Horses for courses, lighting for lenses

[ian_tindale]

Here's a nice emotive one to distract from hard reality:

 

Given the same photographer, subject, film and focal length, would you say that

some lenses or lens types/families/manufacturers are more suited to certain

kinds of lighting than others?

 

In other words, would there be any degree of agreement in statements such as

"well, xxxar lenses are at their best in cold winter northern hemisphere

lighting, whereas xxxxon lenses are well known to give their best in shaded but

abundant sub-tropical conditions, and xxxxxors are unbeatable with studio flash"

or some such fabricated nonsense.

 

Of course, there's always more to it than just the simple factsﾅ

[dan_fromm2]

Entities that live under bridges and subsist on goats are said to be very interested in questions such as yours. So are some kinds of anglers.

 

The rest of us seem to believe that a lens is a lens is a lens. Unless, of course, it is a Leica lens. They're special, best in all situations. I have a couple of Leica lenses made for 6x6 cameras, have managed to use one of them. 1.75"/2.8 Elcan. It is special all right, stands out as not very good.

[stuart_richardson]

Film choice usually has a greater effect, but lower contrast lenses can be preferable in harsh

light because they will retain more shadow and highlight detail. Conversely, high contrast

modern optics can be nice in dull lighting. This does not mean that you should never use a

high contrast lens in bright light or a low contrast one on an overcast day, but it is just

another consideration to keep in mind. And again, low contrast lenses can be nice for black

and white because they give you a longer tonal range to work with, as it is always possible to

increase contrast, but not so easy to reduce it (without having shadows and highlights

without detail). So yes, lighting definitely makes a difference in lens choice, but most of the

problems can be solved with film choice and post-processing.