Is it Sharpness?
Is it Contrast?
This reminds me of discussions on Leica groups. Nothing new, I think these
discussions started shortly after the first Nikkor lens came home from the
Korean war. I can remember the same discussions when I first started in
photography, in the late, ahem, sixties. This begins with what is apparently
a truism, as it has gone unchallenged for many years: you can have either
ultimate sharpness or contrast, but not both. When the contrast is
maximized, sharpness is necessarily reduced. The great lenses from Leica
(that's the old lenses that LUG members find wanting) always gave maximum
sharpness, but, in the eyes of some, lacked contrast. The Nikkors, beginning
with those for the RF's, were noticeably contrastier than the Leica lenses,
but some thought they lacked sharpness, and didn't have that "look"
associated with Leica lenses, especially with B&W. Except among the most
zealous of the partisans, it was agreed that one was better for B&W, the
other for color. Since this was a time when we often shot B&W for family
snapshots and such, and were beginning the transition to the exclusive use
of color, one can see how this change in lens design paradigms would unfold.
There are some today that feel the latest lenses from Leica show a shift to
a bit more contrast, and aren't all that happy about it.
What does this have to do with us? Some of us feel that the Zuiko designers
were using the Leica paradigm for many of the lenses, but were forced to go
the contrast route due to competitive pressures. Certain Zuikos (see Garry
Reese's tests) favor sharpness over contrast. Are there any Leica shooters
among us that would like to comment, or, horrors, shoot some tests?
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|