Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I use Leica, CV and Zeiss glass and freely swap between them. One of my minor obsessions is that i rarely change my bl/w processing. Once I have established a routine - I stick to it. This means one less factor to contend with, but it also gives me a change to see how a specific lens behaves, compared to all the other!
One of the keys in my liking the ZM lens line is its consistency. They all behave pretty much the same. I have never found any major shift in ontrast between them (the exception is the 35f2.8 with its slightly higher contrast, compared to the rest). From the 18mm all the way to the 50mm lenses, they have the same "tones". I did try a 15f2.8 and the 85f2 but not enough to warrant an opinion on either of them.
There are considerably more variations in the Leica line up when it comes to contrast. Some of the Asph lenses (21/24/28/35) are so contrasty that you truly have to keep track of which film you used and usually "pull" them in the processing to be able to print them easily! Unfortunately their contrast is not consistent between lense either!
The CV lenses have differences in rendition too, but not as dramatic as the Leica lenses.
Part of the problem lies in how you meter and how you process. It is sometimes too easy to blame a lens for "blown" highlights or blocked shadows and all it is is a mistake in metering. If you rely entirely on a in camera meter this can be a problem. Of course, ideally we should all use multi zone spotmeters and do +/- processing, but for practical reasons, all we need to to is tell the meter that it is off and compensate.
Flim has limited range and as long as you hold it between 5-6 stops and process accordingly, most everything will be recorded. Of course, this is very much a case of doing as I say, not as i do! I still keep stock of paper ranging from Agfa #6 to Ilford #1 and a full complement of filters from 00 to 5 as well as occasional mixing up Selectol Soft type paper developers to compensate for mistakes! Learning is a life long venture and, truthfully, the process of learning can sometimes be more fun than finding the "Truth" and have everything come out perfect!
One of the keys in my liking the ZM lens line is its consistency. They all behave pretty much the same. I have never found any major shift in ontrast between them (the exception is the 35f2.8 with its slightly higher contrast, compared to the rest). From the 18mm all the way to the 50mm lenses, they have the same "tones". I did try a 15f2.8 and the 85f2 but not enough to warrant an opinion on either of them.
There are considerably more variations in the Leica line up when it comes to contrast. Some of the Asph lenses (21/24/28/35) are so contrasty that you truly have to keep track of which film you used and usually "pull" them in the processing to be able to print them easily! Unfortunately their contrast is not consistent between lense either!
The CV lenses have differences in rendition too, but not as dramatic as the Leica lenses.
Part of the problem lies in how you meter and how you process. It is sometimes too easy to blame a lens for "blown" highlights or blocked shadows and all it is is a mistake in metering. If you rely entirely on a in camera meter this can be a problem. Of course, ideally we should all use multi zone spotmeters and do +/- processing, but for practical reasons, all we need to to is tell the meter that it is off and compensate.
Flim has limited range and as long as you hold it between 5-6 stops and process accordingly, most everything will be recorded. Of course, this is very much a case of doing as I say, not as i do! I still keep stock of paper ranging from Agfa #6 to Ilford #1 and a full complement of filters from 00 to 5 as well as occasional mixing up Selectol Soft type paper developers to compensate for mistakes! Learning is a life long venture and, truthfully, the process of learning can sometimes be more fun than finding the "Truth" and have everything come out perfect!
