The only variable is the coatings and the "quality" of modern glass right? I mean, aren't all modern LF lenses Planars? So there is no variation based on lens designs, other than the Cooke.
But, I would say you will feel differently depending on what is engraved on your lens.
Garrett
flickr galleries
With respect to photography, seeing is more important than hearing.Originally Posted by great
Most modern non-tele non-wide angle lenses are plasmat types and derivatives. They're not all equal but the differences that matter are in coverage and sharpness, not in transmission.
If you shoot transparencies, the difference in contrast between a Nikon lens and a Rodenstock can blow out details in a highlight versus not, all else being the same. That said, higher contrast lenses usually perform well on test charts, and and will do just great with neg films having 14 stops of dynamic range.
I'll suggest the best reason for sticking with one line or looking to consistency within brands is because the coatings and color balance and curves once brought into Photoshop tend to be easier, particularly when working in color.
Um, Ivan, for color reversal film shot with continuous illumination there's an elephant in the room that hasn't been mentioned. Shutter speeds. Slight exposure errors shift the color balance. By Occam's razor, these are the cause of most observed variations in color rendition between lenses.
Variations in the color of ambient light are another problem that was mentioned earlier in this discussion. I have a couple of f/6.3 B&L Tessars. The first couple of shots I took with one were strongly blue. After that, no excess blue. What happened. The first couple of shots were taken with the sun behind a cloud. The others were taken with the sun not behind a cloud. I was there and that's what I saw. Either that or something mysterious happened to the lens' glasses.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks