What am I looking at? and how do I find more... (image intense)

[redisburning]

I want to share a few photos with what has become my new favorite lens and is causing me fits because it costs 1/8th of the price of what I thought was going to be THE lens for me.

I could use some help because I dont really understand what is going on with some of the shots, and would like to increase my repeatability and hopefully apply whatever lessons you can give me to my other lenses, or if it's something inherent to the design I need to figure out what else I can buy that will give the same results.

Im going to tell you everything I know, but I do this only to give as complete a picture as I can. But first, some shots that I think demonstrate what it is I am looking for:


butters by redisburning, on Flickr


boss by redisburning, on Flickr

and here is one on cheap print film:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

and here is one at a much closer focus distance, forgive me please for the b&w conversion but it is basically the same with color with that obvious exception:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

so, what do all of these have in common? all are the same lens (zuiko 50mm f3.5), all are shot at the same aperture (f5.6), all are shot in the shade or on a very cloudy day, and at least to me all of them share that same quality that I dont know how to explain or what causes it.

for a counter example, here is a shot from the same lens at the same aperture which I think does NOT demonstrate that quality:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

I would like to know what exactly it is that is happening that is causing this. I assume that it is not simply extreme accutance, as my ZM 50/2 planar should be sharper and contrastier and I have not been able to induce this. I have only seen my samples I shot on Portra 400, however. I bring that up because member Avotius posted an excellent thread of pictures where he used that lens to get what I perceive to be the same effect (we will ignore, I hope, that his pictures have much more aesthetic value than mine). He also used a print film, although I dont know what edge definition is like with Portra vs other films.

His thread can be viewed here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48816

So, what is it that I'm missing? Light? The right medium? A lens with similar characteristics to the 50mm f3.5 Zuiko? Maybe my ZM50P just can't do what his did and what the zuiko does...

I like my Planar, but what Ive seen from it is sort of a boring perfection that has less apparent sharpness. If I look closely, there is very clearly immense detail in my negs, but it just looks flat. Unfortunately I dont really have any shots that I have scanned that were in the same conditions, and like I said they are all on Portra. If it will help, I will post. I also feel like this is not a characteristic look for Zuiko glass.

Thank you for your help and sorry for the length and my inability to offer more helpful information.

 

[DamenS]

If the Zuiko lens is the same one I used to have it is a macro lens. These lenses tend to be sharper than non-macro lenses (though they are sometimes not as sharp when focussed at longer distances), and tend to be slower (though not always). In this case the Olympus is over a stop slower. The faster a lens is, the more compromises one has to make (with Leica lenses, that compromise tends to be price and size rather than ultimate performance which remains good).

It is not clear from compressed JPEGS on a website, or from your explanations exactly what "quality/qualities" of the Olympus lens you wish to replicate (other than "apparent sharpness" and less "flatness").

It sounds as though you like your Zuiko more than your Zeiss. That's fine. As to what M mount lens might also produce this effect (which is what I assume to be your question), I'm not sure I can provide a guess as to what the effect you are enjoying is.

 

[mdarnton]

My Zuiko macro was one of the sharpest lenses I have ever had. Even when it wasn't really sharp, it still looked sharp. I used to use it very successfully for slide duping, for instance. In creaminess, it was definitely the anti-cream lens. The slightly jittery bokeh doesn't hurt the effect, either.

I am not sure, but I think that this was shot with it:


Annie and the coat by Michael Darnton, on Flickr

If you look at one of the larger versions of the same shot, you'll see that the bokeh in front of the plane of focus gets more to hashy doubling of things.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/6560125827/sizes/l/in/set-72157628767257187/

 

[redisburning]

If the Zuiko lens is the same one I used to have it is a macro lens. These lenses tend to be sharper than non-macro lenses (though they are sometimes not as sharp when focussed at longer distances), and tend to be slower (though not always).

It is not clear from compressed JPEGS on a website, or from your explanations exactly what "quality/qualities" of the Olympus lens you wish to replicate (other than "apparent sharpness" and less "flatness").

It sounds as though you like your Zuiko more than your Zeiss. That's fine. As to what M mount lens might also produce this effect (which is what I assume to be your question), I'm not sure I can provide a guess as to what the effect you are enjoying is.

Hmm, well the only way I could see the Zuiko really being sharper/having higher contrast is if my ZM Planar isnt matched properly with my rangefinder. So far I havent noticed any shots with missed focus except at MFD where it is off just a tiny bit.

I wish I could provide better samples. Many of the images were on my old harddrive which crashed.

Oh and any recommendation is fine, doesnt have to be M since I shoot film and you can always find a 35mm body for cheap these days.

My Zuiko macro was one of the sharpest lenses I have ever had. Even when it wasn't really sharp, it still looked sharp. I used to use it very successfully for slide duping, for instance. In creaminess, it was definitely the anti-cream lens. The slightly jittery bokeh doesn't hurt the effect, either.

Well I would agree. The drawing style lacks any subtlety at all. And strangely enough, I really like that. I would love to know what the correct term to describe this is. It's definitely different than having weird/distracting bokeh. Your shot has it, I would say. The focused parts are super in your face.

 

[DamenS]

Oh - when you said "I like my Planar, but what Ive seen from it is sort of a boring perfection that has less apparent sharpness", I kind of assumed that its lack of (apparent) sharpness may have been a concern (as you stated it was). Now that you say that isn't the case at all, I am actually even more at a loss than I was to understand what the differences you see between the Zeiss and the Zuiko actually are, and what it is that you are after (and I was pretty confused before). Can you explicate further ?

 

[zauhar]

All of your examples have a lot of indirect light (including the ones with strong sunlight) - that leads to more 3D appearance (especially in the second of the set). Is that part of what you are looking at?

Very nice shots, that lens is great. I like the "nervous energy" of the OOF areas.

Randy

 

[ferider]

Mostly the light, I'm guessing. Although, except for in the last photo, the Zuiko's high micro-contrast is quite obvious.

Do you see it here ?

 

[redisburning]

Oh - when you said "I like my Planar, but what Ive seen from it is sort of a boring perfection that has less apparent sharpness", I kind of assumed that its lack of (apparent) sharpness may have been a concern (as you stated it was). Now that you say that isn't the case at all, I am actually even more at a loss than I was to understand what the differences you see between the Zeiss and the Zuiko actually are, and what it is that you are after (and I was pretty confused before). Can you explicate further ?

My issue with the Planar is more style than technical. Like I mentioned, when you look closely it is very good at carrying detail but it is subtle, at least on Portra. Very different than the look that Avotius got with his which is honestly what I wanted out of it.

Again I would be really, really surprised if the Zuiko was showing greater resolution than the ZM but they look very different in their rendering.

Like I mentioned before, I dont really have a comparable image from the Planar but here is something that is "sharp" but doesnt have the look of either the Zuiko or what I saw in Avotius' thread


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

Im trying to figure out if it's light, medium, the lens, all of them together?

All of your examples have a lot of indirect light (including the ones with strong sunlight) - that leads to more 3D appearance (especially in the second of the set). Is that part of what you are looking at?

Very nice shots, that lens is great. I like the "nervous energy" of the OOF areas.

Randy

Hmm, well I wonder if that's the case.

3D is a term I associate with Zeiss, though. I need to run some more rolls of c-41 through my M2 to get more shots too look at I guess, I dont have a scanner so Im sort of just accumulating rolls of undeveloped film taken with it.

 

[redisburning]

ferider, in your shot I cannot say I see it. in my own shots, I would say the effect is the strongest in the shot of the pitbull, then the little nut and leaf, then the two of my lab.

I have been looking through ZM50P shots for the last few days and definitely noticed less of this effect than with say the 35/2 biogon or the 25/2.8 biogon; now both of those lenses have better MTF40 lines than the 50/2. While it would be easy to suggest that contrast at such a fine level could be it, I wouldnt think the Zuiko macro would surpass the planar.

 

[ferider]

Hmm. Cann't be resolution or MTF if you can see it in the web-size image.

You pitbull has a nice orange/brown to green contrast, and the dog is lit with soft light (clouds?), while the grass is not. Pretty dog, BTW.

I'm still guessing you like the combo of light, high micro-contrast, and "non-wide open bokeh" in the background.

Try with any other, well-coated 50 that you have in similar light, and closing down to f4 or so ....

 

[redisburning]

Alright, I will buy some c-41 from the drugstore and spam shots in similar conditions with my Planar. All four that I posted were in the shade, as we have a lot of very tall trees in my yard.

The pitbull is actually a neighbors dog, the lab and beagle are mine. He is sweet but because of some issues with people in our little sub-thingy where I live I dont let him come around anymore.

 

[aad]

It's the lighting. After pointing the camera in the right direction, it is the most important item in image quality.

 

[sparrow6224]

red isburning -- it is the lighting. to repeat what aad says directly above. But I suspect it is more than that. Avotius (?) you'll notice is shooting 200 Superia. and he says his camera is overexposing by about a half stop. Superia (he reports that 200 Gold is very similar) is like Ektar -- it likes being overexposed. If you look at the pictures, the one's you like (minus the close up of the plant, which I cannot determine this about) are slightly overexposed and the one you don't like is clearly a bit underexposed (because the meter was fooled a bit by the bright sky). Ektar, which is what I use most often in color print film, in sunny circumstances, does well at ISO 64, and otherwise should be shot at ISO 80. That's 2/3 and 1/3 of stop respectively.

So concentrate on exposure. Experiment and take notes on conditions, exposure, and I'm betting you'll solve your problem. You'll certainly learn a lot.

Or switch to E6, shoot at the box speed, and go broke from the film and processing costs. The quality you're talking about I think is the quality of the zones of positive space (ie the dog) seeming to jump out, to leap, to snap. Slide film tends to achieve this more often than print film.

Apparently if you want to see a REALLY sharp lens get a hold of the OM Macro 50mm f/2. hard to find and mucho dinero.

 

[sparrow6224]

And, Ferider: that image is incredible. I see it there, even if Red don't. Which is to say, the picture has what I think IT is. Can I ask details? Lens, camera, film, processing? Thanks.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I have had similar experiences with various lenses. I always had the impression one lens was drawing better than another. However, when I shot both on tripod with exactly the same subject to camera distance, same framing, same aperture, my initial impressions didn't always prove to be true.

I agree with the above comments that it is a combination of lighting and subject matter.

 

[ferider]

And, Ferider: that image is incredible. I see it there, even if Red don't. Which is to say, the picture has what I think IT is. Can I ask details? Lens, camera, film, processing? Thanks.

Thank you Vince 🙂

If I remember right:

Summicron 35 v3, Tmax 100, yellow filter, Rodinal 1:100.

What made it 3D, IMO, is:

- subdued light on the subject (there was a thin canvas/netting above our heads, protecting from the sun)
- bright background and "f5.6 bokeh" ("wide-open bokeh" is overrated 🙂 ).
- high lens micro-contrast

Roland.

Roland.

 

[d__b]

Does this shot have "it"?


red by TheManWhoWasn'tThere, on Flickr

It's shot with a ZM Planar...

 

[peterm1]

I have found that its is not at all wise to overlook the merits of relatively simple, lenses of modest specification which cna perform exceedingly well within their design parameters. Some of my best performing lenses are of this type. So it does not surprise me at all that a Zuiko 50mm f3.5 lens should be able to prefrom very well. Anyway thats been my experience.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Thank you Vince 🙂

If I remember right:

Summicron 35 v3, Tmax 100, yellow filter, Rodinal 1:100.

What made it 3D, IMO, is:

- subdued light on the subject (there was a thin canvas/netting above our heads, protecting from the sun)
- bright background and "f5.6 bokeh" ("wide-open bokeh" is overrated 🙂 ).
- high lens micro-contrast

Roland.

It is a terrific shot. Interesting, I've a fair number of shots with my 35 Biogon that have a similar '3D structure'. It always amazes me that something flat can seem to have so much depth!

Mike

 

[redisburning]

Does this shot have "it"?


red by TheManWhoWasn'tThere, on Flickr

It's shot with a ZM Planar...

yes, absolutely.

may I ask what film you used, and what you rated it at?

red isburning -- it is the lighting. to repeat what aad says directly above. But I suspect it is more than that. Avotius (?) you'll notice is shooting 200 Superia. and he says his camera is overexposing by about a half stop. Superia (he reports that 200 Gold is very similar) is like Ektar -- it likes being overexposed. If you look at the pictures, the one's you like (minus the close up of the plant, which I cannot determine this about) are slightly overexposed and the one you don't like is clearly a bit underexposed (because the meter was fooled a bit by the bright sky). Ektar, which is what I use most often in color print film, in sunny circumstances, does well at ISO 64, and otherwise should be shot at ISO 80. That's 2/3 and 1/3 of stop respectively.

So concentrate on exposure. Experiment and take notes on conditions, exposure, and I'm betting you'll solve your problem. You'll certainly learn a lot.

Or switch to E6, shoot at the box speed, and go broke from the film and processing costs. The quality you're talking about I think is the quality of the zones of positive space (ie the dog) seeming to jump out, to leap, to snap. Slide film tends to achieve this more often than print film.

Apparently if you want to see a REALLY sharp lens get a hold of the OM Macro 50mm f/2. hard to find and mucho dinero.

well, the portra shot is actually rather significantly overexposed, at least a stop and a half, maybe even too. it was BRUTALLY bright that day + you have the reflection from the sand. this is the 400 variety, btw.

I would love a zuiko 50/2 macro, but it's out of my price range without making some serious sacrifices.

Hmm. Cann't be resolution or MTF if you can see it in the web-size image.

You pitbull has a nice orange/brown to green contrast, and the dog is lit with soft light (clouds?), while the grass is not. Pretty dog, BTW.

I'm still guessing you like the combo of light, high micro-contrast, and "non-wide open bokeh" in the background.

Try with any other, well-coated 50 that you have in similar light, and closing down to f4 or so ....

tried it with the 50mm f1.8 MiJ which is sharp but failed to produce anything close.