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

[mark_amos]

Ray's question is valid, if offerred rather robustly, which is

irrelevant because the question is important.

 

Lenses are different. When they are very different, it is easy to

say that one is obviously of lower quality than the other. When

they are very close, and the differences are only discerned with a

loupe, its easy to say there is no difference, but everything in

between exists and is sometimes perceptible.

 

I admit that I sometimes use the term "character" to describe a

lens which may have a bit more flare and a bit lower contrast

than another lens, but still yields very satisfying results,

especially if I got the lense cheap. Taken too far, this

rationalization for a lens of good "value" allows one to assume a

bad lens is capable of the same results in extreme conditions

like wide open with direct light sources. Then one would be

deceiving himself as much as waxing on about how each lens

uses its own "brush" or other over the top ca-ca.

 

Sorry I don't have examples to show, but just consider that

sometimes a little flare, as in a background window, might be

pleasing, and might not have occurred with the best aspheric

lens. Its overly simple, but that might be called character, if the

lens was able to still have good detail in a foreground subject

without a total reduction of contrast all over.

[william_todd_faulk]

<i>If people don't at some point show some examples, then that provides confirmation to my assumptions...</i>

<p>

A sensation only victory may bestow upon us. Bravo Ray, you win.

[leslie_cheung]

Ray,

 

I think the best example of differences of lens signature, oof or bokeh in the leica forum

are Mike Dixon's photos. I don't know if you remember or around then when he shot

mostly with the two M3 with the 75lux, 50 dr cron, 50 preasph lux but they are quite

different than his more recent canon dslr photos. Perhaps the format changes ( 1.6 crop )

and he shoots more wides now but I doubt he changed his lighting / style enough to

attribute to the noticeable different look from his earlier M shots to his recent digital

photos in Korea.

[andrew robertson]

I read the whole thread, but all my brain heard was 'wank wank wank'.

[EricM]

"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."

 

help us out with a few links then Al? most naturally would to prove their point.

[ray .]

Aren't Mike's pics now completely different in approach, style,

and subject matter? I think so.

[ray .]

<i>Plenty of examples have appeared in this forum in the

past</i><p>

Some links would be helpful, because except for Doug Herr I

don't recall anything being shown that really meant much.

[EricM]

i know, how about a few mail me lenses, including a canon adapter ring, so i can shoot them all controlled on a dslr? must be a few beater lenses out there collecting dust?

[EricM]

Kent, Rene B, Carsten Brockerman (where is that fellow?), Rich Shilver (excuse the spelling?) are also great Leicamen

[kent_tolley2]

Trying to follow Al's lead I just searched on "lens signature" but all I could find were discussions with no pictures. When I looked at a lot of the contributors they didn't have any portfolios or pictures. I admit I skip a lot of the gear threads but I don't remember any pictures showing different lens characteristics. <BR><BR>Al if you say there are a lot could you point to a few?

[Brad_]

<I>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.</I><P>

 

You'd think a guy with 40 years of "leica experience" might have a few photos to offer up. Oh

well, too much bother I guess...

[al_kaplan1]

http://www.photo.net/photo/3343499

 

The Miccosukee photo was with a first model (8 element) 35/2 Summicron.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0098au

 

The third photo in this thread, Nathan Benn holding my daughter Elena, was made using the original model of the 35/1.4 Summilux.

[mark_amos]

When shooting an "out of the ordinary , or well crafted,..." image,

as Ray asks for, the thing on the mind might not be to prove a

character difference once the choice of lenses is made based

on past, more subjective experience. The lack of immediately

available examples (although there may yet be some I don't

know of) is not proof that the idea that lenses have different

character is wrong. Although it can be taken too far, one only

need admit that lenses differ in various characteristics in

different ways to acknowledge that the differing combinations will

yield different results that could be characterized as fingerprints

or character. Am I wrong? Isn't this obvious?

[EricM]

one of g's old posts is in there too. how appropriate...

 

"grant .aug 11, 2004; 09:23 p.m.

did someone say monkee...?"

 

lmao

[eliot_rosen1]

Try the "Current (1979) 50 Summicron vs. 1969" thread (which is currently right above this one) if that's not too much trouble. If that's not too much trouble.

[kent_tolley2]

Al - I like the first shot the best. But the two shots are under such different lighting conditions that it's hard to compare. I think you almost need to shoot resolution charts on a tripod with same lighting to really compare lenses. At least for resolution and contrast. Some of the more abstract characteristics: boke, signature, glow are harder to pin down.

[leslie_cheung]

>>>Aren't Mike's pics now completely different in approach, style, and subject matter? I

think so.<<<

 

I don't think he COMPLETELY changed but if you say so...then it MUST be true i suppose.

[ray .]

Al, that first photo kicks ass, wish you'd do or show more like

that... but I agree with Kent the 2nd looks to be under much

different lighting conditions.

[rj]

This is a Sally Mann quote from a ViewCamera article where she is talking about some of the circa 1800 portrait lenses she used for her Deep South series. "It took me years of searching" she says, "to find ones with just the right degree of destitude: separation of the lens elements, fatal crackling along the edges where the glue has separated, and, with real luck, a felicitous mildew pattern." Here are some of the images from her series.

 

http://www.houkgallery.com/mann-deepsouth/mann_1.html

 

Now, if you can't see how the lens played an integral role in these images, you're blind, or have a serious case of gloucoma.

 

There is a thread going on today where Rob F. posted this link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CLtV

 

Check out the differences in those 50mm lenses especially the flare test. These differences with the lenses will translate to photos that you deem to be moving enough.

 

There is a reason when filming "Saving Private Ryan" Spielberg used period correct lenses and even went as far as using steel wool to take the coatings off newer lenses to get the flaring effect that he strived for.

 

The lenses that I use on my leica were all made before 1970 and have a distinct look, much different than my current Pentax stuff. Looking for lenses with distinct signatures or looks or characteristics takes time and some thinking, nobody is saying these lenses have to be the supreme offerings from the optical companies, nor have to cost a lot (my leica 135mm elmar cost 75 bucks) but the qualities, characteristics or looks are there.

 

I'll tell you what I'm going to do, since neither you nor your little cohort brad sent me an address to send prints to: I'm going to go out tomorrow with my leica and my pentax, shoot some color print film(which I don't normally shoot) in each camera. I shoot my 90 elmarit for the leica and my 77 limited for the pentax since they are both teles and can show somewhat similar focal lengths. I am going to get the rolls scanned at walmart and get a cd made, I will post them tomorrow night sometime and hopefully the difference can still be seen on the lame jpeg that photo.net sticks us with, you know, since you don't want to look at real photography - prints. I'll try to make them moving enough. I should caution, I live in a rural area, so I guess they won't be considered the street shots, hope you can forgive me for not being creative enough.

[bhk]

Simple. If Salgado's Leica broke and he had to make an image with a P&S it would probably

still be a great image - he has a strong way of seeing and that translates into the image

regardless of the tools he's using.

 

At the same time, if he had had the lens he prefers the photograph would likely be improved.

But you have to appreciate subtlety to recognize the improvement. There is a difference

between good and great, excellent and outstanding.

[ray .]

RJ, something as extreme as those lenses Sally Mann is using

is not what I was talking about- recall I'm not questioning the

difference Holga vs Leica or Nikkor, in the example I gave.

[Uhooru]

Ok, here are 3 summicron 50's, 1 Nikon 80-200, 1 a Fujinon MF 6x9, 1 a Swedish camera/

lens and 2 different scanners and none are as good/crisp/cleaer as Kent's. You pic em. I'll

have to go into thegarage to dig out old Nikon 50 1.8 negs.

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3051018-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3257860-md.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/797632-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3344239-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1536946-lg.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3734832-lg.jpg">

[Brad_]

<I>Now, if you can't see how the lens played an integral role in these images, ...</I><P>

 

As I said when you brought that up a few days ago, when you're at her level the nuances

count. When you're shooting travel pix of statues, or your dog, car, or backyard it makes

no difference. If you don't have a compelling image to begin with; ie one that sings with

emotion and great light, the lens won't make it wonderful. As a result, the lens is not

playing <I>an integral role</I>.<BR><P>

 

 

<I>...hope you can forgive me for not being creative enough.</I><P>

 

Well, as I said above, if you start off with a not interesting subject in ordinary light, the

lens isn't going to help. Make an image like Kent's above, something that's worthy of

getting into.<BR><P>

 

<I>since neither you nor your little cohort brad sent me an address</I><P>

 

You look really small when you toss out tiny insults like that. Grow up.

[EricM]

oh and Barry, forgot him, and others no doubt, in my 11:06 p.m. post. sorry man...

[kent_tolley2]

Hey Barry - I'm gonna have to come to Santa Monica on a Sunday and buy you a guiness. Looking at that beauty playing whistle reminds me that one of my very oldest buddies makes some very fine whistles up in Ashland. <BR><A HREF="http://www.reyburnlowwhistles.com/">Reyburn Whistles</A>--