Favorite lenses to use with color slide films?

[leo_tam1]

I know a lot of people love Minolta colors and a lot vote

Leica

 

What's yours?

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I don't see lenses have color.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Lenses can have different color renditions. Different glasses have different characteristics, as do different coating recipes.<br>

The older Leica lenses were famous for high sharpness with low contrast. The older 50mm Summicrons were known to be a good match for Kodachrome, which was a very contrasty film. But current slide films are not as crazy contrasty as the original Kodachrome was.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I liked the rather neutral color rendition of the early Zuiko lenses. Out of focus highlights were often terribly busy with my Zuiko 50mm, and there were sharper lenses, but the color was good. The attached photo is from 1977. The designer of the OM series admired Leicas and may have tried to emulate their color qualities.</p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>Although I no longer do slides, I really liked the consistency of 1960-80 era Rokkors regardless of the focal length....Minolta prided itself on producing lenses which had color consistenty. However, most of my slides for the last 50 years have been taken with 1960-70 era Leica lenses, less for their color consistency, but more for their overall rendering of people and scenes. If you're scanning the slides, IMHO, it no longer makes any difference, due to the ease of post processing; if you're projecting, unless you have a low grade projector, screen, or irregular power supply, it doesn't seem to matter here either.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Oops! Forgot to say that my example above was shot on Kodachrome 64 and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V. Stephen is right, of course, although the example, on my calibrated screen, looks remarkable like the projected slide.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>When I bought my Nikon FM in 1979, I got the AI 35/2.0 with it. It was then my favorite, and if I have to choose one, now probably still is. For most of the years, I used it with slide film.</p>

<p>When I first met my wife to be, she already had an FM. Mine is black, so we could always tell them apart. We usually kept slide film in mine, and print film in hers, so we always had a choice. <br>

(Usually slides for scenic pictures, and prints for people pictures, but not always.)</p>

<p>More recently, on vacation I brought my D700 for digital pictures, and a Canon VI with a 35/2.8 Xenogon, for slides. (Only one roll.) </p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>My 1980s 35 and 50mm Summicron Leica lenses had a very nice colour rendition with K25 slide film. My then camera club friends also though that I used a polarizer, which i did not in most cases. The contrast of the lenses was part of the reason I think. The Leica optics are not always perfectly neutral in colour rendition but not far off neutral and I think this is a fairly minor issue with them. I am told that the 45mm and othe G series Contax (Kyocera) lenses of that period had amazingly fine differentiatation between varied tones of each colour, but that would be the same for negative or positive transparency film.</p>

<p>The most beautiful tones I ever saw in prints of my own work were obtained with a Leica M4-2 and the 35mm Summicron (vers.IV) on Kodak colour negative film processed in Finland. I never really repeated that series with the same quality. Perhaps it was more the quality of the northern light in the midsummer.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I also love the color from the 4th version 35mm Summicron like Arthur. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13161032-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Some lenses may be cooler or warmer than others, but in my experience the color cast of the film itself always predominated. Early Fujichrome, for example, had a pronounced violet cast. GAF 500 tended toward reddish brown. Early Kodachome II went toward magenta undertones, etc.</p><div></div>

[david_henderson]

<p>I think JDM is right, and additionally the processing of the slide film in itself could make a visible difference. Personally I always felt the contrast of the lenses had as big an effect as any colour character they may impart. My Bronica PS/S lenses produced a moderate, fairly natural contrast. But the lenses of my Mamiya 7 were visibly contrastier which made my Velvia/Provia seem brighter ( not always what I wanted) but also seemed to cost me about half a stop of an already limited dynamic range. Seemed to me then that Mamiya, in a quest for great sharpness, had been happy to make a sacrifice in other areas to achieve that goal for that camera. I think some people will have been happy to accept that trade-off. With slide film I wasn't so sure.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Agree with JDM as to film type and processing also with David Henderson. I know there is definitely a difference with the same film shot with a Contax G 35mm and the Summicron, or a Nikon for that matter.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>JDM is right on the button -- I used to switch deliberately from Kodachrome to Ektachrome to Agfa to Fuji slide films depending on the color range I thought best for the subject. I used reputable labs -- often going to the MFR via mailers. I never thought much about the impact of lenses, as they were either Nikon or occasionally, Leica, and they were all I had.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Talking about lenses and color, what about skylight 1A and 1B filters? <br>

Those add just a little bit of warmth to the color.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Hector. Looks like your 1977 shot has faded greatly. I would be dismayed if Zuiko lenses produced that non-color out of the camera.</p>