"Old" lenses difference for b/w film scans and prints.

[Ko.Fe.]

Just wonder if some lenses are better for b/w film, paper prints and some would be better for scans.

For example.
My CV CS 35 2.5 PII is adequate for scans and prints. Sharp and contrasty, with less character I want sometimes, files and wet prints.

Tessar at Rollei 35 (have two of them) gives a lot of character in scans, but I can't get even close to it in the darkroom.

OM.Zuiko 50 1.8. Scans are OK. But wet prints makes me wonder if I need much more expensive 50mm lens for my M4-2 to be able to get the same quality in prints as this well bellow $100 gives.

And most interesting finding from this evening darkroom print with young guy, whom I'm "teaching" b/w film photography.
He has FSU "Smena" with very basic triplet in it. Camera from fifties.
We develop film I gave him and I scanned it after. Wasn't impressed at all with files.
But tonight I was surprised after very first print come out.
And another one and another one. Something classy in them.

All four lenses, cameras using same films, same scanner, same darkroom...

 

[mfogiel]

As usual, the answer is: it depends. Generally speaking, wet printing is less suited to correct the curve present on the negative, so you need to work on your negative "harder". With scanning, the only difficult if not impossible task, is to create shadow detail where there is none, so less contrasty lenses and development is preferable. None of the above can alter significantly the micro contrast - for this you need a good lens.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

That triplet is quite good; years ago a part inside my Leica snapped and the thing jammed solid. Well, I was using the lever wind to wind on the film and you can't expect everything.

Anyway, my son had a Cosmic Symbol and I borrowed that and carried on regardless using slide film. No one noticed when the swap took place.

Regards, David

 

[zuiko85]

My skill (or lack thereof) in exposing, developing and printing seems to have a much greater impact on the final print than what lens I've used.

Ever try to print a real thin neg or one so dense you can't see through it? Been there too often.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

No, I'm talking about regular negatives.

Thanks for replies!

 

[x-ray]

Old lenses are generally lower contrast due to older coatings. Newer glass uses much more effective multi coating and contrast will be higher. Scanning allows manipulation of curves resulting in contrast adjustment that can't or is hard to achieve in a wet darkroom.

It's easier to raise contrast than it is to reduce. A flatter neg is easier to scan and wet print IMO. Your technique and skill has more impact of the final rest than what lens you use. It's not the lens in the end, it's all about you.

 

[goamules]

You are finding a truth that is more apparent in large format. Each lens has a signature, none are really "best" or "wrong". I switch lenses, even in miniature format 35mm, a lot, based on what I'm looking for. It's seldom anything to do with "sharpness." Contrast is the biggest variable, followed by field curvature, and occasionally a little spherical aberration. Like said above, contrast is mostly about coatings, but lens designs also factor in. It depends on how many air-to-glass interfaces there are. You lose about 15% of the contrast for each interface of uncoated glass. A solid chunk of cemented glass will be more contrasty than a triplet, for example. Coatings allowed designs that have a lot of air spaces to still be reasonably contrasty. But there are still differences. Sometimes the film, or the lighting, will block up the shadow tones, if you are using too contrasty a lens.

For example, in broad daylight, I don't want to use too contrasty a lens. In open shade, overcast, I do. Sometimes.