Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I still do an adjustment for the lens. Which is why I use Rolleis after 1972. I can process all the rolls from then to the present optics without having to do individual compensation. On one hand, I tried using uncoated wide angle Leitz glass, Hektor and Elmar, with mostly disastrous results. I do have an uncoated 5cm Elmar, which surprisingly is on par with a 3.5 Summaron and a 9cm Elmar. On the other hand, 60-70 years later, a CV 21mm barely ambles alongside them (highlight wash and edge softness/low contrast). S.d. On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:15 AM, George Lottermoser wrote: > Speaking from a very precise point of view; > I seem to recall A Adams discussing lens contrast in terms of dynamic > range; > and altering exposure and development for both > the contrast of the scene > and > the contrast of the lens. > > In the digital age a desire for a lower contrast lens > may also refer to a desire for more dynamic range to work with in the > image file. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Chris Saganich wrote: > >> >> I definitely see a nicer or perhaps longer tonal range from my Summicron >> DR compared to the later 1980's Summicron. I have to alter development >> times depending on the era of lens I'm using. I can't say if this is due >> to the DR lens being lower contrast and higher resolution compared to the >> later Summicrons although this has been suggested by others. I question >> exactly what contrast means compared to a sharpnes. I find little >> difference in sharpness between the DR Summicron and the 1980's Summicron >> 50's, just different tonal renditions. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information