Re: Elmarit 90mm vs. ("fat") Tele-Elmarit 90mm

["joe b." <joe@azurite.demon.co.uk>]

In message <960411073236_511001385@emout09.mail.aol.com>,
FortunkoC@aol.com writes
>I have recently used my "fat" Tele-Elmarit 90mm to take some pictures of my
>daughter about 1 hour before sunset. I must say that the results were rather
>interesting. The pictures have a definite quality that is different from
>those I would expect from the new Elmarit. They were all taken at 2.8 or 4.0
>and appear to have a "soft" quality about them. The backgrounds, in
>particular, are very pleasantly washed out. I would expect photos taken with
>the new Elmarit to be much sharper. I also like the portrait photos taken
>with the older lens.
>
>Does anyone have any comments on this matter?

Well I have recently used a 1933 uncoated (obviously!) 90/4 Elmar to
photography my daughter. Just headshots, indoors by tungsten photoflood
on tungsten-balanced Ektachrome. She was very pleased with the slides,
and now attributes to me a certain mystical capability in regard to the
images I get! In reality, the soft-yet-sharp rendering of this old lens
is unlike that of a modern lens, but very attractive to look at, and I
will be experimenting with it again. I'm curious to see what it does to
landscapes, flowers, still life.... 

The only thing I need to keep an eye on is that fact that the lower
contrast renders tones differently from how I would expect. So with
those portraits I used the M6's large spot metering on a mixture of
light and dark areas of the picture simultaneously to balance the
exposure, which works fine with the modern lenses. But as a result, the
pale bits (my daughters' face) came out darker than normal. Still very
effective, but not what I intended. Perhaps the trick is to overexpose
slightly to keep important highlights (face tones) at the desired
density, and have a paler slide. Experimentation indicated, I think. Any
experience on this particlar problem would be most welcome.
-- 
joe b.