Problems with 90 APO on BW Film

[2wenty]

Looking for other peoples opinion on this.

Im not really a long lens type of guy but I ended up getting the 90 APO after trying it on a m240 on the black and white setting. The blacks were very rich.

Ive had it for about 8 months now and heres my problem. I shoot mostly film and don't own a digital m body and I hate this lens on black and white film. In my opinion it looks terrible. Im thinking maybe it has too much contrast. All the shots look really muddy, possibly underexposed.

Ive shot it on my A7R and it looks amazing but Im trying to stay away from digital.

 

[Jockos]

if your shots are looking underexposed, maybe you should increase the exposure?

 

[presspass]

I"ve had one of these since they came out and have not had that problem. On ISO 400 black and white film - HP5+ and Tri-X - the tones are good from no-detail black to specular white.

 

[Ronald M]

No detail in blacks means under exposure.

If you see detail in the neg, but it will not print the film is overdeveloped which means the print time is long to get through the dense highlights thus obscuring the near blacks into black.

Development times are personal. Paper , thermometer, age of developer, your exact agitation pattern, condenser vs diffusion enlarger, contrast of enlarging lens and so on.
Adjust time to get a neg that prints properly.

exposure controls density in the blacks, time in developer controls density in highlights.
It is up to you to make tests . Print the blacks to show detail. If whites are grey, more time in developer, +10%. If highlights are all white without detail, cut time in developer.

Most times found on internet are too long. Why? I don`t know. Kodak, Ilford, Bergger times are bang on for me, but I mix my own developer so I know how fresh it is, I have check thermometers-Kodak Process ones and work thermometers, and am careful of times and agitation.

For condenser enlargers,, times need be cut 10%.

Massive development chart is always wrong. It can be just some joker who does not know what he is doing.

 

[retinax]

What everyone else said sounds reasonable. OP, you should let us know more about your workflow, how did you look at your negatives? Scanned? Wet printed? have you compared the exposure times on film to what you did with the A7?
I have noticed myself that on the rare occasion I use a longer lens, I often need to rethink my exposure strategy. You capture a much smaller scene, thus you are
a) likely to have less overall contrast in that scene, often either no bright highlights or no dark shadows and
b) likely to have shadows that would be insignificant if you captured the same scene with a wider lens featuring quite large in your image, so you cannot afford to let them go black where you could with a wideangle

Your digital camera probably meters smartly enough to mitigate these issues, with a meter-less camera you need to do that thinking before expose and possibly in the darkroom

 

[Noserider]

You may also have to make an adjustment for certain lenses; the old Kodak Developing wheel used to have compensation based on flare levels when made with un coated, single and multicoated lenses. it could also be you need to make adjustments for exposure based on how you are metering, If you are used to metering for Digital.

 

[2wenty]

My findings were based off shooting the 50mm summilux asph on the same roll as the 90 apo. The 50mm shots came out amazing, 90mm looked terrible.

I used the internal meter on the M6 for both lenses. Its funny, even if I goggle the 90 apo on film, I see the same type of photos. I need to specifically shoot a test roll now.

Ronald, Ive also noticed that most the times on the dev app seem to be too long. Glad someone else noticed that too.

 

[sepiareverb]

Have you metered with the 50 and shot the same scene with those settings on the 90? Same subject, same exposure different lens will help sort out what’s not working in your kit. I rarely go long either, but have the 90/2 A as well and haven’t noticed this.

 

[retinax]

Your lens could also have haze for some reason, unlikely as that seems for a rather new lens. Have you checked it with a flashlight?

 

[maddoc]

I use the film dev chart/app since about 5 years for hundreds of rolls of different film/developer combinations and always got excellent results. This includes 135, 120 and 4x5 film formats.

Did you expose a couple of rolls with mixed lens usage (90 and 50mm) and get consistent results?

 

[2wenty]

Just checked it. Looks very clean. Also checked it when I bought it.

I haven't shot it them both on the same exposure. I gonna do a test roll to see. But even googling results from that lens, other peoples shots have the same overly contrasty signature.

Might end up trading this for something wider. Maybe a 35mm or an xpan if someone has one. Im not really a fan of long lenses anyways. 24mm has been my favorite for a while. Kinda hard to go from 24 to 90.

Ill shoot a test roll in the next few days.

 

[2wenty]

I use the film dev chart/app since about 5 years for hundreds of rolls of different film/developer combinations and always got excellent results. This includes 135, 120 and 4x5 film formats.

Did you expose a couple of rolls with mixed lens usage (90 and 50mm) and get consistent results?

I do like the dev chart app. Its all I use. From some stuff I have noticed that it could be a little long but I could be wrong.

I don't really ever have a need to shoot a long lens so I don't shoot it too much, but the couple rolls I did shoot it on (bw and color) the images from the 90 are darker, more contrasty possible. I always go by the meter in the camera (m6) and Im usually good about being consistent with it. I have a 24mm elmarit and 50 summilux asph and both of those always expose correctly. I even have the hector 135mm and the few times I've used that its done well too.

Is it a possibility that the lens is just too contrasty for film? When I look at other people photos with it I see the same signature. Actually when I look for results from that lens I hardly find any that look good to my tastes.

 

[Fuchs]

It maybe indeed too contrasty for what you're looking after. Try a non asph 90/2 summicron or even better, an elmarit 90/2.8. their signature is a little gentler on contrast than the newer apo-asph

 

[2wenty]

It maybe indeed too contrasty for what you're looking after. Try a non asph 90/2 summicron or even better, an elmarit 90/2.8. their signature is a little gentler on contrast than the newer apo-asph

When I got the APO I was actually thinking the 2.8. Figured the APO would be even better. It is on digital, but Im really trying to stay away from digital as much as possible.

Im going to do a test roll but most likely try and trade it for a wider lens or different film camera if there is even a market for the 90 APO.

 

[coogee]

sorry - bit off topic - as you were...

 

[Noserider]

You may want to make an effort to try a roll of E-6 slide film with it before you let it go; As I recall this lens was designed pre-digital when most Leica Pros most likely shot slide film. I recall Erwin Puts had a discussion about how the Nocitilux rendered differently with slide film.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Use a hand held meter and, for B+W negative, measure the dark parts of the intended picture.

When shooting dark subjects, a little overexposure is just fine on B+W negative film.

I am sure the lens is for 100% OK, but did you check the shutter of the camera?

Erik.

 

[Michael Markey]

Interesting thread.
I have the Elmarit presently but I'm seriously looking at the APO for digital.
Looks like I'd need to keep the Elmarit for film .

 

[BernardL]

All the shots look really muddy

Is it a possibility that the lens is just too contrasty for film?

Does not make much sense to me.

 

[tightsqueez]

Yeah, these two statements couldn't be more contradictory.