I didn't say that I doubted that lens coatings could make a difference. I said that I thought it *more* likely that something else was the cause of the relatively large difference that Paul noticed, especially since he used print film. I find it hard to understand why people make claims about the colour balance of lenses with print film as the evidence. As you know, the process of printing colour negatives can result in an endless number of possible colour balances on the print. The prints you get back from a lab are not what you took; they're the printer's interpretation of what (s)he thinks the colours might have been like at the time.
So I'm not saying that a difference in multicoatings couldn't make one lens produce "much less" rich colours than another, just that prints from negative film are an imprecise way of determining or measuring the difference. chris On Sun, 5 May 2002, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Steve Larson and I were at the Santa Barbara zoo last year about this > time. I took a couple of shots of a parrot with his Vivitar > 135/Series 1 and a couple with my SMCP. Same roll of film, same > camera body, same processing. It was quite obvious, even to a couple > of people who were standing nearby when I received the prints at the > lab, that the colors taken with the Pentax lens were more saturated > and richer looking. > > There is a difference in the way different lenses resolve color, > contrast, and detail. It's been said here many times that certain > Pentax lenses, notably the A-series and later lenses, render color > richer than earlier Pentax lenses. Why do you doubt this? Or were > you just offering another possibility? > > Chris Brogden wrote: > > > > On Sat, 4 May 2002, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote: > > > > > I just finished creating labels for my latest roll of color prints > > > (Fuji NPZ 800). I like to place checkmarks on my labels to indicate > > > which lens was used. Well, I thought that the only 135 I had used was > > > my now-sold SMC 135/2.5K. Then I took another look at some prints that > > > were much less rich in color, and I realized they had been taken with > > > the lens that replaced it, the Vivitar Series One 135/2.3K with VMC > > > multicoating. (The screwmount version was single-coated.) > > > > If one set of prints is much less rich in colour, I'd attribute that more > > to the printing or the exposure/lighting than to the lens itself. Have > > you tried equivalent shots with slide film, using the same body and > > exposures only seconds apart? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
