Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Componar 75mm f4.5 Schneider-Kreuznach Sony NEX-3 VNEX
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 10:55 pm    Post subject: Componar 75mm f4.5 Schneider-Kreuznach Sony NEX-3 VNEX Reply with quote
Low contrast lens like not coated at all, contrast fixed in post process, simple batch process auto contrast did apply.
Lens monted with VNEX system on Sony NEX-3


#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7


#9

#10

#11


Last edited by Attila on Wed May 29, 2013 11:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not surprising that it's not coated, it's an enlarger lens and one of the less costly in Schneider catalogue
(lenses whose names end with -ar have 3 or 4 glass elements. Those who end with -on -like Rodagon- are more complex
and costly, and have 5 or 6 glass elements)
But the results are good, the low contrast makes it good for portrait work, and stopped down it shows great detail.


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No PP on these.
#1

#2

#3

#4


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, it makes perfect sense as enlarging lens. Enlarger lenses must have great resolvance of details, but must not introduce
more contrast, because when printing, you usually have more often the problem of controlling contrast than of enhancing it
(which is easily done with filters and papers, whereas reducing excessive contrast from negative is much more tricky).

Note for inexperienced users:
In other words, enlarging lenses work the opposite way than taking lenses - taking lenses may not be super resolvant, but can still be good,
as long as they can deliver good contrast (which is why coating is so important).


PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For film use good contrast is very important for taking lenses. To my surprise I recently discovered that with quite simple postprocessing low contrast uncoated lens works well in great variety of situations. It's not limited to portraits.http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-summar-2-50mm-from-1937-t57300.html

Now I believe that importance of coating today is well overstated.


PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
For film use good contrast is very important for taking lenses. To my surprise I recently discovered that with quite simple postprocessing low contrast uncoated lens works well in great variety of situations. It's not limited to portraits.http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-summar-2-50mm-from-1937-t57300.html

Now I believe that importance of coating today is well overstated.

+1 except if you not scan film , on scanned film you can also improve contrast well.

Last edited by Attila on Thu May 30, 2013 1:14 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
#1


PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:

Now I believe that importance of coating today is well overstated.


There are some photographers who choose to shoot uncoated lenses because of this. Canon itself makes today lenses
with moderate contrast compared to the lenses of the 70s 80s 90s, in order to make it easier for their amateur customers
to recover their exposure errors.

However there's no rose without thorns and this technique is no exception. By shooting low contrast uncoated lenses
you do not exploit the full dynamic range of your camera. If you check the histogram of a photo taken with an uncoated lens
you'll see that it concentrates the pixels in the central part of the histogram, leaving the sides empty. Those are bits of
dynamic range that are lost. Sure, you can move the black and white points to restore the visual contrast, but this does not
fix the lower signal to noise ratio. The image quality is not as good as it could be.

Not to mention that coating also prevents or limits lens reflections, which are something that are not easily fixed with software.


PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:


However there's no rose without thorns and this technique is no exception... If you check the histogram of a photo taken with an uncoated lens
you'll see that it concentrates the pixels in the central part of the histogram, leaving the sides empty.

Total agreement here, that's exactly what happens. This has an advantage when you shoot a scene with high dynamic range (sort of in camera HDR) and also works very well if the most important part of your image is in highlight. In this case instead of something close to saturation point you get a good range of subtly varying tones where you want them. But as you point out, there are downsides as well. I just wanted to highlight that absent/weak coating is not necessarily such a huge flaw in the taking lens. For me this has been a major discovery recently.

Btw, nice shots Attila, I like them all.


PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks like a great portrait lens. Really like the b&w shot.


PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a bunch of enlarger lenses also but hardly have I ever seen one without coating, especially not from Schneider or Rodenstock. There are faintly single coated ones, but none of the many have (approx 30-40), have no coating.

I agree that low contrast gives opportunities in PP, but for the most flare is greatly enhanced, as are internal reflections. Can have a nice retro look though.

These results you present Attila are very nice, quite surprising for such an old Tessar design lens!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Page 1 of 1