Decimusmaximus7 Posted August 25, 2022 Share #1 Posted August 25, 2022 Advertisement (gone after registration) I see posts of people who are trying to match the looks that particular lens give when putting together a set. How well would a 1961 v1 50mm Summmilux match the look of a 1964 90mm Tele-Elmarit Fat? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 25, 2022 Posted August 25, 2022 Hi Decimusmaximus7, Take a look here Comparing the “Look” of different lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted August 25, 2022 Share #2 Posted August 25, 2022 Is it a 50/1.4 v1 (11014) or v2 (11114)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decimusmaximus7 Posted August 25, 2022 Author Share #3 Posted August 25, 2022 1 hour ago, lct said: Is it a 50/1.4 v1 (11014) or v2 (11114)? It is the v1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 25, 2022 Share #4 Posted August 25, 2022 30 minutes ago, Decimusmaximus7 said: It is the v1 I have no experience with the Summilux 50/1.4 v1 sorry but it is an earlier lens than the T-E "fat" 90/2.8. I would rather match it with an Elmar 90/4 ELANG or ILNOO but it is just a guess. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camaro5 Posted August 26, 2022 Share #5 Posted August 26, 2022 I believe you can come pretty close in matching the looks of different lenses through post-processing. On a recent trip I used a Q2, an M10-R, and three different lenses, one being a Vario-Elmar 80-200-R from 1997. Using the same workflow all my images looked very similar and I don't think most people could tell them apart. These were all landscapes so maybe other genres of photography would be different. You could tell the difference OOC but a little editing made them look very close to each other, especially after they were printed, framed, and hung. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted August 27, 2022 Share #6 Posted August 27, 2022 (edited) Yes i agree it probably depends on subject matter. I’ve discovered that I’m a lens “matcher” (it drives me a little mad sometimes to be honest!) and the main place I notice any match or not is for skin tones . That’s also how I compare them if I’m doing any comparisons. Other exceptions can be if a lens is particularly sharp and another gentle, but I guess that’s stating the obvious, which I guess is why starting with the same production era is a good start if matching rendering is your thing. Also consult the WIKI at the top of this page to establish the designers, which might help on some occasions eg Walter Mandler’s 1979 designed lenses I have tried (28:2.8 v3, 35:2 v4 , 50:2 v4 , 90:2 v3) match up perfectly to my eye. That should not be a surprise since same designer and same era (they would’ve run alongside eachother in product catalogues for years) It’s not an exact science, as we already know. Fun trying though Edited August 27, 2022 by grahamc 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergius Posted August 27, 2022 Share #7 Posted August 27, 2022 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 8/25/2022 at 10:46 PM, Decimusmaximus7 said: I see posts of people who are trying to match the looks that particular lens give when putting together a set. How well would a 1961 v1 50mm Summmilux match the look of a 1964 90mm Tele-Elmarit Fat? They match perfectly. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1joel1 Posted August 30, 2022 Share #8 Posted August 30, 2022 A 1964 Tele Elmarit Fat is a rare lens (silver). It is a Mandler design and has a wonderful look wide open and then sharpens up very nicely when stopped down. I've owned mine for 30 years or so. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted August 31, 2022 Share #9 Posted August 31, 2022 14 hours ago, 1joel1 said: A 1964 Tele Elmarit Fat is a rare lens (silver). It is a Mandler design and has a wonderful look wide open and then sharpens up very nicely when stopped down. I've owned mine for 30 years or so. Nice to hear as I’ve just bought one (a black one though). I hear that, unusually, the silver chrome is the same weight as the black for this lens. The silver looks beautiful so I’ll consider trading up if I like the lens Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarav Posted August 31, 2022 Share #10 Posted August 31, 2022 On 8/27/2022 at 2:08 AM, grahamc said: Yes i agree it probably depends on subject matter. I’ve discovered that I’m a lens “matcher” (it drives me a little mad sometimes to be honest!) and the main place I notice any match or not is for skin tones . That’s also how I compare them if I’m doing any comparisons. Other exceptions can be if a lens is particularly sharp and another gentle, but I guess that’s stating the obvious, which I guess is why starting with the same production era is a good start if matching rendering is your thing. Also consult the WIKI at the top of this page to establish the designers, which might help on some occasions eg Walter Mandler’s 1979 designed lenses I have tried (28:2.8 v3, 35:2 v4 , 50:2 v4 , 90:2 v3) match up perfectly to my eye. That should not be a surprise since same designer and same era (they would’ve run alongside eachother in product catalogues for years) It’s not an exact science, as we already know. Fun trying though I do have same lenses and think about them all you’ve written. To me is not the color of the lenses (cool or warm) but the drawing that make them alike. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted August 31, 2022 Share #11 Posted August 31, 2022 4 minutes ago, sarav said: I do have same lenses and think about them all you’ve written. To me is not the color of the lenses (cool or warm) but the drawing that make them alike. Yes I agree, it's extremely impressive how similar the overall look is across the lenses mentioned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decimusmaximus7 Posted August 31, 2022 Author Share #12 Posted August 31, 2022 Well here they are. Now to find a 35! 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! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/335953-comparing-the-%E2%80%9Clook%E2%80%9D-of-different-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=4500729'>More sharing options...
grahamc Posted August 31, 2022 Share #13 Posted August 31, 2022 1 hour ago, Decimusmaximus7 said: Well here they are. Now to find a 35! 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! Congrats. Gorgeous ! I know you meant look of the images but what a pair in terms of the “look” of the lenses 😁 I’m regretting not buying the sliver version 90 “fat” now, but I stumbled on the black one at a giveaway price. If I like it I will trade up though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted August 31, 2022 Share #14 Posted August 31, 2022 Would the original 35:2 8e be an option ? Of course they are expensive. A lot of people really rate the summaron also - same body as 8e. Was it available in 1960s aswell ? If so both could be worth a look Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decimusmaximus7 Posted September 1, 2022 Author Share #15 Posted September 1, 2022 21 hours ago, grahamc said: Congrats. Gorgeous ! I know you meant look of the images but what a pair in terms of the “look” of the lenses 😁 I’m regretting not buying the sliver version 90 “fat” now, but I stumbled on the black one at a giveaway price. If I like it I will trade up though. I know, I didn't even realize their construction was so similar until I put them side by side for this snap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decimusmaximus7 Posted September 1, 2022 Author Share #16 Posted September 1, 2022 21 hours ago, grahamc said: Would the original 35:2 8e be an option ? Of course they are expensive. A lot of people really rate the summaron also - same body as 8e. Was it available in 1960s aswell ? If so both could be worth a look No, I can't step up to the Summicron, so I am going to have to decide on either the 1946-1960: Leitz 3.5cm f/3.5 Summaron or the 1958-1974: Leitz 35mm f/2.8 Summaron. There is about a $500 price difference between them, so I need to find someone who has shot with both. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.