Help me learn about lens signatures

[Scarlet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Google is your friend. And the Wiki.

 

Plus check out the M8 and old glass thread. And don't forget the RFF thread on pre-war glass and the several post your photos threads. And the Flickr M-mount group.

[brianv]

I still like my books, pick up some interesting facts. "The 3-D Look", "Stereoscopic look", "Plastic rendering"- where a lens cast a "3D" look to an image- is mentioned in Neblette, 1965. This is an effect that Dr. Rudolf, well-known for the Tessar, sought to acheive in 1918 with his "Double-Plasmat".

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Deeman]

I did an interesting experiment last year, photographing the same scene with a number of lenses in the 35-50mm range on Leica and Nikon digital cameras. All shots were photographed at f4 on Raw and converted using Camera Raw on default, with no further post-processing. The lenses ranged from £1,500 to £15.

The results were shown (without labels) to a camera club and members were asked to mark which shots they thought were from the most expensive and from cheapest lens and which shot they liked best. A number could see no real difference between the shots and no single person picked out the dearest and cheapest lenses. A number of people liked the £15 lens best; it was of a cheap make and suffered from bad coating blemishes (hence the price).

I'm not sure what this proves, apart from the fact that there are a lot of 'experts' out there who talk a lot of baloney!

Ivan

[stack62]

This lens has a nice "glow" in strongly backlit scenes. It's hard to tell from a jpg on screen, but there's still really good detail and contrast in the face and other parts of the orig. print. Inferior lenses would "flare" out these areas too much. This type of "glow" is the sign of a good lens and one people may use just for this "signature".

 

Leica 35mm f/2 summicron M ASPH at f/4.0

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Cadfael_tex]

yep. The most important thing with buying photo gear is to FIRST define the mission, and then buy the tool to accomplish it.

I alwaysget the creeps when some guy on dpreview (or similar) says that he has a "gap" in his lens line up (for example between his 17-50 zoom and his 70-200 zoom) and that he thinks about a 60mm lens to fill it

 

But, but, I have to have every millimeter from 12 to 600 covered by at least two lenses. However will I cope if I miss one!?! BTW, anybody have a good line on a 94mm f/0.85 lens?

[farnz]

... All shots were photographed at f4 ...

I'm not sure what this proves ...

Ivan,

 

I'm not either unless all lenses were wide open at f/4, which seems unlikely. If you'd shot each lens at its maximum aperture you're likely to have seen a difference (beyond simple shallowness of field) because each lens would have been at its most unforgiving aperture.

 

Pete.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here are some pix from various lenses with some discussion of their "signatures."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

I really ought to update that with the 75 Summilux and 35 Summicron-M (non-ASPH, v.4) now that I have them (again).

 

I kind of agree with Alwyn (Post #2) that perfect lenses would not have signatures - but since "perfect lenses" only exist in the imagination, most real lenses have characteristic looks to one extent or another.

 

Exactly what constitutes a signature varies from lens to lens. Some have a distinctive background blur (bokeh). Some have a distinctive transition from sharp to soft. Some have a lot of corner sharpness fall-off at max. aperture, while others are sharper across the whole image. Some have "glow" like Paul Stack's shot above (although that can be caused by film type (halation) as well). Some have a different kind of "glow", where a blurry image is superimposed on a sharp image in the "almost in focus" transition areas (Mandler's 1980 90 Summicron and 75 Summilux). Some have high resolution but low contrast, while others have high resolution AND high contrast (e.g. 90 Tele-Elmarit-M vs. the last 90 Elmarit-M (no "Tele" - built-in lens shade). Some have stronger vignetting than others, or different flare characteristics.

 

Some have different combinations of the above.

 

And some lenses will change signature with aperture. E.G. the 35 Summicron v.4, (SEE IMAGES) which has a signature (and occasionally obnoxious) bright-ring bokeh wide open (man with lorikeet), which turns into simply an added background "brilliance" when stopped down (girl with puppy).

 

For the most part, "signatures" are not something designed in (except for speciality lenses like the DC-Nikkors or other lenses where soft-focus can be dialed in or was intentional (Leica 90 Thambar)). Instead they are a side-effect of other design factors: technological limits from an era (35 Summilux non-ASPH); balancing of aberrations and flaws (Noctilux 50 f/1 - which has extra vignetting to combat corner fuzziness); attempts to reduce spherical aberration (often resulted in the "bright ring" look prior to the ASPH era).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[brianv]

1936 Uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, wide-open on the M9:

 

Nikki, 1936 Uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar converted to Leica Mount by anachronist1, on Flickr

 

Originally (up to last week) in Contax mount.

 

The nice thing about Leica is having 80 years of optics to choose from. And if someone did not make a particular lens in Leica mount, often it is possible to convert it. This one has the nicest "Bloom" of any uncoated lens that I've seen. If anyone advertises an uncoated lens as having a "nice bloom" or "Tarnish"- that's a good thing. It is a natural lens coating: the oxidized surface of the glass lowers it's index of refraction. This led to the practice of coating optics, basically a synthetic bloom.

Edited July 12, 2012 by brianv

[kanzlr]

But, but, I have to have every millimeter from 12 to 600 covered by at least two lenses. However will I cope if I miss one!?! BTW, anybody have a good line on a 94mm f/0.85 lens?

 

heh, I once read a comment on said forum that advised against combining a 17-70 with a 50-135/2.8 lens due to the overlap and instead recommended the (twice as big, heavy and expensive) 70-200/2.8

[IWC Doppel]

Here are some pix from various lenses with some discussion of their "signatures."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

I really ought to update that with the 75 Summilux and 35 Summicron-M (non-ASPH, v.4) now that I have them (again).

 

I kind of agree with Alwyn (Post #2) that perfect lenses would not have signatures - but since "perfect lenses" only exist in the imagination, most real lenses have characteristic looks to one extent or another.

 

Exactly what constitutes a signature varies from lens to lens. Some have a distinctive background blur (bokeh). Some have a distinctive transition from sharp to soft. Some have a lot of corner sharpness fall-off at max. aperture, while others are sharper across the whole image. Some have "glow" like Paul Stack's shot above (although that can be caused by film type (halation) as well). Some have a different kind of "glow", where a blurry image is superimposed on a sharp image in the "almost in focus" transition areas (Mandler's 1980 90 Summicron and 75 Summilux). Some have high resolution but low contrast, while others have high resolution AND high contrast (e.g. 90 Tele-Elmarit-M vs. the last 90 Elmarit-M (no "Tele" - built-in lens shade). Some have stronger vignetting than others, or different flare characteristics.

 

Some have different combinations of the above.

 

And some lenses will change signature with aperture. E.G. the 35 Summicron v.4, (SEE IMAGES) which has a signature (and occasionally obnoxious) bright-ring bokeh wide open (man with lorikeet), which turns into simply an added background "brilliance" when stopped down (girl with puppy).

 

For the most part, "signatures" are not something designed in (except for speciality lenses like the DC-Nikkors or other lenses where soft-focus can be dialed in or was intentional (Leica 90 Thambar)). Instead they are a side-effect of other design factors: technological limits from an era (35 Summilux non-ASPH); balancing of aberrations and flaws (Noctilux 50 f/1 - which has extra vignetting to combat corner fuzziness); attempts to reduce spherical aberration (often resulted in the "bright ring" look prior to the ASPH era).

 

I really like the 35 IV at f4, it has a little more magic stopped down a little IMO, which is u usual in my limited experience

[IWC Doppel]

Here are some pix from various lenses with some discussion of their "signatures."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

I really ought to update that with the 75 Summilux and 35 Summicron-M (non-ASPH, v.4) now that I have them (again).

 

I kind of agree with Alwyn (Post #2) that perfect lenses would not have signatures - but since "perfect lenses" only exist in the imagination, most real lenses have characteristic looks to one extent or another.

 

Exactly what constitutes a signature varies from lens to lens. Some have a distinctive background blur (bokeh). Some have a distinctive transition from sharp to soft. Some have a lot of corner sharpness fall-off at max. aperture, while others are sharper across the whole image. Some have "glow" like Paul Stack's shot above (although that can be caused by film type (halation) as well). Some have a different kind of "glow", where a blurry image is superimposed on a sharp image in the "almost in focus" transition areas (Mandler's 1980 90 Summicron and 75 Summilux). Some have high resolution but low contrast, while others have high resolution AND high contrast (e.g. 90 Tele-Elmarit-M vs. the last 90 Elmarit-M (no "Tele" - built-in lens shade). Some have stronger vignetting than others, or different flare characteristics.

 

Some have different combinations of the above.

 

And some lenses will change signature with aperture. E.G. the 35 Summicron v.4, (SEE IMAGES) which has a signature (and occasionally obnoxious) bright-ring bokeh wide open (man with lorikeet), which turns into simply an added background "brilliance" when stopped down (girl with puppy).

 

For the most part, "signatures" are not something designed in (except for speciality lenses like the DC-Nikkors or other lenses where soft-focus can be dialed in or was intentional (Leica 90 Thambar)). Instead they are a side-effect of other design factors: technological limits from an era (35 Summilux non-ASPH); balancing of aberrations and flaws (Noctilux 50 f/1 - which has extra vignetting to combat corner fuzziness); attempts to reduce spherical aberration (often resulted in the "bright ring" look prior to the ASPH era).

 

Oh and yes please to updating that excellent thread

[nelly]

For myself each of my lenses has its own character and that can vary from copy to copy

and when you find a lens that has a signature that feels right to you never sell it

[IWC Doppel]

Here are a few shots

 

35 Summilux Aspherical, I love this lens, superb bokeh, sharp, 3D and a look

24 Elmarit-M ASPH, Very resolving but with stunning micro contrast and depth

35 Summilux ASPH. Like the Aspherical, but a little less magic and smoother

28 Summicron ASPH. Amazing resolution and very 'being there', contrast depth and bite

50 Summilux a classic, wonderful lens, very atmospheric and dreamy without being soft

 

I prefer lenses that have depth and a look that is interesting

 

My favourite is without doubt the aspherical, another picture at the bottom, I love it's depth

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[tobey bilek]

I have one lens which used steel in the barrel that was formulated to match the coefficient of expansion of the optics. It maintained focus across temperature range. Light rays entering the front element pass through the lens as a front, and maintained phase as they formed an image. I worked with the optical engineers that designed it, and they worried that no one could actually make it. The lens cost $40K to manufacture almost 30 years ago. Someday I need to mount it on a camera, it was used in an optical computer.

 

Before you mount it, be sure it will focus/perform well at infinity. Do not ask me how.

 

Details are it could be like an enlarging lens that works well within a short range of magnifications, but worth nothing for general photography. I had a Wollensak lens for a view camera that I bought because I saw beautiful pics made with one, all close ups. When I tried to focus at 15 feet, focus rack would go from very blurry, to less blurry, and back to very blurry. It never got sharp or even close to it. Close range subjects were great.

[brianv]

This lens is probably optimized for one distance, using it on a camera is simply out of curiousity. Will probably be the EP2.

 

The older lenses vary more from copy to copy, and if you sell one that suits you- might never find one like it again. I've learned that lesson. And that's how you get thirty 50mm lenses in Leica mount.