Characteristic "looks" of different BRANDS?

[removed account4]

hi mark

while i do beleive that there are a few factors that do creep in and give lenses a "look"
i think ( like you said ) the look is more what a photographer does with a lens than anything else.
and my comment were more splitting hairs than reality.
like everything, people that want to see differences will see differences. its something to
talk about, brag about chest thump about, collect &c.
great glass, cr@ppy glass, if the person doesn't use it its just glass ...

 

[4season]

When I go into certain other discussion forums and hear about "micro contrast", I think it's been overtaken by audiophiles.

*Ouch* I used to be guilty of that.

Not aware of any brand "look" unless the optics are deliberately designed to distort in certain ways.

All lenses are a result of compromise, and it's up to the designers and marketers to decide which compromises to accept based on criteria such as total cost, desired features and overall size.

 

[Alan Gales]

The Mamiya SF lenses for the RZ and RB cameras do have a different look. Of course they purposely introduce spherical aberrations to create a soft focus look.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A lot of the old sterotypes just don't apply anymore. For example, Nikon makes lenses specifically for smooth out-of-focus rendering, with
even curved aperture blades per se, while still retaining high sharpness. The same people who make Zeiss lenses also make them to fit Nikon
and Canon. You really have to go on a case by case basis. In large format, you can use almost any lens of any vintage on any camera if the image circle is big enough. In medium format, lenses have simply evolved within any given brand, if it's been around awhile. For example, I own the Pentax 67 system, and each different focal length I own has a bit of a different personality, and this differs from older lenses of equivalent focal length. My latest acquisition was the 300 EDIF, which is one of the sharpest telephotos ever made - I even use it with a Nikon adapter sometimes - yet also has superb bokeh and color balance. That lens utterly tanks the myth that Pentax lenses aren't equal to the far more expensive Zeiss units found on certain MF brands. So do a couple of others. But some people still go out and adapt
old fuzzy telephotos to these things because that happens to be the particular "look" they want. More power to them. Fine with me. I do the
same thing with large format lenses, and carry several different version of 14 inch focal length, because each renders the subject differently. They're all incredibly sharp, so that's not what it's about.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Folks who insist there are no differences, most likely shoot dumb-ass snapshots at ƒ/8 or above, and have eyesight problems too.

There are differences between individual lenses. But you cannot say all lenses from brand X have a certain quality or "look" that allows you to distinguish them from brand Y.

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

To capture and hold customers.

Each manufacturer makes lenses (the actual lens body) to work with the mechanical linkages or electronic interface required by their own camera bodies. When customers buy these lenses, they tend to stay with that brand.

From the viewpoint of optical design and performance, you can't say all lenses of brand X have a certain look that is different from brand Y. An individual lens, yes - all lenses, no.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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?

Yes, there is a difference. But those are two specific lenses . The original poster was asking about a common "look" that could be attributable to specific brands, not individual lenses.

 

[Alan Gales]

Here is a thread Emil Schildt (Gandolfi) started on LFPF that is really interesting about the different "looks" of lenses. It's large instead of medium format but that's where you will find lenses with character.

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...126648-Lenses-and-their-quot-personality-quot

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Here is a thread Emil Schildt (Gandolfi) started on LFPF that is really interesting about the different "looks" of lenses. It's large instead of medium format but that's where you will find lenses with character.

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...126648-Lenses-and-their-quot-personality-quot

Cool link.

Yes, the Petzval lens is really distinctive. A lot of people like the swirly bokeh, but I find it distracting - like mirror-lens donut bokeh (although that can look nice sometimes).

 

[removed account4]

jim galli does the same sort of lens comparison thing on his website
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

but i think there is a big difference between
old antique brass, cast aluminum &c lenses
and off the line common consumer 35mm and MF lenses.
they are sort of apples and oranges...

 

[DaveInAZ]

Well, so much for feeling welcome here.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Well, so much for feeling welcome here.

I assure you that you are very welcome here. In my responses, my viewpoint was that a person cannot identify one brand versus the other based on the images produced. A few have misinterpreted the discussion and take it to mean one individual lens versus another, which is not what you were looking for I think.

You will like it here and I hope will find it worthwhile - at least more worthwhile than endless Sony MILC vs. Canikon debates!

 

[Dan Fromm]

So, is there a similar body of "common knowledge" regarding MF lenses?

Thanks!

The consensus of the answers is "no."

Well, so much for feeling welcome here.

I'm sorry you didn't like the answers you got. As I read the thread, no one abused you for trolling (trying to start fights among strangers) or asking a silly question. What more do you want?

 

[Alan Gales]

Well, so much for feeling welcome here.

You are very welcome here.

We are just giving you a straight answer. All that nonsense about one lens line exhibiting this whatever that is better than that lens line is what manufacturers told so we would buy their stuff. Either that or what camera salesmen used to tell to steer customers to the lenses that they made the most profit on.

Back in the day there was a popular saying that if you were not happy with your 35mm lenses then you needed to move up a format. It's a bit of the same with medium format although you won't find as big a difference moving up to 4x5 large format from 6x7 medium format as you will from 35mm to 6x6 or 6x7. I think 35mm to 645 is a good enough jump although some on this forum disagree.

 

[MattKing]

Well, so much for feeling welcome here.

As others have said, you are welcome here.

We just disagree with some of the conclusions/assumptions inherent in the beginning post of your thread.

A lot of us have worked through these issues in the past, both from the perspective of users and from the perspective of camera equipment sellers.

And we have encountered this "commonly held" knowledge from all sorts of people. And it is somewhat frustrating.

Most likely, if you had just asked your question, without including your conclusions/assumptions in your opening post, our responses might have shown a little less frustration. Otherwise though, they probably wouldn't have been much different.

It was a good question, even if the answers weren't to your taste.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, you will inevitably find different opinions from different people. For example, in my experience, moving up from medium format to even 4x5 was a greater qualitative jump than even from 35mm to MF. With a 6x9 rollfilm back actually on a 4x5 camera, it's kinda in between. So I prefer to think more in terms of logistical pros and cons. The nice thing about bigger film is that you don't have to obsess so much about lens sharpness or film grain, since you have a surplus of film real estate, and can more efficiently factor in other options or potential qualities too. But brand differences have in many cases nearly vanished given similar formulas, modern quality control, and the ubiquity of assets like multicoating. Fortunately, there are plenty of older lenses still around when you prefer their options of "look" instead. And sometimes, to get to the truth, you just have to find out for yourself, and test something. Part of the fun of it, though most of us can't
afford to try just everything, and do need some hints from people with previous experience before committing our limited funds.

 

[Sean Mac]

Well, so much for feeling welcome here.

I would echo the "welcomes" and think it was a fair question.

The consensus that there is little perceptible difference may be because few of these designs are not derivative of the classic Zeiss formulations.

It's likely that any development of a MF lens during the last century will have been closely compared to its Zeiss equivalent during the prototype phase. It would be brave or stupid not to.

Sadly there is more than one way to troll a forum

Mostly this is a positive sort of place.

 

[ic-racer]

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!

Do you have any images that demonstarate these "Known" facts or is this just something you read?

 

[Sirius Glass]

After World War II there were contrast differences in the contrast of German and Japanese lenses.
Multicoated lenses may look different that uncoated lenses in certain situations.
Some lenses used at full aperture show some differences that disappear at smaller apertures [larger f/numbers]
Some older lenses were designed to have a softer focus for the Pictoricalists.

With rare exception one cannot accurately distinguish between modern lenses used at intermediate apertures.

 

[Ian Grant]

I would echo the "welcomes" and think it was a fair question.

The consensus that there is little perceptible difference may be because few of these designs are not derivative of the classic Zeiss formulations.

It's likely that any development of a MF lens during the last century will have been closely compared to its Zeiss equivalent during the prototype phase. It would be brave or stupid not to.

Sadly there is more than one way to troll a forum

Mostly this is a positive sort of place.

The claims of derivation from Zeiss formulations is irrelevant because the major difference between Zeiss (& Leica) and Japanese post-WWII lenses is the micro-contrast and variations of the same lens designs.

In terms of MF though it's nothing remotely like 35mm where the differences are visible in quite moderately sized prints. I worked alongside (same building) a Commercial/Advertising photographer for a few years and we'd help each other out. He had a Bronica S2a system with Zenazon, Nikkor and CZJ lenses and on 120 you couldn't tell which lens had been used.

Something that always surprised me was after shooting at a wedding and showing my friend (the groom) the images he said you;ve bought a new camera, he knew I used Pentax 355 - he was right and amazed when I said yes but it's an early 6o's Leica M3 and Summicron.

Then a few years ago I processed and printed some films for a friend, he'd also worked for me. The deal was I processed, printed etc no charge but kept his camera and lenses in exchange. 35mm all shot on CZJ lenses with an Exacta Varex 1000 the quality was outstanding, so rich and tonal and so different to what you got from Japanese lenses.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

The claims of derivation from Zeiss formulations is irrelevant.

False, too.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

Absolutely NOT!

The reason for shooting film for me is because I enjoy the process and I enjoy darkroom work and getting away from computers, which already dominate my professional life as well as much of my daily life, and feeling like I'm actually crafting something. As for the look, in color I doubt very much I could tell the difference between the best RA4 print and the best inkjet print of the same image from a few feet away given good quality in both, and absolutely not between a shot-on-film RA4 print and one shot (well) digitally and printed on RA4 via Lightjet or the like. Black and white inkjet is a bit more different and might show up from a bit farther away but can still be very, very good.

The reason for shooting film is that I enjoy working with it.

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.

This. There may be some differences that can be discerned if carefully enough examined but in almost all cases they are differences that just don't make much difference, given quality lenses of whichever type and quality samples of same.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I didn't read all pages. Maybe it was written here before. Yes, brands comparison is valid for me.
Very simple.
Made in Germany, managed from Germany brands have interesting lenses for film in any format. They give something special often without huge price tag.
Made in Japan, original Japaneese lenses in any film format are boring.
But it might be just me. I don't mix wasabi and soya sauce. I eat wasabi straight.
Banzai! Ko.

 

[eddie]

I think we're prone to see differences because we need to justify the money we plunked down on a new lens.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Absolutely NOT!

The reason for shooting film for me is because I enjoy the process and I enjoy darkroom work and getting away from computers, which already dominate my professional life as well as much of my daily life, and feeling like I'm actually crafting something. As for the look, in color I doubt very much I could tell the difference between the best RA4 print and the best inkjet print of the same image from a few feet away given good quality in both, and absolutely not between a shot-on-film RA4 print and one shot (well) digitally and printed on RA4 via Lightjet or the like. Black and white inkjet is a bit more different and might show up from a bit farther away but can still be very, very good.

The reason for shooting film is that I enjoy working with it.
...

Yes, exactly. Invariably, when a digital shooter approaches me to sneer about my choice of film over digital with such remarks as (how quaint, nobody shoots film anymore). The taunts don't bother me as I know how blatantly false they are. The second attack is usually that I am looking for a "nostalgic" look I can't get with digital. My response is usually "I don't know anything about *that*, but I do know how much I like working with film". This is usually the end of the conversation.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yes, exactly. Invariably, when a digital shooter approaches me to sneer about my choice of film over digital with such remarks as (how quaint, nobody shoots film anymore). The taunts don't bother me as I know how blatantly false they are. The second attack is usually that I am looking for a "nostalgic" look I can't get with digital. My response is usually "I don't know anything about *that*, but I do know how much I like working with film". This is usually the end of the conversation.

Carry with you a couple of prints you made from 4x5 and pull them out when they sneer at your film. That ought to shut them up.