THE pertinent lens question

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Something I've always been curious about.

 

S'pose I had an old Petri 35mm SLR, or a Nikon F, and went about

posting pictures in this forum while labelling them "Leica M7, 50mm

Summicron".

 

(1) Could any of you tell at any point, *any aperture*, that I was

fibbing?

 

(2) Could anyone else--a technician at Solms-- be able to determine,

if he had an exposed roll of film or two(a) that I was lying, or (b)

which roll of film came from which camera?

 

A little embarrassed to post this--kinda reminds me of the George

Carlin routine about his Catholic education--but I've gone to this

much trouble so, like: what do people know about this?

[Sanford]

I do it all the time.

[larry_kincaid1]

You would know. And you would tell us, right?

[peter_white2]

No. A computer screen simply cannot produce the detail on film.

[jorge]

John, some cameras have a distinctive film gate. I can recall outright the one of the old Hasselblad magazines that has some distinctive notches and also the film gate of the Rollei 6k cameras. Some 35mm cameras also have different film gates. For example, my MP, M6, M2 and IIIf all have different film apertures that leave their unique frame in the film.

<br><br>

About lenses, I think I should be able to tell a photo made with a Nikkor 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 from another from a Summicron 50, if both included a fair amount of out-of-focus highlights where I could judge bokeh, but that's probably as far as it gets. I don't think that even with sophisticated equipment and having the original film, one could tell what lens was used. The camera probably, but the lens would be a hard task. Film exposure and processing would play an important role in the outcome.

<br><br>

BTW, I just checked some images made with a Minolta digital that I uploaded here and for sure they don't have the EXIF data. These images were adjusted in Photoshop and "Saved for Web". The originals do have the EXIF data but not the uploaded files, so it was lost somewhere during the prep for PN stage. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=276871">Here's a link to a folder that has only digital images</a>. You can check for yourself there's no EXIF metadata embedded.

[grant_.]

nobody would know the diff between any decent 35mm lens....

[derek_stanton2]

I'd bet my life (or $15 Canadian, whichever value is greater at the moment*) that i could

tell the difference.

 

 

 

 

*As of 1:44am, 23/9/2004, take the C$15

[andy_piper2]

Considering: http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=12229284

 

(1) what do you think?

 

(2) unnecessary overkill

[EricM]

I wouldn't trust those photos Andy. I don't like the looks of them for authenticity.

[wai_leong_lee]

The answer has to be yes-- but only if you're an expert.

 

I used to have a Canon 50/1.8 lens. They said 50 mm lenses are cheap but high quality, so I bought one for my EOS 30. I shot it wide open (at f 1.8). The prints at 8R were so soft I puked, I sold it off.

 

I used my DR 50/2. Wide open, on slides projected on a five foot screen-- resolution and contrast were gorgeous. That's proof enough to me I can tell the difference between a good lens and an average lens, wide open.

 

At f5.6 or f8, it would be hard. You'd have to learn to see the lens signature, the way a lens renders colours, etc. Could be possible if you're an expert, though.

 

Could you tell one Summicron from another, or even a Summilux from a Summicron, wide open? If you're an expert, maybe.

[link]

I've got a Petri FT in the garage. I haven't used it since 1975 (view finder is a little

crooked and shutter is (was) inconsistant. But it still looks like new!<p>

 

Now I know what to do with it! Thanks John!<p>

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://brucealangreene.com/

websitejpgsfullreshorizontal/self1970.jpg" border=2 width=700><center><i>Self

Portrait, 1971 - </i>Leica M7, 50mm Summicron</center><p>

 

I think the distinctive bokeh, can vouch for the authenticity of this Genuine Leica

photograph.

[andy m.]

It depends on what non-Leica gear you are comparing.

 

If referring to quality 35mm I do not think it would be possible to distinguish, probably even regardless of "bokeh".

 

I have enlargements on my wall made with a 50mm lenses from Pentax, Nikon and Leica. It is unlikely that anybody would be able to distinguish between them. I certainly cannot, and I'm not a novice.

 

On the other hand there would be no doubt which prints were taken with my Rollei 3.5F or Automat, and that's not just because of the square shape ;-)

[love4leica]

John

 

You have raised a very interesting point here. The answer to your question is yes, if proper forensic examination is carried out. Lets put it this way - if you had say M7 M6 M5 M4 M3 M2 M1 as many camera bodies as you like. You then submitt all these camera bodies with one negative and ask from which camera body this negative originated. Yes, it is possible- like finger printing from the microscopical examination of the fine patterns on the edge of the film gate. Like they do with fire arm identification based on the comparative microscopical analysis of the patterns caused by the gun on the bullet. I am sure every camera film gate has its own charateristics. But if you submitted 5 M7s and asked which M7 was used to produced the nagative. Now, that might be difficult because all M7s might have the same film gate characteristics edge patters- wise.

[al_kaplan1]

At one time it wasn't all that uncommon for photographers to file notches in the film gate so if a roll of film showed that a camera was malfunctioning you'd know which body was screwing up. This was probably a carry over from sheet film days when about everybody filed notches in the flap of their film holder to match the numbers scratched or painted with nail polish on the outside. Thus when shooting you could write down "#7 - john Lo Pinto with Mayor Smith" and one of those 4x5 negatives would have a long notch followed by two V notches, essentially Roman numerals.

 

I used to have an early production double-stroke M3 that had the longest film gate I've ever seen. With a 19mm Canon or 21mm Super Angulon the images would touch.

[bas1]

No, I don't think it is possible to clearly see which lens is used for which shot. I can sometimes definitly identify a Summicron shot as being a 50mm summicron shot, but that doesn't happen often. I think that when shot wide open at close range like a portrait, this lens sometimes leave a signature that is unmistakenbly a Leica summicron. But mostly I can't.

[kevin m.]

If we're viewing the images on the web, then it would only be apparent if you were using the Summicron 50 wide open, where the Leica has a clear advantage over most 50's. With other lenses, only the most obvious characteristics survive being displayed on a 72dpi monitor. Like the 35 Asph Summilux's lack of vignetting wide-open, etc.

 

In prints, it's a different matter. Most of the new Leica lenses are clearly better wide open than their Japanese competition. I've had clients notice the difference even in 4x6 proofs.

 

But alot of people either don't care, or can't see the difference. Go to the wedding forum and they'll ask questions about print quality, yet never consider using a prime lens in place of their 28-80mm zooms.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I shot 4x6 proofs with a new Summicron F2; a Jupiter-8 At F2; and an Old Nikkor LTM at F2; a Canon LTM f1.2 at F2; and old Summicron at F2. I moved a couple of few items around in the controlled test; as a key of what lens was used. With the 4x6 proofs; nobody ever guesses "which" lens was used. The latest Summicron looks slightly better; about 1/3 actually choose this one. The old Jupiter-8 looks abit slightly softer. Sometimes folks like the 10 dollar Jupiter of the 1000 dollar Summicron; in the 4x6 proof test. One can jumble the prints; most look about the same.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The chances of a jupiter-8 focusing correctly wide open is probably better than any other Russian lens. here I have several of them; one or two are worn; ie the aluminum cam ring is worn sligtly; and the focus off abit. My comparsion was with a Jupiter-8 5cn F2 that focuses ok. My test was indoors; in a low flare lighting condition. An outdoors test or high flare make the differences abit more.

[doug herr]

If out-of-focus highlights at medium or small apertures look like hexagons you can bet the photo wasn't made with an M lens.

[bas1]

Douglas,

 

My Hasselblad CF150's highlight are clearly hexanon shapped yet I don't see that as a problem. In fact I love that lens and most of my best shots have been taken with it..... :-)

[doug herr]

Bas, I agree, the effect can be quite appealing and there are many excellent lenses with polygonal apertures. A polygonal aperture is usually found on auto-diaphragm SLR lenses. M lenses, not having or needing an auto diaphragm, generally have more aperture blades so a photo showing a hexagonal or other polygonal aperture shape is most likely not an M lens.

[beau 1664876222]

grant sez: "nobody would know the diff between any decent 35mm lens...."

 

I agree in terms of viewing other people's pictures on a screen. For MY OWN pictures I can definitely tell which negatives were shot with my Nikon lenses vs. my Leica ones. There is a noticeably different look, not to start a fight about which are "better".

[Spearhead]

<i> For MY OWN pictures I can definitely tell which negatives were shot with my Nikon lenses vs. my Leica ones</i><p>

 

1) Try this in a "double blind" test. Have someone who is an expert be shown the negatives by someone who doesn't know. Need similar subject on similar film shot in similar ways. You'd be amazed how few people, even experienced photographers, can pick it out.<p>

 

2) Even more compelling, try it with high quality prints. I've always found printing style and materials to have far more effect on final prints than any lens. I've shown prints next to each other made with $50 lenses and $1000+ (Leica) lenses and never had a single comment. On the other hand, people immediately pick out a change in format - I've found that showing 35mm next to medium format creates an issue because people wonder why they look different. And, of course, with a change in paper...

[andy m.]

<i>...wide open, where the Leica has a clear advantage over most 50's</i><p>

 

Is this really noticable on an enlargement? I guess I need to look harder, or start shooting fully open more often ;-)

 

I have some shots from my 50m Summicron with a lovely look to them, but the same can be said for my other lenses.

[beau 1664876222]

"Try this in a "double blind" test."

 

Jeff, my piles of film and negatives are so disorganized that it's always basically a double-blind test unless I do some detective work to confirm what came from where. I'm still sure I can see the difference. With the 24mm lenses, for example, the difference is totally obvious. That being said, I fully agree that no image is going to stand or fall on those differences, and no one else really cares much about them. I still carry my old Nikon much of the time, so it's not like I'm stuck on some kind of snob appeal with the Leica. But the lenses do make different-looking pictures in my opinion.