Many poeple think high contrast is good or as you say a lens close to
perfect design should have high contrast. I have different guess here, in
the film age, lens has to design to match the contrast of film. Or back to
the very old age when multicoating was not very propular, film was
designed with higher contrast and later both have to fix contrast to a
certain range.
Even the very cheap lens can have very high contrast, like the Sigma 70-300
APO UC I once own (Minolta AF mount), the contrast is very high from 70-200,
the images were very un-nautral. The non all MC 35 shift has the natural
color that I like, the 90/2 has higher color saturation and good for
flowers. Too many coating can cause color shift, if you control the coating
better like Zeiss the color will be more natural, if not, like some Pent*a
SMC and Tamron BBAR coating, the color tone could be shifted or at least
different from the others.
At the mean time I think it is well known that even within Zuiko some are
having warmer tone than the other. And in my experience most of the later
Zuiko AF for OM707 have very cool tone.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winsor Crosby" <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It seems to me that much of what a lens does is subtractive, whether
> glass transmission, filter or whatever, which is why it is difficult
> to understand statements that seem to indicate that a particular
> amplifies color or contrast over the scene that is being photographed.
> Of course there are differences between lenses, but it is hard for me
> to see high contrast as a fault rather than a bit closer to a perfect
> lens design. Certainly though, your experience has provided me
> something to think about.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|