Do Canon and Nikon lenses create a certain signature look?

[Odot]

Is there a way to say that each brand has a individual look or so or is the film solely responsible for this? By look mean color rendition mostly. I know it also depends on the development of the film but i wonder how much of a role lenses play in this. Thanks.

 

[Leigh B]

Interesting question.

I've always __assumed__ that lenses of different brands have very slightly different color "signatures" due to different anti-reflection coatings being used, but I can't prove that.

So for LF work, where your options are move varied, I try to standardize on one lens brand/series.

- Leigh

 

[Chan Tran]

Lenses may have slight differences in color rendition but I don't think you can see it as signature because the difference in color rendition (even within the same type of film just different batch) of film are much more. Even digital imaging sensor has more of a signature color rendition than the lenses.

 

[tedr1]

I think differences between film types are far greater than color effects of normal lenses, if there are any. I think of it this way. Set up an experiment with the same subject, lighting and two cameras loaded with the same film, one Nikon one Canon, set for the same focal length same aperture and shutter speed. In the center of the image any differences would be slight if any at all. Towards the corners there might be slight differences in sharpness because of small differences in lens quality. Color would be difficult to tell apart. Examined closely at high magnification I have heard it said that Canon lens images tend towards slightly lower resolution with slightly higher contrast whereas Nikon lens images tend towards slightly higher resolution with slightly lower contrast, I do not have any data to support this and I have not verified this with my own tests.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to shoot Zeiss lenses on a Contax. Zeiss claimed that all their lenses were color balanced so that if you shot a roll of film through your camera and changed lenses while shooting, the colors would match perfectly. It wasn't important to me so I never compared my lenses with each other.

I think Leigh is right about different color signatures. There are slight differences but it's not a big deal.

 

[markbarendt]

I think that it's a more individual lens question rather than say a Nikon v Canon v Leica v ... question.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

That link will take you to a page that shows a comparison of various Nikon lenses. What becomes obvious pretty quick when reading through it are the differences even between lenses of the same manufacturer and of the same length. Each lens is unique in it's own way.

 

[film_man]

You'll probably find a more coherent look at the high end lenses vs the cheaper stuff. So for Canon, L glass will have a more coherent look given the better overall qualities, contrast, colour etc. If you shoot with a 35L and a 85L the look will match more vs the cheaper equivalents. Does it have a "look" over say high end Nikon glass? Don't know. Leica and Zeiss used to have a "signature" but even that is now diluted given the divergence and myriad of lenses and series. Look at Zeiss, the 35/50/85 had a look but now there's 3 fast 50s and so on. I think overall they are all going for the uber-sharp, clinical with obliterating bokeh look, basically bland rendering that caters for the pixel peepers. I suppose given the amount of image manipulation happening in post processing they might as well do that as any "character" will be gone.

Saying that, character for me is things like microcontrast, vignetting, in/out of focus transition and background rendering. Lenses that I have/had with a distinctive look would be the ZF 50/1.4, Summicron 50 and Nikon 50/1.2.

 

[fstop]

"Do Canon and Nikon lenses create a certain signature look?"

to answer: Yes they do, crappy lenses produce crappy images, good lenses produce good images. Pretty much its subjective and a waste of time pursuing.

 

[blockend]

A lens has a signature look, but compared to film, development and variation between different lenses of the same brand, it's insignificant. For a tangible difference compare a £50 lens to a £2000 lens of the same aperture and focal length, or a different style of lens (triplet, meniscus, plastic, etc).

 

[TheRook]

I own and use a variety of Nikon and Canon lenses and I do not see a "signature look" for either brand. If someone presented me with a set of prints and asked me which were shot using a Nikon lens and which were shot using a Canon lens, I would not be able to give an answer.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
Years ago before scanners and photoshop you could see different colors when using the same chrome film (and consistent quality processing). I think the "signature look" has been lost through technology.
Rick

 

[fstop]

I own and use a variety of Nikon and Canon lenses and I do not see a "signature look" for either brand. If someone presented me with a set of prints and asked me which were shot using a Nikon lens and which were shot using a Canon lens, I would not be able to give an answer.

I agree,
I used to enter photography contests with images made with my Minolta equipment and on the entry form entered as Nikon always did well.Contests that I entered as using Minolta equipment did not fair as well as those entered as using Nikon. The whole signature thing is bs.
If people know what lens was used it clouds their judgment.