The curse of expensive equipment?

[semilog]

The issue is, Leica does not publish transmission figures for their lenses, neither did Minolta.

No, Leica also doesn't publish T-stops for their still lenses, and they don't publish full spectral transmission data for their microscope objectives, either. Neither does Zeiss or Nikon. It's shameful.

Olympus, on the other hand, does. Which is one reason why the fancy highly-customized microscope in my lab is an Olympus.

I've added to my post above a link to a comparison of the 0.95 nocti to some other lenses on the A7r. No absolute T-stops, but some large differences in relative transmission. The Nocti does very well, as it should.

 

[YYV_146]

No, Leica also doesn't publish T-stops for their still lenses, and they don't publish full spectral transmission data for their microscope objectives, either. Neither does Zeiss or Nikon. It's shameful.

Olympus, on the other hand, does. Which is one reason why the fancy highly-customized microscope in my lab is an Olympus.

I've added to my post above a link to a comparison of the 0.95 nocti to some other lenses on the A7r. No absolute T-stops, but some large differences in relative transmission. The Nocti does very well, as it should.

Thanks. Very well thought out and informative comparison.

 

[peterm1]

Of course its all up to the individual. A person like the one you recounted who was so aggressively disparaging about people who bought expensive equipment was merely demonstrating three things.

(1) His ignorance about expensive equipment and photography in general or his misplaced sense of envy

(2) His poor upbringing and lack of social skills and

(3) His small penis.

Seriously I hate people who are rude in the manner you describe. It may be true that many people cannot get the best out their equipment but there are many who do. And even if they do not who is he to speak in that manner about them.

I look at it this way. A Toyota can get you where you want to go as a mode of transport. But if you can afford a BMW and it gives you pleasure to own and drive one, why not buy it.

There is nothing wrong with you buying an Noctilux if you can afford it and it gives you pleasure. And people like the one you spoke of.......well you can guess where I think they can go to.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I`m not suggesting that and I don`t think anyone else is either.
Nether am I suggesting that you can fully predict the outcome.

All I`m saying is that certain lenses have a different affect on the shot depending on the circumstances.

Nobody is blue in the face certainly not me although I do wonder sometimes what a shot would have looked like if I`d used this or that lens in the same way as some may wonder how the neg would have looked if they`d given it a bit more or less agitation or used a different developer.

You can`t predict that either.

My abject apologies Michael, my post wasn't aimed at you or anyone else. It was an over-zealous comment in support of Stewart's comments about the realities of lens choice.

To clarify my own position: I don't care about subtleties. There are only so many pins that I'm prepared to put under a microscope and angels are boring subjects anyway. 🙂

Nor do I care about individuals spending what I consider silly money on what I consider silly products. I just find boasting even more boring than angels, particularly when it comes down to "look how much money I have".

 

[Michael Markey]

No apology required ...I didn`t think that you were.
My clumsy way of saying that ...as with all things photography ...it not something that I would go down to the wire for.

Like Victor I like using different lenses for their look.
Indeed its what keeps me using Rangefinders .
I generally don`t care about subtleties either which is probably why I haven`t taken to the fine art of developing or using different papers when I was printing.

For some odd reason though I find the effect of different lens designs interesting.

Neither do I have a view though on what other people buy or how much it costs them.

I wouldn`t know what a "silly" product is ...if its worth it to somebdy then its worth it....maybe not to me ....but then that`s my business .
Its not something which I would be judgemental about.

Boasting ? ...don`t think anyone was.

Maybe sometimes people are pleased with what they have bought ...I would expect them to be ...why wouldn`t they be.

So I`m afraid I can`t help you on that one either 🙂

I must be insensitive ....maybe it was all those years I spent as a Humphrey Appleby 🙂

But absolutely no need to apologise.

 

[hendriphile]

Digital has negated much of [the] uniqueness of lenses.

I find this statement fascinating, perhaps worthy of a thread of its own.
Would you care to expound it?

 

[Michael Markey]

I find this statement fascinating, perhaps worthy of a thread of its own.
Would you care to expound it?

That statement jumped out at me too because I suspect that Victor is correct.

It certainly appears that way to me based on what I`ve seen the few lenses I know.

However given the controversy I doubt if such a thread would get very far before heading for the ditch 🙂

 

[YYV_146]

I find this statement fascinating, perhaps worthy of a thread of its own.
Would you care to expound it?

Don't read too much into it - what I mean is simply that if you have the expertise and time, you can correct for the so-called imperfections of older lenses in processing (falloff, distortion, low contrast, edgy bokeh) and create them if needed.

If you have a lens with very special rendering (F1 Noct, Thambar) it will still look special on digital...In fact, the lens may look more "unique" because digital is comparatively rigorous in terms of demanding resolution and reflecting lens distortion, while film muddles things a bit for not being perfectly flat. But you can create that look if you so desire, and with a bit of cleanup and sharpening most older lenses can be made to look reasonably "modern".

For example, IMO the rendering people like in older lenses is because of focal plane distortion that emphasizes objects towards the center of the frame. This effect can be both created and removed very easily in processing, but correcting for lens distortion in a chemical darkroom is almost impossibly difficult.

I will add that some optical effects only occur with digital sensors, such as sensor reflections, purple fringing and enhance falloff caused by microlenses. But those don't make or break a lens - just makes some lenses harder to use with respectable results on digital.

Edit: But maybe there is something...see my comment below.

 

[YYV_146]

That statement jumped out at me too because I suspect that Victor is correct.

It certainly appears that way to me based on what I`ve seen the few lenses I know.

However given the controversy I doubt if such a thread would get very far before heading for the ditch 🙂

I was implying that digital correction and creation of lens characteristics is possible (you can make an old lens look "new", albeit with great effort), but speaking from personal experience, I do think that there may be something to film that makes it more dependent of the lens.

Intuitively, with most digital cameras you get an AA filter that removes the finest patterns. The color filter array reduces detail representation at the pixel-level. And there is white balance, which makes lens "color" not nearly as important as your settings for a specific scene. Even with raw files, you're really getting the interpretation of data by a specific company. When I upgraded ACR for Fuji RAWs, I thought the "look" of the image changed...so that may also be at play.

Anyways I think it's hard to compare digital and film because with digital you get to see an "original" before making any adjustments. With film most of the adjustments occur before you can look at the actual image, in the temperature, chemicals and other procedural details. So maybe people think digital reflects less lens character simply because they get to look at the originals, while with film they bring their own style into the processing.

How could we test this? Take the most "basic" digital camera there is (Monochrom, no CFA, no AA, pixel-to-pixel DNGs), compare it with a relatively "typical" digital body (M type 240, no AA but with CFA and algorithm-determined files), then compare both results to low-grain B&W film. I don't have an MM or M240, but this would be an interesting experiment. I will say this, though - I've looked at A7 files and M240 files (RAW) long and hard, comparing with 4-5 different lenses, using perfectly calibrated, 99% ARGB monitors, and I couldn't see any difference after applying the same WB profile, other than some minor color rendition differences (mostly reds), and the M240 looking so slightly crisper at 100%.

 

[hendriphile]

"I doubt if such a thread would get very far before heading for the ditch 🙂"

Ah yes... the Bottomless Ditch indeed! 😀

P.S. I appreciate your explanation, Victor. It's an interesting topic.

 

[Michael Markey]

....and I do too Victor .
Thank you.

 

[Sparrow]

Seriously? You don't know what the DOF will be at a specific aperture, or how the lens handles backlighting, flare, or pinpoint light sources? You may not know how your subject will look because of the lighting and processing, but I'd think you'd know what to expect from your lens.

... em, no

Had I been cinematographer on Barry Lyndon I'd have a calculator, made all sorts of charts and brought a plentiful supply of tape measures ... but out taking photos? being creative, naa ... I work with generalities with 'good enough' I'm too busy

I'm too busy with the important bits, content, narrative, composition to bother with that stuff ... I've already made that commitment when mounting the lens and loading the film, and anyway I find three angles per pin head to be most aesthetically pleasing ... 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

I can certainly see the difference a lens makes with regards to a shot. I could recreate the look of a Mandler Summilux from an image made with a modern lens, but it would take me hours in front of the monitor. I would need to tweak contrast, change the color tones slightly, change the overall Bokeh structure, add in coma, fringing and all the other issues typical of a 60s piece of optics.

And I guess the accumulation of the things I need to change is, essentially, the "character" of a lens.

My example is that, while I was in Hong Kong, I was interested in recreating the street scenes of the Kung Fu movies of the 70s and 80s, which I have loved as a child. I can choose a location that looks unchanged for a few decades, but I can't make the scene look "antiquated" using a Summilux ASPH or modern Zeiss. But when I use a pre-asph lens, the "look" comes naturally, with little need for processing.

Then clearly you have been paying more attention to date than I have this past fifty years ... I wouldn't know the look of a Mandler Summilux if it bit me on the arse and as for the "change the overall Bokeh structure" well, sorry not a clue ... if my creative vision extended to a single pin sharp cherry-blossom with a really blurry background, a row of railings with just one about two yards away in focus or those really blurred waterfalls one sees on flicker I may well go to the trouble of learning about them though

 

[Sparrow]

I doubt how you can believe yourself. Anybody can take a very educated guess at what a lens will do in a given situation, your tendency to use your nikon 105 for portraits shows that.

... yes exactly, a guess ... its when people try to make out its a science and prove stuff about what is for the most part serendipity that I take issue

 

[YYV_146]

Then clearly you have been paying more attention to date than I have this past fifty years ... I wouldn't know the look of a Mandler Summilux if it bit me on the arse and as for the "change the overall Bokeh structure" well, sorry not a clue ... if my creative vision extended to a single pin sharp cherry-blossom with a really blurry background, a row of railings with just one about two yards away in focus or those really blurred waterfalls one sees on flicker I may well go to the trouble of learning about them though

But surely you'll recognize that some lenses have swirly bokeh, and others have a consistent wall of blur.

You don't have to go all the way with thin DOF to find that bokeh looks different - with objects such a foliage in the background even slightly out of focus the swirl is noticeable.

 

[David Hughes]

I think the signature applies when we shoot, at a sub-conscious level. If we use 50mm lens A with good bokeh, especially good foreground bokeh, we are more comfortable placing elements in front of the focal plane. With a lens B with worse Bokeh but very good-looking flares (of course, this is subjective), then we shoot with less concern about the position of the sun...

Digital has negated much of uniqueness of lenses, but if we are talking about film and you can't sharpen or process out vignetting without significant effort, then I think it is important to get a lens with the "look" that you like.

Hi,

I can't argue with that but I was wondering if anyone had actually compared by, say, taking a series of pictures within a matter of seconds using a different lens (and perhaps camera) but with everything else the same.

I own a few filters for colour temperature correction and so on and yet I've never seen them mentioned on these forums. I also know that almost every camera and meter I've owned had it's own ideas about the correct exposure, everything else and so on, which will also affect the colours. So I wondered how people are actually seeing "signatures" due entirely to the lens and nothing else.

Regards, David

 

[Sparrow]

But surely you'll recognize that some lenses have swirly bokeh, and others have a consistent wall of blur.

You don't have to go all the way with thin DOF to find that bokeh looks different - with objects such a foliage in the background even slightly out of focus the swirl is noticeable.

... well yes, but as I understand it that swirly thing is not just down to the lens, its not always repeatable? and therefor out of the photographers control ...

I'm a bit of a fogey I'm afraid, and firmly in the analytic camp I just don't see the 'good' or 'bad' or 'swirly' thing, I just see appropriate and inappropriate, not an effect introduced to a suitable subject but more often the gratuitous application of an effect regardless of subject.

P. S. ... I'm not criticising the expense here BTW, I'm not in a position to do that given what I've spent over the years

 

[Bob Michaels]

I have gotten feedback for well over a thousand people at the 13 different solo photo exhibits I have had over the last 8 years. I mill around at openings and ask the open ended question "what do you think". The responses are interesting, especially what they never say vis-a-vis internet discussions.

Comments about boken? NEVER have gotten one

Comments about lens signature or lens related? NEVER have gotten one

Comments of any form about equipment? NEVER, once you eliminate the "these are really good, you must have an expensive camera"

Comments about Depth of Field? ONE, that was from my photo editor for my book.

Comments about the fact that my work is black and white? AN AMAZINGLY SMALL NUMBER, maybe 1-2%. Most viewers still do not question the choice.

Comments about content of the photos? NEAR UNANIMOUS.

I long ago came to the personal conclusion that the fascination with photo equipment and technical aspects was basically an internet discussion thing.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Exactly, content is all they notice*.

Selling a camera? make the sample picture a car for men and a kitten for women and it'll sell. Nothing else matters...

Regards, David

* And, as I've said before, I've pencil drawings on the wall here and people think they are B&W photo's...

 

[Michael Markey]

I long ago came to the personal conclusion that the fascination with photo equipment and technical aspects was basically an internet discussion thing.

Oh yes ...agreed ...it doesn`t actually matter in the real world.
But if you are just doing stuff for yourself you can choose what you find is interesting ..I wouldn`t want to make any stronger claims than that.

People go to all sorts of lengths to choose paper and developer ,have their screens calibrated and I suspect that gets scant attention too.