larmarv916
Well-known
Hello to everyone...Well maybe this theme is or isn't of any importance But I find many interesting artistic and technical dfferences between each of the 50mm F1.4 rangefinder normal lenses. The reason I got into looking at this topic goes to Ewrin Puts & R. Rotoloni's different books on Lecia and Nikon.
Now relax, as Iam not going to post and MDF charts or rehash any well documented infomation. My reason for raising this theme is that I really see and real differences that I find very enjoyable and supportive to my work.
Not to mention the noticable image differences in negatives produced by the Nikon F1 and Lecia F1 lenses.
Iam talking about looking at the emotional visual results delivered between the modern Zeiss 1.5 , Leica Summilux 1.4 (lNon-ASPH ) and the Nikon 1.4 lenses. Now of course we know the amount of time span between the creation of theses lenses is over 50 years. I have yet to try the ASPH Summilux 50mm lens.
I guess what Iam asking is in the "perfect" digital image age are we really taking a step backward on the artistic level and seeing these technical marvels of the film age being reduced to paperweights as tools for excitng creative and still superior techincal instruments.
Also exploring the wide differneces of results of each of these 3 lenses at the same F-Stop's ! I have been working on really studing the thumbprint of each now find shooting specialities for each. Based on Distance and F-Stops I guess this gets into that whole "painting" style concept of a Manet or Monet conversation.
Then to step off the deep end of the pier,,,,,let talk or look at the intereting differences of imagery these lenses produce in the color rendering. the more I study lenses the better creative use of the "Thumbprint" I seems to find
Personally Iam really impressed with the results of the modern Zeiss 50 F1.4 starting with the performance wide open and then stepping forward ( 1/3 stops )into F2, 2.8 and really interesting is the half stop between F2.8 and F4
Now even though the Nikon Rf 50mm F1.4 is almost stone age, by modern technology standards, it to me is a stunning performer and gives a image that is so clear and that many photos shot with it many people remark about the emotional quality and ask when was that shot. I know Iam taking the long way wround the barn. But I can not stick to just one normal lens.
Does anyone still find these different normals as artisticly stimulating as they are different?
Of course may I have just lost it..........I find the differences between the Nikon F1.8 and the Lecia 35mm lenses almost as strikig.
Now relax, as Iam not going to post and MDF charts or rehash any well documented infomation. My reason for raising this theme is that I really see and real differences that I find very enjoyable and supportive to my work.
Not to mention the noticable image differences in negatives produced by the Nikon F1 and Lecia F1 lenses.
Iam talking about looking at the emotional visual results delivered between the modern Zeiss 1.5 , Leica Summilux 1.4 (lNon-ASPH ) and the Nikon 1.4 lenses. Now of course we know the amount of time span between the creation of theses lenses is over 50 years. I have yet to try the ASPH Summilux 50mm lens.
I guess what Iam asking is in the "perfect" digital image age are we really taking a step backward on the artistic level and seeing these technical marvels of the film age being reduced to paperweights as tools for excitng creative and still superior techincal instruments.
Also exploring the wide differneces of results of each of these 3 lenses at the same F-Stop's ! I have been working on really studing the thumbprint of each now find shooting specialities for each. Based on Distance and F-Stops I guess this gets into that whole "painting" style concept of a Manet or Monet conversation.
Then to step off the deep end of the pier,,,,,let talk or look at the intereting differences of imagery these lenses produce in the color rendering. the more I study lenses the better creative use of the "Thumbprint" I seems to find
Personally Iam really impressed with the results of the modern Zeiss 50 F1.4 starting with the performance wide open and then stepping forward ( 1/3 stops )into F2, 2.8 and really interesting is the half stop between F2.8 and F4
Now even though the Nikon Rf 50mm F1.4 is almost stone age, by modern technology standards, it to me is a stunning performer and gives a image that is so clear and that many photos shot with it many people remark about the emotional quality and ask when was that shot. I know Iam taking the long way wround the barn. But I can not stick to just one normal lens.
Does anyone still find these different normals as artisticly stimulating as they are different?
Of course may I have just lost it..........I find the differences between the Nikon F1.8 and the Lecia 35mm lenses almost as strikig.
raid
Dad Photographer
I will break the silence here by saying that overall, lenses are lenses. It takes a photographer to make them give you different results from an artistic perspective. The technical differences could be factors in allowing the photographer to better express her/his thoughts on how the image should come out. A lens does not do the thinking for the photographer.
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I definitely choose my lenses (I'm not getting into specific lenses it is like discussing paint brushes and what they are made of and how they are made) with a final image in my mind. I have several 50's as well as wides and choose them for the anticipated results I'll get when I use them.
Make no mistake all lenses are not equal nor are they less equal .. they just are what they are so like you I shoot specific lenses to achieve sharpness, bokeh, punch, colour rendition, softness etc. I believe that is the only way to go if you have the choice.
Make no mistake all lenses are not equal nor are they less equal .. they just are what they are so like you I shoot specific lenses to achieve sharpness, bokeh, punch, colour rendition, softness etc. I believe that is the only way to go if you have the choice.
pvdhaar
Peter
Let me put it this way; if I compare pictures taken side by side, I am indeed able to tell a 50 year old Elmar from a 21st century Gauss design.
However, barring shots of brick walls, that's not how I usually go about selecting my lenses to go. Bad light? Take a fast modern 50 along. Travel light? Time for the Elmar clone..
However, barring shots of brick walls, that's not how I usually go about selecting my lenses to go. Bad light? Take a fast modern 50 along. Travel light? Time for the Elmar clone..
foto_fool
Well-known
I agree with Raid that lenses are lenses - to a first approximation. But yes, there are differences - especially wide-open. The Summarit and Summilux show differing degrees of sharpness and render OOF differently. The Sonnar group are different from both, and within this bunch there are subtle differences - the ZM Sonnar C is sharper and less flare-prone, and renders more saturated color, than the older designs I use: the CZJ Sonnar T and the Nikkor SC. The Canon 50/0.95 rendered differently than all of these. I value these lenses for how their technical difference between (center and edge resolution, coma, chromatic abberation, relative DOF and focus points, etc.) can be employed to achieve varying "artistic" results.
- John
- John
Dogman
Veteran
Subject, light, etc., are generally more important than lens aesthetics. I've got a ton of 50mm lenses and the best one to use for any given circumstances is the one I have available at the time.
raid
Dad Photographer
foto_fool said:
John,
What you have said is correct, but would you agree that the lens by ityself is "art" or that using a certain lens is 'artistic" just for using that lens? I don't.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
This past summer I hooked up with a photographic friend Tom Westbrook. It was a fine clear day and I shot a ton of film. I was using an Argus C3 and a CV combo (R3A + CV 50mm lens) This is an A/B of those two cameras using Fuji Superia 400 ISO. No photoshop here whatsoever except the merge into one jpg.
I use the C3 for fun and a vintage feel for my shots I think it came out pretty well here.
a/b
for some who've noted issues with this link.. they originate with flickr's controls... so here is a linkthat is reduced in size
I use the C3 for fun and a vintage feel for my shots I think it came out pretty well here.
a/b
for some who've noted issues with this link.. they originate with flickr's controls... so here is a linkthat is reduced in size
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
Try to think of a lens as a painter's brush. Some are fine, some coarse, some square, some round, some small, some large. They all have their uses and while to some extent they are interchangeable this is not entirely so. Same with lenses. Anyway thats how I think of them. But Raid is right too. If the artist / photographer does not have the talent, the outcome will still be hogwash.
raid
Dad Photographer
I agree with what Peter has said above. Of course, different lenses can have different so-called signatures. It takes a vision to predict how an image would come out diferently if a certain is used and not the other.
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
I had to think about this one for a while.
My initial reaction was a lens is a lens,
you stick it on a light-tight box with film and take pictures.
But then I realized that they all have their strengths and quirks, and drawbacks too. All of the lenses I own make good negatives, regardless of content.
But to really bring out the differences, especially in lenses from the 50's and 60's you really need to run color through them. I can't speak for newer lenses, but I have a Voigtlander Ultron (on a Vitessa N) that makes my Fuji NPZ look like shots from the 50's, red shift and all.
Which can be really fun to play with.
My initial reaction was a lens is a lens,
you stick it on a light-tight box with film and take pictures.
But then I realized that they all have their strengths and quirks, and drawbacks too. All of the lenses I own make good negatives, regardless of content.
But to really bring out the differences, especially in lenses from the 50's and 60's you really need to run color through them. I can't speak for newer lenses, but I have a Voigtlander Ultron (on a Vitessa N) that makes my Fuji NPZ look like shots from the 50's, red shift and all.
Which can be really fun to play with.
raid
Dad Photographer
I did not vote in the poll because the question [to me] is vague.
Lenses can produce different results, but it is the photographer who picks the lens for a specific application. A lens is not "artistic" by itself. At the same time, I would not vote that there no differences between lenses.
Lenses can produce different results, but it is the photographer who picks the lens for a specific application. A lens is not "artistic" by itself. At the same time, I would not vote that there no differences between lenses.
nrb
Nuno Borges
In my opinion lenses are just tools in the same way that brushes are for painters or pens for writers. Even the humble Domiplan, designed to be just cheap, can produce pleasing results to my eye.
40oz
...
"Does anyone still find these different normals as artisticly stimulating as they are different?"
Is this the question? Then yes, I do find the differences among lenses to be stimulating. In the sense that I prefer the Sonnar "look," and acquired a few such lenses. That has led me to take more straight-up portraits than I have ever done. If I had not found the look of faces shot with a Sonnar to be appealing, I wouldn't have shot the portraits I did over the last year. Not all were with a Sonnar design, because I wanted to see the treatment my other lenses delivered. Therefore the very differences among lenses inspired an artistic effort.
So yes, I do think the look of a lens, the way it draws an image or renders colors can influence the photographer, not just the film. If all lenses were the same, I would never have made a special effort to do the portraits I have been doing.
I used to have a compact P&S digital that had a rather pleasant effect with flare and bright highlights. It rendered scenes I liked. I replaced it with a newer model with manual controls, and the images lack something to my eyes. As a result, I hardly ever use the camera. I regret handing the first off to a good friend, but am happy that for all the camera's limitations, it takes very good pictures for him as well. I have spent enough time with the two cameras to fully appreciate it was the lens that made the difference in the scene, not the shooter. Were the lenses funcitonally identical? Sure. Aesthetically? No way. Did the difference in the lenses influence my use of the cameras? Yes, without question.
I have to say that I pity those tied into a system that restricts the lenses available. I have several cameras with even more lenses, and it's nice to see how they all render a scene. Some I like better than others, but only one really seems to be a limiting factor. I appreciate the fact that I can swap lenses on my RF bodies or grab a different fixed-lens camera and experience a different view.
Is this the question? Then yes, I do find the differences among lenses to be stimulating. In the sense that I prefer the Sonnar "look," and acquired a few such lenses. That has led me to take more straight-up portraits than I have ever done. If I had not found the look of faces shot with a Sonnar to be appealing, I wouldn't have shot the portraits I did over the last year. Not all were with a Sonnar design, because I wanted to see the treatment my other lenses delivered. Therefore the very differences among lenses inspired an artistic effort.
So yes, I do think the look of a lens, the way it draws an image or renders colors can influence the photographer, not just the film. If all lenses were the same, I would never have made a special effort to do the portraits I have been doing.
I used to have a compact P&S digital that had a rather pleasant effect with flare and bright highlights. It rendered scenes I liked. I replaced it with a newer model with manual controls, and the images lack something to my eyes. As a result, I hardly ever use the camera. I regret handing the first off to a good friend, but am happy that for all the camera's limitations, it takes very good pictures for him as well. I have spent enough time with the two cameras to fully appreciate it was the lens that made the difference in the scene, not the shooter. Were the lenses funcitonally identical? Sure. Aesthetically? No way. Did the difference in the lenses influence my use of the cameras? Yes, without question.
I have to say that I pity those tied into a system that restricts the lenses available. I have several cameras with even more lenses, and it's nice to see how they all render a scene. Some I like better than others, but only one really seems to be a limiting factor. I appreciate the fact that I can swap lenses on my RF bodies or grab a different fixed-lens camera and experience a different view.
Last edited:
40oz
...
tokek said:
Respectfully, see Raid's lens tests before commenting that you see no difference in lenses on web-posted images
I don't see anyone discussing "image purity." I am not sure we all are reading the same original post, however
40oz
...
tokek said:With a bit of PP work images can be altered to have a certain lens look, withi limits of course..
... I guess I started
IMHO, it's one thing to think photoshop can do anything, but quite another to think nobody altered a photograph before photoshop. And even if one can imitate the look of a lens with photoshop, it's a hell of a lot easier just to take the picture with it in the first place. You can't undo what's been done by the lens before the light ever reached the sensor or film.
kevin m
Veteran
If you're referring to the "gausian blur" tool, then I have to disagree. It looks artificial to my eyes.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Lenses are not just lenses, lenses are tools. Learning different lenses' characteristics opens up more creative (expected or not ) options.
) options.foto_fool
Well-known
raid said:
No, like guns and killing, the lens does not make "art" - people do. I think the paintbrush analogy is apt for choices between focal lengths and f-stops but a bit overblown for talking about lens "signatures" - artistic or not.
That said, I don't expect images made with my 45mm Planar to have the same look as images made with my 50mm Summarit, for example. My understanding of these differences is what leads me to pick up one over the other depending on - excuse the hyperbole - which artistic muse is moving me at the moment.
It's hyperbole becaus my practice of photography is as much about art as my golf game is to that practiced by Tiger Woods. I'm a hack, a duffer, and if anything I produce with any particular lens looks like "art" it is purely accidental
. - John
ferider
Veteran
I agree with John, Raid, Peter and others. But the strong signature examples
that you mention all include classic, relatively old lenses.
I personally would have a hard time distinguishing technically good
photos taken with either Zeiss 1.5 , Leica Summilux 1.4 (lNon-ASPH )
and Nikon 1.4 (assuming the new version) wide open.
Very small differences, IMO. If you compare to a modern 50/2 (like
Summicron, Hexanon, Planar), then there will be easily visible differences
at f2.
Roland.
that you mention all include classic, relatively old lenses.
I personally would have a hard time distinguishing technically good
photos taken with either Zeiss 1.5 , Leica Summilux 1.4 (lNon-ASPH )
and Nikon 1.4 (assuming the new version) wide open.
Very small differences, IMO. If you compare to a modern 50/2 (like
Summicron, Hexanon, Planar), then there will be easily visible differences
at f2.
Roland.