[rollei_list] Re: 'Old' Zeiss glass question
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:27:32 -0400
Hi Jerry F -
The problem with this is what the meaning of "sharp" is. (Do I sound
like Bill Clinton? ;-)) Most lens producers take sharpness to be a
function of both resolution and contrast. I am having trouble
understanding what you mean by "sharp" because you seem to suggest
different things in different parts of your post. Also, the contrast
achieved by multicoating and reduced internal reflections/flare is
different than the contrast achieved by increased development...
Eric Goldstein
On 4/26/06, Jerry Friedman <tinycameraco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
> lost because the lens reduces minor tones by introducing greater contrast,
> that
> won't help either. Some new lenses benefit from rare earth elements and some
> from newer computer design. But, the fact is that computers are often used to
> create less expensive lenses that will deliver decent resolution with as few
> elements as possible. And, believe it or not, the 2.8 lenses Kodak put on
> their
> cheap disc cameras were plastic, aspherical,and extremely good computer
> designs. In point of fact, the most important thing about a lens, given good
> quality glass etc. is how well centered th lens is= how well made the lens is.
> Zeiss and Leitz spent a lot of time and money building a realy good lens.
> Hence, old lenses can be just as good as new lenses, depending upon the
> pictures you like. An older lens with less contrast can be developed more to
> deliver more contrast. I have used really great old lenses and crappy ones.
> Certainly, there are good new lenses and less good as well.
>
> I have found that Zeiss lenses deliver better contrast that Leitz glass, but
> others will tell you the opposite. German glass is supposed to be better than
> Japanese glass, but I have owned many Fuji MF cameras and the lenses are just
> plain sterling. To make things even more complex: Not all Tessars--even Zeiss
> Tessars-- will perform similarly. It is an open secret that Zeiss sold their
> 'less critical' lenses to other manufacturers like Welta etc to improve what
> would otherwise be a very mediocre camera. Similarly, not all Tessars on
> Rollei
> cameras produce the same images. Newer Tessars, on the Rollei T for instance,
> are better than older ones, but this is really picking at threads. The best
> lenses I have ever used are the 80mm Nikor on the Plaubel Makina 670 and the
> Planars on the Rollei C,D,E, F and GX cameras. Yet, I have also used some less
> good Nikors on other Plaubels and a couple of terrific xenotars. So it all
> comes down to initial quality of build, the conditon of the cameras and
> lenses,
> an even individual cameras. But hey, how far wrong can you go with ANY quality
> lens, pre or post war? Best advice is to have any old camera worked over by a
> good technician. Half the success of Rollei cameras continues to be that the
> technical service people are not only available but very very good.
---
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:
