RB color with pre-C lenses

[Wayne]

Show me some, if you've got any, or tell me about your experiences. I've only shot one roll of color negative so far on my RB with pre-C lenses and it was the first roll of color negatives I'd ever developed. Needless to say, I botched it. But I'm about to try some more. Other than the obvious issue of flare I'd like to see some examples of what they can do. Heck I'd even like to see your examples of color flare. I intend to upgrade my lenses but right now the choice is lens or film, and film is going to win.

 

[MattKing]

I've had a couple of pre-C lenses (one "plain", one NB) in the past, but don't have any now. They were either duplicates because they came with a body or a focal length that I decided not to keep.

I cannot give you examples of how they behaved, because all my lenses have behaved very well.

I don't always record which lens I use for which shot. I certainly don't catalogue my negatives that way.

Over all, I don't see much to differentiate between the various versions.

I'm more concerned with the age of the shutters.

 

[Wayne]

Yeah I figure its not a big deal for the most part, a little lower contrast might even be helpful with some Ektar shots.

 

[markbarendt]

My experience is like Matt's.

 

[EdColorado]

As others have said, I see no real difference. I mostly shoot B&W with my RB now but have done some color, the first of which was all done on non C lenses. I still remember my first 6x7 color transparencies on my light table. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that color, it blew me away.

 

[Neil Grant]

Show me some, if you've got any, or tell me about your experiences. I've only shot one roll of color negative so far on my RB with pre-C lenses and it was the first roll of color negatives I'd ever developed. Needless to say, I botched it. But I'm about to try some more. Other than the obvious issue of flare I'd like to see some examples of what they can do. Heck I'd even like to see your examples of color flare. I intend to upgrade my lenses but right now the choice is lens or film, and film is going to win.

I've used a number of C lenses and equivalent non C - and there really is no comparison. The C versions have higher colour saturation and more pleasing colours too. My non C 250 is decidedly 'green'. The C's are much better at holding contrast when shooting into light - this is noticeable in colour and b/w.

 

[Wayne]

Interesting. I wonder

I've used a number of C lenses and equivalent non C - and there really is no comparison. The C versions have higher colour saturation and more pleasing colours too. My non C 250 is decidedly 'green'. The C's are much better at holding contrast when shooting into light - this is noticeable in colour and b/w.

interesting. I wonder if film makes a significant difference? Are slide films or saturated negative films more or less affected? I'll only be shooting Ektar because Portra and Fuji are out of my price range (60-70 cents a frame? For 6x7? Really? I don't think so). Maybe its increased contrast and saturation will make the net effect (in wet prints) less noticeable.

 

[Neil Grant]

Interesting. I wonder


interesting. I wonder if film makes a significant difference? Are slide films or saturated negative films more or less affected? I'll only be shooting Ektar because Portra and Fuji are out of my price range (60-70 cents a frame? For 6x7? Really? I don't think so). Maybe its increased contrast and saturation will make the net effect (in wet prints) less noticeable.

The colour neg film you use is an intermediate - so there's an opportunity to apply global corrections for colour casts. With a non-C lens, you just have to live with it's fundamental limitations - especially shooting into light. I think if you boost colour with film choice, or in 'post', it'll come at the expense of subltey. I rarely use my non-C 250 - only ever if the sun is coming from behind the lens. I think you'll jsut have to try for yourself.