Ziess Biotar 58mm 2.0: unbelievable lack of contrast

[ersambuca]

You can develop a little longer to increase contrast in the negatives next time

thanks you for your attention throughout this whole thread Bill.

Yeah of thought about doing the same. But trying to get a better contrast during the development, in this case, feels like "I will fix it in Photoshop". It means that I accept that the Biotar cannot give me a proper dynamic range. It means that I have to make peace with the idea that anytime I shoot with this lens, I will start with an handicap. And I am not already fine with this, since I saw many .raw shot with this lens and such lack of contrast never appeared to be a feature of this lens.

[/QUOTE]

 

[pentaxuser]

If you are completely convinced that the Biotar cannot give you the contrast you feel it should or that you need it to and that there is no simple way to fix the problem by, for example, increasing development time then I agree that is the end of the matter and the only solution is to get rid of that lens

It seems a pity but it is your conclusion that matters and it is your money to spend as you wish and I agree with you we have reached the end the thread.


pentaxuser

 

[cowanw]

I presume that once you have set the aperture it does not change as the exposure is taken. Assuming that, I would measure the apparent aperture at the taking setting and do the math to check the F number, just in case it is F'd up.

 

[Bill Burk]

thanks you for your attention throughout this whole thread Bill.

Yeah of thought about doing the same. But trying to get a better contrast during the development, in this case, feels like "I will fix it in Photoshop". It means that I accept that the Biotar cannot give me a proper dynamic range. It means that I have to make peace with the idea that anytime I shoot with this lens, I will start with an handicap.

You’re welcome.

Think of developing longer as the right reaction to a reduced “image at the film plane” luminance range.

I like to call it “liquid light” because a little extra developing time seems to make prints brighter.

 

[Bill Burk]

I presume that once you have set the aperture it does not change as the exposure is taken. Assuming that, I would measure the apparent aperture at the taking setting and do the math to check the F number, just in case it is F'd up.

ersambuca has an AE-1 which acts like a large sweep match needle (with the battery check.. f/5.6 being the null spot to aim for) in stop-down mode.

I think we’re talking about using the lens pre-set at f/16 or 22 giving it full free range but only dialing in like a cinema lens until the needle is in the middle.

I am sure the engineers were pleased to see the center of the swing was the right meter point for stop-down mode… and they probably made the battery check be at that mark on purpose too.

 

[AgX]

I think we’re talking about using the lens pre-set at f/16 or 22 giving it full free range but only dialing in like a cinema lens...

What do you mean by this? I mean "full free range" and "cinema lens".

 

[Bill Burk]

What do you mean by this? I mean "full free range" and "cinema lens".

You know … when idiots take out the ball bearing so they can open and close the aperture without clicks. A pre-set lens “set” at the smallest aperture swings freely, say from f/2 to f/16.

 

[markjwyatt]

Here are a few shots from my Exakta VX witn CZJ 58mm f2 Biotar. It can be a little low on contrast, but not terrible. The lens has some light haze in it also. I would not blame the lens design.

I did bump up contrast on this one, and sacrificed some shadow in post (Arista Premium 200 aka Plus-X)

Shimmering Tree by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Low contrast lighting, FP4+/Rodinal (not a low contrast combo)

Over Run by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Arista Premium 100 again (same roll and development). I guessed at the exposure to not miss the action, and it is definitely underexposed maybe 2 stops. Some of your shots look like this.

The Kiss by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Fomapan 200 in Rodinal

Firescape by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[reddesert]

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

OK let me be frank, I think the problem is not fully understanding the operation of your equipment. I just don't know whether it is the aperture operation, the exposure, the development of the roll of Kentmere 400, any of those things. I don't think it's an intrinsic property of the lens unless it is hazy, which you say you have ruled out.

 

[ersambuca]

OK let me be frank, I think the problem is not fully understanding the operation of your equipment.

Well, as long as the film was underexposed I would have agreed with you. But now that the exposure is correct, why do you say that the problem is me not understanding my equipment?

 

[MattKing]

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.

I'm not saying that the Kentmere is the issue.
I'm saying that the development of the Kentmere is the issue - the Kentmere has been developed to a lower contrast, so the results are lower in contrast.
If you want the same contrast as the Tri-X, then just develop the Kentmere to obtain that contrast.
Although, as I mentioned, the Kentmere looks right as it is, and the Tri-X looks overly contrasty to me.
FURTHER EDIT:
And for clarity, if you use the Canon lens again, along with the Kentmere film, and develop the Kentmere film the same way and for the same time as you did with the film exposed using the Zeiss lens, those Canon exposed Kentmere negatives will also be less developed/have lower contrast than the Tri-X ones.
In order to have a reliable comparative test of the lenses, you need to use the same scenes and light, and you need to use the same film and development.
It is quite boring to do this, but the way to do the test is on the same roll of film in the same camera, taking picture after picture, first using one lens, then switching lenses and taking the same picture again with the other lens.
First the Canon lens (metering correctly), then the Zeiss (metering correctly). Subject after subject. Do this for 5 or 6 scenes (10 or 12 lens switches). Make sure you are doing this in light that isn't changing rapidly. Try to do it in a variety of different lighting conditions, and with a variety of different subjects. Try to use the same order each time (e.g. Canon first and Zeiss second). If you can, put something in each frame that identifies which lens was used - a marker or card or something else easily identifiable.
After you develop the film, you can compare the results - side by side. All film and development variables will be gone.

 

[cowanw]

ersambuca has an AE-1 which acts like a large sweep match needle (with the battery check.. f/5.6 being the null spot to aim for) in stop-down mode.

I think we’re talking about using the lens pre-set at f/16 or 22 giving it full free range but only dialing in like a cinema lens until the needle is in the middle.

I am sure the engineers were pleased to see the center of the swing was the right meter point for stop-down mode… and they probably made the battery check be at that mark on purpose too.

Yes, I am just suggesting to measure the aperture of the lens once to be sure it is performing as expected. ( given the continued troubles)

 

[DonW]

If you have it available and can get an adapter I would try the lens on a digital camera and see what happens.

 

[reddesert]

Well, as long as the film was underexposed I would have agreed with you. But now that the exposure is correct, why do you say that the problem is me not understanding my equipment?

Because all I've seen is several negatives where none of the skies go to fully dense black, meaning if they were printed or scanned without contrast adjustment, the sky would not be near-white. While in a normal B&W negative, the sky will be the densest part of the negative (unless you have a light source directly in the frame). I don't know what your process is, how you are metering, whether the lenses are really stopped down to f/5.6 when you think it's at f/5.6 etc. (Because, as we have discussed, there are different ways to do that on a fully manual lens vs a preset lens.)

If I were sitting next to you, I could probably help diagnose this, but through this medium it's quite difficult. However, the fact that both the Biotar and the Helios showed a problem but are haze-free suggests there is an operational problem, not some intrinsic low-contrast aspect of the lens; they're both coated lenses of modern-ish design. Modern coated lenses don't vary that much in terms of transmission or contrast. If you were using a pre-war uncoated lens, there would be a lot more acceptance that the lens was intrinsically lower contrast.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Ok to summarize we have a clear case of under exposure and after 4 pages we are still debating what causes shown results, but no bad ones

1. Biotar or Helios are quite good lenses, they can also be of a very high grade too, sample to sample variety is an unfortunate side effect of QC from those makes

2. If a lens could have caused shown results, it would have been so freakin hazy, one could tell without taking kens cap off
3. Unless I misunderstood OP showed shots taken with an FD lens + suspect lenses on same roll, which rules out processing issues

So to me bottom line is make sure mechanicals deliver set values.

 

[btaylor]

There is always variation in mechanical gear. If the variation is great enough to cause a problem a set of controlled tests are needed. It seems to me that a set of controlled manual exposure tests with a suitable test target and the smallest number of variables (same film stock/development, etc) would go a long way towards solving this mystery. The OP would end up with a set of negatives with under, CORRECT and overexposed frames. If the settings are recorded you’ll have all the information you need to evaluate the lens in question.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

There is always variation in mechanical gear. If the variation is great enough to cause a problem a set of controlled tests are needed. It seems to me that a set of controlled manual exposure tests with a suitable test target and the smallest number of variables (same film stock/development, etc) would go a long way towards solving this mystery. The OP would end up with a set of negatives with under, CORRECT and overexposed frames. If the settings are recoded you’ll have all the information you need to evaluate the lens in question.

Except if lens is clear, only it’s mechanicals can cause a problem, not optics. I cannot see a need for tests if aperture blades close as they are suppose to. Not like one can alter lens’ internals to get say f 8 when f 4 is pointed to on the ring. It’s a simple swing of a ring from wide open to fully closed and watching the blades move. We are looking at serious underxposure, not a small variance.

 

[btaylor]

Except if lens is clear, only it’s mechanicals can cause a problem, not optics. I cannot see a need for tests if aperture blades close as they are suppose to.

Yes! Because maybe they are not, or are miscalibrated. This is very old gear here, likely made in the ‘50’s (mine was)- it’s history is unknown AFAIK

 

[grat]

You mentioned you cleaned some fungus-- I have a 135mm lens for my Mamiya that looks pretty reasonable under normal circumstances, but the "flashlight test" shows the lens to be permanently etched from the fungus, badly enough that any kind of bright off-axis light results in hideous fogging and loss of contrast. Yours may not be as bad, but have you checked the lens by shining a bright light across the the lens?

 

[ersambuca]

I'm not saying that the Kentmere is the issue.
I'm saying that the development of the Kentmere is the issue - the Kentmere has been developed to a lower contrast, so the results are lower in contrast.
If you want the same contrast as the Tri-X, then just develop the Kentmere to obtain that contrast.
Although, as I mentioned, the Kentmere looks right as it is, and the Tri-X looks overly contrasty to me.

I will shoot another roll of Kentmere and I will try do develop it with more agitation than the previous one... it's not gonna be easy to find another sunny day like that here in Germany sigh... :'-)

 

[ersambuca]

If you have it available and can get an adapter I would try the lens on a digital camera and see what happens.

I did not think of that....!!

I think this may be the final step of the story. Before going back to digital ... :''''-)

 

[ersambuca]

Because all I've seen is several negatives where none of the skies go to fully dense black,

I looked back the negs again and I think that all the shots made with the Canon 24mm do have both whites and blacks.

 

[ersambuca]

Unless I misunderstood OP showed shots taken with an FD lens + suspect lenses on same roll, which rules out processing issues

Exactly.
[/QUOTE]

So to me bottom line is make sure mechanicals deliver set values.

Isn't the fact that the last film, the Kentemere, is properly exposed, a proof that mechanicals do their job?

 

[pentaxuser]

I will shoot another roll of Kentmere and I will try do develop it with more agitation than the previous one... :'-)

I should probably let Matt answer but all I will say is that my understanding is that a longer time for development is more effective compared to more agitation and I suspect Matt may be referring to giving the Kentmere film longer development rather than more agitation

If you are interested then have a look at some of Gregg Davis' film test videos where he compares various films with Kodak Tri-X. In a few case his print from the film being tested is darker in his highlight area that the print from the Tri-X negative and his chart of that film is underneath the chart of his Tri-X film but both charts look similar. In those cases his conclusion is that to brighten the highlights in the film being tested more development time is all that is needed

His videos are called the Naked Photographer videos on YouTube. Well worth a look

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

3. Unless I misunderstood OP showed shots taken with an FD lens + suspect lenses on same roll, which rules out processing issues

This is true for only the first test, when the OP was using the wrong method for applying a meter reading with the Zeiss lens on the camera, thus leading to under-exposure.
In the last roll, where the OP used the right method for applying a meter reading, and obtained well exposed negatives, he used a different type of film, which was developed to a lower contrast.
In order to do the comparison, he needs to again use one roll of film and both lenses, metered in each case the proper way (if he wants to rule out processing issues).
On the subject of varying time vs varying agitation to change contrast, time variation is a far more flexible and controllable and repeatable method.