Maybe they are not looking at the world directly through their Zuikos
:-D .
Seriously, I think your analogy is flawed. The lens is just one part of
a chain of things and processes that result in an image to be viewed.
Each part of the chain has its own flaws and, more importantly,
different photographers want different things in the final images. There
are at least a couple of reasons a photographer might prefer a less
contrasty lens for at least some uses:
Too much contrast at multiple stages of the image chain can be a
problem. Use a contrasty lens with contrasty film with sun and sand or
snow and it's problematic to capture any highlight and shadow detail.
Photographs of faces tend to be more flattering (and, many would say,
more realistic) with less contrasty images. Lower contrast is not
uncommonly accompanied with at least slightly lower resolution, which is
also pleasing in many portraits. There is a significant subjective
difference between a sharp lens slightly out of focus, which is
annoying, and a correctly focused lens which isn't super sharp, which is
often quite pleasing, esp. in portraits. Note that you spoke mostly
about focus in your comments. The separately measureable characteristics
of resolution and contrast are not separate, but interactive, in human
seeing.
We don't all see things the same way. To give an example for another of
our senses: Many years ago, I had the opportunity to taste wines in the
private tasting room of a premier Napa Valley winery with their chief
vintner. He told us about the wife of one of the valley's most famous
winemakers. Her pallete (or her understanding of how the words used
relate to the physical sensations of taste) was very differently
calibrated (his description was less kind) than most people in the
business. She claimed to like dry wines, but hated wines others called
dry, so everybody in the valley knew you served her medium to almost
sweet wines, told her they were dry, and everybody was happy.
Apparently, no gathering where she was unhappy was happy for anyone else
there either!
So, if I find that a particular lens, coupled with the other parts of my
particular image chain, results in prints and/or slides that
particularly please me, why wouldn't I continue to value and use that
lens, whatever its measured specifications? AG is even more pragmatic.
He has said many times that he simply gets more reprint orders and thus
makes more money with people pics taken with his venerable 100/2.8.
Obviously people like pictures made with it, so who cares if it may be
less contrasty than some other lens.
Although most of my lenses are multicoated and presumeably reasonably
contrasty, I prefer a relatively low contrast image on film. Low
contrast means more total range of image brightness can be recorded
within the range from most to least transparent that the film can
record. Lower contrast also makes it easier to scan the film and get as
much brightness info as possible into the digital image. Since I scan
any important images (film, not prints) and can adjust contrast and
which part of the origianl brightness range is in the final print, lower
conttrast on film is better for my use.
By the way, have you tried anti-reflection coating on your glasses? It
makes a quite worthwhile difference. I have Pentax AF Progresive lenses
which come with anti-reflective coating. I got some regular progressives
once when the optometrist made a mistake. They said I could have them
for the same price as the cheap bifocals I had ordered. I was back the
next day to have them make what I had ordered. I hated the lenses. These
high end progressives are a whole different thing. The lenses alone cost
me $300 US and were only manufactured in Japan, so it took a couple of
weeks, but it's all worth it. Now i just wear one pair all the time for
everything and things are always in focus. Very cool.
Moose
Brian Swale wrote:
Hi Folks,
It usually puzzles me to see several well-respected Zuikoholics write that
they prefer lenses that deliver less rather than more, contrast.
I just don't understand it.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|