Are rangefinder lenses inherently better than SLR lenses, and would it show in photos?
Asked 7/21/2017
2 views
2 answers
0
I’m comparing a Nikon Df with a high-end rangefinder like the Contax G2 and keep reading claims that rangefinder lenses are optically superior to SLR/DSLR lenses. Is there a physical reason for that? I understand rangefinders don’t need space for a reflex mirror, so lens elements can sit closer to the film plane or sensor. Does that give rangefinder lenses a real advantage, especially for wide-angle designs, and is it something a photographer would actually notice in normal images?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
3
Would I notice the (alleged) superiority in my photographs?
If a difference exists, then possibly. The best way to notice the difference would be to take photographs with each combination of equipment under tightly controlled and standardized conditions. A well equipped lab is an ideal starting point and a test chart will make an excellent subject for determining lens superiority.
The superior photos won't be appreciably better than the unsuperior photos -- neither will be very interesting relative to most other photographic subjects because photos of test charts are objectively dull. But at least it will be possible to sleep at night due to owning technically superior equipment.
The limitation of the question is that quality is bounded to small format cameras. No "35mm" style camera is going to offer the technical potential of a medium format camera and no medium format camera is going to offer the technical potential of a large format film camera...a 4" by 5" large format film negative provides the ability to capture orders of magnitude more detail than is possible with the most expensive "35mm" lenses and bodies...even with a cheap (in camera terms) setup.
Of course, a large format film camera comes with tradeoffs that will limit the ability to capture particular subjects in particular settings. Everything in photography comes with tradeoffs and the important ones are rarely economic: e.g. waiting for or making the right light will have a more substantial impact regarding superior photographs than lens quality.
Originally by user50888. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user50888
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
There is a real design difference: SLR/DSLR lenses must leave room for the mirror, so the rear element can’t sit as close to the film/sensor. That especially complicates wide-angle lens design. Rangefinder and mirrorless systems don’t have that constraint, so some wide lenses can be simpler or show lower distortion.
That said, this does not mean rangefinder lenses are always “better.” The biggest advantage is mainly at short focal lengths; at longer focal lengths it matters much less. Also, modern SLR lens design has largely overcome many of the old wide-angle limitations.
Whether you’d notice depends on the subject and how critically you compare them. Differences are easiest to see in controlled testing, such as test charts. In normal photography, any technical advantage may be subtle and often less important than subject, composition, film vs. digital differences, and workflow.
Also, a Nikon Df and Contax G2 are not directly comparable because one is digital and the other is 35mm film. In practice, film scanning/developing and overall system differences may matter more than small lens-design advantages.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why is it called a DSLR: what does the “single” mean?
Are Canon EF lenses always better than EF-S lenses on APS-C cameras?
Can a Nikon S adapter be used for a Contax RF 135mm lens on a Fuji X-E1?
Glass vs gel ND filters: does placement affect image quality?
Which Tamron 70-200mm lens was compared to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and is it optically better?