A question for the lens gurus.....

[Michael Graves]

Just for Schlitz and Gins a couple of weekends ago I shot two negatives of the same image. One was with a Fujinon 150mm and the other with a 150 Zeiss Tessar. On the ground glass, they didn't look much different. It looked like the Fuji might be ever so slightly wider than the Tessar. But that didn't surprise or bother me. Few lenses are precisely what their advertised focal length state.

It was the printing of the negatives that surprised me. The negatives were developed in the same run in a Jobo 310, using Rodinal 1:50. While I expected a bit of contrast difference, I didn't expect it to require a full grade. The Fuji generated that much more contrast. No matter how hard, tried, using different papers and everything, I could not get a print from the Fuji negative that had as wide of a tonal range as the Tessar. I determined contrast by making test strips for the highlights and dialing in/out filtration on a variable contrast cold light head until the shadow matched. The mid tones were where the prints differed. The Fuji certainly looked nice, for certain types of images would be my preference. But the Tessar had creamier middle values. What aspect of a lens causes that. It was a low-flare situation--a weathered barn under an overcast sky with a compendium lens shade for both lenses--so I don't think it was that.

I tried scanning both prints to post the comparisons, but you really can't see the difference in the digital scans, so I won't waste server bandwith. (The images were just test images of a barn anyway. And who wants to look at another barn?)

[E. von Hoegh]

Is the Tessar coated?

[Adamphotoman]

German lenses have historically had less contrast and perhaps more mid tones/ and maybe more detail and sharpness; where Japanese optics have had more contrast and perhaps less mid tones.

I would expect one paper grade.

Under expose the German glass by 1/3 stop and process 10% longer. The opposite can be done for the Japanese glass.

Copy work would always boost contrast so overexposing and under developing helped a lot.

[jp]

If the Zeiss were less clean (fingerprints, atmospheric crud deposits like on a car window, st. bernard slobber) it would have noticeably less contrast as well.

While Zeiss was a innovator in coating, if it predated their coating (WWII ish), that would naturally reduce contrast as well. Lens coating reduces natural reflections between pieces of glass in the lens. Thats much of why lenses with larger numbers of elements weren't common before coating; too much glass surfaces == too many reflections, making them less practical. Triplets and tessars reduced reflections by their simplicity.

[jp]

If you used different lensboards, you might make sure the lensboards are equally blackened on the back too. (to prevent internal camera reflection.)

[GPS]

You don't say the film format, you don't say the coverage of the lenses... Light inside bellows is not the same with lenses of different coverage etc.

[Ken Lee]

"...the Tessar had creamier middle values."

This has been my experience too. I use a variety of Tessars for portraits and flower images, for that very reason. See this short piece for sample photos such as this one, made with a double-coated 250mm Tessar on 4x5 film.

While some of my Tessars are fairly modern, and multi-coated, they are always smoother, with creamier mid-tones - just as you have observed. The effects are seen even when using a compendium lens shade.

I prefer Fujinon lenses for landscape and still-life images suited for a razor-sharp look.

Another advantage of Tessars is that many come in older shutters with near-circular apertures: nicer blur rendering

It's subjective, but I find Sironars somewhere in-between the two extremes. I wouldn't want to be stuck with only Tessars or Fujinons, but could survive quite nicely with a full range of Sironars

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I've written an article about the importance of using a proper lens shade to reduce the amount of non-image forming light from getting inside the lens and the camera. In situations where you are using uncoated or single coated lenses, this can make a world of difference in the contrast of the resulting negative. It would also make a difference if you were using a lens with far greater coverage than the size of film in use would require. Point is, it's not just the optic itself, but what the non-image forming light might be doing to increase flare both in the lens and in the camera (in the case of bellows flare). Read this http://web.mac.com/razeichner/RAZP_l...hade_pg_1.html and take a look at the examples made with a single coated Angulon.

[IanG]

That sounds about right.

I use uncoated CZJ Tessar's and older lenses alongside a coated Tessar (50's), Xenar (very early 2000's) an then my MC lenses.

Yes uncoatyed lenses have a very different tonality but much of that is from internal flare and that's there regardless of the lighting conditions.

There's a different tonality with uncoated lenses, you have to see and learnm it for yourself.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Are you sure your Tessar's shutter is not running slow?