I do understand what you are saying, technically. I believe the best combination for me is lenses with high contrast characteristics combined with color negative film to convey all the brightness detail possible to a film that will capture as much of it as possible.
I was answering Brian's question as to why some photographers, including list
members, claim to prefer a lens with lower contrast in preference to a higher
contrast lens. I think my answer was responsive to the question: why some
people might prefer particular lens characteristics, rather than a treatise on
what constitutes a 'good' lens or technical definitions of contrast. I was not
saying that these ideas were right or wrong, just why some people might hold
them. It is, of course, also possible that some of these people love a lens
that actually is contrasty, but believe it not to be so based on other's
opinions and/or on tests where the example tested varied considerably from the
one they have and/or the test conditions were quite different from the use(s)
to which they put the lens.
There is one place where we differ. You say:
"A lens that does either of these things is _not_ a good lens, even if it provides
the kind of images we prefer."
May I infer that also means that a lens which scores highly in these particular
test criteria and provides images that I do not like IS a GOOD lens?
Obviously, we have quite different ideas of what 'good' means. I prefer to evaluate tools that I use on the basis of whether they produce the results I want or not, and sometimes even on whether they are pleasing to use or not.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Unless I were buying a special-purpose lens (such as a soft-focus portrait lens),
So if I define the use as special, or 'non-normal', I'm allowed to use
whatever produces the results I want without feeling bad about it and
having people judge me for my choice of tool? Or are there specification
police to judge each possible kind of special purpose against some
approved criteria?
I can't imagine why I would want a lens that wasn't as sharp and
contrasty as possible. You can always degrade what's good, but you cannot
put back what isn't there.
I agree, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want a lens that wasn't as
sharp and contrasty as possible. I can also imagine why others might
feel differently. For example, I recall more than one listee saying the
50/2 is just too contrasty for portraits, giving quite unflattering results.
I may have gone a bit overboard to make a point which is significant to
me. No hard feelings, I hope.
For further, more authoritative, opinions about the vagaries of lens
quality, image quality and tested characteristics see
<http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/opinion/html/sharpness.htm> .
Moose
< 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 >
|