Characteristic "looks" of different BRANDS?

Hi!

I'm not looking to start another "brand x is better than brand y" dog fight. I'm at the point where my research has led me to the conclusion that all of the major brands are good. Maybe not 100% equal, but equal enough that I'm far more likely to be the difference between a great image and a mediocre one than the equipment is. It also seems like I'm never going to be printing anything large enough to see much difference between the various formats.

So, I'm thinking that, assuming there are any commonly acknowledged characteristic "looks" among the different brands, that might be the way to narrow down my selection. The whole point of shooting film is to get a look that can't be replicated by digital, right? But, given the same level of expertise, the same film, the same light, same relative field of view, etc., etc... all user-controllable factors being equal... will a shot taken with, say, a brand x lens generally have a noticeably different look from one taken with a brand y lens. Not specific lenses! I'm talking about brands. That is, is there a "family resemblance" among lenses made by the same manufacturer that is different than the "family resemblance" among lenses of another manufacturer?

For instance, in the 35mm world, Leica is known for super-high resolution and strong micro-contrast, which gives shots taken with their lenses a characteristic look (assuming competence by the photographer), which some people hate and others worship. Nikon lenses generally are sharper than Canon, Zeiss tend to be sharper still, with a distinctive color rendering and bokeh, and so on. A lot of this is lost on those who have only known digital photography, but I assume it must also exist among medium format makers. So, is there a similar body of "common knowledge" regarding MF lenses?

Thanks!

Hallucinating will help you see the differences.

None that I know of.

Same applies to the 35mm world.

There is some consistency within brands respecting things like size and ergonomics. Also, some brands may favour contrast over resolution (or vice versa) when making the compromises that the real world and physics inevitably mandate.

There may also be some consistency within brands with respect to colour response.

But almost none of those tendencies will be detectable when evaluating prints or slides.

When I was young I shot Contax with the famous Zeiss lenses. I joined St. Louis Camera club. Every week we would show our slides on the screen for critique. People had every brand camera possible including the Leica, Contax, Nikon and Canon which you mentioned. To save my life while looking up at that screen I could not tell you what was shot with what.

I have owned Hasselblad, Mamiya 6x7, Pentax 645, Bronica 645 and Bronica 6x6 with Nikkor and Bronica lenses. It's the same thing.

Sure there are differences in lenses but in the real world it doesn't seem to matter that much. It's the photographer who makes a difference.

If you are looking for help deciding on a medium format camera you need to decide on format size and if you need the versatility of interchangeable lenses first. A Carl Zeiss lens won't do you any good on a 6x7 camera.

If you are really into lenses with character then you need to look at large format where you can buy lenses made from the 1800's to fairly recently.

Dave you are right in that you are the biggest variable.

Few can prove that one brand or the other has such consistent qualities that you can specifically pick it out but in time and with trying a variety you do learn what you like and what gives you the results you want.

Dan Fromm said:

Hallucinating will help you see the differences.

Click to expand...

markbarendt said:

Dave you are right in that you are the biggest variable.

Click to expand...

+1

DaveInAZ said:

... The whole point of shooting film is to get a look that can't be replicated by digital, right?

Click to expand...

No. Shooting film is not done in response to anything (except maybe by those 20 and younger). I shoot film because I enjoy the entire process: the different films, the cameras, the development and printing. I shoot digital as well (D700, X-Pro1), but film photography is more satisfying.

But, given the same level of expertise, the same film, the same light, same relative field of view, etc., etc... all user-controllable factors being equal... will a shot taken with, say, a brand x lens generally have a noticeably different look from one taken with a brand y lens. Not specific lenses! I'm talking about brands. That is, is there a "family resemblance" among lenses made by the same manufacturer that is different than the "family resemblance" among lenses of another manufacturer?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I have excellent Leica lenses, Nikon lenses, Canon lenses, Carl Zeiss lenses (for Hasselblads and Exaktas), Pentax lenses, and so on (over 40 cameras...). There is no difference, no look, nothing.

For instance, in the 35mm world, Leica is known for super-high resolution and strong micro-contrast, which gives shots taken with their lenses a characteristic look (assuming competence by the photographer), which some people hate and others worship.

Click to expand...

Pure fantasy. There is no "Leica look" - even if Leica themselves claim it. I dare anyone in a blind experiment to identify a photo shot with a Leica. I have nothing against Leica, as I have two each of M3's, M6's, and Leicaflex SL's. When I go into certain other discussion forums and hear about "micro contrast", I think it's been overtaken by audiophiles. Thom Hogan just wrote a relevant article about technical vs. aesthetic aspects that touched on this:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/are-you-better-technically.html

Nikon lenses generally are sharper than Canon, Zeiss tend to be sharper still, with a distinctive color rendering and bokeh, and so on. A lot of this is lost on those who have only known digital photography, but I assume it must also exist among medium format makers. So, is there a similar body of "common knowledge" regarding MF lenses?

Click to expand...

More fantasy. I can compare the MTF curves of my Zeiss lenses, Nikon lenses, and Leica lenses, and some are "better" than the other, depending on the individual lens. Even so, you'll never see it in the final result unless all you do is photograph test charts.


So... ignore all the brands and equipment and just make photos you enjoy looking at.

Theo said, and I use film because I like it and enjoy it. The only thing I do digital is computer work.

hi dave
I'm not hallucinating and I can tell the differncbetween some of my lenses,
maybe not the bodies .. stopped down lenses will seem to look similar but wide-open
you may see differences in the way lenses may render a scene. 35mm and 1/2 frame I use Pentax, Leica and Olympus ...
the same can be said for the things I use fo 4x5 and above .. I don't use a MF camera except for a
Agfa box camera .. and it certainly renders differently than anything else ...
I don't really worry too much about what looks how or why .. cause in the end it's about having a good time.. not what lens did what ..

> There is no difference, no look, nothing.

Ther may be one different point: Bokeh. Bokeh and sharpness play against each other. Smooth unsharp image content wil be reproduced by lenses which have a degree of spherical aberration, which reduces in-focus sharpness.

People tend to see what they think they should see. I remember the marketing ploy used a few years ago about "silver rich" old style emulsions. Marketing weasels have no shame.

piu58 said:

> There is no difference, no look, nothing.

Ther may be one different point: Bokeh. Bokeh and sharpness play against each other. Smooth unsharp image content wil be reproduced by lenses which have a degree of spherical aberration, which reduces in-focus sharpness.

Click to expand...

For a specific lens, yes - for example I get different bokeh from my five-bladed Canon 50/1.8 than I do my Nikon 135/2 DC lens (which has an extra ring to allow control of bokeh).

However, those are specific lenses. Among the different brands I do not think it is possible to make a statement characterizing the bokeh, colors, or aberrations and claim those qualities are unique to that brand.

I say there is a distinctive look, but only to some lenses and only when used without stopping down. Most of the really fast lenses in MF have a look that is somewhat special. The Zeiss 110/2 Planar or the East-German 180/2,8 Sonnar are examples that come to my mind. Also very special is the Fuji GX680 with the 180/3,2 or the Contax 645 with 80/2 Planar. And although all being fast, these lenses also have a very different bokeh each. Differences vanish however once you stopped down to f8. Anyway, these are extremes, and I doubt that anyone could distinguish images made with the common, not so fast standard lenses of the various brands.

There is a look but generally that look is mostly seen with certain lenses and certain shooting conditions. I wouldn't probably be able to pick them apart on a blind 1-1 test but if I sit down and look at 40-50 images with, say, a Zeiss and another 40-50 with a Leica or whatever then you start seeing it.

I'll speak from my own experiences (according to Lightroom that's over 11000 shots in the last 3 years split about 50-50 with 35mm and medium format) but here are some examples I have noticed:

The Contax 645 and the 80/2 wide open are quite distinctive. Stop it down though and it is just another lens.

The Zeiss SLR look from Hasselblads/Rolleis (the 600x variety) is quite similar to the Zeiss SLR look you get in 35mm with their older lenses, ie 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/.14 (not the uber sharp modern digital stuff they make). I shot side by side a 'blad and a FM2n+35/2+50/1.4 and the look matches perfectly. I have shot side by side the 'blad with modern Canon/Nikon AF lenses and you can immediately see the difference in style.

The Mamiya RB67 (KL lenses) look (which I think is similar to the RZ look) is different from the Zeiss 'blad/rollei look. The Mamiya has creamier bokeh and a more vibrant (perhaps) colour but that colour stuff is very subtle and could be just down to shooting conditions. The bokeh though is apparent if you put them side by side, especially as you get closer in shooting distances.

I shot with a Zeiss 50/2 (M-mount) for a few months and that does have a distinctive look on its own, which is very sharp with in-your-face contrast which in the end I found unpleasant. The same was true for the Mamiya 6 which is super sharp and contrasty to the point of being harsh. Funnily enough both the ZM 50/2 and the Mamiya 6 50 and 75 lenses vignette quite a bit wide open so that made them look like each other even more.

I shot with a 35 and a 50 Summicron-R for a year and the look vs the Zeiss is like the Mamiya RB vs the Zeiss. The summicrons are sharp but creamy in the background and the fall-off areas.

Bronicas (had SQB and ETRSi) are, if there is one word, a bit mellow. Sharp but not too much and the colour a bit muted, probably because of the slightly lower contrast.

So yeah, there is a difference, you may or may not see it if you look really hard, if the shooting is wide open to maybe f/4 and if the lighting conditions are right. But for someone shooting city/landscapes or just holiday pics the differences will most likely never be seen, which is why some people say they see them and some say they don't. I'd say the difference mostly apparent shooting wide open (or around f/2.8 in 35mm gear) and at under 3m distance. Beyond that and stopped down there is no difference.

if all lenses were exactly the same why would lens makers do all sorts of things in RD to differentiate their different lenses, ways they make, coat &c.
i think there might be subtle differences but what do i know, it must be the pleather fumes

Yes there's differences in the characteristics of lenses used on different MF cameras but because 120 (which ever format) is enlarged less than 35mm (for the same size print) the effects are less noticeable.

If you are talking about the higher end of the MF market then there's little difference between Hasselblad lenses, Rollei (SLR) lenses, MAmiya & Bronica SLR lenses and some of the lenses used on 120 Rangefinder cameras.

Where you would see a difference is older cameras with Tesar type lenses or even Triplets but mostly at wider apertures, there's a different feel/look to images made with a Tessaar/Xenar/Yashinon at wider aprtures compared to my Xenotar or Mamiya Sekors by f11 & f16 it's harder to tell them apart, As I'm more interested in using them I don't bother testing to compare.

Ian

It's funny hour on APUG, again. :munch:

Folks who insist there are no differences, most likely shoot dumb-ass snapshots at ƒ/8 or above, and have eyesight problems too.
It's quite funny how photographers pride themselves, while talk dismissive about lenses and their irreversible impact on photographs.

Theo Sulphate said:

...
Absolutely not. I have excellent Leica lenses, Nikon lenses, Canon lenses, Carl Zeiss lenses (for Hasselblads and Exaktas), Pentax lenses, and so on (over 40 cameras...). There is no difference, no look, nothing.
...

Click to expand...

If there is no difference, then why have all these Leica lenses, Nikon lenses, Canon lenses, Carl Zeiss lenses?
Spread across several incompatible systems?
...Just to see it for yourself, ehh?

georg16nik said:

It's quite funny how photographers pride themselves, while talk dismissive about lenses and their irreversible impact on photographs.

Click to expand...

Sure there are differences, but if we talking about something even vaguely specific, like mid-80's 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras of any brand used at f/2, then how much wine someone had with dinner is probably a bigger factor in image quality than the differences in the lenses themselves, IMO.

georg16nik said:

If there is no difference, then why have all these Leica lenses, Nikon lenses, Canon lenses, Carl Zeiss lenses?
Spread across several incompatible systems?

Click to expand...

Money?

:munch:

here it comes

markbarendt said:

Sure there are differences, but if we talking about something even vaguely specific, like mid-80's 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras of any brand used at f/2, then how much wine someone had with dinner is probably a bigger factor in image quality than the differences in the lenses themselves, IMO...

Click to expand...

A typical 6 (or 8) blades 50/1.4 for SLR vs 16 blades Summilux 50/1.4, focused at close distance and @ ƒ/2.
No difference?
Or why not Zeiss “Hollywood” 28/2 vs any middle of the road 28.. with no FLE, close distance and @ ƒ/2.

georg16nik said:

focused at close distance

Click to expand...

Seriously, this qualifier plays straight into the idea behind my tounge-in-cheek wine comment.

The depth of field is going to be short enough with your qualifier that any amount of wobble, on the photographers or subjects part, will have a bigger effect on photo than any difference in lens quality. In fact an autofocus lens might have a distinct advantage in reliable print sharpness in a situation like that.

Put your subject in a head brace and the camera on a tripod and you might have a case.

markbarendt said:

Seriously, this qualifier plays straight into the idea behind my tounge-in-cheek wine comment.

The depth of field is going to be short enough with your qualifier that any amount of wobble, on the photographers or subjects part, will have a bigger effect on photo than any difference in lens quality. In fact an autofocus lens might have a distinct advantage in reliable print sharpness in a situation like that.

Put your subject in a head brace and the camera on a tripod and you might have a case.

Click to expand...

A look is not just sharpness but also contrast, colour, vignetting, fall-off between in/out focus areas, sharpness edge-to-edge vs just centre, bokeh artefacts just to name a few things. What you're talking about is moving the focus point. You don't need a head brace and tripod, just say "hold still". Most adults seem to manage that for a second or two for you to do the do.

film_man said:

A look is not just sharpness but also contrast, colour, vignetting, fall-off between in/out focus areas, sharpness edge-to-edge vs just centre, bokeh artefacts just to name a few things. What you're talking about is moving the focus point. You don't need a head brace and tripod, just say "hold still". Most adults seem to manage that for a second or two for you to do the do.

Click to expand...

Sure, the look is based on a variety of things.

The point I'm trying to make is that bigger (much bigger) differences are made by our choices. Things like deciding on how close to stand to your subject. At about 2 feet from the subject (typical head and shoulders portrait framing) with a 50mm lens at f/2 the DOF is about 1 cm. With the DOF that shallow, just breathing is going to change the look, and acceptability, of any particular frame we shoot. If we back away from the subject to get more DOF we have changed the framing, the amount of detail we can get, and the subjects relationship to the film grain. If we stop down instead the look becomes more generic.

All the variables, benefits, and drawbacks need to be considered and every choice we make has it's consequences.

These thoughts aren't meant to dis great glass, just to provide a real world context.