Hey Richard, I defer to your (far) greater knowledge and I'd thought the same thing-- my lens is old and may not be as clean as it should be--but I've printed with two other lenses ( also old) that pretty much correspond with contrast of my lens. I'll certainly use your recommended flash light method and lord knows I've had that lens for over twenty-five years and I don't doubt that I will find the evidence you describe but I have used my friend's lens on old negs and gotten superior results-- not sharper just more contrasty than I was ever able to effect originally. I think, but wouldn't argue, that it is just an inherently more contrasty lens. Have your heard of this before? I guess my question is: are there variations among same (new) lenses? Or is consistency the non-hobgoblin of little lenses? David -----Original Message----- From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thu, Feb 4, 2010 3:39 pm Subject: [rollei_list] Re: xenar test roll is back ----- Original Message ----- From: <daxelb@xxxxxxx> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:39 AM Subject: [rollei_list] Re: xenar test roll is back Hi, Another rub: what about the possible variations among (supposedly) exact same lenses? Has anybody found that to exist to a point where it is apparent? I had that experience with a Nikkor 50mm enlarging lens. A friend of mine has the same lens and it gets a full grade of improved contrast over my own. I occasionally borrow her lens when I have a really flat negative and I can get a beautiful print from a #4 filter where with my own lens the image would print too flat. David Baumbach There should not be so much difference in contrast. I suggest checking both lenses for internal haze. Just shine a small flashlight through the lens, if there is any haze you will see it. Even a very small amount of haze will substantially reduce contrast. Most lenses are reasonably easy to get apart for cleaning. The haze forms on inside surfaces. I don't know the cause for certain but suspect it is a deposit from the anti-reflective paint in the lens cell. It forms inside sealed cells so I don't think its from evaporated lubricant. Whatever it is seems to come off with ordinary lens cleaner or alcohol. Its very unlikely that the difference in these two lenses is caused by a variation in optical correction or even by differences in coating. It _is_ possible that its caused by scratches or "cleaning marks" which are very fine scratches, in the surface of one lens. These can also destroy contrast. The flashnight examination will also show them up pronto. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- 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