Differences in color between major lens manufacturers

[jason_b.]

Dear Michael-

 

I am glad that you are testing these lenses for their subtle

qualities. My best photographs would probably be good

independent of the equipment used, but there are things about

certain lenses (and cameras for that matter, i.e. rangefinder as

opposed to reflex) that add that those little qualities, so that the

picture is exactly the way that I want it to be. Everyone makes so

much noise about how no one notices the differences, and

maybe that's because they just aren't looking at their work the

same way you and I do. Here in NYC, I even have people telling

me that Mamiya and Hasselblad lenses are the same. Are they

KIDDING?! No, it just doesn't occur to them that subleties could

matter. Good for them, they'l have more time to spend with their

clients.

 

Also, why shouldn't we expect differences in color between the

Scheider and Rodenstock? There are differences in the designs,

the glass used, the cement between the glass, and the

philosophy of the company as to what the perfect lens schould

be.

 

Well, I think that in having an absolute command over ones tools

requires the ability to account for and encorperate the subtle

qualities along with the rest. Test away. You pictures will be

better for it.

 

Jason Brownrigg

[kelly_flanigan1]

My 178mm F2.5 Kodak Aero Ektar is very, very , very slightly yellow tinted. I read this board about these lenses being quite brown; and wonder why mine transmits maybe more light. Maybe it is not as radioactive; or Kodak ??? <BR><BR>I wonder if Kodak worried about the bokeh of this design?:)<BR><BR>This light transmitance versus wavelength is an interesting subject; and a good thread.<BR><BR> A controlled studio test with a constant controlled light source; same roll of slide film (roll film back etc ); and using various lenses photographing a standard color patch set would be an interesting experiment.....

[michael_fox]

May we have a drum roll please...

 

I know that you are all waiting anxiously on Friday night for the results of my famous (infamous!) lens testing, round 2. Even those of you who thought I'm wasting my time are holding your breath to see if I will show myself to be the ultimate newbie ignoramous! So rather than have you toss and turn and loose sleep tonight, I figured I'd post the results right away.

 

Tested:

150 Schneider Apo Symmar

150 Rodenstock Apo Sironar N

 

Test components:

Kodak EPP Readyloads

Kodak Grey Cards

GretagMacbeth ColorChecker DC (the one with lots of patches)

GTI Soft-View Standard Transparency/Print Viewer

 

Test methodology:

Grey cards and ColorChecker placed under D5000 light to photograph

Exposure was 4 sec at f/22

Transparencies processed in one batch by NewLab in San Francisco

Transparencies scanned with Imacon 848 using same profile (which, by the way, is a little on the cool side)

(Remember, I'm interested in relative difference, not absolute color accuracy so the scanner and film color don't matter as long as they are the same for both shots.)

Photoshop 7.01 eyedropper tool used to compare RGB values in highlights, shadows and various color mid-tones

An example is attached.

 

Test 2 Results:

Initially, there were slight differences in the RGB values due to slight variation in hand-timed exposure. But a single curve adjustment (grab the middle and pull up a little on the darker one) to the composite RGB curve yeilded RGB values which were within +/- 1. Bottom line: no difference.

 

This made me curious about the previous test. So I scanned these in too. Remember, while the subjects varied in the first test, the lighting, subject, film, exposure, etc. for those lenses (210mm that time) were still the same for both lenses. These shots were also all at f/22 and, depending on which set-up it was, 2 - 4 seconds. For comparing these shots, I put the eyedropper tool on the white paper I placed in each shot with either an "R" or "S" on it. I also placed the eyedropper on different parts of the subject - same place for both shots.

 

Test 1 Results: again, after adjusting for slight differences in exposure by pulling the composite RGB curve up or down, the Rodenstock Blue values were consistely 5 (out of 255) less than the Blue values for Schneider (i.e. more yellow) -- a significant and visible difference. A second curves adjustment of the Blue channel (pull it up on the Rodenstock or down on the Schneider) easily brought the two images into line. I was able to detect no difference (+/-1 out of 255 for any given channel) elsewhere on the picture.

 

Conclusions:

1) Color differences between lenses of the same manufacturer can be significant enough to be visible to the eye in the final chrome. But because I don't know the history of the "yellow" lens, it could have been abused as described by one of the posts above.

2) Depending on the individual lens, color differences between different manufacturers may or may not be visible.

3) Where differences do exist, they are minor (5/255 = 2%)

4) Where differences do exist, they are easily corrected with a simple curves adjustment in Photoshop.

5) All the input from everyone above ("there is a difference", there isn't a difference", "it doesn't matter") was correct!

 

Thanks again for everyone's indulgence.<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Another problem is about 1 out of 10 men are colorblind a bit or alot; and some do not know it. This means most of us can hold two lenses side by side at arms length; and spot a slight difference in hue between them; but say 1 out of 10 will say they are the same. One of my employees is color blind; and cannot tell if them apart; even if they were alot more off than normal

[wieslaw1]

Mike, you can play with your �tests� as much as you please. However if you want to do something meaningful and observe the effect of photographic lens on color film you should compare contemporary lenses with those produced 50 and 100 years ago.

In 1976, when I bought the Contax RTS system, and relegated my Exacta to museum, I compared, on color slide film, the new Zeiss Sonnar 80/2.8 with my old lens Meyers Optik 100mm Trioplan (from Gorlitz, Germany). The differences were substantial. Obviously, color saturation and contrast were much higher (better) with the Zeiss Sonnar.

 

Glasses produced for optical applications are of high purity, much higher than common window glass. The latter is greenish, mainly due to iron ions contamination. These contaminations are removed from optical glasses, and in the extremely pure glass, like the one used for fiber optics it is so low, that you can clearly see through layers many miles thick. So there is no coloration of any kind visible by human eye. Of course there might be minute variations in optical transmittance of lenses variously produced, due to Canada balsam, coatings, etc. but this should be more pronounced when you compare old and new lenses.