Digital BW, The Print

I can recall some sage advice that one should produce negatives the 
printer will not have untoward difficulties with. Since the printer 
in my case was me, I took this to heart. My favorite to print, using 
an enlarger, was certainly 4 X 5, but a close second was negatives 
from the big Pentax 6 X 7 SLR using 120 - 220 roll film. It was 
awkward, heavy and took some time to refine technique since there 
was a big clunk when the mirror flipped up but the lenses were 
generally very good and the resulting negatives were usually a joy 
to print. 35mm on the other hand, to my view, is the format from 
hell so far as printing is concerned. I also had a 645 Pentax but 
the negs were not all that much easier to print than from a 35mm. It 
seems sort of like the mantra one used to hear from the hotrod crowd 
concerning engine power "There ain't no substitute for cubic inches."

Most of my professional use was 35mm in biomedical work but the last 
few years I dropped using film cameras almost entirely, particularly 
for photomicrography, and used digital almost exclusively. 

Roger

Another vote for "bigger is better." I am making (mostly landscape)
images with a Mamiya 7II. The camera is light (no mirror, no prism; just
a beautiful, bright rangefinder camera). The 6x7 negs (scanned at home
on an Epson 1640 with trans adapter) and Silverfast print beautifully.
Sharp, sharp, sharp. 
Although I use my CP5000 for some stuff, the M7 gets most of the
"serious" work.
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
215 751-8320
 <mailto:sshire@...> sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: rlsopher [mailto:rlsopher@...] 
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:14 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Film cameras and negatives
 
I can recall some sage advice that one should produce negatives the 
printer will not have untoward difficulties with. Since the printer 
in my case was me, I took this to heart. My favorite to print, using 
an enlarger, was certainly 4 X 5, but a close second was negatives 
from the big Pentax 6 X 7 SLR using 120 - 220 roll film. It was 
awkward, heavy and took some time to refine technique since there 
was a big clunk when the mirror flipped up but the lenses were 
generally very good and the resulting negatives were usually a joy 
to print. 35mm on the other hand, to my view, is the format from 
hell so far as printing is concerned. I also had a 645 Pentax but 
the negs were not all that much easier to print than from a 35mm. It 
seems sort of like the mantra one used to hear from the hotrod crowd 
concerning engine power "There ain't no substitute for cubic inches."

Most of my professional use was 35mm in biomedical work but the last 
few years I dropped using film cameras almost entirely, particularly 
for photomicrography, and used digital almost exclusively. 

Roger









Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.2025945.3499726.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=879171/R=0/*http:/www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-57f> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.2025945.3499726.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705019182:HM/A=879171/rand=551805305> 

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 10:36 AM -0400 4/26/02, Shire,Stanley wrote:
>Another vote for "bigger is better." I am making (mostly landscape)
>images with a Mamiya 7II. The camera is light (no mirror, no prism; just
>a beautiful, bright rangefinder camera). The 6x7 negs (scanned at home
>on an Epson 1640 with trans adapter) and Silverfast print beautifully.
>Sharp, sharp, sharp.
>Although I use my CP5000 for some stuff, the M7 gets most of the
>"serious" work.
>

I must have missed the first message in this thread, but it seems to 
be a discussion about everyone's choice of format and why.  I think I 
will go "against the grain"...and vote for 35mm...or maybe I might 
better say "with the grain."    While I own high quality professional 
4x5 and 2 1/4 outfits which I occasionally use for professional work 
requiring detail or camera movements,  I must confess that I am a 
35mmm photographer in my soul.  I hate to use tripods and like the 
rapid visualization and discovery that only small format can give. 
Smaller is better for me.  I hate to lug around lots of equipment. 
Also, to my eyes,  the abstract quality of grain is a big plus. 
Infrared is a specialty of mine and it certainly doesn't look real in 
the sense that Tri-x does.

In the future, I will most likely go all digital...as Photoshop is a 
big part of my routine now.  I have been a part-time college 
photography teacher for about 18 years, mostly black and white and 
for the last three have been only teaching  the Digital Imaging 
(Photoshop) class.  I will probably make the switch to all digital 
when the 35mm professional cameras have larger capture devices and a 
20mm lens takes a 20mm image and not a 28mm image.  Actually I like 
the idea of shooting everything in color and converting in Photoshop 
to get zthe effect I like.  This is similar to what a lot of people 
are doing with color negative film for black and white final prints.

All formats are wonderful in the right hands.  I certainly admire 
other photographers work with large formats, but I can shoot a roll 
of 35 in the time most 4x5 people set up a camera for their first 
shot.  I like that variety and the process of discovery that comes 
with it.  It all simply boils down to a one's personality, 
temperament and individual aesthetic.

Bill Agee
-- 

b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a

billagee@...
http://www.redsilver.com

The choice of camera or film in photography for me seems little 
different from the choice any craftsman or artist makes in the 
choice of tools they use to produce their art. You use what works. 
Because of the technology inherent in the digital process, much 
is made of using machines and materials that provide the 
largest amount of information or data, giving us the maximum 
amount of  material to work with. Larger formats and drum scans 
married with ever evolving ink and printing technology seems to 
be the order of the day.

Yet, how much data is enough?

I love working with 35mm, especially small rangerfinders with 
wide lenses and fast films. Probably because of a journalistic 
background. There is a joy that comes with the freedom of the 
format. This bias has not kept me from amassing a room full of 
other cameras in formats ranging from 120 to 8x10, much to the 
dismay of other members of my family. Nor has it kept me from 
trying innumerable chemistries, films and processes to give 
voice to the images I brought home.

Recently, I put up an exhibit of images printed from 35mm negs, 
large prints made on a 7000. After working for years with the 
"limitations" of  such a small format, I was prudent in my 
expectations.  And quite wrong.

The final prints were far better than I had expected. I pushed 
them quite a bit further than I had planned, and they held up. 

Were they as good as I could have gotten with a larger format 
and a Howtek, probably not. But did they need to be that good?

People came, looked and seemingly enjoyed. No one pulled out 
a loupe and complained that they saw this problem or that 
problem. 

Perhaps the discussion needs to expand, not what camera or 
film is best for the technology, but more about how the 
technology can be stretched to fit the needs of our individual 
vision. 

Or perhaps......................?

Butch Hulett


An afterthought: The 35mm images I talked about can be seen 
at:
http://www.keyesgallery.com/artists/bhulett/index.shtml
(the "Sturgis" group)

Bill.

Great points that you make. Especially about 35mm allowing rapid 
visualization and discovery. However, if one wishes to make "large" 
prints, my feeling is that LF or at least MF in 6x6 to 6x12 is the way 
to go. I have yet to see a 35mm negative that can reproduce the tonal 
range and smoothness of 4x5. Some feel that with todays fine grain 
emulsions the quality of MF if not 4x5 can be obtained with 35mm. Well, 
I am not in agreement with their premise.

As far as visualization goes, I shoot mostly 4x5 with some 6x6 and 6x9 
thrown in(All B/W). I love spending time evaluating a scene, 
pre-visualizing it if you will, setting up tha Arca and getting 
everything ready. Waiting for first light (or last light) and pulling 
the trigger. Removing the film, sliding in another sheet and again 
pulling the trigger.

For me, there is a feeling of spirituality making that special image on 
a sheet of film. Being able to control the expansion or contraction of 
the exposure to obtain what I wanted to see.

35mm is a great format. But for me, there is satisfaction in the 
deliberate, time consuming work flow of shooting large format.

Mike

Michael J. Kravit, AIA
Architect/Photographer
Delray Beach, Florida

On Friday, April 26, 2002, at 12:05 PM, Bill Agee wrote:

> At 10:36 AM -0400 4/26/02, Shire,Stanley wrote:
>> Another vote for "bigger is better." I am making (mostly landscape)
>> images with a Mamiya 7II. The camera is light (no mirror, no prism; 
>> just
>> a beautiful, bright rangefinder camera). The 6x7 negs (scanned at home
>> on an Epson 1640 with trans adapter) and Silverfast print beautifully.
>> Sharp, sharp, sharp.
>> Although I use my CP5000 for some stuff, the M7 gets most of the
>> "serious" work.
>>
>
> I must have missed the first message in this thread, but it seems to
> be a discussion about everyone's choice of format and why.  I think I
> will go "against the grain"...and vote for 35mm...or maybe I might
> better say "with the grain."    While I own high quality professional
> 4x5 and 2 1/4 outfits which I occasionally use for professional work
> requiring detail or camera movements,  I must confess that I am a
> 35mmm photographer in my soul.  I hate to use tripods and like the
> rapid visualization and discovery that only small format can give.
> Smaller is better for me.  I hate to lug around lots of equipment.
> Also, to my eyes,  the abstract quality of grain is a big plus.
> Infrared is a specialty of mine and it certainly doesn't look real in
> the sense that Tri-x does.
>
> In the future, I will most likely go all digital...as Photoshop is a
> big part of my routine now.  I have been a part-time college
> photography teacher for about 18 years, mostly black and white and
> for the last three have been only teaching  the Digital Imaging
> (Photoshop) class.  I will probably make the switch to all digital
> when the 35mm professional cameras have larger capture devices and a
> 20mm lens takes a 20mm image and not a 28mm image.  Actually I like
> the idea of shooting everything in color and converting in Photoshop
> to get zthe effect I like.  This is similar to what a lot of people
> are doing with color negative film for black and white final prints.
>
> All formats are wonderful in the right hands.  I certainly admire
> other photographers work with large formats, but I can shoot a roll
> of 35 in the time most 4x5 people set up a camera for their first
> shot.  I like that variety and the process of discovery that comes
> with it.  It all simply boils down to a one's personality,
> temperament and individual aesthetic.
>
> Bill Agee
> --
>
> b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
> c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a
>
> billagee@...
> http://www.redsilver.com
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Michael J. Kravit <mjkaia@k...> wrote:
> Bill.
> 
> Great points that you make. Especially about 35mm allowing rapid 
> visualization and discovery. However, if one wishes to make "large" 
> prints, my feeling is that LF or at least MF in 6x6 to 6x12 is the way 
> to go. I have yet to see a 35mm negative that can reproduce the tonal 
> range and smoothness of 4x5. Some feel that with todays fine grain 
> emulsions the quality of MF if not 4x5 can be obtained with 35mm. Well, 
> I am not in agreement with their premise.
> 
> As far as visualization goes, I shoot mostly 4x5 with some 6x6 and 6x9 
> thrown in(All B/W). I love spending time evaluating a scene, 
> pre-visualizing it if you will, setting up tha Arca and getting 
> everything ready. Waiting for first light (or last light) and pulling 
> the trigger. Removing the film, sliding in another sheet and again 
> pulling the trigger.
> 
> For me, there is a feeling of spirituality making that special image on 
> a sheet of film. Being able to control the expansion or contraction of 
> the exposure to obtain what I wanted to see.
> 
> 35mm is a great format. But for me, there is satisfaction in the 
> deliberate, time consuming work flow of shooting large format.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Michael J. Kravit, AIA
> Architect/Photographer
> Delray Beach, Florida
> 

I agree completely.  For me the usage of the 4x5, the ground
glass, the spot meter, the large sheets of film just all fit me
and my style.  Sure, I like the quality of a large negative but
I've also seen wonderful work with smaller formats.  But when
it comes to me making an image I just always gravitate to
the 4x5 -- I just like it.  I like the camera, the large negative,
and the printing in the darkroom.  And now I like the easy
time I have getting a plenty good enough scan from a 
relatively cheap scanner.

Roy

-- 
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

What are the implications for print size of using 35mm? Or rather, 
what's the best way to push the 35mm envelope on a budget limited to 
several thousand dollars rather than more than ten thousand dollars?

I'm an admirer of Bill Agee's work. And reading between the lines of 
the purchase information on his web site, I thought it seemed to 
nudge prospective customers toward 5x7 prints but also to give the 
impression that 10x15 prints are routinely practicable.

That's what I would have said if I were I better at composing so as 
to use more of the 35mm frame. As it is, I usually fall short - 
literally - of that. But supposing I get better at it, what are the 
other inputs for good-as-it-gets do-it-yourself 10x15 or 11x14 35mm 
prints?

Are they, for example, a feasible goal if you start with color film 
(which?) rather than BW? Should you spend a limited budget on better 
lenses instead of a better SLR? Or even get the best lenses? Always 
use a tripod? Get drum scans? A 7000 instead of a 1280? Etc., etc. 
That is, I'd appreciate any suggestions about 35mm strategies and 
tactics for someone who can't simply get the best of everything.

Not that Bill (or anyone else) has suggested that. I'm just trying to 
pick up on his comment about format being a function of temperament. 
And wondering how best to implement a disposition toward 35mm if 
you're not ready yet to use digital cameras instead of film. I 
realize the best answer to that might be: "Get ready." But even if it 
is, I'd still like to know how best to get what can be gotten out of 
the film(s) best suited to the work.

Thanks.

Sam McCandless                 samcc@...

>I must have missed the first message in this thread, but it seems to
>be a discussion about everyone's choice of format and why.  I think I
>will go "against the grain"...and vote for 35mm...or maybe I might
>better say "with the grain."    While I own high quality professional
>4x5 and 2 1/4 outfits which I occasionally use for professional work
>requiring detail or camera movements,  I must confess that I am a
>35mmm photographer in my soul.  I hate to use tripods and like the
>rapid visualization and discovery that only small format can give.
>Smaller is better for me.  I hate to lug around lots of equipment.
>Also, to my eyes,  the abstract quality of grain is a big plus.
>Infrared is a specialty of mine and it certainly doesn't look real in
>the sense that Tri-x does.
>
>In the future, I will most likely go all digital...as Photoshop is a
>big part of my routine now.  I have been a part-time college
>photography teacher for about 18 years, mostly black and white and
>for the last three have been only teaching  the Digital Imaging
>(Photoshop) class.  I will probably make the switch to all digital
>when the 35mm professional cameras have larger capture devices and a
>20mm lens takes a 20mm image and not a 28mm image.  Actually I like
>the idea of shooting everything in color and converting in Photoshop
>to get zthe effect I like.  This is similar to what a lot of people
>are doing with color negative film for black and white final prints.
>
>All formats are wonderful in the right hands.  I certainly admire
>other photographers work with large formats, but I can shoot a roll
>of 35 in the time most 4x5 people set up a camera for their first
>shot.  I like that variety and the process of discovery that comes
>with it.  It all simply boils down to a one's personality,
>temperament and individual aesthetic.
>
>Bill Agee
>--
>
>b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
>c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a
>
>billagee@...
>http://www.redsilver.com

"Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...> writes:

> What are the implications for print size of using 35mm? Or rather, 
> what's the best way to push the 35mm envelope on a budget limited to 
> several thousand dollars rather than more than ten thousand dollars?
> 
> I'm an admirer of Bill Agee's work. And reading between the lines of 
> the purchase information on his web site, I thought it seemed to 
> nudge prospective customers toward 5x7 prints but also to give the 
> impression that 10x15 prints are routinely practicable.
> 
> That's what I would have said if I were I better at composing so as 
> to use more of the 35mm frame. As it is, I usually fall short - 
> literally - of that. But supposing I get better at it, what are the 
> other inputs for good-as-it-gets do-it-yourself 10x15 or 11x14 35mm 
> prints?
> 
> Are they, for example, a feasible goal if you start with color film 
> (which?) rather than BW? Should you spend a limited budget on better 
> lenses instead of a better SLR? Or even get the best lenses? Always 
> use a tripod? Get drum scans? A 7000 instead of a 1280? Etc., etc. 
> That is, I'd appreciate any suggestions about 35mm strategies and 
> tactics for someone who can't simply get the best of everything.

Certainly the film matters.  Slower film *tends* to be sharper and
finer grained (and those two aren't exactly the same thing, either),
though it isn't all the time.  

Color film (and the chromagenic B&W like Ilford XP2) has a very
different "grain" structure from old-type B&W film -- dye clouds
released *by* the grains, but not sharp edged.  And bigger than the
actual grain.  So you get a different look, which may work for some
pictures better than others.  I've seen a pair of 2x3 foot prints made
from 35mm XP2 that look *amazingly* clean and good and grainless, even
up close.  Sure worked for that image (a model with nice skin).

Certainly camera shake can be an issue; studio flash or a tripod are
your friends for that. 

I haven't experimented with different scanners on 35mm, but everything
I hear and see *strongly* suggests that 2700 DPI doesn't get you
everything there is to be got from a good slow film shot carefully.
So playing with scanning may well benefit you, but I can't point to
what I think is the limit.

I'd rank glass last, myself; but that's assuming you don't own any
real crap.  Got a Kiron 28-200 you use a lot?  (Example picked at
random; I'm sure there's crap out there, but that might not be one of
them.) 

A 7000 instead of a 1280 will just make the problem *worse*, won't it?
I mean, it'll print wider  :-) .

You might also consider going to prints *so* big that people view them
from far away, and expect to see artifacts if they go close up.  Then
the 35mm origin may suddenly become less of an issue again.  I haven't
tried this approach.  And if you do try this approach, some people say
that Genuine Fractals  works well for making big size increases
starting from a 20MB or larger file, so it might be relevant at that
point. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

>Certainly the film matters.  Slower film *tends* to be sharper and 
>finer grained (and those two aren't exactly the same thing, either), 
>though it isn't all the time.
>
>Color film (and the chromagenic B&W like Ilford XP2) has a very 
>different "grain" structure from old-type B&W film -- dye clouds 
>released *by* the grains, but not sharp edged.  And bigger than the 
>actual grain.  So you get a different look, which may work for some 
>pictures better than others.  I've seen a pair of 2x3 foot prints 
>made from 35mm XP2 that look *amazingly* clean and good and 
>grainless, even up close.  Sure worked for that image (a model with 
>nice skin).

Thanks David (Dyer-Bennett); I'll check out the Ilford XP2.


>Certainly camera shake can be an issue; studio flash or a tripod are 
>your friends for that.

I have a good but relatively heavy tripod and head I got for a few 
hundred dollars. I think I could get an appreciably lighter 
carbon-fiber tripod and better (ball) head for about a thousand. And 
then have a lot less excuse not to always take it. I'm agonizing 
about it. Sometimes I can substitute an image-stabilized lens for a 
tripod, but they're more expensive too. Plus I need one most for my 
short, wide-angle zoom, and Canon doesn't have one.


>I haven't experimented with different scanners on 35mm, but 
>everything I hear and see *strongly* suggests that 2700 DPI doesn't 
>get you everything there is to be got from a good slow film shot 
>carefully. So playing with scanning may well benefit you, but I 
>can't point to
>what I think is the limit.

I've heard from Aztec's Phil Lippincott on scan.com that it's at 
about 6000 spi for 35mm film. I settled for Polaroid's SS4000, which 
I think I could upgrade to the 4000 Plus for a little less than a 
thousand dollars. I'm not sure it's worth it. But to do better than 
that would I think cost at least another thousand. But maybe even 
that is worth it. Because it's certainly frustrating to suspect that 
you got more on the film than you can get out of it.


>I'd rank glass last, myself; but that's assuming you don't own any 
>real crap. [snip]

That surprises me. But no crap: I got mid-level/EF Canon lenses: EF 
28-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS (which I can usually use w/o a tripod _if_ I 
use 400 instead of 100 film), and EF 20-35mm 1:3.5-4.5 (which I can 
usually use w/o a tripod  _if_ I use 400 film _and_ forego some depth 
of field). Each of these was a few hundred dollars. For the short 
zoom, which is more important to me, there are "L" alternatives with 
f-stop ranges which start at 2.8 and other seemingly (but what do I 
know?) marginal advantages. For $1200 - $1500.


>A 7000 instead of a 1280 will just make the problem *worse*, won't 
>it? I mean, it'll print wider  :-) .

Yes, but, some say, also better. And again the difference - $500 vs 
$2500? - is maybe too much even if its prints are of better quality.

I guess I need to pursue these things individually to try to get a 
better fix on how much better the product at the next step up is.

jSam

"Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...> writes:

> >Certainly the film matters.  Slower film *tends* to be sharper and 
> >finer grained (and those two aren't exactly the same thing, either), 
> >though it isn't all the time.
> >
> >Color film (and the chromagenic B&W like Ilford XP2) has a very 
> >different "grain" structure from old-type B&W film -- dye clouds 
> >released *by* the grains, but not sharp edged.  And bigger than the 
> >actual grain.  So you get a different look, which may work for some 
> >pictures better than others.  I've seen a pair of 2x3 foot prints 
> >made from 35mm XP2 that look *amazingly* clean and good and 
> >grainless, even up close.  Sure worked for that image (a model with 
> >nice skin).
> 
> Thanks David (Dyer-Bennett); I'll check out the Ilford XP2.

That particular film also seems to like to be exposed around EI200 for
optimal grain (it's nominally 400, and works fine at 400, too).

> >I'd rank glass last, myself; but that's assuming you don't own any 
> >real crap. [snip]
> 
> That surprises me. But no crap: I got mid-level/EF Canon lenses: EF 
> 28-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS (which I can usually use w/o a tripod _if_ I 
> use 400 instead of 100 film), and EF 20-35mm 1:3.5-4.5 (which I can 
> usually use w/o a tripod  _if_ I use 400 film _and_ forego some depth 
> of field). Each of these was a few hundred dollars. For the short 
> zoom, which is more important to me, there are "L" alternatives with 
> f-stop ranges which start at 2.8 and other seemingly (but what do I 
> know?) marginal advantages. For $1200 - $1500.

I'm not a lens tester.  On the other hand, I've gotten rid of lenses
because I consistently didn't like the pictures I took with them (for
whatever reasons) and kept lenses that consistently took good pictures
even if there was no obvious excuse for them to do so (that latter is
a mid-70s Tamron 85-210 zoom).  I've owned Leitz Summicron lenses (and
loved them, but when that system got stolen I never quite replaced
it), and have quite a few Nikon prime lenses currently (20mm, 24mm,
35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 58mm f1.2, 105mm f2.5, 135mm f2), so my informal
comparisons include decent glass.

I *strongly* suspect that what it comes down to is that for the
journalistic photography I mostly do, the lens is rarely the limiting
factor compared to camera shake, focus, and such, and that I don't do
*enough* of the other work to notice the problems.  Except for flare;
I catch flare the first time I shoot in the studio with a white
background for some reason :-).

So I'm not saying glass isn't important; it is after all the thing
that actually forms the image on the film!  But my experience suggests
to me that one of the simpler, cheaper, issues is more likely to be
the real problem.  If your work habits are different from mine, you
may well not be in that situation, so my initial advice may not
actually be good for you.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/