Hi,
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Bob Walkden wrote:
>>
>> I've found the Carl Zeiss lenses
>> to have a more consistent flavour
>> in both b&w and colour film than
[...]
> In what wy are you able to observe this consistency with Scala?
>> Normally when I shoot b&w
>> I use either a green of a
>> yellow/green filter, but these
[...]
> Using filters will change the characteristics of the lenses, so
> have you done ny sort of comparison without filters?
well, first of all let me stress again that this is entirely subjective. I
haven't measured or recorded anything or done any kind of formal
comparisons.
I usually look at slides on a light box with a Schneider 4X lupe and,
when I feel the need, a no-brand (but very good) Japanese 8X lupe.
The most obvious difference between the Pentax and the CZ lenses is that
their contrast is consistent across the board, and also that the grain
is consistently sharp, well differentiated and 'flinty' (a term I'm not
sure how to describe, but think of iron filings). This suggests that
the CZ lenses I have are all in much the same league from the pov of
optical quality and will not produce any dissonance in photos from the
same series shot with different lenses.
My Pentax lenses simply didn't have this same degree of consistency.
We all know that some lenses are better than others in various ways
and this was most obvious to me on shoots when I used the M 24-35/3.5,
the M 50/1.4 and the A 70-210/4. The 50mm lens, despite being a prime,
stood out in rather a disconcerting way from the other 2. It was far
colder and certainly seemed less contrasty. These are not necessarily
bad qualities, of course, but it is certainly inconsistent. Similarly
the K 28/2 which I had was a lovely sharp lens but seemed
significantly more contrasty than say the 135/1.8.
If we put together the classic triplet of 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lens from
these 3 examples then close inspection of the results seems, to me at least,
to show noticeable differences in sharpness and contrast. We shouldn't
be surprised by the differences in sharpness, of course. On the other
hand, the CZ 28/2.8, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 are all very much alike. To be
fair to the 135/1.8, if we throw into the equation the 2 fast high-cost
CZ lenses (35/1.4 and 85/1.4) they also seem to be of the same type,
contrast-wise.
How much any of this has to do with the coatings I don't know. Perhaps
the difference in contrast is partially due to the coatings. As I said
before, my P lenses were from several different series, so I wonder if
each series was intended to have different characteristics from other
series, and even if there was a deliberate attempt to aim for the same
look within a series, as seems to be the case with the CZ lenses.
As for filters, no, I have not made comparisons without filters. I
haven't made any formal comparisons between the P and the CZ lenses
with regard to this 'look and feel', and indeed I can't now because I
don't have the Pentax lenses any more. This whole thing is something
that I noticed when I first started using the CZ lenses, after the
Pentax lenses went to the great swag-bag in the sky.
--
Cheers,
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
