Medium format systems are widely known as being the best, producing the most detailed and technically superior images. The lenses are supposedly the best available too, such as the 40mm from Rodenstock which is praised for its amazing performance. If you want the best in image quality, the widest dynamic range, and the deepest depth of field with the least amount of diffraction, then medium format is the answer... or is it? Is this simply perception? If you repeat something enough does it become fact? How many people who believe this to be true have actually tried and compared the best from medium format to the best available from full frame?
Over the last few years I have been using medium-format cameras to find out exactly what they are capable of. Aside from resolution, which some would say is overrated, many of the claims are unfounded. This is particularly true when comparing lenses. Even lenses like the 40mm from Rodenstock don't hold up to the best available from full frame.
In the video above, I demonstrate how the Canon 24mm Tilt-Shift lens outperforms the Rodenstock at pretty much every aperture. The Rodenstock suffers from noticeably more diffraction and is overall a softer and worse performing lens. This may come as a surprise to many, however, if you're not convinced, I urge you to try it for yourself.