Ziess Biotar 58mm 2.0: unbelievable lack of contrast

[ersambuca]

When you write « Biotar », you mean the Zeiss lens or the Helios 44-2?

The Zeiss Biotar.

 

[Dali]

So, with which lens did you notice a lack of contrast compared to you Canon lens? The Biotar, the Helios or both?

 

[ersambuca]

So, with which lens did you notice a lack of contrast compared to you Canon lens? The Biotar, the Helios or both?

Both, but let's just talk of the Biotar, the Helios has almost nothing to do with this story. As the title of the thread says, we are talkig about the Zeiss Biotar.

 

[ersambuca]

Ok friends. Sunny day yesterday in Berlin, I shot a whole roll in stopped down mode. so:

Canon ae1 + zeiss Biotar

1. wide open, I focus. 2. I stop down to the desired aperture. 3. I set the shutter speed till the needle points the stopped down metering mark. 4. shot.

Now, before I show you the negative of the roll I yesterday shot this way, I want to show you first the negatives of the photos I posted at the beginning of this thread, the ones that showed me the difference in contrast (or exposure...) between my Canon fd lens and the Biotar.

Here is the Canon FD in a sunny day.
View attachment 296940

Here is the same day the Biotar, shot in the wrong mode! In the left upper corner you still can see some shot from the Canon. The difference is noticable, still note sure if that is a difference of contrast or exposure.

View attachment 296941



Finally, here are the negatives of the shot taken yesterday with the Zeiss stopped down metering:

View attachment 296939

what I think is that the photos are well exposed, the negatives are not light neither are they too dark. I think they only lack contrast! May the negative be underdeveloped? I don't think so, the numbers of the film look very dark and black.


So I am happy to see that the problem of the underexposure is solved and that the stopped down metering is effective, but still, something is wrong! I can see from the scans that this lens is good performer in details, but the dynamic range of this negative is very short. I got no whites I got no blacks.

Thoughts?

.

 

[Dali]

Both, but let's just talk of the Biotar, the Helios has almost nothing to do with this story. As the title of the thread says, we are talkig about the Zeiss Biotar.

OK but right from the start you throw the Helios in the conversation which is IMO pretty confusing.

 

[removedacct1]

I think you have unrealistic expectations of this lens. Comparing lens technologies like the Biotar, with more current lenses is apples-to-oranges. They are not going to have the same contrast. All lenses have their own contrast characteristics. You just adjust your post processing to compensate for specific lens traits. You cannot expect the images straight out of the scanner to look the same as any other camera/lens result.
If you are not adjusting the scanning parameters to account for contrast and density of the specific negative, then you aren't completing the job. And yes, it appears your original negatives are underexposed, and your second set are also on the thin side. Not every lens performs exactly the same as any other lens. You have to learn how to get the best out of each lens, and understand its limitations.

 

[AgX]

Both, but let's just talk of the Biotar, the Helios has almost nothing to do with this story. As the title of the thread says, we are talkig about the Zeiss Biotar.

OK but right from the start you throw the Helios in the conversation which is IMO pretty confusing.

Both lenses showed strong loss of contrast. What was one reason to find out that with both lenses the OP has mal-operated his camera by not reading the manual, leading to malexposure with both lenses.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think I struggled so much so far, despite the huge amount of information I recieved, because I had a missing piece of the puzzle that apparently is given for granted by all of you.

The problem with any forum is often because of the huge amount of information received rather than despite the huge amount of information. I have no idea how we can change this but it is often a problem. Sometimes you can drown under the weight of the wave of information that hits you. A forum can take a few days to solve a problem that a person with face to face contact with you would have solved in 5 minutes or less

Glad it is almost all fine now in terms of the stopped down metering but yes it can be frustrating

pentaxuser

 

[ersambuca]

I think you have unrealistic expectations of this lens.

Maybe. This is exactly what I am trying to find out. I want to make sure that there isn't anything I am missing. For instance the whole story of the stopped down metering seemed to be the cause of all my problems. That solved though, the problems stays, so I may soon make peace with the idea that my Zeiss Biotar is just a low contrast lens (still, it seems weird that so far nobody has experienced the same).

 

[Dali]

At least in the Helios (I don't have any Biotar), the way the preset ring works is quite confusing. You select the aperture setting (let say f/8) and to close the aperture at f/8, you need to set the preset ring to f/2 . If you leave both rings (aperture selection and preset ring) to f/8 marking, you are in fact at full aperture (f/2 in this case). Did you notice it?

 

[AgX]

Your terms are confusing.

Let me say it this way:

There are two red marks. A static one, at the filtering, the other one, on the ring actually operating the aperture.
Turn the preset-ring, with the aperture values, so that the intended value is at the static mark.
Twist the aperture-operating ring to the left until its arrrest for fully open, or to the right, to indeed f2, for fully closed.

Yes, the design of this lens is confusing, or rather the red mark on the aperture-operating ring. It leads to reading the respective aperture figure, which yields a complete nonsense value reading.
Seemingly the red dot on this ring is meant to give an orientation as to at which arrest this operating ring is set.

My advise:
-) black-out this red mark
-) set a label "closed", maybe with an arrow pointing right, to the right of the DOF -scale

Then you would know that twisting this ring to its right side arrest is having the aperture closed to its preset vaue. Twisting to the left, to its other arrest, then of course would mean the aperture being fully open. By now lacking of that red mark you no longer may make erroneous readings of the operated aperture value.

However, then you may have to feel (I got a sample at hand with zero friction at this ring), at what position it actually is, before exposing. Whereas just looking at that red mark and seeing it at f2 would confirm the right position for exposure. But typically one got ones fingers at the barrel before exposing anyway and thus may feel for that arrest before releasing.

 

[btaylor]

I think you have unrealistic expectations of this lens. Comparing lens technologies like the Biotar, with more current lenses is apples-to-oranges. They are not going to have the same contrast. All lenses have their own contrast characteristics. You just adjust your post processing to compensate for specific lens traits. You cannot expect the images straight out of the scanner to look the same as any other camera/lens result.
If you are not adjusting the scanning parameters to account for contrast and density of the specific negative, then you aren't completing the job. And yes, it appears your original negatives are underexposed, and your second set are also on the thin side. Not every lens performs exactly the same as any other lens. You have to learn how to get the best out of each lens, and understand its limitations.

I think Paul sums this up quite well. Time to experiment and find how this lens will work for you.

 

[MattKing]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the Canon lens photos were shot on Kodak Tri-X, while Zeiss Biotar lens photos using stop down metering were shot on Kentmere 400.
Different films will often give different contrast, unless development is adjusted to match the contrast.

 

[Nokton48]

XX Exposure Guide by Nokton48, on Flickr

Outside in daylight I very often use this chart (I got it from Tom Abrahamson) to shoot without metering and it's quite accurate. If it's a strong subject I often shoot an extra frame or two (extra stop) to give myself a choice. Heavy overcast and artificial lighting require metering. With 250 speed film I use 1/250 second, etc. With 125 speed film I use 1/125, etc

 

[pentaxuser]

The exposure guide to which you link seems to have the same 4 identical set of fstops that you show here so is there something else in the link that I have been unable to find? You then mention what appears to be bracketing if its a strong subject but I am unsure as to what constitutes a "strong subject"

Your final sentence seems to be the sunny f16 rule which is a good rule when it is sunny but a meter is required beyond "f8 Overcast very soft light conditions?

Can you help me by expanding on what you mean as per my questions and I assume that while what you have said is useful in terms of unmetered exposure it is not directly relevant to the OP's problem with his lenses?

Thanks

pentaxuser .

 

[Nokton48]

I cut out the individual charts and attach one to the back of each camera body. I find that I concentrate more on lighting and composition when I am not fiddling with exposure calculations outdoors. If I like the subject, I may shoot more than one frame that's just how I work. When it gets very overcast it is difficult sometimes to get a good negative without shooting a few.

Some here indicate underexposure may be one of his issues. Perhaps this technique would improve the test results? If the lens is not smoky or foggy inside, it may be a lower contrast optic. I have many older vintage lenses that fit in that category. And adjusting film developing times may also help?

 

[pentaxuser]

OK Thanks, Nokton48

pentaxuser

 

[ersambuca]

Your terms are confusing.

Let me say it this way:

There are two red marks. A static one, at the filtering, the other one, on the ring actually operating the aperture.
Turn the preset-ring, with the aperture values, so that the intended value is at the static mark.
Twist the aperture-operating ring to the left until its arrrest for fully open, or to the right, to indeed f2, for fully closed.

Yes, the design of this lens is confusing, or rather the red mark on the aperture-operating ring. It leads to reading the respective aperture figure, which yields a complete nonsense value reading.
Seemingly the red dot on this ring is meant to give an orientation as to at which arrest this operating ring is set.

My advise:
-) black-out this red mark
-) set a label "closed", maybe with an arrow pointing right, to the right of the DOF -scale

Then you would know that twisting this ring to its right side arrest is having the aperture closed to its preset vaue. Twisting to the left, to its other arrest, then of course would mean the aperture being fully open. By now lacking of that red mark you no longer may make erroneous readings of the operated aperture value.

However, then you may have to feel (I got a sample at hand with zero friction at this ring), at what position it actually is, before exposing. Whereas just looking at that red mark and seeing it at f2 would confirm the right position for exposure. But typically one got ones fingers at the barrel before exposing anyway and thus may feel for that arrest before releasing.

To be honest I have no idea what you are talking about in this message and why you are telling me this instructions.

I think this thread went drammatically off topic and I can't control it anymore.

I posted the images of the negative before and after the stopped down metering asking opinions about the differences and I got no answers about it. I think they are well exposed now, before they defenetely were underexposed, but still I think they lack contrast,

Still thank you verymuch for your help expecially you agx, you have been very helpful to me.

 

[MattKing]

I posted the images of the negative before and after the stopped down metering asking opinions about the differences and I got no answers about it. I think they are well exposed now, before they defenetely were underexposed, but still I think they lack contrast,

I think you missed my post:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the Canon lens photos were shot on Kodak Tri-X, while Zeiss Biotar lens photos using stop down metering were shot on Kentmere 400.
Different films will often give different contrast, unless development is adjusted to match the contrast.

You switched films - Tri-X to Kentmere 400 - and the new film was developed to give what appears to be lower contrast. If the development were to change in order to match the contrast of Tri-X exposed using the Canon lenses, then the results would be similar.
You will probably find that if you use the FD lens with the Kentmere film, and develop the film the same way as the Kentmere negatives you showed us, then those negatives will also be lower in contrast.
That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the Kentmere 400 negatives will be quite usable. To my mind, they actually look more easy to print than the Tri-X negatives exposed with the Canon FD lens.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think they are well exposed now, before they defenetely were underexposed, but still I think they lack contrast,

I think so too.

You have done a good job narrowing it down. You can develop a little longer to increase contrast in the negatives next time but with the good exposure now things are definitely better. You can get something out of this roll.

 

[AgX]

To be honest I have no idea what you are talking about in this message and why you are telling me this instructions.

Let me explain to you:

You brought up an issue, asking for advice. Receiving advice thus is what you expected. And you got advice, seemingly more than your issue is is worth to you.

You brought the Helios lens into the discussion, as the lens you first encountered the problem with. We were wondering about the cause. It was revealed that maloperation of your camera was one cause at least. In this context today another member came up with another issue that might be related to your problem: the confusing operation of the aperture of the Helios lens. As I considered his remark ambiguous I tried to explain the issue in depth and gave an advice to solve it. I gave this that to that member, to you, but also to anyone else, as this is one of the most common standard lenses.

I think this thread went drammatically off topic and I can't control it anymore.

You and me seem to have completely different ideas on what a forum is for. To me it is not a for free, private counselling to solve ones problems, but a place to discuss issues, being ones own or not, to mutual benefit.
You got a really great amount of attention to your own problem. But you do not own this thread. No one does.

 

[reddesert]

Ok friends. Sunny day yesterday in Berlin, I shot a whole roll in stopped down mode. so:

Canon ae1 + zeiss Biotar

1. wide open, I focus. 2. I stop down to the desired aperture. 3. I set the shutter speed till the needle points the stopped down metering mark. 4. shot.

Now, before I show you the negative of the roll I yesterday shot this way, I want to show you first the negatives of the photos I posted at the beginning of this thread, the ones that showed me the difference in contrast (or exposure...) between my Canon fd lens and the Biotar.

Here is the Canon FD in a sunny day.
View attachment 296940

Here is the same day the Biotar, shot in the wrong mode! In the left upper corner you still can see some shot from the Canon. The difference is noticable, still note sure if that is a difference of contrast or exposure.

View attachment 296941



Finally, here are the negatives of the shot taken yesterday with the Zeiss stopped down metering:

View attachment 296939

what I think is that the photos are well exposed, the negatives are not light neither are they too dark. I think they only lack contrast! May the negative be underdeveloped? I don't think so, the numbers of the film look very dark and black.


So I am happy to see that the problem of the underexposure is solved and that the stopped down metering is effective, but still, something is wrong! I can see from the scans that this lens is good performer in details, but the dynamic range of this negative is very short. I got no whites I got no blacks.

Thoughts?

Thanks for posting pictures of the negatives, that helps.

Look at the negatives shot with the Canon FD lens, the sky areas are really dark on the negative.

The sky areas on all of the other negatives with the other lenses are a sort of medium gray.

In the second example, the underexposed roll on Tri-X, there are a lot of very thin areas, for example the background behind the V-shaped tree, or the railing running diagonally across the picture. These are going to look very blah on a positive unless you let the shadows all go completely black.

In the third example on Kentmere, there are fewer really thin areas except for deep shadows. But the sky is still medium gray. It's almost the same tone as the buildings. I don't know if this is a lens, exposure, or development problem. I don't think it's the lens, though.

I would suggest 1) figuring out how to be absolutely sure you are operating the aperture correctly (because full manual and preset lenses are a little different). Look through the lens to be sure f/5.6 is really 5.6. Then 2) do a controlled test. Go out with both lenses, meter a scene through the FD lens at some aperture, say f/5.6 and 1/125 or whatever, take a picture, then put on the Biotar and take the same picture at the exact same settings (don't use auto, use manual so you get the exact same exposure), then do the Helios at the same settings. It's impossible to isolate the variables when you have different lenses at different times on different rolls of film.

 

[ersambuca]

I think you missed my post:

You switched films - Tri-X to Kentmere 400 - and the new film was developed to give what appears to be lower contrast. If the development were to change in order to match the contrast of Tri-X exposed using the Canon lenses, then the results would be similar.
You will probably find that if you use the FD lens with the Kentmere film, and develop the film the same way as the Kentmere negatives you showed us, then those negatives will also be lower in contrast.
That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the Kentmere 400 negatives will be quite usable. To my mind, they actually look more easy to print than the Tri-X negatives exposed with the Canon FD lens.

I think you missed my post:

You switched films - Tri-X to Kentmere 400 - and the new film was developed to give what appears to be lower contrast. If the development were to change in order to match the contrast of Tri-X exposed using the Canon lenses, then the results would be similar.
You will probably find that if you use the FD lens with the Kentmere film, and develop the film the same way as the Kentmere negatives you showed us, then those negatives will also be lower in contrast.
That being said, I'd be willing to bet that the Kentmere 400 negatives will be quite usable. To my mind, they actually look more easy to print than the Tri-X negatives exposed with the Canon FD lens.

thank you for your reply. I understand what you say. Uising the same film of course would get my investigation more accurate. But I consider the evidence of my problem quite above the differences that two films can have. I shot with the Biotar on many different films and the lack of contrast (and the previous underexposure) was well recognaizable despite the different character of the film.

The Kantmere I uploaded was shot in a very sunny day, light and shadow were very strong, aperture was always around 16: Kentemere or not, those negatives deserve to have a wider dynamic range.

 

[ersambuca]

I don't know if this is a lens, exposure, or development problem.

Thank you for your answer.

So you agree too that there is a problem. Some said that I just have to much expectation on this lens, but I don't think so. Of course I would accept the idea that the Biotar is a low contrast lens if this appeared to be what the truth is. But as long as someone else other than me think that some thing is weird, then I will keep trying investigating to get the most out of my lens. Having a wide dynamic range during a fully sunny day I don't think is asking too much of my lens

 

[ersambuca]

In this context today another member came up with another issue that might be related to your problem: the confusing operation of the aperture of the Helios lens. As I considered his remark ambiguous I tried to explain the issue in depth and gave an advice to solve it. I gave this that to that member, to you, but also to anyone else.

I didn't understand that your comment was referred to a comment of another member.

You and me seem to have completely different ideas on what a forum is for. To me it is not a for free, private counselling to solve ones problems, but a place to discuss issues, being ones own or not, to mutual benefit.
You got a really great amount of attention to your own problem. But you do not own this thread. No one does.

I agree that's the spirit of a forum. But I also think, and probably any moderator agrees, that going off topic is a problem to avoid too, for the sake of the overall discussion comprension. Just like if in a Parliament was allowed to speak all togheter about different topics.