I have no argument with personal taste, or the use of specific materials or
processes to achieve desired results. I was trying to point out that there's
no such thing as a "contrasty" lens (a lens cannot increase the tonal range
of the scene being photographed), and that it makes no sense to deliberately
design a lens of objectively "bad" optical design to satisfy a small segment
of the market. It's interesting to note that the only such lenses ever
produced (for any format) have been specifically for portraits.
I was taken aback by the second-hand comment that the 50/2 Zuiko macro is
"too contrasty" for portraits. Well, you wouldn't normally use a 50mm lens
for portraits, and if you wanted to reduce the contrast and sharpness, all
you'd have to do is stick a cheap teleconverter on the lens. Presto -- a
mediocre 100mm lens, just right for flattering portraiture.
This sort of argument is becoming less common with film, because film
chemists now have so much control over granularity, dye-coupler interaction,
tonal scale, etc, that it's possible to rationally produce "designer" films
that meet specific needs. This does not appear to be possible with lenses.
< 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 >
|