 |
brainiac
Offline
[X]
|
edwardkaraa wrote:
I never could understand the "high contrast" thing. All lenses lose contrast from the real scene. Good quality lenses such as the Zeiss lose very little while low quality ones lose much more.
There's a theory that lower contrast lenses somehow save the sensor from embarrassment with high contrast scenes. I think it's nonsense, mainly for reasons of scale, but it would be hard to prove. What I am sure of is that some lenses have weird contrast transmission which detracts from a sense of reality, and some have a very natural looking kind of contrast which feels very real. I would put the Contax 85 f2.8 in the latter category. It seems to me that many Zeiss lenses seem to have less contrast in out-of-focus areas than on the focal plane, and that contrast differential seems to me to be quite desirable as it increases the sense of 3D. Some Leica lenses have very high contrast in the o.o.f. areas, which seems to me to flatten the image and make it more pictorial than veridical. At any rate, in general, high contrast on the focal plane ought to be a desirable quality, regardless of what happens outside the focal plane.
The Contax 85 f2.8 is a real bargain which routinely delivers beautiful results and strong 3D effect.
|
| Dec 01, 2008 at 08:07 AM |
| |
|
 |
That 4T should be replaced by an extension tube or CZ Mutar. As our resident blur-meister, you will surely enjoy the S85: the bokeh is superb.