Related Links:
Color Grey Card [3/2001]
Recoatings FAQ
Universe Color Spectrum [3/2002]
Proponents of one brand
or another will claim their lens (nikon, canon..) has a "warmer" or
better color than some other brand. Some lens buyers insist on buying
only OEM lenses (Nikon, Canon..) and avoid third party lenses as they
claim these third party lenses have "cooler" or just plain different
coloration. Others insist on buying lenses from the same time period
(e.g., Nikon AI but pre-AIS lenses), believing that glass color varied
even within a manufacturer's production runs over time. Some owners
bemoan the lack of lens coloration control by the original
manufacturers, claiming one lens of a given model and type gives
different degrees of lens color effects than a later serial number
lens of the same model. Phew!
I have even seen claims that all German made lenses have
"cooler" or bluer coloration, while all Japanese made lenses are "warmer"
or redder in coloration. Obviously, lens color is a result of the glass
formulaes used, rather than the nationality of the lens makers. Our pages
on optical glass make it clear that the optical
glass market is worldwide, so this claimed regional bias is spurious and
ridiculous.
However, some lenses do seem to produce "warmer" or redder results than
other brands and models of lenses, while other brands are "cooler" or
bluer. But how can you test for such effects? More importantly, how can
you shift the inherent coloration of your lenses so they all match up (if
you are using different brands or lenses with different color biases)?
Even better, how can you make your lenses "warmer" or "cooler" to better
match your own personal film choices and personal color requirements? We
will try to provide some answers and how-to's in the sections below.
Start with a sheet of clean, pure flat white paper (e.g., clean
photocopier paper). Put it under uniform illumination in mid-afternoon
daylight
outdoors. You could also use a true daylight temperature light source such
as a slide viewer indoors. You want to avoid overly blue casts from
shaded areas (e.g., north sky in Northern Hemisphere). You also want to
avoid early and late times of the day, when the light may be redder due
to rising or setting sun. With a good uniformly white daylight light
source, you will be able to test for any inherent lens color with minimal
bias.
Holding the lens in your hand, look through the lens towards the evenly
illuminated flat white paper. With some lenses, the degree of coloration
will be great enough that you can see it readily. You may be able to
compare light coloration effects between different lenses, especially
those made by different manufacturers.
If you wish, you can also photograph the daylight illuminated paper with
your camera, using your favorite color slide film. We use slide film as
it is not subject to the operator manipulations and filtration efforts
that print film gets in processing. Slide films will vary not only
between manufacturers and brands, but also within specific emulsions of
the same film brand and type. So it is important for critical work to use
the same emulsion batch. Finally, it is best to use the same roll of
slide film and lighting conditions and just switch lenses to shoot your test
chart or subject(s). Doing so ensures that not only the same film is
used, but that differences in processing won't effect your results.
For personal testing, you can readily make up your own color test chart
simply by visiting a paint store. Arrange to pickup one or more of the
often free color test strip brochures. These printed colors are much more
resistant to fading. A few paint stores still provide colored vinyl
strips which are circa 2+ inches by 1/2 inch or so in size. These color
strips are easily removed and mounted on a color test chart.
Try to pickup a second set of color swatches at the same time. You can
keep them handy in a file folder, easily available on your desk or slide
viewer for color comparisons (with the original color swatches). I find
this is more convenient than having a large poster color test chart in
the limited darkroom space I have.
You can add the USAF
test chart graphics in
black and white for testing lens resolution to your test chart.
You will need a printer able to print out postscript files to do so.
In use, you can use your homebrew color and lens testing chart to do side
by side comparisons of two or more films. Simply take several photos of
the color test chart and develop the film normally. Compare and observe
how the actual colors of the test chart paint strips came out on film.
Such color testing can and should be supplemented by shooting typical
color subjects (foliage, people..).
Such color gel
filters are available in various strengths, from very strong (CC60..) to
very slight (CC05.. or less). The CC05R filters have a very slight
reddish tinge or color, and serve to warm up lenses that are too blue.
You can also use a blue gel to make a lens coloration somewhat cooler. A
lens with a greenish cast might be neutralized by a cyan color correcting
filter of the right strength. See our filters page for more tricks and
options.
You can guage the effects of different strengths of color correcting gel
filters by simply comparing the effects while looking through the lens,
with and without the filters. In some cases, a very subtle CC025R or
CC05R faintly reddish color correcting filter is all it takes to provide
all the warmth you might want in your lenses. Conversely, if you are one
of those who prefer more neutral or bluish renditions, you can use
various strengths of blue gels (or cyan, or green, or...).
|
The point here is that the coloration of your lenses
isn't something out of
your control. You can make it whatever you want, either temporarily or permanently, and at low cost too! |
For non-wide angle lenses, you may also be able to mount a filter ring
for a smaller, standard sized filter thread on the rear of some lenses. I
have used a brass filter ring whose glass was busted out, plus some
household cement. I use household cement as it is much easier to remove,
unlike epoxy, if I need to un-do my modifications and experimenting later on.
The filter doesn't have to be centered exactly for most filters. The big
advantage of a rear-mounted filter thread is that you can now use
cheaper, smaller rear-mounted filters (e.g., series IV, 39mm..) simply by
screwing them into the mating filter ring. Be sure to check for
sufficient clearance for swinging mirrors in SLR designs (etc.) - carefully!
Finally, you can simply remove the lens and unmount the rear-mounted
screw-in filter if you don't need its effect.
I have heard some landscape photographers have used this trick to "warm
up" or redden their slides on a permanent basis. I admit to being fond of
the #81a or #81b (or the Tiffen #812) for such landscape warming shots.
By having this filter on the back of your lens (as a color correcting
gel), you can save your filter ring for polarizers and other filters. One
expensive alternative is the dual polarizer-warming filters (in various
strengths of warming effect), which combines a polarizing filter with a
given strength (#81b..) of warming filter. Because filter gels are so
thin, they have minimal impact on optical quality even when combined
with other filters, unlike stacking glass filters.
In some wide angle and fisheye lenses, it is impossible or very expensive
to mount filters on the front of the lens. In such a case, you may find
an internal filter mount inside the lens which can also be used for lens
coloration shifting filters in most instances. Just put the
color correcting gel filter in there, possibly glued to the
standard (UV) neutral filter. Conversely, if there is no
such option, then the rear-mounted gel filters may be the only approach
that doesn't result in vignetting (as a rear-mounted filter ring might in
some wide and ultrawide angle rear lens mount designs).
The price of 3x3 inch wratten gels has gone up a lot, but you can cut up one
gel for
several lens rear filtering setups. If you have priced 82mm and 112mm
filters
lately, you will see why this approach has major economic benefits too.
The obvious major disadvantage is that removing and replacing the
rear-mounted filter is a lot more trouble. Reserve it for effects you can
live with as part of the lens enhanced coloration, picking a value of
coloration that best fits your needs.
Thanks to Richard Knoppow, we learn:
You can get some idea of what kind of coating is on a lens by the
color of the residual reflection. Single coated lenses typically have
either a magenta color (when the
coating is peaked in the green) or a straw color (when the coating is
peaked in the blue). Some multi coated lenses have peaks at the two ends
and look green. A
truely broad band coating whould have little residual reflection and it
would be pretty neutral in color.
Again, the color of the light reflected by the multicoating layer is
not related to the color filtering of the light which travels through
the various optical glass elements to reach your film. While most
optical glass used in lenses is pretty close to neutral in coloration,
there is a slight but detectable lens color effect in many lenses.
This coloration is also worth
checking in polarizers and other filters. I have seen some low-cost
polarizers with a
strong green coloration effect (which should have been a neutral grey).
This unwanted green coloration can wreck havoc with skin colors whenever
you use these filters. So use our lens coloration tests above to
carefully check your commonly used "neutral" filters for coloration effects.
Conversely, you can
push a too-warm film or lens towards a cooler response sometimes with one
of the otherwise rarely used daylight color correction filters (for
tungsten films, #85.., which are blue in color). Try these coloration
effects the next time you are out shooting some typical subjects and
shots. Take notes. You may like the effects of shifing coloration!
I also use a similar filter at the rear of my Nikonos
underwater camera lens. Light underwater quickly loses red colors and
becomes bluer with greater depth. In shallow water, a red filter helps to
rebalance the light while there is still some red light to be found. But
at depth, there is little red light left, if any. So the red filter is
less useful at greater depths, unless I provide artificial white light
(as with a strobe). Even then, the heavy absorption of red light
underwater means that the red CC10R or CC20R filter is handy for
restoring color balance in the reds. Our rear mounted color gel trick
works great to provide such a color shift at minimal cost while
leaving the front of the lens filter threads free for closeup lens
use.
Jim
The intensity of light is indeed quite a bit reduced by viewing through a
lens. Furthermore, the transmission of light is quite dependent on
wavelength. This is often forgotten. I have seen many threads in several
list, where people test film without even mentioning which lens they used.
Older Nikon lenses (and probably also lenses from other companies) have a
higher transmission for blue light so that pictures taken with todays films
often have a very cool appearance. Almost all lenses loose light in the red
and violet. Zoom lenses are generally worse than primes. However, the
35-70/2.8 was, I think, carefully balanced by reducing the light
transmission in the green. This has the negative side effect that you loose
about a third or half a stop compared with a good prime.
I tested all my lenses and the 35 -70/2.8 was actually the one Nikon lens
with the lowest change in light transmisson over the visible range. I
posted the test data in an earlier digest, but since I did not get any
response i was assuming that either this is a well known fact with all
subscribers or of no interest to anybody :-). I did not have the 80-200
lens and the 24 mm was of to short a wavelength to give reliable results in
the spectrophotometer i used. The best consistency in color balance I have
seen so far was with a Zeiss lens.
Additionaly, there is the physiological effect that the human eye looses
ability to see colors at low light levels. So if you have a dark viewfinder
in your camera plus the light loss in the lens you might see less briliant
colors, but this should not affect picture quality. I think that was
already mentioned in somebody elses reply to your mail.
Markus
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Planar vs Xenotar
In my personal experience Schneider lenses tend to have a cool color balance
and
Zeiss lenses tend to be warm. Both the 150 and 180 Schneider lenses I
shot with
in the 6000 series were visibly cooler than the Zeiss lenses on color
transparency film.
One of the reasons I started using the Contax RTS system in the 70s was the
glowing praise from European photographers who liked the warm color
balance as
well as they liked the sharpness. To my eye the Japanese-built Zeiss lenses
don't look as warm as the German ones.
Bob
From NIkon List:
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999
From: Markus Berheide [email protected]
Subject: Re:[NIKON] Color rendition
Jim
The intensity of light is indeed quite a bit reduced by viewing through a
lens. Furthermore, the transmission of light is quite dependent on
wavelength. This is often forgotten. I have seen many threads in several
list, where people test film without even mentioning which lens they used.
Older Nikon lenses (and probably also lenses from other companies) have a
higher transmission for blue light so that pictures taken with todays films
often have a very cool appearance. Almost all lenses loose light in the red
and violet. Zoom lenses are generally worse than primes. However, the
35-70/2.8 was, I think, carefully balanced by reducing the light
transmission in the green. This has the negative side effect that you loose
about a third or half a stop compared with a good prime.
I tested all my lenses and the 35 -70/2.8 was actually the one Nikon lens
with the lowest change in light transmisson over the visible range. I
posted the test data in an earlier digest, but since I did not get any
response i was assuming that either this is a well known fact with all
subscribers or of no interest to anybody :-). I did not have the 80-200
lens and the 24 mm was of to short a wavelength to give reliable results in
the spectrophotometer i used. The best consistency in color balance I have
seen so far was with a Zeiss lens.
Additionaly, there is the physiological effect that the human eye looses
ability to see colors at low light levels. So if you have a dark viewfinder
in your camera plus the light loss in the lens you might see less briliant
colors, but this should not affect picture quality. I think that was
already mentioned in somebody elses reply to your mail.
Markus
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000
From: "ptstone" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] TRUE and VISIBLE differences between NIKON and CANON
Lenses
I own and use both systems, and have the 70-200 EF and the 80-200 AFS and
have compared them directly. The Canon lenses in general are slightly
warmer in color balance than the Nikkors, in fact this warmth can be seen
looking through both optics mentioned above viewing a neutral light source
( 5000K light table ). At 200mm, both lenses are very sharp centrally, but
the Canon has more even illumination across the frame at 2.8 & 4.0. The
Nikon has rather severe light falloff at 2.8 ( esp. with chrome films ),
and moderate falloff at 4.0. To put it another way..the Nikon has the same
level of falloff at 4.0 that the Canon has at 2.8. The Canon also has
better corner sharpness at 2.8 and 4.0 at 200mm. Contrast is very good
with both lenses. At 70/80mm, both lenses are very sharp centrally, with
the Nikon having better corner performance than the Canon at larger
apertures. So it really depends on where you plan to spend most of your
time focal length wise!
Pete Stone
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Color balance and culture OT
As I mentioned once before, this was the problem with the Alpa cameras.
They bought their lenses from a wide variety of makers and it was not
possible to have color consistency when switching. The normal lenses were
from Kern, the famous Makro-Switar, but that was the only lens Kern made
for them. It was somewhat of a "warm" lens. The 100mm f/2 and 150mm
f/2.8 Apochromats were from Kinoptik and were very "cool" lenses. Wide
angles were from Angenieux and tended toward "neutral". Then there were
lenses from Schneider, Kilfitt, Old Delft, Pentax, and even Rollei, each
line with different color balance. OK when shooting black and white, but
a real headache when working in color.
On an individual basis this was less of a problem, but put together a
slide show and the jumps were glaring.
Bob
....
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Schneider lenses being discontinued?
----------
>From: Gary Toop [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Rollei] Schneider lenses being discontinued? >Date: Wed, Jan 12, 2000, 11:02 AM > > I'll always take the opinion of experienced, professional users over that > of almost any salesman or saleswoman, which is why I posted here. The > thing that did seem to lend some credibility to what he was saying was his > claim that someone had recently brought back some enlarging lenses, > claiming the colour varied between them. But if none of the users in this > group have seen any problems with the Rollei Schneiders, I am sure that > there are none.
For enlarging lenses this sounds really silly to me. Any slight color
difference between lenses would be easily corrected by tweaking the color
head on the enlarger.
Having all my camera lenses have the same color balance is not an issue
today since I do my own scanning for magazine and book repro and can
easily fine tune the color if I want. In earlier times it was a serious
issue. For a while in the 70s I used the Alpa system, and they got their
lenses from just about every major lens maker in the world except Zeiss.
Color balance was all over the place, from very warm to very cool, and
diaphragm rings and focusing rings didn't even all turn the same
direction!!! That was a real PITA when changing lenses.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Contax 645 off topic (but Zeiss lenses!!)
----------
>From: "gd" [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Rollei] Contax 645 off topic (but Zeiss lenses!!) >Date: Wed, Sep 15, 1999, 3:44 PM > > And another thing: the Mamiya has a fixed prism viewfinder. At least with > Contax you can use a waist-level, and I hear they will come out with a 45 > degree finder -- both of which I find more useful for studio applications.
Yes. For the life of me I can't figure out why Mamiya went the fixed
prism route. Dealers like to sell accessories, so if the prism is not
fixed the dealer can sell the camera with waist level finder to get a
particular price point, and can sell a variety of accessory finders. No
one at Mamiya America has been able to get an answer on this either. It
seems just plain strange.
> Bob, how would you compare color image quality from the Contax with Rollei > PQ lenses, Zeiss and Schneider?
The lenses for the Contax 645 have the same look as other Zeiss glass I
have used, both German and Japanese. Slightly warm color balance and
super sharp without looking harsh. Smooth tonal gradation, in other
words, coupled with sharpness. The Schneider lenses tend to have a
cooler, more neutral color balance and the tonal gradation is harsher.
You may not notice the difference in gradation if you only shoot color,
since the color tends to mask the effect, but shoot some fine grain medium
speed black and white and you will really see the differences. Which is
better? Purely a case of personal preference.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
From: jchow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Contax 645 off topic
> > > I totally agree with Marc's comments. I too am a Rollei and H'blad user > > > and find the Schneider and Zeiss lenses to be equally superb! For B&W > > > and for color I can not issue one complaint. How can any > > > serious(non-faddist) user say that there is anything wrong with Rollei > > > Schneider lenses? > > > > > > Jerry > > There is nothing wrong with the Schneider lenses for Rollei 6000 series > > cameras. They do have a different look from the Zeiss, though. It is > > absolutely a matter of personal preference. I personally like the look > > I get from Zeiss lenses more. I'm sure some prefer the Schneider look. > > > > It's like in LF. I know 4 X 5 users who absolutely LOVE the Nikkor > > view camera lenses, and others who just as strongly love the Schneider > > or Rodenstock lenses. Personal preference, nothing more. > > > > Bob > > Bob > > I wish that somebody out there (maybe you) could SHOW me differences. In > other words take pictures with the same film, processing, printing etc > and point out the diferrences. I cannot see any diferrences with my > cameras, (Rollei 3.5 Xenotar vs. H'blad 2.8 Tessar) in quality of image. > > Jerry
From what I've seen from personal experience (use of zeiss 80/2.8, 150/4
and schneider 40/3.5, 90/4, 180/2.8, 300/4 for the Rollei 6000 series,
schneider 90/5.6 XL and 210/5.6, and Nikkor 300/9 M for 4x5, plus
magazine tests in Japanese photo mags between the Contax 645 and Pentax
645N), the Japanese glass is definitely not as warm. From the portrait
shot in the magazine tests (Asahi Camera, I think June or July 99
issue), I couldn't decipher any differencer in sharpness, but the color
difference was obvious. With my LF glass, my Nikkor is also colder and
not as sharp as myschneider glass (recent models). My Fujinon glass
(105/8) is about on par in sharpness with the Nikkor, but definitely
more contrasty. I've found my CZ/JSK glass to be similar in behavoir;
both are outstanding and only differ in subtle details, like bokeh (but
lenses within the same brand vary in characteristics from model to
model, so it's not easy to characterize the entire lineup). One's
mileage may vary. Here in Japan, there's a reason why Japanese
photographers prefer German glass, and it's not just the name (though
that is a big part of it).
--Jim
From: [email protected] (JAdler444)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: UV or 1A
Date: 31 May 1999
If you are using print film then it will be difficult to tell which filter
was used because this difference is filtered out when the negatives are
printed. Both filters should screen out about the same amount of UV rays.
Take a bright white sheet of paper and put a UV and a1A on it side by side
in good sunlight. You'll see that the UV is slightly tan while the 1A is
slightly pink. This difference will show up on slide film. If you
project your slides and show slides taken with differen t filters you'll
see the difference. I prefer the UV filter but if you shoot slide film
you should stick with one or the other.
Jeff
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] 645 flash
So you like Schneider better than Zeiss or Leica??
Unusual. I find the Schneider lenses I have for my Rollei
system to be ultra sharp, but lacking that "luminous" look
I get from Zeiss. It is not just that Zeiss has a much
warmer color balance. The character of the image is different.
I'd probably use Leica glass if they ever made a 35mm SLR
that I liked, but so far they keep missing the mark on this.
I might like the R8, but so far have not had one long enough
to really decide.
Leica MF would be grand, but only the Sultan of Brunei could
afford such an outfit.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Truth About the Sixth Element ...
you wrote:
>Richard (Knoppow that is), >could you please elaborate a bit on color-correction of lenses, and color >-correction when taking pics (like with dekamired filters)?
I'm not quite sure what you are after here.
Color correction of lenses usually means correction of the chromatic
aberration which is due to the variation of index of refraction with
wavelength of glass. The decamire system refers to filters for changing
the color temperature of light. The dedamire system is a way of stating
the amount of shift so that it is constant with the color temperature,
i.e., if you know the decamire value of a filter you can calculate how
much it will shift the color temperature.
Color temperature is a measure of the spectral balance of light. It
gives the "color" of the light in terms of the temperature in Kelvin
degrees of a true black-body radiator with equivalent output. This is
nearly correct for incandescent sources like Tungsten lamps, who's actual
temperature is close to that of the true black body source. It is only a
analogy for photo emissive sources like flourescent lamps or other broken
spectrum types.
The emulsion layers of color film are adjusted in speed so that the
color balance is "correct" visually for a given color of the source
illumination.
If the source is of another color the film will record the difference
since it does not have the ability that the eye does of adjusting
according to the source. Filters can be used so that the effective color
temperature of the light striking the film is correct.
Color negative film can be balanced in printing to some extent to
correct for the source color, however, if you think about what is gong on
its evident that there will be some compromise to the matching of the
three emulsions if very much correction is done.
Some lenses are designed with some attention to the color transmission
of the lens. Lenses for motion picture use are often matched in color
transmission so shots made with different lenses will look the same. This
is done partly by coating choice. Multiple layer coatings are really band
pass filters, their exact transmission can be adjusted to some extent.
Also, for single coated lenses, the transmission can be flattened out
somewhat by staggering the peak color for the coatings on various
surfaces.
There is some variation in the color transmission of optical glass, but,
for the most part, its pretty flat through the visual range.
The correction of chromatic aberration is done by combining positive and
negative elements with the appropriate partial dispersions. The idea is
that the dispersion will be cancelled while leaving some of the lens
power.
The choice of glass used in the design is critical. Modern glass types
offer high index, low dispersion types, and some low index, high
dispersion types which, when combined, result in very good correction of
the chromatic aberrations.
There are two forms of chromatic, longitudinal, where the lens has a
focal length which varies with color, i.e., it focuses light of different
colors at different distances. The second form is lateral chromatic
aberration, also called chromatic difference in magnification. This is
where the image for all colors focuses at essentially the same point, but
the size of the image varies with color. Symmetry is one cure for lateral
color. So, lenses like the Dagor have little lateral color. The
cancellation is complete only when the whole optical system is
symmetrical, that is, at 1:1, however, the cancellation is usually very
good even at infinite conjugates. Correcting lateral color in
non-symmetrical lenses, like a Tessar, is not so easy, but can be done
with careful choice of glass. Kodak claimed the Ektar series of lenses had
no lateral color. They were made, at least in part, to stimulate the sales
of color films. They are excellently corrected lenses.
Kodak has a very complete filter booklet available as a PDF on their web
site. It explains how to calculate the Kelvin change for decamired
filters, among other things.
http://www.kodak.com Click on "Service and Support" and from their on
"Library". There is a ton of stuff there.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
From: "Mike Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: old glass vs new glass
Interesting. I have a cheap vivitar series 1 19-35 that seems like it has
a
built in polarizer :p~... Matter of fact at the grand canyon last week, it
made as blue of skies as any of my minolta or sigma lenses did while using
a polarizer. The colors through the vivitar were just as warm too. You
could notice it in the veiwfinder easily, let alone on velvia :) Suprised
me for such a crappy lens. If the build quality was better and the thing
wasn't so prone to flare I'd like the vivitar alot more.
-Mike
> what i know is that the old minolta 28-135 (for example) has much better > colors and contrast than the new 24-85 i bought recently. > > when using royal gold 100, with the 28-135 i rarely need to add a polarizer, > but with the 24-85 the polarizer helps with color saturation. i've shot > scenics with the 28-135 on royal gold 100 and people think i've used a > polarizer because clouds pop and the colors are so saturated. > > over the years i've had lenses that are incredibly sharp, but colors were > flat and dull. a sigma zoom i had was the worst in this sense, even though > it was razor sharp (sharper than the minolta 70-210/4) > > hth?? > ~sk
FRom Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: "shepherdlen" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: hello and whats about yellowish Nikkor 35mm/1.4 ?
From: Roland Vink [email protected]
> I have heard of other 35/1.4 lenses from the same period which also have > a yellow cast. I'm not sure if the color was from the beginning or if it > changed over time.
Reply It was probably there from the beginning. At the time of manufacture
most people uses black and white, and colour film was not as accurate as
now. A slight colour cast was not an issue in those days.
With recent designs and multi coatings things have changed. First far more
glass types are available so there are often alternatives to using glass
with a colour cast. Second modern multi coating consists of many different
different coloured layers. If an lens element with a coloured cast has to
be used, the cast can be neutralised by adjusting the different multi
coating layers, although this may further reduce light transmission (the T
stop).
If considering an old lens for colour work look through it at a sheet of
white paper and compare the white with the same view through a modern
lens. With a side by side comparison the eye is very good at
distinquishing subtle colour changes.
Len Shepherd.
From Leica Mailing List
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Rob McElroy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] OT-Large format lens & shutter
Charles,
Don't worry about the very slight yellow cast from the Xenotar. It most
likely came from the factory that way, due to Schneider's choice of one or
more of the elements used in its 1950's design. I doubt whether there has
been, or will be, any color change to the elements unless you are having a
problem with the cement used to glue elements together. My 150/2.8 also
has a slight warmth to it when compared to current Nikon, Schneider, or
Rodenstock offerings. If you want to look through a VERY warm (yellowish)
lens, look at any of the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar lenses from the 1950's
and 60's. The glass they used was inherently warm and incredibly sharp!
I have both the 150 and 210mm. The effect is quite pleasing, especially
when shooting skin tones, and I would only consider it a problem if I were
shooting transparencies under controlled color temperature lighting of
white or grey objects, where accurate neutral tones were an absolute
necessity.
As a side note, the lens performance of the Xenotar at f2.8 is not
stellar, but then again, it is 2.8! By stopping down just one stop to
f4.0, the detail sharpness increases quite dramatically, and you are still
a stop faster than most 150mm lens.
Shoot and enjoy. I do.
Warm Regards,
Rob McElroy
Buffalo, NY
Charles Harris wrote:
> I just got a Schneider Xenotar 150mm 2.8 lens for my Linhof. Fast! Bright! > Very cool. Warm actually. That's the thing, while the glass is very clean > and blemish free, it's rather yellow in color. I ran some E6 to see exactly > how it will render on film, but I won't see it till Monday. I don't mind a > bit of warmth so if the color is pleasant I won't be too concerned about > that aspect. However, I am concerned about it's long term affect. Such as > resale or a continued yellowing of the lens. Can any of you optical gurus > tell me about yellowing? What causes it? Age I presume. What harmful effects > may it have? Will it get worse? Etc. I have a two week return period, should > I consider sending it back? Again, if the film test isn't hideous, I don't > mind a bit of extra warmth. > > According to the serial # and Schneider's web site, the lens is from around > 1955! Original leather lens caps and case. I'm not so fond of the shutter, > an old Compur. What's the story with Prontor shutters? From what I've seen, > they seem to be the answer to someone like me that can hardly remember to > open, close, cock, set aperture, and all those other annoying view camera > operations. I'm spoiled by the M6, it's a tiny bit easier. Any shutter info > would be great. > > >From what I've seen so far, the bokeh is great. Imagine 2.8 on a 4x5, very > lucious OOF area. Creamy smooth. Exceptionally bright ground glass viewing. > > charles h
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: First Impressions - New Single Sheet Readyload Holder Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 Dan Bereskin wrote: > > Kerry, do you have an impression as to the extent to which the particular glass > you use influences the color? Have you ever compared, say german and japanese > glass to see if you can tell any difference? Hi Dan, Sorry for the slow response (out of town)... I haven't done any controlled testing in this area, but have noticed a few differences on occasion. With the subject matter I shoot, and the natural light, which I can't control, I find the color response of most modern, multicoated lenses to be a VERY minor contributor to the final image color. In other words, the color response of the chosen film and the color temperature of the light (time of day, time of year, atmospheric conditions, etc.) to be of MUCH greater significance than the brand of lens or country of origin. I know there are differences, but in general these differences are subtle. If I was shooting fabric swatches for a catalog under controlled lighting conditions in a studio, I'd probably be more concerned about this issue (although if I was doing that, I'd no doubt use the same exact lens for every shot). Since other factors have a much greater influence on the overall color balance of the final image (for the subjects and conditions I shoot), I don't let the lens brand or country of origin effect my lens purchasing decisions. I have am currently using, on a regular basis, lenses from all four major manufacturers. I selected these lenses based on how they best served my needs in terms of focal length, coverage, size, weight and price and am quite happy with the performance of all four brands. If you've ever read the "Future Classics" section of my large format web site, you'll notice that lenses from all four manutacturers (as well as Zeiss) are well represented. That said, I have noticed a few significant color differences concerning a few older single coated lenses. First was a Linhof Select 90mm Schneider Angulon from the early 1950s. I noticed it produced significantly cooler (more blue) images than my modern, multicoated lenses. I replaced this lens (my wide angle for backpacking) with a little 90mm WA Congo. The Congo is similar in size and weight to the old Angulon, but is a multicoated lens of recent construction (1998). Although the Angulon was every bit as sharp, I greatly preferred the color balance of the 90mm Congo. It was a MUCH better match for my other modern, multicoated lenses. I'm not claiming ALL Angulons produce images with a strong blue cast, just this particular sample I was using from the early 1950s. Also, after testing SEVERAL 90mm Angulons and three 90mm WA Congos (this was the reason Chris and I started our lens resolution tests a few years back), I came to the conclusion that in terms of resolution, you are just as likely, perhaps even more so, to get a "good" Angulon as you are a "good" Congo. The sharpness of the Congos we tested, even though they are of modern manufacture, was quite variable (at least for our small sample size). So was that of the Angulons (primarily a function of age and condition, late samples and Linhof select samples seemed to consistently test well). The net result is I cherry picked the best of the 90mm WA Congos to replace my also cherry picked Angulon and am much happier with the results. The 90mm WA Congo does have very limited coverage (but so does the 90mm Angulon), but within its limited coverage, it produces images of vibrant color and sharpness that look every bit as good on the light box as those produced with my more expensive lenses from the "Big Four". The other example of noticeable color shift I have seen is with the little 150mm f6.3 Fujinon W. This lens seems to have a slightly warmer (tending to magenta) rendition than my other lenses. This warm shift is less significant than the blue shift of my old 90mm Angulon, but it is still noticeable when looking at transparencies on the light boix shot with this lens and my other lenses under identical conditions. In fact, for many subjects, this slight warm shift can be used to advantage (sunsets, fall colors, red rock, flowers, etc.). It's sort of like having a lens with a very subtle built in warming filter. In general, I do not find this minor color shift offensive and continue to use this lens for certain subjects and when backpacking (it's absolutely tiny and very light). Since this is an off shoot of my mention of testing different color transparency films for different subjects and lighting conditions, just let me clarify that my film testing is controlled to eliminate lens color biases. When I shoot a test shot for comparision, I shoot all the films under test using the same camera, same lens, same subject and same lighting conditions. I basically set up a test shot and then run all the films through consectutively as fast as I can. So, I don't use the same lens for all of my test subjects, but I do use the same lens for each individual test subject. I just returned from the SW where I shot everything from rock art and ruins to general scenery in four National Parks, plus Antelope Canyon and Coyote Buttes. Can't wait to get my film back and see how the different films responded. Next up... Fall Colors (better hurry, they look early this year). Kerry -- Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature http://www.thalmann.com/ Kerry's Large Format Homepage http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: Stephe Thayer [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Anyone actively shooting with uncoated lenses? Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 Tan wrote: > Hi > > I have just acquired (on its way) a nice pre-1940s coupled rangefinder > Bessa (black) with an uncoated 105mm Skopar. (Is USD$100 too much to pay > for one of these things in excellent condition?) > > Is anyone here using the same thing or something similar? > > I am just wondering how colour corrected these pre-war uncoated lenses > are, esp. the Skopar. > > > If you have any advice, I'd appreciate it. > First color correction has nothing to do with coating. Even lenses designed before color film are color corrected as pancromatic B&W film needs a color corected lens to be sharp. Some really old lenses made for ortho film may not be but that was a LONG time ago. I have a kodak duo 620 (6X4.5) folder with an uncoated lens that works great. Just be careful about backlit scenes and maybe if you want ultimate quality hunt up some sort of clip on lens shade (or use you other hand) and you'll get nice pictures with this camera. -- Stephe
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 Subject: Re: [Rollei] 60mm Distagon v. Curtagon From: Bob Shell [email protected]> To: [email protected]> > From: Doug Brightwell [email protected]> > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 > To: Rollei Mailing List [email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Rollei] 60mm Distagon v. Curtagon > > How would you describe that "look"? Warmer color balance for one thing. Smoother tonality. The Schneiders look cooler and harsher to my eye. Obviously different design targets for the teams that create them. Bob
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 To: [email protected] From: Marc James Small [email protected]> Subject: Re: [HUG] Another lens question Steve Gullick wrote: >Thanks Tim & Marc, > >What is your opinion on the colour reproduction? > >I was told that these lenses were designed before colour film was very >popular and consequently they do not produce a true to life colour, but are >excellent for B&W. > This isn't true. The 2.8/80 Planar design dates from around 1953 and was clearly intended for use with both color and black and white emulsions. It is sorta-kinda a myth that lenses can be designed for one or the other: so long as the lens elements are not colored, a lens which does well with one should do well with the other. Marc [email protected]
From nikon mf mailing list: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 From: Rick Housh [email protected]> Subject: Color cast of lens I didn't take the time to search the archives, but I do remember that we had a discussion some time ago about a problem some were having with lenses imparting a distinct color cast to slides. I chanced on a 35mm f/1.4 (converted) AI lens on ebay which the seller says imparts a very distinct yellow shift to everything. He said he had sent it to Nikon Canada for diagnosis and possible repair, and was informed by them that the problem was caused by some of the coating having been removed by cleaning, that it wasn't repairable, and that it was a problem on some of the early samples of the lens. Just thought this might be of interest to those who had raised the issue earlier. Here's the lens on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1320554177 - Rick Housh -
From nikon mf mailing list: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 From: "bruce_a_conklin" [email protected]> Subject: Re: Color cast of lens --- In NikonMF@y..., Rick Housh rick@h...> wrote: > a problem some were having with lenses > imparting a distinct color cast to slides. > I have dabbled in the past with Pentax cameras, another altogether usable 60s-70s era camera system. The 50mm f1.4 Takumar (and some other fast Takumars of the day) were constructed using rare earth elements to enhance light transmission and help the designers achieve the desired lens speed. Unfortunately, the rare earth glasses have a pronounced aging phenomena of yellowing, rendering them difficult to use for chromes. Could this be a partial explanation of some Nikkor yellowing? There was a fellow on the Spotmatic list who posted photos of his corrective procedure for the yellowing problem. He placed the lens on a stump.....then whacked it with a 16 pound hammer. I believe he called the procedure "Shower of Glass". As a testament to the lens construction, the lens body was distorted very little, although glass did fly everywhere. BTW, I HAVE repented and have only Nikons any more. ;=} Bruce Conklin Sacramento
From Nikon MF Mailing List: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Green Glass [email protected] writes: > Does anyone know more about green glass? The phrase is new to me. Look at a glass aquarium, or a bank door, or any such large slab of plate glass. If you look through it, it looks clear enough, but if you look into the edge, you will see that it is distinctly greenish. I think that's what they are referring to. Such glass absorbs a significant fraction of light passing through it, in addition to altering the color of the transmitted light, thereby acting as a filter. Steve
from leica mailing list: Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 From: Jim Brick [email protected] Subject: [Leica] Why I bought a Leica From 1959, I used Alpa for 35mm photography. In 1969, I visited the Alpa factory in Ballagues Switzerland and, after numerous visits, got to know the owners (Samuel and Benjamin Bourgeois) quite well. In 1972 (or very close to it) my wife was going to go to Europe with me and I wanted her to have a small camera that would be easy to carry and use. The Leica CL just came out so I bought a CL with 40 & 90 lenses. This was the first Leica in the house. About four years later, and after editing my Alpa and CL photos, I was dismayed about the fact that all of the Alpa lenses (Alpa didn't manufacture lenses) exhibited a different color balances. I had warm, cool, neutral, etc. slides. So I decided to sell all except my Alpa 10D and 50/1.9 Switar (sentimental reasons.) So my Alpa 11e and 24, 35, 90, 100, & 150 lenses plus the CL and lenses were sold. I seriously looked for a new SLR that I liked. I looked at Canon, not I seriously looked for a new SLR that I liked. I looked at Canon, not Nikon (bad experiences years earlier), Minolta, Pentax, etc. Just at that time, the Leica R3 became available. What sold me was the dual meter. Both spot and averaging. So I bought an R3 and 24, 35, 60, 135, and 250mm lenses. The camera and lenses proved to be so good, I bought a second body. I used them extensively until the mid 80's when the R4sP came out. I sold the R3 bodies and bought two R4sP's. Then an R6 joined the group. Then the R6 and one R4sP left and were replaced by two R7's. which is what I currently have on the reflex front. A number of years ago I bought an M2. Then sold it and got two Classic .72 M6's. So, the reason I ended up with Leica was the dual meter in the R3. Nothing else. In 1976, I was unaware of the Leica cult or whatever you want to call it. I was image oriented. Taking pictures. The craft of photography. A spot and averaging meter in the camera was great. No brand stigma other than an aversion to Nikon. which still remains, except for LF Nikkor lenses. Jim
From Leica Mailing list: Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 From: Henry Ting [email protected] Subject: [Leica] Leica lens color signature. I noticed all Leica lens seems to have this color glow we all talk about. I don't shoot B&W, therefore the monochrome signature of Leica lens is irrelevant to me. The Leica lens might not be as crispy sharp as the old Nikons I used to have, but for some reasons, the colors are just more appealing. In portraits or in candid photography, the skin-tones of both Asiatic or European subjects are very pleasant to my eyes. On the similar color spectrum, bright red, however seems to be a bit too intense. This signature shows in all the color films I use. While Nikon lens is a bit cool in nature, I find I like the "reds" produced from Nikon lens. This is nick-picking, but I cannot help noticing it. Perhaps the Leica color "glow" that we all find appealing has this side-effect when it comes to "red".
From Russian camera mailing list: Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected] Subject: Re: Tair v.s. Tair and yellowish ZM39 lenses ... Parlin, I meant results. Many early Russian lenses have this problem. A simple test is to look through the lens at some pure white background and compare the color with the background color. I have some early J-8,J-9,Tair-11,Helios-40 and others that look a little yellowish. This might be done intentionally to increase the contrast on B/W films.But results vary from sample to sample. zhang
From: "Stefan Geysen" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: flat, subdued color rendition of Mamiya TLR lenses Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 I've been using a Mamiya TLR system for the past couple of months, mainly for B&W. No complaints there, good sharpness and pleasing tonality. Visibly better than 35mm. So far, I can understand all the comments about bang for the buck, etc. But color shots are another matter. The colors seem a bit flat and cold, they lack punch and have a strange "feel" to them. Having worked with Nikon, Hasselblad CF and Pentax 67 lenses, I certainly notice a difference (better saturation and realism). Films used: Fuji Astia, Provia and Reala, processed in a reliable pro lab. The lenses are the later black versions (55, 80, 135 and 180 Super) always used with a lens shade. The lens elements are crystal clear. Perhaps I expect too much from 1970's lens coating technology?
From: [email protected] (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 18 Aug 2002 Subject: Re: flat, subdued color rendition of Mamiya TLR lenses ...(quotes above) You are talking about the "Mamaya look" which many like. It is a softness of color rendition which many prefer who don't like "lollypop" colors. If it bothers you then you might consider moving up to Blad or Rollei or one of many other cameras that dont have that problem. I don't think it is just a matter of coating. I think it is inherent in the lens design. . Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: Tom Just Olsen [[email protected]] Sent: Wed 3/12/2003 To: [email protected] Subject: [HUG] MODERN LENSE DESIGN Austin, Making of lenses is 'yesterday's high tech'. 'Just anybody' can do a very good lense today. It's like tailoring a suit. The greatest advantage I have seen on Hasselblad's Carl Zeiss lenses (except for sharpness/MTF-values, sturdyness of construction and all that that really a lot of glas producers can meet) is their 'standardized colour reproduction'. Regardless of which lense you put on the camera, a C 250 mm/5,6 or a FE 50 m/2,8 - it will reproduce the colours 'just exaxctly alike'. Not only 'alike', but beautiful colours. Which puts production of lense glas down to 'a matter of taste'. Re. the tailor made suit. What Hasselblad's Carl Zeiss have contributed with their V-series lenses is 'homogenous and tasteful colour reproduction' (except for 'top' MTF values, sturdy construction etc.). I do not have a XPan, but as far as I have seen of slides made by XPans' Fuji glas the colour reproduction is very close to the Carl Zeiss V-series lenses. Thus; Hasselblad has obviously contributed to that the XPan lenses should reproduce the same colour reproductability, and the same 'tasteful colour valeur' as their 'old' V-series glas. No little matter. I have experience with foremost Canon lenses, but also former East German Carl Zeiss (very much underated) as well as Rodenstock glas. F. ex. Canon totally lacks Hasselblad's 'consistent colour reproductability'. Even the latest 'L' lenses do not 'match' eachother in colours! Not to the extent of using a filter. Not that bad, but enough to that the real colour quality of a scene was 'lost' when changing to another glas. Even two of the most important zoom lenses of Canon, the 28 - 70 mm/2,8 and the 17 - 35 mm/2,8 L reproduce colour differently. Possibly not of any significant importance for most of us, but say if you are a specialist photographing food this must be a hell of a problem (well, in this digitalized world, nothing is a real problem anymore..) Tom of Oslo
From: T. P. [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Color of Lens Reflections Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 "T.N.T." [email protected] wrote: >Tony used to claim that there was no didfferent whatsoever wrt the colour >signature/rendition between lenses of either the same or different >brands. He must have been colour blind then. Of course he may change his >claim now since he may have heard/read/seen the differences. This is nonsense. I have never made such a claim, and never would. In fact I remember a lively thread (over a year ago) ago where I stated that there were very significant differences in colour rendition between different makes of lens. Nikkors have a warm rendition that's pretty consistent across their range. By comparison, Canon FD tended to have a cool rendition (a blue tinge) whereas Canon EF lenses were still cooler than Nikkors but not as blue as Canon FD lenses. Obviously, there are small variations within ranges too. I also stated that Tokina ATX-Pro lenses were consistently cooler than Nikkors, to the extent that I advised using a 1A Skylight filter all the time with a Tokina lens (or lenses) within a mainly Nikkor outfit. I also pointed out that my all-time favourite Tamron Adaptall 2 90mm f/2.5 1:2 Macro lens had reasonably similar colour rendition to my Nikkors and therefore there was no real need for a colour correction filter to give consistent colour rendition across a mixed outfit. Criticise me all you like (I can take it!) , but please do it on the basis of the truth, and not some imaginary posting that I never made. Better luck next time. ;-) Created August 8, 1999
End of Page