Differences in color between major lens manufacturers

I'd like to verify if my recent testing experience is in line with

the decades of real world experience of many of you on the forum.

 

As I think most of you are aware, I'm new to LF. I'm putting

together my shopping list for new LF lenses. Based on specs alone

(size, weight, sharpness, etc.), my "perfect" list ends up being a

mixture of lenses from the big 4 (well big three really since I can't

find info or rental Fujinon lenses).

 

So the next concern I had was color. Some have told me that the

different lens families exhibit different color characteristics. I

presume this is due to the different coating methodologies they use.

Some have told me that these will be noticable in prints and are not

easily correctable in Photoshop due to the specific non-linear

spectral response of the coatings. Others have told me that the

differences in lighting outdoors are more varied than the lens colors

so just mix and match. That makes sense too, unless you happen to be

taking shots of a given location and lighting with different lenses.

 

So my next step was to do some limited testing. I rented a

Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikkor. Schneider 210 Apo Symmar,

Rodenstock Apo Sironar-N and Nikkor 180 W. This was the closest

match I could find to rent.

 

I went out to my back yard and took pictures of nothing in

particular - a statue in the garden, a swing, some leaves under a

tree, etc. At each location, I set the camera in one place and

exposed a piece of Ektachrome 100 Plus for each of the three lenses.

(Refocusing each time, of course). But each of the 3 shots at a

given spot had the exact same camera location, same exposure, same

film. Each location was in different lighting. Some in total shade,

some in sunlight, some in bright contrast of sunlight and shade. All

shots were taken around noon.

 

Oh yes, and all shots within a set of 3 had the same mistakes. Most

sets of 3 were properly exposed. 2 sets of 3 were underexposed by

about a stop since I had my spot meter set wrong. (But I made the

same mistake for all three lenses in the set). Anyway, I just figure

that makes the test even better!

 

I had been told that the Rodenstocks were typically bluer and

exhibited higher contrast. So imagine my suprise when I discovered

that one of the shots in each of the sets was more yellow than the

other two and that it was always the Rodenstock lens. The color

rendition of the Nikon and Schneider looked very similar to me

although the Nikkor lens seems to be a very tiny bit more blue than

the Schneider.

 

I haven't measured them with any instrument, this is just what I see

on a light table. I also don't know which one is more correct in

color, although the Rodenstock did impart a slight yellow cast to a

white flower. I just rechecked the flowers and they're not yellow.

 

So, oh great fountains of knowledge: Did I get a lemon (ha, yellow,

that's funny) Rodenstock from the rental counter or is what I'm seing

a generally known color difference between manufacturers? Also,

what's been your experience with mixing lens manufacturers in

your "kit"?

"Coating" doesn't affect the color transmission. That's determined by the glasses used.

Michael, the following lenses had come through my hands (and eyes) : Rodenstock 55 ApoGrandagon and 150 Apo Sironar S, Nikkor : 65SW, 90SW, 105W, 200M and 300M, Schneider SA 75/5,6 old non multicoated and new multicoated and 120 SSHM, Fuji 210W, 180W and 240A. Just to say I cannot see a difference in color rendition between all these lenses, with an important exception: the non multicoated (and "colder") Super Angulon whereas all other lenses are multicoated.

You are, in my opinion, lookng for distinctions which make no differnce. Colors shift a tiny bit from one batch of emulsion to the next, from one time of day to another, from one run at your lab to the next run, from season to season, from cloudy to sunny. Sounds like you are wasting time and energy on the minutiae of photography when you could be spending time learning and practicing how to express yourself. I am sure you have things to say with your photograhy other than "the colors are exactly, entirely, completely, totally accurate".

 

If this hobby is a scientific pursuit, fine. If you are tring to create something personal and meaningful, this little bit of nonsene will not advance your cause. Go take photos that mean something to you.

Michael, you can find information, as well as pictures of the Fujinon lenses that are currently available, at badgergraphic.com. It would be very difficult to locate a dealer that rents Fuji lenses, however. I believe that the differences you observed in the color of your trannies is a function of the film, lighting, exposure, and processing. Not the lenses. There is very little, if any, perceptible difference in color transmission between modern lenses from the major manufacturers. Lens coating is done to reduce un-wanted reflections between the lens surfaces, therefore preventing a loss of contrast. Lens coating is neutral to color transmission. It's perfectly O.K. to mix lenses from different manufacturers in your "kit". In fact, it's the wisest thing to do if you are attempting to put together the best set of lenses you can afford.

I have read that Japanese glass is warmer than German glass but I'm not sure I can see much of a difference. Select your lenses based on more significant factors such as image circle, cost, weight, filter size, focal length, etc.

Thanks Eugene. I believe I properly controlled the variables you mentioned. Film was all from a single box of EPP. Lighting was the same for each of the three shots in a set. I shot around noon so the light wasn't changing much/at all and sometimes I used the Schneider first, sometimes the Rodenstock, etc. Exposure was the same for all three shots in a set and I didn't move the camera during a set of 3 shots. I used a lens hood for each shot. Even if one of the shutters was a little off, I don't see how that would give a particular color cast. No color cast was evident in the Nikkor or Schneider lenses on the underexposed trannies.

 

Processing is one place where there could have been differences - don't know for sure. I hadn't thought of that. However, I just called the lab and asked them to check based on the sticker numbers for the job. They told me that all three sets of trannies went through within minutes of each other, perhaps on the same tray. At any rate, the guy said they had not changed chemicals during that time.

 

I guess my concern is that the color difference is so obvious on the light table that it bugs me. It is disappointing because I had several Rodenstocks in my "ideal" list. If I saw only minor differences like with the Nikon / Schneider color difference, I wouldn't care.

 

Hmmm. Perhaps there's just something wrong with this one lens. Especially since the warning that some people had given me previously was that Rodenstocks were cooler, not warmer.

Hi Michael

 

I have 7 Rodenstocks, 4 Schneiders and 2 Nikkors, and very very small differences if at all I`m sure you get more differences from the processing part then of the lenses itself.

But it is a good trick for a salesman to tell, you should only buing my Schneiders or Nikkors or Rodenstocks because of color problems!

Thad Rodenstock must be a bad missused one!

By the way did you clean all lenses properly bevor your testing?

And you really should do a testing like that not outside you should do it inside under 100% similar conditions! Sunlight can change very fast!

Good light!

I dont shoot color in 4x5 but in 35mm the color differences have been major, esp between the different manufactures and very evident even within current/modern lenses of the same brand. So you need to test and see which is best for your eye.

Your findings on Rodenstock is consistent with Calumet's observations awhile ago, that Rodenstock lenses (i.e. Caltars) are more friendly to landscapes, because their lenses have a warmer color.

I think this is a valid pursuit and not a waste of time. As valid as exploring the

rendition of color by different films, or a lenses contrast and flare resistance.

As for other variables negating any lens issues, those mentioned are easily

controllable...shooting from the same batch, processing at the same lab etc.

are easily done. As LF shooters aren't we more concerned with being in

control of the entire image making process? If we didn't we'd be using P&S

cameras.

 

 

I do primarily 4x5 for my commercial work and although not needing to be as

particular as some photographers, color rendition can be very important.

Whether it's accurate reproduction of a products color or needing images to

match between different lenses. Some lenses can be very different when side

by side on the light table..almost jarring...the last thing I want to hear a client

ask is "what's wrong with the color in that shot?"

Keep at it Michael.

My first job working with large format was in the late 1970's. I worked as a studio assistant in a NY City still life studio. We did 8x10 product photography for Nikon Cameras and Nikon Binoculars as well as many, many other very critical clients. We shot plenty of 8x10 and 4x5 Ektachrome. We tested each emulsion batch to match it to the previous batch and it frequently required 05cc of magenta or yellow or cyan.

We never had any meaningful variations when we switched from Commercial Ektar to Caltar to Schneider or anything else. This was my experience for the rest of my 15 year career in studio still life as I shot with all of the above and Fujinon and even "Computar".

As long as your final products are not slides, I can't see what the problem is. Accurate and consistent color isn't something you're going to achieve by lens choice. You'll only get that by painstakingly controlling your printing process and shooting a color checker in your compositions. Color temperature, changes in film batches, and display lighting are going to be far higher hurdles than an 03cc yellow cast to one of your lenses.

 

Flowers are an incredibly poor choice of subject to check colors with. The pigments in flowers react variably to different levels of UV light and some register on color film in a completely different manner than they appear to the eye. Plus flowers don't remain the same: they're living things. ("And this same flower that smiles today, / To-morrow will be dying.") Flesh tones are a better bet because your eye distinguishes among them with more accuracy than other hues. The eye rapidly loses its ability to distinguish small changes in chroma as a hue moves from neutral in shade and depth.

 

Untrained people are also poor judges of color in my experience. I've heard the same lenses described as having blue, yellow, and magenta casts in photo.net discussions, sometimes in judgements based on minilab prints (probably viewed under streetlamps at midnight). And just because you can see difference doesn't mean that the difference you see is significant, or that you can accurately judge the direction of the difference.

 

If you come back to us with transmission spectrophotometer readings in CIE/CMC color space along with the calibration readings for the instrument, we might be of greater assistance. I'm just joking, but color reproduction really does get complex if you're serious about it. And I can't see any need for you to be this serious.

Well...you certainly have been well chastised on this one!!

 

I have seen slight color variations between older lenses (my 1971 Schneiders) versus new lenses (my 2001 Rodenstocks, and Schneider). This can be several factors glass, coating, whatever - it can be seen and it is repeatable with different reversal film types. The older lenses are, in fact bluer, or -- the new lenses are warmer. Your choice.

 

Can I see color differences between the new Schneider and new Rodenstocks - not really. The difference I can mostly see is a very slight contrast difference between the lenses. This can be attributed to construction (lens element design, number of elements, type of glass used, coating, coating type, number of surfaces coated,etc.)

 

All of the film is the same emulsion batch; is shot within 2-3 minutes under the same lighting conditions, and is processed in the same batch run by a professional lab with unquestioned quality control.

 

I cannot comment on direct comparisons with Japanese manufacturers because I don't use their large format lenses. The one time I did rent a Nikon lens, I was less than impressed with its contrast in direct comparison to my German lenses.

 

However, all of the information I have provided so far could be attributed to one sample anomolies and cannot be used to extrapolate conclusive proof of a type of performance that can be assigned to the lens manufacturers in general.

 

Unless you tested multiple lenses of the same type from each manufacturer under tightly controlled conditions, it is very difficult to separate the single sample performance from general randomness in test situations with minimal formal controls.

 

Okay, that was a long way around the barn to get to my final piece of advice. Don't worry about lens "color." You will find far more variation in color rendition through film choice than lens choice.

 

My personal choice? I really like the Rodenstock lenses and own more of them than Schneiders. But, this is a Nikon / Canon camera debate and you really can't go wrong with either. Oh, yeah - and I have a friend who only shoots with Fuji lenses because he swears that they are "the best."

 

Your mileage may vary with use...?

Color rendition of my Fujinon and my Rodenstocks look the same to me (and everyone else I asked to make the comparison). I also took test shots with a Rodenstock and a Nikkor. It is hard to see any difference between them. At first I thought that the photo with the Nikkor seemed a bit cooler. Looking at the photos again later, I really cannot see a difference. I think I was seeing what someone else told me I should see. If there is a difference between the Nikkor and the Rodenstock, it is sure hard to see. I don't have a Schneider, so no comment there.

 

I have a professional photographer friend who prefers Rodenstock over Schneider, and swears that Schneider lenses tend toward the cooler, rather than the warmer. FWIW.

 

I decided to pick my lenses based on how they work for my needs (and their availability used, at the right price). I don't worry about the color rendition. So far I have been very happy with my choices.

 

Steve, you are right. Too bad Canon does not make any LF lenses. Then we could really get into it!

So, the plot thickens.

 

I talked to the pro camera store where I rented the gear. The guy was surprised at the results since he too had told me that I wouldn't see a color difference. Then he checked and discovered that the Rodenstock was actually a Sinar (both brand names were on the lens so I guess they OEM from Rodenstock). He told me that Sinar buys the lenses from Rodenstock, disassembles them, and then does custom modifications that DO typically result in a warmer colored lens. Perhaps Bob S. knows something about this. Anyway, perhaps this is why my results differ from the general consensus of this forum: that color differences between the big 4, if any, will be negligible.

 

Just for grins, and because I'm really curious now, and because I'm particular about my color and, well, mostly because I'm just a stubborn SOB, I'm going to see this thing through. I have arranged to try another Schneider and Rodenstock ("pure" Rodenstock this time) in a different focal length to try my tests again. I'll pick it up tomorrow (Wednesday) and should have the trannies back on Friday. I'll let you know what I find.

 

BTW, J.O., if I do again find that there is a significant color different, all kidding aside, I don't have a densitometer but I will scan them in and look at the numbers. These, of course, won't be abolute values since the scanner is involved but this WILL provide the relative difference between the two.

"that Sinar buys the lenses from Rodenstock, disassembles them, and then

does custom modifications that DO typically result in a warmer colored lens"

 

BS

 

Sinar buys lenses and mounts them on Sinar lens boards.

 

Sinar and Linhof do exactly the same QC tests on a Rodenstock water cooled

Siemens Star projector that they both bought from Rodenstock.

 

Sinar does not, nor does Linhof, do optical work such as you stated above.

that is the job for the lens manufacturer.

If you are going to try to do color tests you really need some controls.

 

Since you don't seem to be trying using controlled light sources or subjects

your tests are mostly meaningless as they can't be repeated.

 

Why not buy some Kodak gray cards and color patches so you at least have a

reference for the colors you are trying to reproduce and compare.

Bob S. is correct - there are too many variables. If you want to do this, you need the assistance of an optical lab, either university or commercial.

 

A program on TV here a few nights ago demonstrated the problem. One well respected researcher determined that holistic water (water that has the active ingredient so diluted that it is literally equivalent to a drop of the active ingredient in all the world's oceans) did in fact have an effect (in this case it was Histamine). This was not some guy in his bedroom and some back issues of Chemisty Today - it was a published university researcher who was highly sceptical that she would in fact get a positive result.

 

The experiment was then repeated by two other unconnected researchers, this time with double-blind controls and dozens of samples, two teams of assistants, all the paraphanalia and equipment of modern science and all overseen by The Royal Society in London. The result: no effect - purely random.

 

It is so easy to think you have a result when all you have are random flunctuations.

Bob, I must disagree with you. My test was looking for RELATIVE color difference, not abolute color accuracy. Reason? I want to assemble a set of lenses that work together as a "system" - with the same (or very similar) color throughout the set (if that's possible). Also, as several others have pointed out, the differences in film emulsion and daylight will affect the absolute color cast of the shot. Of course, I understand this. I just want to make sure that some of my lenses don't make that particular shot look one way and other lenses make it look another way.

 

Am I being too particular? Maybe... even probably... but I've come from a background of SF and MF where I didn't have to deal with differences between lens manufacturers. This is new to me so I'm going to check it out.

 

I didn't use gray cards in the first test because my interest was to see if there was a perceptable color difference with "real" subjects. I don't really care if there is a color difference on a gray card if I can't notice it in "real" situation. Therefore, since I mostly like landscape photography, I shot outdoors and took shots of trees and leaves and flowers, etc. (My backyard is rather small and uninteresting!)

 

My controls were the two other lenses that were tested in the same lighting with the same exposure, film, camera, position, etc., etc. Therefore, the color of the light doesn't matter - it was the same for all three lenses. The color of the film doesn't matter - same film for all three lenses, etc. The subject doesn't matter - it was the same for all three lenses.

 

In each case, regardless of whether the subject in a set of 3 exposures was a white flower or green grass, or rocks around a tree trunk or a gray, weathered statue, you can put all three color trannies for a given subject on the light table (with something covering the little R, S or N mark in the corner!) and pick the one that's more yellow than the other two and, with 100% reliability, it will be the one shot through the Sinar/Rodenstock lens. I actually had my wife look at them. She doesn't have any training or expertise in color correction so she initially gave them a quick glance and said they all looked the same. This is good because it tells me that most people won't recognize the difference. I then asked her to look closer and pick the one that is more yellow than the other two. 5 out of 5 times she picked the Rodenstock trannie as being more yellow. I then asked her to pick the one that was more yellow from the remaining two. She couldn't tell the difference between the Nikon and Schneider trannies.

 

Now, I never said that one was better than the other, just that they are different. It could be that the Rodenstock is providing accurate color while the Schneider and Nikkor are cooler. I don't know since I didn't do the tests you suggest.

 

But another poster also suggested this so when I test tomorrow, I will include a Kodak graycard and a GretagMacbeth Color Checker shot for each lens. I'll photograph and later view them under a GTI Soft-view standard transparency/print viewer (for controlled D5000 lighting). Again, this won't matter at all for the relative difference between the S & R lenses but it WILL allow me to see which seems to be more accurate in an absolute sense.

 

Finally, a couple of responders suggested that the color difference, even if noticable, won't matter if my end goal is a print (which it is). I hope that's true. However, as I mentioned in my original post, I've been told that the color differences are not linear and, therefore, are not easily corrected in Photoshop. So I will also test that.... see if I can make a single curves correction that will match the two images.

 

Heck, at the end of this, I may conclude (as some of you already have) that I've wasted my time. Hmmm, I spent time learning about LF lenses and lens color. In the process, I've rented a couple different cameras and played with movements and learned a bunch about using LF cameras and film holders and shutters and dark cloths, and.... When I'm done, one way or the other, I'll make an equipment selection that I like based on real, albeit limited, experience. I'll be more content with my decision because I made it form my own reasons. Then I'll be able to put the issue to rest and move on to the really fun part - making images. Waste of time? Nah.

 

Michael, I think I can solve your problem and save you time and energy. Assuming that price is no object, here's my recommendation for a set of modern lenses for the 4X5 format that will eliminate your anxiety about color variences: Rodenstock 150 f5.6 Apo Sironar-S, Schneider 210 f5.6 Apo Symmar, and Nikkor 90 f8 SW. If you want to add a longer lens- 240 f9 Fujinon A . Now, you will have an outstanding lens from each of the "Big Four" manufacturers. I'll bet that you will soon find that one, or two of these lenses become your favorites, and you will never worry about color variences again.

We had major color differences between different serail number lenses; of the same model and brand. This after the servo feedback focus loop failed. During performance testing; sometimes we went too high and cooked several lenses; due to overheating of the giant voice coil linear motor that surrounded the lens... At first we noticed more laser power was required to burn our test samples. Focus quality went south; and be got poor burns with are machine. We had cooked several lenses so much that the coatings discolored; and the lens elements bonding materials debonded and shifted a couple elements around. The worse had a loose element that screamed when the lens tried to focus follow the object to be burned....<BR><BR>A cooked lens can have a different lens element coating color; and light transmission qualities........<BR><BR>

What you have shown (barring some mistake) is that some LF lenses have different color renditions than others. Neither "some" nor "others" disputed this fact. What "others" stated was that "differences in lighting outdoors are more varied than the lens colors" -- you haven't tested whether this is true.

 

Here is my suggested text to use with two lenses that you find have color differences: take test photos on a cloudless day in the following conditions: 1) direct illumination by the sun either 1 hour after dawn or 1 hour before sunset, 2) direct illumination by the sun at noon, 3) illumination at noon solely from the sky, without any direct sunlight. For #3, select a location in which most of the sky is visible and arrange a small shade to place the test object in complete shade so that the object receives no direct light from the sun and blue light from most of the sky.

 

These three cases will give you illumination of color temperatures of approximately 3500 K, 5000+ K and above 9000 K. (The last case may not be close to a black body spectrum so the color temperature is more of an approximation.) These values are approximately transcribed from a Kodak table for summer conditions: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h2/temp.shtml

 

I don't think you need to worry about this issue. The only case I can think of where this might matter is that of a professional studio photographer doing product photography. Some of these photographers want to provide slides that will all use exactly the same settings to produce the plates for the printing press. I have never heard anyone say that they experienced troubles from differing colors of lenses. It is always "someone told me to buy lenses all from the same manufacturer", never first-hand experience.

Hey, Eugene, You named 3 on my list! )Can't find an Fujinons to rent around here and )

Michael, thanks for the suggestion. Your post prompted me to think more about why this question keeps getting twisted and I think I see the problem here.

 

1) I original question was about picking a mixed-vendor set of lenses because of concerns of color differences between manufacturers. I did indeed find a difference (yes, based on a single sample) that seems to be in agreement with some individual observations and experience and testing that Calumet did - according to one post. Some responders agree that there is a difference but say it is not important. Other responders have said they have not noticed a difference. Bottom line - not a problem for anyone on the forum. That's good news!

 

2) Most responders said the differences in color due to other factors are greater than the differences between the lenses. I agree to that too. But that wasn't my question.

 

So, I think everyone is in violent agreement on two points!

 

The concern was about the mixture of the two situations. For example, in the early morning alpine glow, when the light is pink/magenta, and I decide to make two images with two different focal lengths, will one of my shots look pink/magenta while the other one looks more red due to extra yellow? Will it create more work for me to color correct that later, such that it would be easier to not mix vendors in the first place? These were the questions I set out to answer.

 

Many have answered that question directly based on their own experience and the consensus seems to be it's not going to be a big deal. (BTW, until I get MUCH better, the chances of me setting up an LF camera and getting off 2 different compositions in the same sunrise light are next to nil anyway! Not so with my trusted Hassy!)

 

So why did I start down this path? My question/concern was raised because a pro photog who I respect - both for his behind-the-camera ability and for his behind-the-PS-keyboard ability - told me to be careful of lens color. This photographer was not advocating buying all from any particular vendor. In fact he, like many on this forum, has said I can't go wrong with any of the big 4. He wasn't advocated buying all lenses from a single vendor either. However, he advised that before mixing, I should check out the color differences between the 4 vendors for myself in order to see if the situation bothered me or not. This same person told me that the color differences are non-linear and not readily fixed in Photoshop.

 

Obviously, this information and its source caused me to be more cautious about this topic than most of the rest of the forum seems to think is warranted. Regardless, that's why I started down this path. And, as I put in my previous post, I can sometimes be stubborn (at least according to my wife) so I'm going to do the one additional test - just to satisfy my own curiosity. Unfortunately, Michael, due to my schedule, I won't have the gear long enough to test the three lighting conditions that you suggest. But, as I mentioned above, I fully agree that the color differences between various daylight conditions will far exceed the color differences between the lenses.

 

Thanks much to everyone for all the facts, opinions, and, yes, even the rants. They all serve to keep me on my toes, question my own questions, and help me learn! This forum is a great resource.