Which lens has been used for this picture?

[Cron]

f4 surprises; I think about a lens 40 - 50mm, low contrast, eventually uncoated

 

[Marc-A.]

50mm elmar ?

Nope.

Ok Thirteen gave the right answer, but I suspect he checked my PBase gallery otherwise he is an expert ... Peter' you're pretty good too ... it's an FSU lens: but how do you see that?

So the tight answer is the Helios 103, that costed me $11 !!!!
If I gave a larger print, you'd see a lot of details. This is a modern lens!

what do you think of all this? I'm eager to see other "blind" test:
one picture, guess the lens!

 

[steamer]

I was going to say Gelios 103 but I couldn't think of any reason beyond it looks like my Gelios. Really, I swear. Usually I can't tell what lens has been used.

 

[Marc-A.]

This original picture as it came out from the scam:
http://www.pbase.com/deadalus/image/82474915

It's impossible to say that this lens is less sharp than the Cron. It is less subtle, shows narrower tonal range ... etc but it's not less sharp nor less contrasty ... and for $11 what can you get??

 

[steamer]

Can you get a jambon beurre and a half a beer for that these days?

 

[varjag]

So basically, what you're saying is that lens type makes no difference without out of focus areas in a photograph? Everything from the Jupiter 8 to the collapsible Summicron have been mentioned, and we're only a few posts into the discussion! Could it be, that despite many tests and discussions here about lens "signature" here at RFF, that it is difficult to tell what lens made what photograph? Furthermore, does this show that these determinations of lens signature can be opinionated?

That's not quite what I had in mind. Let me elaborate.

In this particular case, I blindly guessed (mistakenly) an early postwar Leitz lens, since Marc somehow solidly registered in my mind as Leica user and that made other alternatives seem less likely. Hence thought of Helios-103 didn't really cross my mind, even though I shot hundreds of rolls with that lens. This is the undeniable subjective part in such evaluations, showing that a blind test have to really be 100% blind, and that's not just about the lens.

Another issue, most of the normal lenses made since WW2 are relatively minor variations of the same optical design: Planar. Summicron is a Planar, Summitar is a Planar, Hexanon is a Planar, Helios-103 is also a Planar. Which assumes much less variation in the actual character of the lens, and you have to look for other distinguishing sings, like character of the flare, contrast, color rendition, resolution and so on. Obviously, not every shot is made in conditions where these traits come out, and not every test set up uniformly enough to compare those, but when they do they can be definitive.

It gets better when we have differing lens families however: Planar derivatives, Sonnar derivatives, and Tessar/Triplet types can be distinguished more reliably when a test shot provides such an opportunity. The most characteristic is OOF area rendition. For instance, if Marc's shot had background more distant, we'd see line doubling very characteristic to many Planar derivatives and H-103 in particular.

So to summarize: no, one can't determine reliably lens type from every shot. In many instances however it is possible with high degree of confidence.

Does above makes all talk about lens character meaningless? No, because, while you might have a problem determining a lens from random 640x480 web shot done by a person you don't know on film you don't know scanned and viewed without any profiling, you'd still see the difference between lenses on your negs. That's ultimately the important part of it.

 

[Marc-A.]

I understand your point Eugene. BTW, here are others shots with the same lens, on which you can see the background.

 

[Marc-A.]

Any comments on the signature and quality of the Helios 103?

 

[shadowfox]

Marc, on the first of the two pictures (with the cute baby), if you notice the left-top section where the Out of focus has circle pattern, you won't see that if you're using a Jupiter 8 or Sonnar.

How do I know? if you have read this thread, you'll know too
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43000&highlight=helios
DISCLAIMER: All credit goes to nzeeman for the very educating thread.

Btw, I think the Helios 103 is sharp and contrasty. An extremely good and cheap lens.

Now to address your point, certain characteristics of a lens do make some pictures "yummier"/more pleasing to look at. I think it's our job as photographers to determine which scene is better looking using which lens.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Any comments on the signature and quality of the Helios 103?

To me it has a signature similar to the other older lenses mentioned. That means, to me, a more 3 dimensional looking image and not the cookie cutter sharpness of modern lenses. I have mostly older RF lenses and like this look and my more modern SLR lenses have the other look. For $11 it seems hard to beat considering even the other older lenses mentioned cost more. I do like my Helios 103.

Bob

 

[NickTrop]

Ain't nothin' wrong with FSU glass. IMO the quality issues are overstated. I never got a bad one. Best deal in photography.