Is it just me, or do others agree that there isn't any significant difference in color faithfulness among LF lenses? For years I've heard that "European sand (u sed for glassmaking) renders different colors than does Japanese sand" or "Buy a ll of your LF lenses of the same brand, because different lens brands have diffe rent personalities" (that's from a 1999 Calumet catalog!) or "German-made lenses like Schneiders produce more faithful colors" (that's from a pair of posts in t his forum, as yet unanswered, called "Horseman and Schneider" and "Schneider and Horseman").
Will anyone go on record as saying they can actually look at a photograph and de clare in which COUNTRY was made the lens used to make the photograph?
Maybe I'm colorblind, but when I buy current/modern LF lenses, my criteria are t hree other C's (not "color"):
1. Coverage 2. Compactness 3. Cost
(Sometimes the order varies.) Sure, it's nice if the lens shutter fits a lensboa rd I've got lying around, or if the filter size matches my screw-ins, but it alw ays comes down to the three considerations above: I can safely say that "Color r endition" has never been a factor in my decision whether or not to buy (I'm talk ing about current production lenses, of course, not antiques, which is why "shar pness" is as much of a given as is "decent color rendition").
As a result, I have at least one lens each from Fuji, Nikkor, Rodenstock, and Sc hneider. Each lens, I feel, is the best choice for its focal length in the forma t for which I bought it. As far as I know, no viewer has recoiled in horror at t he jarring dissonance between the colors in a photo I made with a Nikkor, for ex ample, compared to a photo I made with a Schneider.