Spot the difference!

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, bayernfan said:

i prefer the second image. maybe i need to find some uncoated lenses 

...or an optician?............just kidding.

In all seriousness it would be interesting to see quite how much the 'soft' image could be tweaked to approach the 'clearer' image in terms of IQ.

As Ian so beautifully demonstrated absolute Contrast and Sharpness are not always the 'Be All and End All' where images are concerned. Being able to choose in nearly infinite degrees between 'Modern' rendering and a more 'vintage' vision must be quite an appealing proposition.

I have a number of uncoated lenses. I must do some experiments!

Philip.

Edited June 10, 2020 by pippy

[Lelmer]

14 hours ago, pgk said:

......

I thought that it might interest everyone though because it shows what can happen if you do not care for your lenses!

Yes, very interesting. Never thought that degraded coating might affect the image so much.

Thanks for the post. 

[luigi bertolotti]

9 hours ago, bayernfan said:

i prefer the second image. maybe i need to find some uncoated lenses 

A sure buy for a 90 like this are the prewar black Elmars , easy to find, not costly, simple built to clean/adjust if necessary.

[pgk]

10 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

..... I always use the hood, cause I don't know what else to do with it.

A good hood is absolutely essential for any lens with a propensity to flare, and the longer the better. A hood should really be just short enough so that it doesn't cause vignetting. Many modern lenses have paltry offerings of built in hoods which are convenient, look nice but are inefficient. I am looking a Hasselblad bellows type hoods at the moment - I'm sure that they can be modified to old lenses and I might even be able to fit a 'mask' in front to absolutely minimise stray light. Not such a problem on M lenses, but I have some 1850/60s lenses which struggle with flare due to being uncoated, balsam separation, scratches and abrasions and old fungal damage. But they are what they are and I am starting to use them so I will do what I can to get the best out of them - if anyone is into these, the 'pillbox' type design seems to be the most flare resistant as the lens sat behind the well shielded aperture.

[darylgo]

Built in hood

6 minutes ago, pgk said:

Many modern lenses have paltry offerings of built in hoods which are convenient, look nice but are inefficient.

A very nice man once came over to me while I was photographing on a tripod, he took his hat off and used it as a hood to block the sunlight. Been using this type hood ever since, easy to carry and convenient. 
 

I enjoy playing around with flare, uncoated optics may be more challenging, a fun new endeavor. I’d be interested in seeing what you could do in post to get close to the first image.  And how does this coating damaged lens do in a more controlled lighting situation such as a studio?  
 

 

[Ko.Fe.]

So, coating damage was the reason. To me  it is nothing new, nothing surprising. 

But I liked those pictures in OP. Shows the difference from local tendency to build on the water fronts.

 

I had Summar which was sold to me next to free. It was awful on negatives and look of it wasn't beauty as well. I decided to clean it. I knew about Leitz glass been chalk soft and took it seriously. 

Lenses surfaces didn't received new scratches and lens wasn't scratched before. But amount of gunk it accumulated was astonishing. Inside, I guess, it was old grease deposits.

But on the front element, it looks like it was exposed to heavy and regular smoking. After it was cleaned on close and F2 distances it was still fuzzy, but on middle distances amount of details revealed on bw film was beneficial. 

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Might be of interest 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Lens-repolishing-and-MC-recoating-service/302704660215?hash=item467a9a8ef7:g:LSYAAOSwP6pZoRra

dunk