Do you challenge lens character?

[f8low]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In short: I wonder how often you folks compare vintages lenses side by side (same scene, focal length & f-stop) with modern ones - if you already own them - or look for such comparisons online - if you want to buy them.

Disclaimer: There a million good reasons, rational and emotional, why one would want to own a certain (vintage) lens. Here I am looking exclusively at differences in rendering character.

 

 

To give a bit of context where I am coming from, here’s something I experienced over the last years. I’ve been shooting a Summaron 35mm 2.8 and a Summilux 35mm FLE for years on an M2 but never side-by-side. If you ask me what makes the Summaron sometimes unique, I can point you to some examples I have collected over the years. I’ll attach two with a nice glow here.

Now… I also like looking online for reports of other vintages lenses that might be interesting to shoot. To illustrate my concerns, let’s turn my example around and say I dedicate a page to the Summaron and show some 10-ish best-of shots I’ve collected over the last 10+ years with it…

I’ve got two concerns with this:

• Will people get a realistic picture of what to expect in relation to a modern lens? 10+ years is enormous cherry picking.
• Am I really sure that a modern lens would have really rendered differently? I did not shoot one side-by-side back in the days.

To sum it up, how important are side-by-side rendering comparisons of vintage lenses for you? Do you even sometimes run some and get interesting results? Either because you’ve clearly identified the vintage character or because you’ve shown the vintage lens to be very similar to a modern lens?

 

PS: While most of the motivation for this post comes from my own experiences, I have to admit that there’s a slight itch whenever I read online reports where someone shows a picture shot with X who swears that only X could have archived this rendering - without a side-by-side comparison 🙂

PPS: Arguable, with moderately open 35mm lenses one has less bokeh to work with to distill out the ‘character’ - so it might be a bit harder than with, say, some vintage 50mm Lux.

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!

Edited October 3, 2023 by f8low

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

Most of the time when I get a new toy, I take it out for a few days and see what I get on the computer when I return. A good one reveals itself by the percentage of keepers I get. Of course, I have the luxury that there is no commercial pressure on my work. I can live with some lesser results if need be.  If I know that I am going to shoot important memories for myself or friends, I make sure that I know the gear I have with me.

I rarely do systematic comparisons. Sometimes when I get a lens that is new to me and want to get to know it quickly, I do some side by side tests. But, I find these tests boring. Sometimes I do some tests when I need/want to make up my mind which one I would keep or sell. A lens is much more than the result by itself. It is also the size and weight and the versatility. With some lenses, I get more keepers than others. And that is not always because they are technically better... e.g. my Summicron 40C yields more good results than my Summilux 50 pre-Asph. Technically, the Summilux is better at some things but it is heavier and larger (relatively). And it has no tab. It is a bit too tight in some cases... So, the 40 is on my camera most of the time when I can not predict what I am going to shoot. It is such a good alrounder. And the 50 Summilux is only on my camera when I have a specific target for it before I leave.

Comparisons are good for lab conditions. When I am out on a trip, I make do with what I have with me. And even if I have the ideal lens in my pocket, there can be situations where there is not time to switch, and I just use what is mounted.

 

 

[UliWer]

vor 44 Minuten schrieb dpitt:

Comparisons are good for lab conditions.

Yes, and you have to achieve lab conditions to achieve any reliable results. Though lab conditions are very, very rare in the real world.

I have posted some side by side comparisons of different lenses here in the forum over the years. In some cases I failed to achieve the necessary "lab conditions". In other cases the only evident result I could demonstrate were insignificant differences.

Though you can rely on the fact that people who are completely sure about some special characteristics of their lenses will never show a direct side by side comparison.

 

[pippy]

2 hours ago, f8low said:

...I wonder how often you folks compare vintages lenses side by side...

...how important are side-by-side rendering comparisons of vintage lenses for you?...

Obviously I can only speak for myself but once I've understood how lenses of the same f/l but different optical designs will render at various apertures (etc.) it isn't neccessary to continue with side-by-side comparisons.

Philip.

[frame-it]

every time i get a new [old or new or really old vintage] lens, i always take it to familiar locations and shoot the same scenes, so i know the differences, initially i didn't care much, it was just a new rendering, but these last few years i prefer the older vintage lenses, the newer designs are way to clean and clinical

Edited October 3, 2023 by frame-it

[pippy]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

...I have posted some side by side comparisons of different lenses here in the forum over the years. In some cases I failed to achieve the necessary "lab conditions". In other cases the only evident result I could demonstrate were insignificant differences.

Though you can rely on the fact that people who are completely sure about some special characteristics of their lenses will never show a direct side by side comparison.

I'm pretty much of the same opinion.

There are a few things to balance when considering the differences in rendering between lenses of similar specs. One is that the most pronounced differences will usually only be visible when lenses are used at - or near - maximum aperture. Once stopped-down perhaps two / three stops it becomes very difficult to discern any 'special character' any one particular lens will possess in comparison to any other when used at similar apertures. If I want 'Crazy Swirly Boke and Almost Nothing Outside a 20mm Centre-Circle Sharp' I could use a 50mm f1.5 Summarit wide-open but stop it down to f4.0 and its performance is, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from my v4 Summicron.

The second is that - lens comparison threads apart - there is practically never any occassion when 'identical' images shot with different lenses are shown in a side-by-side comparison therefore, without any point of reference, is is almost impossible to know how any image would look had the photograph been taken using a different lens. The concept is almost purely academic.

There have, of course, been threads posted here illustrating both the differences and the similarities exhibited by lenses of similar f/lengths. A few years ago someone was kind enough to post photographs taken using different generations of 50mm Noctilux when they were each used wide-open and it WAS interesting to see their differences in rendering. At the same time, however, had only ONE of these images been exhibited on the wall of a gallery I doubt whether anyone in the Real World could say with certainty; "Ah! That photograph was taken with an example of the E60 v2 f1.0 Noctilux and not one of the earlier - nor later - versions of the 50mm Noct...".

Philip.

Edited October 3, 2023 by pippy

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A question that you don't have to answer: why do you want to demonstrate to others why one lens has a more vintage look than others?*

I am rarely convinced by image comparisons here or on (mostly amateur) websites - much of the time I just don't 'see' it. I am always interested in someone else's opinion though, as long as it is someone whose judgement I have learned to trust. In the end I reach my conclusions solely on the basis of what I see in the lenses when on my cameras, because only I know what the original scene looked like, how that was transformed by the lens and camera, and how I processed it. But I'm not interested in convincing anyone that my judgement is correct - I'll give my opinion, but I'm not going to run detailed tests - others can accept my opinion or ignore it!

FWIW I have found a satisfactory (to me) balance of old and modern lenses: three apo-Summicron SL primes: 35, 75 & 90, an Elmarit-M 28mm asph, and a few older LTM and M lenses: Summilux-M 35 pre-asph, Summilux-M 50 pre-asph, Summilux-M 75, Summitar 5cm and several Elmar 5cm (and Nikkor 3.5cm and 2,8cm). I know how these behave, more or less. I'm happy with what I have, but if I was looking for something different I would read around, not look at images on the web.

 

*Convincing anyone on the web that you are right and they are wrong is a waste of time - though many people are very intent on wasting lots of it in this way.

Edited October 3, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[f8low]

Thanks a lot for your replies!

@dpitt @UliWer agree, such tests are boring to conduct and the necessary precautions are significant. A real-world-lab-test is a bit of a self contradiction 🙂 

 

@UliWer @pippy that's what I noticed, too. Wide open I have the highest chance of showing something that goes beyond resolution and micro contrast. 
 

42 minutes ago, pippy said:

The concept is almost purely academic.

Hmm... not sure... for someone with less experience starting out, the landscape of vintage is quite a jungle. So having a bit of visual guidance could help making a purchase decision in practice, no?

 

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Obviously I can only speak for myself but once I've understood how lenses of the same f/l but different optical designs will render at various apertures (etc.) it isn't neccessary to continue with side-by-side comparisons.

That's quite a statement 🙂 That's a nice position to be in... but it takes time to get there 

[f8low]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

every time i get a new [old or new or really old vintage] lens, i always take it to familiar locations and shoot the same scenes, so i know the differences, initially i didn't care much, it was just a new rendering, but these last few years i prefer the older vintage lenses, the newer designs are way to clean and clinical

Sounds like a reasonable compromise between lab-conditions and real-world shooting. I can see picking some scenes/places that are prototypical for the work I do and shooting them on different days with similar conditions. Obviously, outside locations are more tricky here.

When you say 'too clinical' for ashp, do you also see this at f4 or f5.6?

[f8low]

26 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

why do you want to demonstrate to others why one lens has a more vintage look than others?

Haha, yeah no I do not want to convince anybody - but I sometimes wonder to what degree we are talking about the same things when we talk about moody, dreamy, harsh, clinical, juicy rendering. I am more after a catalog of what's there and what different people call it... 

However, often I am with you and @pippy and I am not sure there's any reasonable difference to expect (say when you stop down a lot)...

[frame-it]

7 minutes ago, f8low said:

Sounds like a reasonable compromise between lab-conditions and real-world shooting. I can see picking some scenes/places that are prototypical for the work I do and shooting them on different days with similar conditions. Obviously, outside locations are more tricky here.

When you say 'too clinical' for ashp, do you also see this at f4 or f5.6?

i rarely go below f2.8, unless its for example: generic boring landscape shot, or a narrow alley or street filled with overheard cables or something or a group photo of people.

at f5.6 and above i think all lenses will look very similar..in a real world test its highly unlikely anyone could tell which lens was used for which shot at f5.6-f16

[pippy]

28 minutes ago, f8low said:

...That's quite a statement 🙂 That's a nice position to be in... but it takes time to get there...

Well that's probably true but, to mention just one thing, I've been using M cameras since my late teens (and used 'Barnack' Leicas before that) so have some 40+ years of M-shooting experience on which to draw...

Philip.

Edited October 3, 2023 by pippy

[pippy]

26 minutes ago, f8low said:

...Hmm... not sure... for someone with less experience starting out, the landscape of vintage is quite a jungle. So having a bit of visual guidance could help making a purchase decision in practice, no?...

Yes, up to a point, but in the context of which my comment was made there's almost no possibility of any viewer being able to say with any degree of certainty which lens / camera was used to capture any image. This is not the same thing as saying the choice of which lens to use is academic.

I do agree wholeheartedly, however, that it is VERY useful to know and understand how one's lenses will render and that being able to make direct side-by-side comparisons will allow that to happen in a straightforward way so it follows that for someone like yourself, perhaps, with "less experience starting out" such comparison-threads are very valuable sources of information.

Philip.

Edited October 3, 2023 by pippy

[dpitt]

2 hours ago, UliWer said:

Yes, and you have to achieve lab conditions to achieve any reliable results. Though lab conditions are very, very rare in the real world.

I have posted some side by side comparisons of different lenses here in the forum over the years. In some cases I failed to achieve the necessary "lab conditions". In other cases the only evident result I could demonstrate were insignificant differences.

Though you can rely on the fact that people who are completely sure about some special characteristics of their lenses will never show a direct side by side comparison.

 

Indeed. I have tried to do some tests outside with maybe 5 lenses, tripod and shooting at the same aperture. First I had to wait more than a week for stable weather conditions without clouds that interfere with llighting. This is pretty rare in Belgium. Then I had to pick my time and shoot as fast as possible because 30min. are gone before you know it and much more than that can make too much of a difference in light direction to compare the shots. Then of course all lenses are manual focus, so it is not easy to do that consistently.

And suppose you have done the 'perfect' test...It would be only valid for that camera body and scene. Maybe you missed the strengths and weaknesses of some lenses completely, or gave some a disadvantage or advantage without even knowing it.

My conclusion is that I rather leave exact lab tests to others. I will read them with interest, try out some lenses myself in practice and see how it works out for me personally.

2 hours ago, pippy said:

Obviously I can only speak for myself but once I've understood how lenses of the same f/l but different optical designs will render at various apertures (etc.) it isn't neccessary to continue with side-by-side comparisons.

Philip.

I can relate. After a few test shots, some lenses show their personality. That can be quite outspoken and fairly easy to recognize.

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

every time i get a new [old or new or really old vintage] lens, i always take it to familiar locations and shoot the same scenes, so i know the differences, initially i didn't care much, it was just a new rendering, but these last few years i prefer the older vintage lenses, the newer designs are way to clean and clinical

As stated above. That would not work for me. In my weather conditions, the light and season differences would make too much of a difference to be of much help. Comparing the best keepers shot with a lens over a longer period seem more reliable to me. Over the years camera bodies changes too, and that would throw an other very big variable into the test. What might work is a studio setup still live, done with the same lighting conditions. Then a very controlled shooting procedure that is always exactly the same.

[f8low]

24 minutes ago, pippy said:

there's almost no possibility of any viewer being able to say with any degree of certainty which lens / camera was used to capture any image

Ok, pointing to the exact lens is likely impossible. But differentiating between a 50s/60s lens vs. an asph at reasonable large aperture (say <= 2.8) should be possible, no? Vintage rendering Turing test...

Edited October 3, 2023 by f8low

[dbeids]

I don’t do a lot of side by side comparisons but I do have a strong sense of the kind of images my lenses produce, and I use them accordingly. For example, I have a 50 Lux made in the early 60’s. I bought it used from a photojournalist who was modernizing her equipment. It’s well worn…lots of silver showing through the black…and perhaps not as sharp as my more modern lenses…especially on a digital camera…but it produces the most gorgeous color renditions and contrast. It produces almost 3 dimensional images in color. I love using it in the right circumstances. 

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!

[pgk]

1 hour ago, f8low said:

Hmm... not sure... for someone with less experience starting out, the landscape of vintage is quite a jungle. So having a bit of visual guidance could help making a purchase decision in practice, no?

You also could start by reading up about the history of lens design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design) and Rudolf Kingslake's book. This will explain what the problems were and how they have been overcome. In essence though, the easiest and most adopetd solution has always been to stop down. So its wide-open, faster designs which retained and showed up the flaws which give rise to 'character'. These lenses probably started being designed and built in the 1920/30s as both cine and 35mm still cameras started to require better lenses for use in lower light. And even today some older lenses produce surprisingly good images when stopped down. I use 1860s lenses to good effect even on modern FF digitals, but the most useful older lenses tend to be those designed for smaller formats - so Victorian stereo lenses can be viable although they are relatively long by today's standrads (~90mm fl +).

FWIW the most difficult lenses to design and manufacture have always been wide-angles which is why it is only relatively recently that ultra-wide fast zooms have become really viable. That said, older wides don't often have so much character as poor corner performance, the exceptions being fast medium wides such as the early Summiluxes.

[pippy]

59 minutes ago, f8low said:

Ok, pointing to the exact lens is likely impossible. But differentiating between a 50s/60s lens vs. an asph at reasonable large aperture (say <= 2.8) should be possible, no? Vintage rendering Turing test...

In my experience the answer to this question is a conditional 'Often!'.............

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

39 minutes ago, pippy said:

In my experience the answer to this question is a conditional 'Often!'.............

...... depending on subject ..... lighting ..... and other variables of which there are many🙄.

[pippy]

15 minutes ago, pgk said:

...... depending on subject ..... lighting ..... and other variables of which there are many🙄.

Oddly enough, Paul, I had started to compile a list of such variables as I was typing my post but deleted the stuff as it was becoming a case of Too Much Info and not least because the original 50mm f1.2 Noctilux is both of "1960's Vintage" and a Double Aspherical design...

Philip.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by pippy