Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]rei says: please don't read too much into the appearance of dark and light in the jpgs. i slightly adjusted levels to make the two images similar in contrast and levels. had i not done so, the pre-asph would have shown up lighter and even less contrasty. why did i do this? because when i use these lenses (i use B&W film) and that's what do when i print them. the really relevant comparison to me is not the absolute level of contrast or flare, but the character in the print once i've adjusted where my whites and blacks will fall. to compare the two lenses by showing one light, washed-out image compared with one with normal tonality would, in my opinion, not give the pre-asph its due, nor would it be realistic with regard to how the final prints would turn out. as mark pointed out, there are also variations of subject movement and camera location that definitely can enter into this little experiment; a rigorous application of the scientific method will probably be forever beyond me. in comparing these two _specific_ lenses in identical situations, i believe the 35 ASPH will virtually always produce higher contrast, sharpness and flare suppression. it really is a remarkable lens; easily the best benching lens i own. nevertheless there are other qualities that i think the pre-ASPH brings to its images. these images do not stand as scientific proof, rather they merely confirm my (prejudiced) impressions of the differing character of these two excellent lenses. - -rei > From: Mark Rabiner <mark@markrabiner.com> > > The little boy's face at the bottom left seems to be jerking faster to > the right into the windows more then he is on the right jerking a bit > slower in the other direction. That's what I'm seeing. > > Also the shot on the left of the little boys face he is facing into the > windows more and that is why the face and head is so much lighter. > > But when you also have softer; from faster subject movement you've got > the difference in look between a modern lens and a totally uncoated one. > Which of course is more than the actual reality of the test. > > Also this is an intensely high flare situation. > A shifting of the weight of the photographer; his breathing or a > subjects subtle move can influence the flare going into the lens shot by > shot. > > I bet if you shot a whole role in this setup from each lens you could > easily find a pair in which a darker sharper face was done by the older > glass and a lighter washed out softer face was done with the modern lens. > That's how I see it. > > What does Rei say? > > > Mark Rabiner > Portland, Oregon USA > http://www.markrabiner.com - -- Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com Ridgewood, New Jersey - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html