the most grainy film out there, a soft lens will produce a soft
grainy image and a sharp lens will produce a sharp grainy image.
I do not know if a lens's sharpness is the same thing as it's ability to
show very fine detail. Grainy film cannot show very fine detail, too
grainy:) Films like Kodachrome 25 comes in really handy for finding out how
small of detail a lens can produce on film. Very fine detail, in a 35mm
lens is of little concern to me, I shoot 4x5 for fine detail. But the
ability to produce a razor sharp image on my Tri-X or P3200 is of the utmost
importance to me and the quailty of the lens matters as much with those
films as it does with Kodachrome 25.
Bottom line: lens sharpness matters despite the type of film being used.
Sam Carleton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
