Do you try to match signatures with your lens kits?

[thirtyfivefifty]

I'm aware that people are looking for a certain look (modern, classic, sharpness, contrast, oof, vignetting, etc.) when deciding on which lenses to purchase for their given system, but I was wondering if anyone makes the extra effort on making sure their kit has a similar lens signatures across the board--more or less.

For me, my interests are the 35mm/50mm focal length, and I wanted to know what m-mount 35/50 pairings share similar signatures, but am also curious about what other lens combinations--regardless of the lens mount--people have found to be similar.

 

[jsrockit]

No, I don't care about this at all... there are two types of lenses... good enough and not so good.

 

[Jockos]

Well yes! After 5 weeks in Solms and some ~600 Eur, I now have two lenses calibrated differently so that I can allways get an out of focus shot!



:bang:

 

[sevo]

No. Most of my lenses were bought purely by focal length and speed (and once you have settled on these, there usually is not much choice unless you switch systems). Quite a few are presumably similar by being from the same brand, period and price segment. But either it is me, or there is no such thing as a uniform look across different lenses - if the optical quality is at least decent, the focal length and how I relate to it is 90% of the look of a lens in my hands.

 

[Clint Troy]

You mean deciding to own asph lenses vs. Pre-asph lenses? Or for a dslr system, owning the original system lenses vs. sigmas? Or sticking with same generation lenses? It all makes good sense to me.

 

[YYV_146]

For personal portrait stuff I usually lean towards more classic lenses, but when I shoot street the sharper the better-the low contrast of old glass helps with post processing.

 

[Godfrey]

I buy a lens, I try it out. If I like it, I keep it. If I don't, I return or re-sell it. Or it just sits in the equipment closet waiting to get used.

Right now, I have two 28s, two 40s, two 50s. Each of them is different—either due to rendering characteristics, speed, size or weight—but I keep them because I like using them. I pick which one to use based on which camera and what subject I'm shooting ...

I don't usually think too much about whether one of the 28s looks more or less similar to one of the 50s, or any other lens.

G

 

[Spicy]

No, I don't care about this at all... there are two types of lenses... good enough and not so good.

This. 10cha

 

[rjschell]

No, I don't care about this at all... there are two types of lenses... good enough and not so good.

Well thought, well said!

 

[thompsonks]

Not as I see it; my three kinds are different than just +Good and –Good:

I geneerally prefer 'classic' lenses – pre-aspherical Elmarit, Summicron, Summilux, and Sonnar-C (at its wide apertures).

But if I'm doing something that demands an edge of precision, I use 28 Cron and 35 FLE, or 50 Sonnar at its smaller apertures.

I also have 28, 35 and 50 beaters for beaches, hikes, and other rough environments (including family gatherings).

I didn't have three kinds in mind when I acquired them; they just gathered together around me.

Kirk

 

[jsrockit]

Not as I see it; my three kinds are different than just +Good and –Good:

Ok.

I geneerally prefer 'classic' lenses – pre-aspherical Elmarit, Summicron, Summilux, and Sonnar-C (at its wide apertures).

But if I'm doing something that demands an edge of precision, I use 28 Cron and 35 FLE, or 50 Sonnar at its smaller apertures.

I also have 28, 35 and 50 beaters for beaches, hikes, and other rough environments (including family gatherings).

I didn't have three kinds in mind when I acquired them; they just gathered together around me.

Kirk

All of these fit in the good enough category no?

 

[rickp]

if there is a distinct look i like from lenses, then it happens most frequently / reliably using the mandler designs. in practice, that means 2 of 3 on the MM (50 and 75), and 2 of 4 (19mm v2 and 180 f3.4) on a d600.

there is a thread on mandler lenses on LUF by ADAN which gives good practical reasons (and examples) why the mandler design characteristics look good on digital. just my 2 cents. there are probably 100s of top quality lenses out there just waiting for us!

for me, the primary benefit of using 'similar' lenses in a series of photos is, for example, that the reds or flesh tones, the contrast, the sharpness (just to mention a few), remain in harmony instead of jumping from one extreme to another.

 

[Bob Michaels]

No. Most of my lenses were bought purely by focal length and speed (and once you have settled on these, there usually is not much choice unless you switch systems). Quite a few are presumably similar by being from the same brand, period and price segment. But either it is me, or there is no such thing as a uniform look across different lenses - if the optical quality is at least decent, the focal length and how I relate to it is 90% of the look of a lens in my hands.

This is me as well. My type of photography out in the real world simply has no connection to the detailed thought analyses that goes on with hands on the keyboard and eyes on the monitor. My real world is all about where I am, where I point the camera, and when I press the shutter button, not about lens choice.

I think that if someone looks at one of my photos and thinks about lens signature that the photo must be a total failure. My thought is that the ideal photo is one where the viewer does not even realize if it is b&w or in color because they are so engrossed in the subject of the photo.

 

[thegman]

I'm aware that people are looking for a certain look (modern, classic, sharpness, contrast, oof, vignetting, etc.) when deciding on which lenses to purchase for their given system, but I was wondering if anyone makes the extra effort on making sure their kit has a similar lens signatures across the board--more or less.

For me, my interests are the 35mm/50mm focal length, and I wanted to know what m-mount 35/50 pairings share similar signatures, but am also curious about what other lens combinations--regardless of the lens mount--people have found to be similar.

No, not at all. Generally I'd rather my lenses be fairly 'vanilla', i.e. I don't want character, vignetting etc. I just want it to be decently sharp and do it's job. But in the end, I'm just not that bothered.

 

[Stdon]

My 3 main lenses that I use for assignments like weddings or events where I need to have a continuity in the images are very important to me. Nikkors 28/70, 85 f1:1.4 and 70/200 EDVR all have the same flavor if you will. So no matter which focal length I need I know that the results will all match across the board. One less thing to consider.
But I also have different focal length lenses and lots of overlaps and these are unique in their individual flavors depending on the look I'm after.

 

[hellomikmik]

...I was wondering if anyone makes the extra effort on making sure their kit has a similar lens signatures across the board--more or less. ...

for me it's other way around sometimes, i enjoy having 3-4 50s with totally different rendering. same for camera bodies.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No. I buy lenses where I like the "look". Matching "looks" would be restrictive, time-consuming, expensive, and usually pointless: I am unlikely to be shooting the same subject, the same way, with my 21/2.8 Kobalux, 35/1.4 Summilux, 50/1.5 C-Sonnar, 75/2 Summicron, 90/2.2 Thambar and 135/2.8 Elmarit-M.

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

Well yes, and no too... Sorta. 😛

See points 2. and 3. And point 4 too. And all because of point 1. 😀

1. Voigtländer Heliar 2.0/50mm LTM. Very contrasty on the GXR-M, used for high-key portraits and reportage. Very good lens on film, less contrasty but still a lot compared to my other lenses.
2. W-Nikkor 1.8/35mm LTM. Bought for speed and rendering, providing low contrast on GXR-M and even lower on film.
3. Tanar 2.0/50mm LTM. Bought to complement the W-Nikkor since the Voigtländer is so different from that Nikkor.
4. Elmar 3.5/50mm LTM, Elmar 4.0/90mm LTM, Elmar 4.5/135mm LTM. All pre-war and all uncoated. Bought to match. Their looks do not match the W-Nikkor, the Tanar, or the Heliar. Especially not in color.

So, sorta yes. And no, too...

 

[jordanatkins]

So, sorta yes. And no, too...

Well said, there's definitely merits to both schools of thought. It's nice to have a system that matches rendering across the board, and it's also nice to have other lenses that are intentionally different too.

 

[noimmunity]

This is me as well. My type of photography out in the real world simply has no connection to the detailed thought analyses that goes on with hands on the keyboard and eyes on the monitor. My real world is all about where I am, where I point the camera, and when I press the shutter button, not about lens choice.

I think that if someone looks at one of my photos and thinks about lens signature that the photo must be a total failure. My thought is that the ideal photo is one where the viewer does not even realize if it is b&w or in color because they are so engrossed in the subject of the photo.

Hadn't read this earlier when it was first posted, but I just have to express my admiration for the idea conveyed.

There have been some members here in the past who have had specific projects and therefore wanted lenses in different focal lengths with matching 'signatures', but only and precisely because they didn't want anything to distract viewers from focusing on the content.