burninfilm
Well-known
Okay, I've teased you long enough.
This IS a 50mm f2.0 Summicron. In fact, it's a 1962 vintage Rigid Summicron. A very nice lens, and perfectly capable of very sharp, contrasty results. I can't remember what aperture I used, but it was likely a bit under f11. Like I stated, however, I can't remember for sure.
Now, I don't want to come across as someone looking to prove others wrong. Yes, it is obviously difficult to determine what lens produced what picture. For this reason, I believe many people dwell to deeply upon the subject of lens rendition. And, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that how the negative is treated AFTER exposure causes more variability in the final image than what the lens burns into the negative. Surely, lenses of different design and calculation treat light differently, and consequently have different treatments upon the image (in fact, Raid's lens tests have shown this as true). However, these differences aren't obvious enough to be able to determine what exact lens made which exact picture. Surely, some images were obviously made from certain lens types (for instance, it's fairly easy to determine if a vintage photograph was made with a box camera with a meniscus lens). Yet, it is nearly impossible to determine what TYPE of box camera, with a certain design of meniscus lens, made which image. This same reasoning applies to more complex lens designs like Planar, Tessar, Heliar, etc. It may be possible to say which images were made by which type, but I don't know how accurately. Consequently, if we are going to be discussing lens "signatures", I believe more information is required before we can be sure of what exact "signature" a lens ACTUALLY makes.
This IS a 50mm f2.0 Summicron. In fact, it's a 1962 vintage Rigid Summicron. A very nice lens, and perfectly capable of very sharp, contrasty results. I can't remember what aperture I used, but it was likely a bit under f11. Like I stated, however, I can't remember for sure.
Now, I don't want to come across as someone looking to prove others wrong. Yes, it is obviously difficult to determine what lens produced what picture. For this reason, I believe many people dwell to deeply upon the subject of lens rendition. And, as I mentioned earlier, I believe that how the negative is treated AFTER exposure causes more variability in the final image than what the lens burns into the negative. Surely, lenses of different design and calculation treat light differently, and consequently have different treatments upon the image (in fact, Raid's lens tests have shown this as true). However, these differences aren't obvious enough to be able to determine what exact lens made which exact picture. Surely, some images were obviously made from certain lens types (for instance, it's fairly easy to determine if a vintage photograph was made with a box camera with a meniscus lens). Yet, it is nearly impossible to determine what TYPE of box camera, with a certain design of meniscus lens, made which image. This same reasoning applies to more complex lens designs like Planar, Tessar, Heliar, etc. It may be possible to say which images were made by which type, but I don't know how accurately. Consequently, if we are going to be discussing lens "signatures", I believe more information is required before we can be sure of what exact "signature" a lens ACTUALLY makes.
