Lens signatures?

[presspass]

I hear a lot about the 'signature' of Leica lenses - pre-asph Summilux 35 and 50, Mandler-designed lenses, etc. - and also about some of the Zeiss offerings. What about CV lenses? If, for instance, I was looking at the new 75 1.8 and, maximum speed aside, a 35 to match tonally, would I pick a 1.2 or a 1.4, or something else? Are there other CV lenses, ltm and M mount, that offer a similar rendering? Thanks for reading the rant question.

 

[dovi]

50mm pre-

50mm pre-

I can only say that when I use this summicron 50mm wide open , it looks different than other lenses. I know that this shot is a slow shutter speed shot- I was trying to see how low could I go handheld but this particular lens looks different than others wide open. Is it a signature? I don't care but I like the resullt.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Generally, I'd say of 'signature'

(a) You know it when you see it and

(b) If you don't see it, you can often persuade yourself you do

Quite honestly. most of the time I can't tell whether I've used one lens or another, except sometimes wide open. There are a few exceptions, such as the 75 Summilux or the Thambar or the 38 Biogon on the Alpa, but a lot of the stuff about 'signature' strikes me either as a combination of wishful thinking and trying to look clever, or as someone seeing something I don't really notice.

When it comes to ascribing signatures to groups of lenses, yes, there are often family resemblances, but then, there are often resemblances between contemporary lenses from different makers, too. 'Mandler signature'? 'Sonnar signature'? Pull the other one. To quote Dr. Hubert Nasse, of Zeiss, "You never really know exactly what sort of results a lens is going to deliver until you make it."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

For me the word signature itself is problematic. It suggest a trait that makes it possible it identify a particular lens from all the other lenses, and it implies that trait is desirable. Both of which I simply cannot see.

I have lenses that have tendencies, vignette, contrast or the lack thereof, or softness, and I can see those tendencies in the negatives. But signature no, I don't see it and I'm bemused by some of the stuff I read on the interweb.

I normally don't comment because some folk take it very seriously, and dismiss anyone who doesn't see it as unsophisticated

 

[biakalt]

i own 2 Leica lens which I think represent Leica signature very well (of what I've seen on internet) is Summarit 50/1.5 & Summilux 35/1.4. Them 2 handle tonality and bokeh like no other. Even stopping down these 2 dont have that generic sharpness if that makes sense. Thou I have used only Voigtlander 35/2.5 and a collapsible Summicron 50 in the past, so I can't really comment.

 

[ferider]

Signature implies that a lens renders less than perfect, physically.

Hence, if you see it, like or dislike it, must be personal and subjective.

Best is to try. The lenses you mention don't loose much value if you want to sell them after deciding you don't like how they draw.

 

[MC JC86]

When a Leica/Zeiss lens is sharp it is "razor sharp" or some other superlative.

When a non-Leica or Zeiss lens is sharper than it's Leica or Zeiss counterpart in the same FL, it is described as "generic" or "clinical". 🙂

Don't get me wrong... I absolutely have loved shooting with my newer Summicrons and older Summicrons with definitely have characteristics all their own (not unlike all lenses). Also love older uncoated lenses like my Elmar or Tessar on the Super Ikonta and Rolleiflex.. but I don't really think there's anything generic or undesirable about the pictures that I take with my C/V lenses (other than they were taken by me).

Sure, not everything can be expressed on an MTF graph, but I think too often people aren't just happy to use the beautiful equipment that they have so instead they need to assign these metaphysical attributes in order to feel that what they have is superior. I think when you step outside of the simple things that are somewhat quantifiable such as sharpness, contrast and Bokeh, it's easy to get carried away into the land of Solms elves and Leica glow.

I'm sorry to not be of more help, I just think it's a bit too subjective.

EDIT: This all deals more generally with the issue of "signature" and not the Summilux or other lenses you specified. So, slightly O/T I suppose.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Signature implies that a lens renders less than perfect, physically.

Not necessarily. Perfection (or as close as I've ever seen to it) is the signature of the 75 Summicron and 38 Biogon, as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . too often people aren't just happy to use the beautiful equipment that they have so instead they need to assign these metaphysical attributes in order to feel that what they have is superior. I think when you step outside of the simple things that are somewhat quantifiable such as sharpness, contrast and Bokeh, it's easy to get carried away into the land of Solms elves and Leica glow.

Again, not really. My 135/1.8 Pentax-fit Porst has a very clear signature, but I'd certainly not call it superior. Nor am I quite convinced that there is a way of quantifying bokeh. For me, 'superior' bokeh right up there with the 'Leica Glow'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MC JC86]

Again, not really. My 135/1.8 Pentax-fit Porst has a very clear signature, but I'd certainly not call it superior. Nor am I quite convinced that there is a way of quantifying bokeh. For me, 'siperiior' bokeh right up there with the 'Leica Glow'.

Cheers,

R.

True dat, Roger.


Quantify was definitely the wrong word... I just meant that it can be seen somewhat easily; it's less likely to be a contentious point whether Bokeh is obtrusive and distracting or not (less likely, still something people argue over of course)

 

[presspass]

I wasn't very precise and I apologize. Perhaps there is no such thing as 'signature.' I do know the results from the pre-asph 35 summilux and the 75 summilux seem to go well together and give similar color and modeling. That may well be due to my looking for something that isn't really there and finding it. Thanks anyway.

 

[MC JC86]

Have you tried searching flickr groups for the look you're going for? The Nokton 35 1.2 has one here http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokton35/ the Nokton 1.4 Classic here http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokton35f14/ maybe perusing those images would help where we so far have so utterly failed. Good luck!

 

[xwhatsit]

'Mandler signature'? 'Sonnar signature'? Pull the other one.

See your point there -- although I reckon I could just about tell a "Cooke triplet signature" from a "Gauss signature" -- as long as both were shot wide open! But we're talking a gross example here 🙂

Stop all lenses down a couple of stops and they all look the same 😛

 

[Rob-F]

I can tell the difference between my ASPH vs. non-ASPH lenses of the same focal length, when both are used at a wide aperture. Upon close examination, I can distinguish between my collapsible Summicron, vs. my 11817 black Summicron (the one made from 1969 to 1979). The latter will have less stray light reflected into the shadows. My 35mm ASPH Summilux will give an adequately sharp and contrasty image wide open. My pre-ASPH 35 Lux will not. That one does produce a unique image by which I can recognize it; so that is a "signature" of sorts: the sort that reminds me not to use it wide open.

I agree that the 75mm Summilux used wide open has a pleasant "signature," though I'm not sure it's much different than my collapsible Summicron wide open, or the 90mm SUmmicron wide open. Pleasantly soft-sharp--but is that a signature, or just the way a lot of lenses look wide open?

But between two Leica lenses of the same design principle, like the 21mm vs. the 24mm ASPH Elmarit, or the 24 ASPH vs. the 28 ASPH Summicron, I don't see where any of them have some unique property that sets them apart.

We should probably not say that every lens has its own unique signature.