Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Importance of T* Zeiss lenses?
- Thread starter Extiger
- Start date
T* sure helps to prevent flare but a good shade does more.
Keep in mind many great images were made with lenses that did not have T*.
As far as I know Ansel Adams never had the opportunity to use T* lenses.
Some of his best known images were made with early silver Hasselblad lenses.
Vic.
Keep in mind many great images were made with lenses that did not have T*.
As far as I know Ansel Adams never had the opportunity to use T* lenses.
Some of his best known images were made with early silver Hasselblad lenses.
Vic.
Yes, even for the below average person.
I only buy CF lenses which have the T* coating. It reduces the potential flare problems. It also has a more serviceable shutter and is easier to use than the C lenses. Since I do not need the electrical interface there is not need for me to buy a CFi lens. The CFE lenses are nice, but I can use close up tubes if I need to shoot close than the minimum focal distance.
The CF lenses are not that expensive compared to when they were new. The famous three letter website sell EX CF 80mm lenses for about $500 and the CF 50mm, CF 60mm, CF 150mm, CF 250mm for around $800 each. Which is not that expensive for what one would get. The C non T* lenses are not that much less. The CFis and CFEs are a lot more expensive.
Steve
Daniel Unkefer
Member
Having had alot of experience with comparing medium and large format multicoated VS single-coated lenses, the difference is at most 5%. Using a Hasselblad Compendium Hood is more important, in a strongly backlit situation. I hold my hand outside the frame to block the light, in Hollywood they called that a "Gobo".
I've shot straight into the sun with T* lenses, and I still get hexagons, if the lens in positioned in a bad place.
I've shot straight into the sun with T* lenses, and I still get hexagons, if the lens in positioned in a bad place.
Let me explain why I decided to buy T* lenses. It's not like I have lots of extra cash available! Sure, a shade does more than lens coatings but this is not an either/or proposition. If I can increase contrast at the negative before developing I'm all for it. This method of increasing contrast doesn't weaken the subtle tonality of color like special developing or printing can. Also, brilliant light outside of the image area is not the only source of flare and fog. I'm personally quite fond of strongly backlit photographs and those that, at times, include the light source. Here's where the T* performs what a shade can't; managing internal reflections originating from the subjet.
Also the Ansel Adams argument doesn't account for one other benefit of the T* fully-multi-coating system (because Ansel Adams was interested exclusively in B&W). T* offers color correction between lenses of different design. With the older chrome C lenses, switching from the 80mm to the 250mm would produce slightly different color rendition. With T*, each element in the system is not just coated for increased transmission of light but is specially tinted to reproduce color in a predictable way despite differences in the optical system. This means the T* coating on your 80mm and 250mm are not the same; each coating has been individually color corrected to match the rendition produced by all other T* lenses. Now you can switch lenses and not spend great time and effort matching color in post-production (when such things matter).
Not that I'm the greatest photographer, but I did my homework before buying into the Hasselblad system and these were the points that sold me on T* lenses. I own C T*'s because they were what I could afford.
Sorry v-system,
I am not with you as far as colour rendition is concerned.
To begin with the amount of improvement in colour rendition with later coatings is extremely small.
On top of that for ease of use we are only discriminating early twin layer coatings, often referred to as single coating which is incorrect, and later T* coatings.
The bad news is T* coatings were also improved during their life span by Zeiss.
I can show you at least 4 different T* coatings used over a period of twenty years.
Finally all these differences are totally unimportant when conventional printing is concerned.
Ever asked for another print made by the same lab of the same film frame after a couple of weeks?
Even with the original colour corrections from that lab you will end up with two prints that do not match.
I am afraid in this respect photography has more to do with art than physics.
You did well to buy T* lenses no doubt about it.
T* coating has its merits but quite often the effect of the improvements is exaggerated.
Vic
I am not with you as far as colour rendition is concerned.
To begin with the amount of improvement in colour rendition with later coatings is extremely small.
On top of that for ease of use we are only discriminating early twin layer coatings, often referred to as single coating which is incorrect, and later T* coatings.
The bad news is T* coatings were also improved during their life span by Zeiss.
I can show you at least 4 different T* coatings used over a period of twenty years.
Finally all these differences are totally unimportant when conventional printing is concerned.
Ever asked for another print made by the same lab of the same film frame after a couple of weeks?
Even with the original colour corrections from that lab you will end up with two prints that do not match.
I am afraid in this respect photography has more to do with art than physics.
You did well to buy T* lenses no doubt about it.
T* coating has its merits but quite often the effect of the improvements is exaggerated.
Vic