Jump to content

I'm all Eyes- Let's see how Lens Signature affects Photographs


ray .

Recommended Posts

There is much talk here about lens choice, collecting lenses,

collecting more than one lens of the same focal length, etc...

because it supposedly has some significant affect on the photographs

you make.

 

So, please post some example comparisons to show me how your lens

choice affects your work, within the realm of good quality glass

lenses (not Holga or Stylus but between different Leica lenses, or

VC, Nikkor, Canon, etc for SLR or rangefinder cameras using film.)

I'd think that your example would have to be the same scene, light,

exposure etc to see the comparison. One example from one lens won't

cut it, we need at least 2 examples with different lenses to compare

them with each other.

 

Talking about prints isn't what this is about. This is an internet

photo site, and if you're going to communicate something with

photography, or convince people of something about photography, you

should, almost without exception- unless you're a professional

critic- be posting photos on screen somewhere along the line.

 

Let's see 'em and tell how the lens makes the photo a different

animal depending on what you used... And I know it's subjective,

but if your photograph doesn't communicate something in the first

place, it's pointless to post it. I don't want dead dry sample

tests of a wall that shows the potential affect if the photograph

had had some creativity injected into it. I want to be moved, or

impressed, or at least see something out of the ordinary, or well

crafted, or with a compelling subject that works better with one

lens and is lacking somehow using another.

 

There are quite a few people making claims for lens signature, so

there ought to be more than a couple who can come through on this

one with some tangible evidence and example...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Your language below makes demands of people here, as if they owe you something in life.

<P>

<I>"So, please post some example comparisons to show ME how your lens choice affects your work..."

<P>

"...if you're going to communicate something with photography, or convince people of something about photography, you should, almost without exception- unless you're a professional critic- be posting photos on screen somewhere along the line."

<P>

"...if your photograph doesn't communicate something in the first place, it's pointless to post it..."

<P>

"...I want to be moved, or impressed, or at least see something out of the ordinary, or well crafted, or with a compelling subject that works better with one lens and is lacking somehow using another."</i>

<P>

<B>A bit more humility would get you more mileage, I think.</B>

<P>

Even then, I wonder if anyone should respond with pictures to justify what they know or believe to someone else, just because that someone has thrown down the gauntlet.

<P>

Lets put it this way. I spent the $$, I like my lenses for what they do (if not, I'd have sold them already), so why should I need to justify or show to anyone else why I like my lenses, it's my $$ after all. I don't need to convince anyone else, I'm not trying to argue with them that my choice of lens is better than theirs, or trying to sell them my lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To argue the opposite - that brand name doesn't matter and that it's about the subject, the light, the moment -- <BR>Here is one with with Canon 50mm f/1.4 (current vers) and one with a Leica 50 f/2.0 Summicron-M. But I'm not saying which is which.<BR><BR>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2546831-lg.jpg"></center><BR>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2587238-lg.jpg"></center><BR>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coy answer to your question is that a photograph on a website cannot possibly display the level of detail and subtlety of color that one would see in a real print. Therefore, one cannot adequately demonstrate a lens signature by just putting it up on this forum.

 

A personal, introspective answer to your question is that having used Leica, Contax, Nikkor and Canon lenses I cannot for the life of me tell the difference. Maybe with a magnifying glass I could, but until I see someone in a museum looking at photographs with a loupe I am not going to bother. I can tell the difference between a shot with a medium format camera though, and definitely large format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wai-Leong Lee, you chose to comment on the question or how it was asked and not answer it, so your answer is pretty much beside the point, or a non-answer as far as I'm concerned. Your comment about doing what you want with your own $$ could use some humility as well... but whatever.

 

I wonder how many other non-answers will crop up here. Expect quite a few when people can't back up their argument.

 

Thanks for the positive input, Kent, and others who may follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Layton, how does the difference, assuming you identified them correctly, signficantly change the mood or message of the photos? They both look like good photos to me, and the eye and attitude of the photographer is consistent in both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've contradicted yourself already Ray. I thought the object was to see if a lens had a signature or not-regardless of "mood or message"?

 

Some lenses are more different than others. Some are indistinguishable and maybe even, indistinguished. We've seen on this forum, harsh bokeh, degrees of flare/"glow", Noctilux effects, different shaped flares, etc.

 

I'm clearly cheating here, going to another format, but this was taken with an obviously uncoated Schneider Xenar on a 6x9 cm foldin Wirgin. The print is wonderful. I'm not sure if I would like it as much if I'd taken it with the better Voigtlander 6x9 Apo-Lanthar that I traded for a Pentax years before.<div>00EM34-26738084.jpg.305bd9f10d6fecf31c35bb9b5a57f84b.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like and use Leica glass, but I'm not real subtle. The only lens I have ever used that had a "signature" that I could always see was a Nikkor 300mm f4.5 IF ED (20 years ago). That lens had the most distinctive colour rendition and was a superb partner for Ektachrome for outdoor portraits (!).

 

Beyond that I'm simply not smart enough or discerning enough to be able to reliably tell the difference between different lenses. That is different to saying that I can see differences and that I know what I like - both of those things are true.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I wonder how many other non-answers will crop up here. Expect quite a few when people can't back up their argument."

 

Who's arguing? If you don't believe there's a difference, then so be it. There is no need for me to attempt to show you incontrovertible evidence that Lens A is different from Lens B. You're not a judge, I don't have to present evidence to you. Neither do you have to show evidence to me that Lens A is no different/better than Lens B.

 

What I mean is, live and let live. Logically there must be a difference between A and B, although the magnitude of the difference varies. Arguments come about when one party tries to say that A is better than B because A costs 5x more, while the other tries to prove that B is not better than A or that the difference between B and A is not worth 5x the price, etc.

 

Why go down that kind of route?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not questioning whether there are differences. I'm

questioning how much the differences mean beyond one looks

a little different than the other. So if Nachtwey or Salgado or Kent

or Al Kaplan broke their lens and had to borrow a substitute-

would anyone really notice that much when looking at their

photographs, or would the photographs essentially be the

same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can see a difference between my lenses but I'm not positive it makes a big difference. The difference, however, is there.

 

I did a photoshoot about 2 years ago of a family reunion. I shot D30 with 24/1.4 and M6TTL with 50cron. The result was some mediocre photos but very well received by the family. When I got the film back and compared the shots on a computer monitor side by side, I have not seen a huge difference in quality. The film shots seemed to have more depth and richness in them. The family however preferred the digital shots. Go figure.

 

I've had the pleasure over the years to shoot with Canon EF 50mm 1.8, Canon EF 50mm 1.4, Konica Hexanon 57mm 1.2, Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.8, Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.4, Leica Summicron 50mm, and Nikon 50mm 1.dontremember. Of those shots I could say the Konica Hexanon 57mm 1.2 had the most discernible 'signature'. I miss that lens. <br>

 

Hexanon 57mm 1.2 <br>

<img src="http://www.widereach.net/rodina/images/2003/smwolfsneck2.jpg">

<br>

<img src="http://www.widereach.net/rodina/images/2003/smwolfsneck1.jpg">

<br>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, my apologies for being too strident in the wording of my

question, if that's what you felt.

 

I'm challenging the legitimacy of what's talked about here over

and over again, and I asked for some back-up to that point of

view. If people don't at some point show some examples, then

that provides confirmation to my assumptions, and maybe some

others assumptions are overturned. Or if they do show

examples, maybe my assumptions will fall through and I'll learn

something. Either way, it seems a good question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Brad, the differences are there. If you took a Noctilux and a Cron to shoot, even at the same F2 aperture, you'd see one is sharper than the other, one has different bokeh than the other. Of course, if you shoot at F1, the bokeh of the Noctilux is totally different from that of the Cron at F2.

 

Ditto for the 35 cron, esp. the bokeh king. It's certainly different from the 35 ASPH.

 

There are sufficient examples of both in the Photonet archives, and also around the web (eg at the Leica gallery). You can search them out.

 

As always, the question is whether the differences matter. For content purposes, of course not-- eg. whether the picture of execution in the streets of Saigon was taken by a Cron or a Noct, the impact would have been no different. Actually, even if it was taken with a cheap 50/1.8 Canon or Nikon prime, the feeling it evokes would still be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, both you and Ray could check out Sean Reid's extensive review at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml.

 

There's some newspaper shots, but he also has flower shots and shots of his daughter in a cafe, comparing a wide variety of fast lenses side by side.

 

You can see some differences in the way the same scene is rendered with different lenses, and Sean's conclusion is that different lenses paint pictures differently (just like different brushes would paint a picture differently), and he makes the point that you should choose the right lens to communicate the feeling you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious that it's way too much bother for some people to use the search function on photonet to find numerous examples comparing the signature and bokeh of lenses. Plenty of examples have appeared in this forum in the past. They'd rather have others do their research and hand them the examples on a silver platter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray says...I'm challenging the legitimacy of what's talked about here over and over again. Ray...you're digging yourself deeper in a hole. The purpose of this forum, any forum really, is to build community and help each other not to show how smart you are and to challenge each other's leigitimacy. WYFYIAHTFTTDISTSD...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, so far looks as if it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, these

lens types. Kind of like if you Armoraled your tires. Nobody

notices it but you. You're still the same guy when you show up at

someone's house, same guy to people you're in the car with-

either way. Except that if they do know you put that stuff on your

tires they'll figure you're either a little cracked or they know they've

got a motorhead mate.

 

Non-answer Al Kaplan, nice going. Your clever banter has no

relation to what's what with the topic.

 

Purpose of a community forum where learning about

photography takes place is to try to get at least some of it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...