Stargazer63
Member
Hi, guys. I'm a newbie, so excited to register as a member. I bought a Canon ⅤT De luxe with Serenar 50mm f1.8 and Jupiter12, and shot some photos, and I found that the color of photos shot by Jupiter12 is richer( thicker? or more colorful, I don't know how to describe it, forgive my poor English) than those shot by Canon Serenar.
Here is my confusion. I prefer to take photos in color, and I heard that the vintage LTM lens is more suitable for B&W photos.Is this viewpoint correct? If this viewpoint is correct, is there any lens recommendation for taking color photos?
Thanks, and here is my camera, and some photos to share.
love the trigger winder
shot by Canon Serenar 50mm f1.8
shot by Jupiter12 35mm f2.8
Here is my confusion. I prefer to take photos in color, and I heard that the vintage LTM lens is more suitable for B&W photos.Is this viewpoint correct? If this viewpoint is correct, is there any lens recommendation for taking color photos?
Thanks, and here is my camera, and some photos to share.
love the trigger windershot by Canon Serenar 50mm f1.8shot by Jupiter12 35mm f2.8mdarnton
Well-known
On my screen the Canon one, the top picture, looks better. But there are a couple of factors. One is that in color photography nothing is really neutral because it all depends on some kind of interpretation by you, or the software, or the camera, or the lens. There are so many things in the way. You can never get away from what you do with the software, either.
In the example above you used two completely different situations, so it's not really possible to compare. What you should do is shoot the exact same photo with each lens, process the results individually to your best idea of what you want, and see how they compare.
To me the bottom one lacks a variety of color in the subject, is too high contrast, and is processed too much for the shadows (under the stones is grey where it needs to be black because there is no detail revealed there) at the expense of the highlights, which are almost blown out. The top is of a more colorful subject, and has a more realistic distribution of tones, more resembling life, but the brighter areas have a (correctible) weird coloration. But either picture could be made more to look like the other via the software you used.
Other opinions will certainly disagree with mine.
That's what opinions are about.
Generally speaking, the Canon 50/1.8 is a really fine lens IF it is clean inside. Often they are hazy, and some versions are nearly impossible to get clean while others clean up great. Shine a flashlight in one end, look in the other, and look for a haze on the surfaces inside.
In the example above you used two completely different situations, so it's not really possible to compare. What you should do is shoot the exact same photo with each lens, process the results individually to your best idea of what you want, and see how they compare.
To me the bottom one lacks a variety of color in the subject, is too high contrast, and is processed too much for the shadows (under the stones is grey where it needs to be black because there is no detail revealed there) at the expense of the highlights, which are almost blown out. The top is of a more colorful subject, and has a more realistic distribution of tones, more resembling life, but the brighter areas have a (correctible) weird coloration. But either picture could be made more to look like the other via the software you used.
Other opinions will certainly disagree with mine.
That's what opinions are about.Generally speaking, the Canon 50/1.8 is a really fine lens IF it is clean inside. Often they are hazy, and some versions are nearly impossible to get clean while others clean up great. Shine a flashlight in one end, look in the other, and look for a haze on the surfaces inside.
Last edited:
JeffS7444
Well-known
I am not an expert on such matters, but luckily, we have access to people who do possess such knowledge. Perhaps this article written by Szymon Starczewski will be helpful:
Colour rendering in binoculars and lenses - Colours and transmission
Stargazer63
Member
Thank you for your repaly! Indeed, the color of a photo is affected by many factors, in addition to the lens, film, scanner and as you mentioned, software，my comparison is indeed not rigorous. There are still many things for me to learn.On my screen the Canon one, the top picture, looks better. But there are a couple of factors. One is that in color photography nothing is really neutral because it all depends on some kind of interpretation by you, or the software, or the camera, or the lens. There are so many things in the way. You can never get away from what you do with the software, either.
In the example above you used two completely different situations, so it's not really possible to compare. What you should do is shoot the exact same photo with each lens, process the results individually to your best idea of what you want, and see how they compare.
To me the bottom one lacks a variety of color in the subject, is too high contrast, and is processed too much for the shadows (under the stones is grey where it needs to be black because there is no detail revealed there) at the expense of the highlights, which are almost blown out. The top is of a more colorful subject, and has a more realistic distribution of tones, more resembling life, but the brighter areas have a (correctible) weird coloration. But either picture could be made more to look like the other via the software you used.
Other opinions will certainly disagree with mine.
Generally speaking, the Canon 50/1.8 is a really fine lens IF it is clean inside. Often they are hazy, and some versions are nearly impossible to get clean while others clean up great. Shine a flashlight in one end, look in the other, and look for a haze on the surfaces inside.
Fortunately, although there are minor scratches, the Canon 50/1.8 I got is clean. I did some research before purchase. As far as I know, the first version of Canon 50/1.8 is recommend, it is less likely to get haze.
Stargazer63
Member
Thank you for your share! I'll read this article carefully.
Check your lens for Haze, especially on the surface behind the aperture. Use a Flashlight. This is a common problem on Canon lenses, and will dull the colors.
Also: there are two versions of the Canon 50/1.8, different optics. Is you lens Chrome or Black?
This is with the Black Canon 50/1.8, on my M9
Also: there are two versions of the Canon 50/1.8, different optics. Is you lens Chrome or Black?
This is with the Black Canon 50/1.8, on my M9
These are with my very clean Canon 50/1.8 Chrome lens on the M9.
mdarnton
Well-known
I also have the first version, and I was quite surprised. I find it sharper wide open then my collapsible Summicron and maybe better in some ways than my V3. That version also seems to be the one that's cleanest, yes. I'm lucky that mine was bought new by a member of my family and then never used, so it's spotless. I have a late 50/1.4 and I think for my use the old 50/1.8 is a better lens.
You asked about B&W. For black and white I like lenses with just a bit of what I think is spherical aberration when close to wide open. That gives a good sharp core with a soft-focus glow around it. It looks better in B&W than color. That's something you can throw on artificially in software, and sometimes I do. I think someone else here does also, but he's not specifically mentioned it. That removes the irritating edginess without harming sharpness. My 28/1.9 LTM Voigtlander does a nice version of this used wide open as do a lot of pre-modern fast lenses. This is a large format photo, but I did mix in a light diffusion layer to make it look creamy rather than harsh--that's basically the effect:
Roberta
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr
Last edited:
Bill Clark
Veteran
My recommendation is use the same lens for the entire roll of film.
Unless you can find a lab that would color balance each frame on each roll of film.
It’s been decades since I used color film.
When I decided to go 100% digital I realized, at least for me, how color film was a pain.
Matter of fact, with my business, using film became a deterrent for hiring me.
Why don’t you go to capturing using digital, at least for color?
Unless you can find a lab that would color balance each frame on each roll of film.
It’s been decades since I used color film.
When I decided to go 100% digital I realized, at least for me, how color film was a pain.
Matter of fact, with my business, using film became a deterrent for hiring me.
Why don’t you go to capturing using digital, at least for color?
Stargazer63
Member
Attachments
Stargazer63
Member
Sorry to bother you. My first time using the forum! I thought a previous post had been edited but somehow it wasn't posted in the correct format, only photos were posted.My Canon 50/1.8 is Chrome version. I checked the lens through a light and other than a little blur around the edges, it doesn't seem to get haze.
Stargazer63
Member
Thank you for your recommendation. I do have a digital camera for color photo, but I prefer the unique color of film. And I think B&W photos require a higher level of photography, and I am a newbie both to photography and rangefiner camera. So I want to start with color photos first, gradually sharp my photography skills, and then shoot B&W photography.
No bother to me!
I see a spot of possible fungus, and some light haze. It's always hard to tell without inspecting the lens first-hand.
This one is clean, after I took it apart. Easy job- retaining ring holds barrel in the focus mount, then rear group unscrews. You need a simple optical spanner for this.
I put a piece of lens cleaning paper over a flash light, taken at an angle. The lens is clean, like crystal.
yossi
Well-known
I also have the first version, and I was quite surprised. I find it sharper wide open then my collapsible Summicron and maybe better in some ways than my V3. That version also seems to be the one that's cleanest, yes. I'm lucky that mine was bought new by a member of my family and then never used, so it's spotless. I have a late 50/1.4 and I think for my use the old 50/1.8 is a better lens.
You asked about B&W. For black and white I like lenses with just a bit of what I think is spherical aberration when close to wide open. That gives a good sharp core with a soft-focus glow around it. It looks better in B&W than color. That's something you can throw on artificially in software, and sometimes I do. I think someone else here does also, but he's not specifically mentioned it. That removes the irritating edginess without harming sharpness. My 28/1.9 LTM Voigtlander does a nice version of this used wide open as do a lot of pre-modern fast lenses. This is a large format photo, but I did mix in a light diffusion layer to make it look creamy rather than harsh--that's basically the effect:
Roberta
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr
But your description on Flickr said this:
Roberta
violinist.
5x7 Fuji green x-ray film, Agfa-Ansco Deluxe Universal view, 12" 6.3 Paragon @ f11 with strobes. A slight diffusion layer blended in PhotoShop mitigates some of the merciless harshness of this very sharp lens.
"This is a large format photo, but I did mix in a light diffusion layer to make it look creamy rather than harsh--that's basically the effect:"
The image posted is stated to be Large Format with Photoshop used to add some of the effect seen in the Canon lenses.
Two from my Canon 50mm F1.5 Serenar,
Wide-open and at F2.
On the Bessa R2, Kodak B&W C-41 process.
yossi
Well-known
Oops! My apology. Next time I will make sure I finish my coffee before posting 😅
Stargazer63
Member
I disassembled and checked my lens according to a tutorial, fungus and possible haze are all on the edge of the middle lens element. Sadly, the threads of the middle lens element are damaged, I couldn't continue to disassemble it. (And I saw some scratches on the midle retaining ring, I guessed someone had tried this before.) So I just cleaned the rear and the front lens elements.
I will continue to find a solution, but until then, it seems that I could do nothing.
