[Leica] in the dark with the sonnar

[ralph fuerbringer <rof@mac.com>]

 first of all any lens with the label 50mmf1.5 canon is coated. 1/2 a
century ago there were recommendatons to get uncoated 50mf1.5 sonnars for
portraits. it was said they put more details in shadows.  aside from the
fact that 85f2 sonnar would be the logial choice for portraits, any claim of
more density overall intrigued me. elaborate tests revealed signifcantly
more meat everywhere including the shadows with the coated lens. the lower
contrast of the uncoated model only gave an illusion of more detail. that
absence of coating adds a magic fill-in is crap as light transmision is
significantly less overall.also many of the best portraits are against the
light and here the uncoated lens is pathetic. not in theory or practice can
 uncoated pass as much light, scattered or not as coated  period. i still
have both an original uncoated and final gem from stuttart. i could repeat
the tests but why bother now? then my living then depended on shooting stage
performances with the best possible definition in highlight and shadow. how
good is a sonnar? at a time 35mm was scorned by the newspapers a producer
friend said the nytimes needed shots of the male animal w/robert preston. i
bought a ticket and shot a roll with the contax 11 ,printed 6 8x10's and
sent them over. that sunday the top half of the front page in the arts and
leisure section matched 3 of those 6 shots to 3 thurber cartoons. all were
my pictures but at bottom right they credited two other photographers as
well.  when i called the editor she said they submitted pictures too. hardly
a year goes by i dont think about murder. how far have we really come if
killing an editor is still a crime? ralph