I think it's a matter of who made the lens, it's specific formulation, and
it's condition. My 45 year old CZ 50/1.5 Sonnar (on an equally ancient ZI
Contax) does a superb job with color. I can't detect any chromatic
aberration projected to 35" X 50." Some of the Leicaphiles would probably
weigh in with similar observations about the Leitz glass on their postwar
LTM's or early M2/M3's. I don't see any noticeable color shift in it
either. Variations in color temperature when various chromes was shot have
a greater affect on the color balance.
Admittedly, that's anecdotal with a sample of *one.* Even older pre-war
lenses were uncoated, so I think a comparison to them would be inherently
unfair. Postwar lenses were single-coated up to some time in the 1960's
when high end lenses started appearing with multi-coating. That might make
a difference with some, but not all lenses, because the older ones
typically had one or two fewer groups, and some have thinner glass elements.
[Historical note: CZ started coating camera lenses some time around
1941/1942 during the war; CZ developed the first practical coating method
in the 1930's but it was held as a state secret.]
It's also dependent on the glass used in the lens formulation.
Multi-coatings add very little to light transmission through high index
glass. A good single coating (Magnesium Flouride??) on high index glass is
very broad-banded. In general, the higher the index, the more broad-banded
a well designed single-coating becomes, and the additional transmission a
multi-coating can provide becomes less (the purpose of MC is to make the
coating effect broad-banded).
That 50/1.5 CZ Sonnar is my *best* lens, followed very closely by the
multi-coated 50/1.2 Zuiko.
Just some food for though about how the coatings in conjunction with
specific lens formulations can make a difference too.
-- John
At 23:29 9/24/00 , Lex Jenkins wrote:
>Subjectively speaking I'd say that's a fair observation. Another example: I
>and other Canon FD shooters have noticed the older breechlock 35/3.5 and
>35/2 deliver great results with b&w but a slightly yellowish tinge to color
>slides. Were some lenses designed specifically for the needs of the day -
>photojournalists shooting b&w? I don't know, but it's possible.
>
>The most current lenses do seem to render colors more brilliantly (film
>differences aside) than older lenses. But that's not necessarily superior,
>especially for photographers doing their own wet darkroom work. It's easier
>to work from a slightly less contrasty image than one which lacks shadow and
>highlight detail.
>
>Lex
>===
>
>>From: "james olson" <james_olson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:49:35 GMT
>>
>>has anyone on the list noticed how olympus lenses seem to handle color and
>>black and white differently than other camera makers?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|