Vintage color (35 mm canon & summaron)

J

J. Borger

Well-known
Local time
3:43 AM
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
951
I'm looking for a lens in the 35mm range with lower contrast than my summicron asph ... a lens that gives me a vintage color look (read: verrry pastel) . And will in addition be a good "sunny day" lens for B&W.


Sean Reid suggested the Canon 35/ 2.8 in a recent thread.
After some reading i thought about the Leica summaron 35/2.8 as a possible alternative.

Has anybody sample pictures from one of those lenses (color & B&W) or otherwise information.

About the Canon lenses ... is the colorrendition of the 35/2.8 the same as the 28/2.8 ??

Thanks in advance

Han
 
The color rendition of my Canon 35 is indeed quite similar to that of my Canon 28, not exactly the same, of course, but similar. BTW, the 28 tends to push the shadows more towards black and the 35 is a bit sharper. Both lenses are very soft (they wax and glow) in the outer zones at wider apertures.

The older Leica lenses are good candidates as well. The more pastel look you mention is, I think, created largely by the lower contrast, lower color saturation and less-than-perfect color correction of these older lenses. Others have mentioned that printing decisions play a large role in the look you're describing, and that's very true of course, but my understanding is that you want the original files themselves to have softer and more subtle color - and for that, the lenses will be key.

If you can, I'd start experimenting with lenses using your own subject matter. The kinds of lenses we're discussing here hold their values so reselling the ones that don't work out should be fairly easy. Or go with someone who has a return policy.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Verrrrry convincing Sean ...... especially the 1st sample ..... this is extremely close to the colors i'm after.
Thanks a ton ............. I have to make a phone call and order i'm afraid ;)
Looks like a very nice addition to the summicron for B&W on sunny days too.



Han
 
Yes...I thought that might be what you had in mind. Glad it was. Needless to say, the variations possible in Photoshop, in printing, etc. are huge but the capture itself is the essence and the lens choice is vital to the capture. There are many people here on RFF who seem to understand that but in the larger world....

The 35/2.8 is a very good sunny day lens as well. This summer, outdoors, I've been using the two Canons more than anything else. The fact that they're so compact also makes them easier to pack on the motorcycle (I can fit the R-D1 with the 28/2.8 mounted into a little belt case designed for compact digital cameras).

It's very likely that the older Leica lenses would be as pleasing (in the same way) but at $300 ish each, I snapped up these Canon lenses as I found them.

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sean,

I believed you on the "drawing part" ...... but always had the impression the sunny-day suggestion was not necessary for me. Last couple of weeks i found out it is a verrrrrry welcome addition to have a lower contrast lens !! Had to shoot an event in the mid-noon sun .. lots of black uniforms, white caps & feathers and shining steel music instruments ........... it was too much for the 35 summicron ASPH ... the 50 summicron worked ok but even with that lens it was verrry chalenging and i blew more than 1 picture even with 1-2 stops underexposure and setting the Black&White points to the extremes in the converter!


The Canon is on its way with return policy .....

Thanks again

Han
 
Last edited:
When you are ready for a "fast 50" along these lines, try a Summarit. I have one in M-Mount for the M3 and in LTM for the Canon 7. It just picks up more detail without "clipping" the highlights and shadows. At F4 it is quite sharp, wide-open it is "pleasing". They do require CLA's every 15~20yrs as haze does build up in them, but they go cheap. Mine were under $140 each, add an $80 CLA on top of that and they are still cheap.
 
Thanks for the tip Brian .. i will look for a good clean copy of that lens too.
I already noticed you have some very nice "old color" in several pictures in your gallery ............ unfortunately the lensinfo is not included most of the time.

Do you have a sample of the 50 summarit wide open .... or below f4 in that gallery??

Han
 
The lens info got wiped out with the change to the gallery software. I used to have all my photo's sorted in galleries my lens type.

The indoor shot is of my daughter, Kodacolor 400 and wide-open. Can you believe that that Ice-Cream cone just screamed "Ouch".

And the 2nd is outdoors at F4. Both taken with the Canon 7, Selenium meter used for exposure. The Summarit was CLA'd at Essex in New Jersey.

The Third shows the lens used in direct sunlight, probably ~F5.6 and with a high shutter speed.
 
Last edited:
J. Borger said:
Sean,

I believed you on the "drawing part" ...... but always had the impression the sunny-day suggestion was not necessary for me. Last couple of weeks i found out it is a verrrrrry welcome addition to have a lower contrast lens !! Had to shoot an event in the mid-noon sun .. lots of black uniforms, white caps & feathers and shining steel music instruments ........... it was too much for the 35 summicron ASPH ... the 50 summicron worked ok but even with that lens it was verrry chalenging and i blew more than 1 picture even with 1-2 stops underexposure and setting the Black&White points to the extremes in the converter!


The Canon is on its way with return policy .....

Thanks again

Han
Click to expand...

My pleasure. I wasn't thinking of you when I made the comment about the article falling somewhat on deaf ears but rather of the many posts I still see (in various places outside RFF) suggesting that "Leica lenses are "wasted" on the R-D1", etc., etc. The usual thing. So it's refreshing to come here and find people who are interested in the many different ways that these lenses influence the nature of photographic drawing. It's also interesting to read posts by someone like yourself who is interested in a quieter and more subtle color palette.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Sukiari said:
YOu can always artificially reduce contrast and saturation after the exposure, especially if you shoot RAW files.
Click to expand...

That's true but the result doesn't look the same as a capture made with a lens of lower contrast, lower saturation, less accurate color, etc.. There are, sometimes subtle, signature qualities of lenses that are not easily reproduced after the fact even with very skilled PS work.

You also cannot regain highlight or shadow detail that isn't in the RAW file so if the lens contrast blows it out, it's gone for good.

Sean
 
I second Brian's suggestion of getting a Summarit. I have quite a few 50s, but the images made by the Summarit are really special. Here is one taken wide open.
 
> YOu can always artificially reduce contrast and saturation after the exposure, especially if you shoot RAW files.

That is only true if the intensity values are not clipped, ie zero-valued pixels and saturated pixels (4095 for 12 bit mode). The beauty of using a low-contrast lens on a digital camera is that it "compresses" the intensity values to prevent clipping. The response of the CCD is more linear with intensity than is film, and contrast can be expanded after the image is made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom