[rollei_list] Re: 'Old' Zeiss glass question
- From: Peter J Nebergall <iusar4s@xxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:10:04 -0500
I have had a lot of Zeiss Biotars. They vary all over the place -- from
"paste" to excellent. Of course some are prewar, some wartime, some
immediately postwar... so working conditions and supplies matter....
and the Tessar is no doubt a thick book waiting to be written! Even my
R-Summicrons are different -- and I'd suggest these hand-fashioned
instruments are as different as Stradivarii.
But doesn't that make it a lot more fun?
(I did say in STREET PHOTOG: "Photography is a lot like jazz; there's a
whole lot of ways to play it...")
Peter Nebergall
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Jerry Friedman
<tinycameraco@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Largely a question of coatings delivering better contrast, as
> indicated by
> others. Single/non-coated lenses are just as sharp but because they
> permit a
> greater degree of "haze" from light bouncing around, some people
> feel that they
> do not destroy minor tones as much as high contrast lenses with
> better
> multi-coating. For black and white this can be important.
> Personally, I like
> contrast, sharpness and high resolution and accuity etc, because
> when cropping
> a MF negative, the greater detail enlarges better. Of course, if the
> tones are
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
