It is not simply a personal taste, I try to express what I think about
a reproduction system. There is no real contrast reproduction on
earth, a 8 stops light different will not express as 8 stops different
in a print, it is always compressed.
The film is designed to reproduce scene for optimal display, which
should be based on most general lenses. Consumer negative and one hour
lab usually has higher contrast as they target on cheap P&S cameras
where the contrast of such lenses are usually lower.
I'm sure many lenses design are not optimized for maximum contrast,
most of them are with contrast reduce to make their contrast in the
"normal" range (the "normal" is also related to film). Please don't
confuse with flare performance, a low or medium contrast lens does not
mean they are more easy subject to flare in backlight.
Just some examples why I think the contrast is independent of lens
element and looks like that they are specially designed to reduce the
contrast. my Zuiko 50/3.5 MC only has five elements, but the contrast
is similar or even lower than the 28-48, 35-105 late version and
85-250 Zoom which has much more elements but on the other hand the
35-70/3.6 has lower contrast.
On the other hand I don't think adding something to reduce the
contrast of a lens is a good option. A lens designed to optimize the
contrast will be my choice. So that 21/2, 24/2, 35/2, 50/3.5, 85/2,
75-150, 180/2.8 are all my favorite lenses.
C.H.Ling
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> 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 >
|