fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell
1      
2
       3       end
   

Archive 2011 · Importance of lens in the digital era
  
 
Smiert Spionam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · Importance of lens in the digital era


I preferred the first in the pairs, too, though I think my preference would be halfway between the two. Easily a matter of personal taste, though.

What I've noticed of late, as I work with more older alt glass, is that some of the real gems are older lenses with very high resolving power but lower contrast. Images taken with them can be tweaked to enhance contrast, but there's no way to add tonality to a lens that doesn't capture it.
Dec 08, 2011 at 03:25 PM
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Importance of lens in the digital era


sebboh wrote:
+2

+3

I think it depends on what you want or expect out of the lens. Quality, good, bad or average, is no guarantee of usability.


Dec 08, 2011 at 03:39 PM
mirkoc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Importance of lens in the digital era


Bifurcator wrote:
But no one seems interested in posting or talking about lenses that aren't known or accepted to be special or at least that don't have a reputation for being "special". Case in point:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1047497

Of course it's my opinion that's mainly due to the people here at FM. At sites where people are not as "well read" and don't already hold preconceived notions of what's special and not the images get discussed more than the lenses and interest isn't as one-sided.

So maybe the poster knew that and figured the only way to get a discussion going was to post some images taken...Show more →

What I meant was that if we want to put the raised question in presence in its full potency, perhaps it might be better to take a lens not so highly regarded and then try to resolve it. Or even better, to show two lenses in comparison. I do appreciate the André's effort, just to make it clear.

Smiert Spionam wrote:
IImages taken with them can be tweaked to enhance contrast, but there's no way to add tonality to a lens that doesn't capture it.

With that thought in mind I am being attracted to Leica R glass. By now I have only tried 80-200/4 and I liked it.
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:13 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Importance of lens in the digital era


Your second images border dangerously close to bad hdr imo.

Anyways, go to the bad lens thread for some amazing photography. Since this is a hobby for almost all the people who post here, half the fun in these toys is the fun using them.


Dec 08, 2011 at 06:25 PM
adrianb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Importance of lens in the digital era


I hate gear freaks but If I trully look in the mirror, I'll see one...
I believe we all bought something related to photo gear which we didn't actually REALLY need, especially lenses...

I have a 135L now as my only telephoto lens.

I owned a pentacon 135mm f2.8 m42 (15 blade aperture) and that produced wonderful images.
Sold that and got a Tair-11 133mm 2.8 m39 (20 or so blade aperture).
Wonderful lens.

Both used on 5Dc

Bare in mind that I paid ~ 60 $ for the pentacon and ~135 $ for the Tair.

Now comparing 60$ and 135$ to 1500 $ (this is how much the 135L costs where I live)....you begin to WONDER, right?

Surely the 135L is AF and blazing fast, and...surely it's F2 ...but it's literally 20 times more expensive than the Pentacon and 10 times than the Tair...

Question: is it 20 / 10 times better than those two?

Most of the time I shoot with all my lenses wide open (after all,that's why I got myself fast lenses). I go F4 or RARELY F8 if the shot really calls for it (landscape/group shot, etc)

So for somebody who wants to shoot some portraits, some landscape...and basically...STUFF that does NOT move... I really can't see the point of getting a lens like the 135L over the Pentacon/Tair and others like that.

Sometimes manual focus will drive you mad,but if you got a 5D II, using live view will guarantee a sharp shot. Of course, all of this takes time and patience.

I regret I don't have those two lenses, the pentacon and tair I would have loved to run some tests with them against the 135L , at least at F2.8 and F4. I'm certain that whatever 'optical' flaws they had, they could be easily dealt with in Photoshop.

If I would be a more skilled & accurate photographer as far as manual focus is concerned, I wonder what results would I get with a Samyang 35 1.4, takumar / Rokkor 50 1.4 and Tair-11 133mm 2.8, compared to the 35L, EF 50 1.4 and 135L (I don't own the 35L ,I have the 24L II,but I specified 35L for the sake of comparing exact focal length).

Surely if you do weddings and events you need fast body with fast AF lenses.
But for everything else,which doesn't demand speed, do we really need to spend all that $$$ on lenses?


Today when people are watching photos they're driven by some sort of color/contrast/sharpness obsession...
If a photo ain't sharp/contrasty & etc....it's trash....

So to keep up with today's so called 'standards', we all rush and get expensive lenses....forgetting that photography is after all about capturing an idea,an emotion, SOMETHING......not just something that's tack sharp and with amazing colors... (stock photographers,etc...will be allowed to disagree on this one )

I almost never shot a film camera in my life,but after watching the "Post your recent film shots" thread for a while,it actually got me to BORROW an EOS 3000 from a friend to start shooting film with it + my L lenses.

I shot a Kodak iso 200 film for test and now i'm at the 2nd film which I hope will produce some decent shots...

I think I need to shoot film for a while,this will teach me not to be so 'trigger' happy with my 5D II...

I don't wanna go out,shoot stuff, get back home with 100-150-200 photos, and delete 95 % of them. That means that I'm an idiot.

Hopefull film will teach me some perspective,some patience,etc..

Edited on Dec 08, 2011 at 06:49 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:37 PM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Importance of lens in the digital era


adrianb wrote:
I really can't see the point of getting a lens like the 135L over the Pentacon/Tair and others like that.


Different rendering. Why do you think people are willing to shell out over $10,000 for a manual focus Leica 50mm Noctilux when they can get a new fast 50 with auto focus for less than $100?
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:41 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Importance of lens in the digital era


mirkoc wrote:
A topic is relevant, I agree, and I am always open to a discussion or speculation. It just that 'better' (not necessarily more expensive) lenses put a smile to a photographers face more often.
A small methodical remark: although cheaper than modern Zeiss lenses, C/Y 85/2.8 is not really a mediocre lens to start a comparison.

Bifurcator wrote:
But no one seems interested in posting or talking about lenses that aren't known or accepted to be special or at least that don't have a reputation for being "special". Case in point:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1047497

Of course it's my opinion that's mainly due to the people here at FM. At sites where people are not as "well read" and don't already hold preconceived notions of what's special and not the images get discussed more than the lenses and interest isn't as one-sided.

So maybe the poster knew that and figured the only way to get a discussion going was to post some images taken...Show more →
mirkoc wrote:
What I meant was that if we want to put the raised question in presence in its full potency, perhaps it might be better to take a lens not so highly regarded and then try to resolve it. Or even better, to show two lenses in comparison. I do appreciate the André's effort, just to make it clear.


Yeah, same here. I think every time the topic has come up in the past I participated in the discussion. So I guess I think it's worthy of at least some typing time. I've usually positioned myself on the side of "software is more influential overall than a lens ever could be" and I tend to agree that generally speaking there's a lot of misplaced beliefs placed on the abilities on some lenses or lens brands. Maybe to clarify: the difference between a great lens and a mediocre one is very often so subtle that the untrained eye can not usually perceive the differences - or perceives the differences only with crossed fingers and guesses, while just a single plug-in/filter used or misused can render a completely different image from what the camera originally recorded. How's that for over-stating the obvious?


PS: I love gear freaks and am one myself of course! Being a good and successful gear freak I think affords a huge advantage in all the other departments of photography.



Edited on Dec 08, 2011 at 06:46 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:42 PM
bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Importance of lens in the digital era


One case where I've learned that PP can't exactly transform a photo to one captured with a modern lens is with the Super Tak 135/3.5. Colors and sharpness are fantastic but it leaves a bit to be desired as far as contrast and tonal transitions. Trying to raise the contrast via a tone curve or black point level just intensifies the contrast but doesn't give that lovely separation of tones like the 135L, Nikkor 105/2.5 or Zeiss 100/2 do. Of course the lens I'm working with is like 40 years old.

Same thing with Chromatic Aberrations. You can remove it via post but a lens that minimizes it before it hits the sensor will inherently have a different look from a lens that needs the extra PP (as seen with the 2.8/21 Distagon and the CV 3.5/90 APO).

As far as the PP in the original post, your examples show why I don't really like applying Tonal Contrast to my images. It can give some nice pop to lenses that may feel a little flat but its very easy to get the grey'ish halo around various objects and it seems to compromise the color the lens captures. One looks at it and gets the sense that's its been processed.

Edited on Dec 08, 2011 at 06:49 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:45 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Importance of lens in the digital era


Taking a class in photography will be the best investment you can make if youre finding yourself to be too trigger happy.
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:47 PM
adrianb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Importance of lens in the digital era


FlyPenFly wrote:
Taking a class in photography will be the best investment you can make if youre finding yourself to be too trigger happy.

I'm not talking about THAT type of trigger happy 'disease'. It's not the type that can be cured with photography classes...in my case, I wanna try the 'film' medicine..
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:50 PM
vallejo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Importance of lens in the digital era


adrianb wrote:
I almost never shot a film camera in my life,but after watching the "Post your recent film shots" thread for a while,it actually got me to BORROW an EOS 3000 from a friend to start shooting film with it + my L lenses.

I shot a Kodak iso 200 film for test and now i'm at the 2nd film which I hope will produce some decent shots...

I think I need to shoot film for a while,this will teach me not to be so 'trigger' happy with my 5D II...

I don't wanna go out,shoot stuff, get back home with 100-150-200 photos, and...Show more →

Well...I shot film for half of my photographic life. Sure you have to go through it yourself. But do not hold very high expectations on it. Unless you would be looking at slides on a light table, which is indeed a remarkable experience digital cannot provide, my guess is that you will shoot a handful of rolls and let it alone...
Dec 08, 2011 at 06:55 PM
adrianb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Importance of lens in the digital era


vallejo wrote:
Well...I shot film for half of my photographic life. Sure you have to go through it yourself. But do not hold very high expectations on it. Unless you would be looking at slides on a light table, which is indeed a remarkable experience digital cannot provide, my guess is that you will shoot a handful of rolls and let it alone...



Yes, I know exactly where I'm going with this film experience,but I don't wanna deny myself this experience..

Obviously ...it's not like I'm gonna rush and get a Eos 1V and start shooting everything on film, but you know that cliché that film...has something apart? Well,there is much truth to that...and I really wanted to see it for myself...It's better late than never..

I don't wanna invest in a film body, since I know that I won't shoot that long,although I had a very good deal for an Elan 7NE and I regret I didn't take it...

Hopefully I can post a few of my own on that film thread and not feel embarrassed


Dec 08, 2011 at 07:02 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · Importance of lens in the digital era


RAWs come out 'flat' for many less than perfect lenses, so careful treatment of the midtones is always a good strategy. The better the lens (and you picked a good one unfortunately to make the point intended), the less that needs to be done in post, for normal DR scenes.

Overdoing it is very easy to do working on images from the better lenses, as the software developers are out to make you notice the effect of their stuff, and they know a big part of the target audience use kit lenses. Big global contrast moves are often a last resort move.

Better software/processing narrows the gap however, so the better lenses appeal as much for their signature look as for superior 'sharpness'. One thing I see is that better lenses perform with more consistency in the range of light conditions, and still need less post work, and respnod to finetuning more readily - a better final image results. All lenses work fine in excellent light conditions.

Those dudes' bellies look better in the before shot, they picked up a solar suntan in the after shot, not too becoming


Dec 08, 2011 at 07:34 PM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Importance of lens in the digital era


philip_pj wrote:
RAWs come out 'flat' for many less than perfect lenses, so careful treatment of the midtones is always a good strategy. The better the lens (and you picked a good one unfortunately to make the point intended), the less that needs to be done in post, for normal DR scenes.

It will depend a lot on the camera in question. For instance when I used to primarily shoot with a 5DII + Zeiss ZE glass I very rarely had to do anything in post processing except for a sharpen & resize for web. The camera and RAW developer did the rest for me. I got quite a shock when I switched to using an M9 - it has a completely different philosophy. The RAW files are extraordinarily flat. Apart from lens correction the camera does essentially no contrast adjustments and you get a very flat, high dynamic range image.

I'll show two examples that I posted recently in the Leica thread.

Unprocessed version with RAW developer defaults:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/edwin/A_9.jpg

And here is after black levels adjustment and LAB mode boost of a & b channels:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/edwin/A_10.jpg

Here's a second example, shot with arguably one of the best prime lenses in production today, the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH:

Before processing:
http://peltarion.eu/img/comp/edwin/A_11.jpg

After a bit of curves and colors adjustments:
http://peltarion.eu/img/m9/lux50-095.jpg

Note however that I stay away from the clarity slider. It's very crude and not needed when you have a lens with high micro contrast. These are just basic curves adjustments - something that a 5DII applies in-camera while the M9 does not. The latter subsequently requires adjustments in post.


Dec 08, 2011 at 10:49 PM
mirkoc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Importance of lens in the digital era


denoir wrote:
It will depend a lot on the camera in question.

That's a good point. Your examples clearly show it. I find the processed versions slightly overdone for my taste. Without any artifacts though.

Edit: The examples you posted a while ago from your trip to Egypt just crossed my mind. The shadow detail you pulled out of M9 files was fascinating.
Dec 09, 2011 at 02:33 AM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · Importance of lens in the digital era


"Note however that I stay away from the clarity slider."

Agree, especially if it's overdone and without due attention to the tone curve. If all this tool does is amp up the tone curve within a middle zone, its definitely not for every image, and not to be used too much when it is.

"I find the processed versions slightly overdone for my taste."

To illustrate the point and in its own right, it's very effective, with adequate detail in both highlights and shadows. The better lenses' images are often going to look unusual, because they are strongly differentiated from most other optics.

This kind of image benefits from readily apparent image detail, but yes, tastes vary depending on subject matter and whether you are after a quasi-realistic image or a more stylised 'photographic' look.
Dec 10, 2011 at 12:39 AM
Graham Mitchell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Importance of lens in the digital era


I preferred the first version of the second and third images. At the end it still comes down to judgment about how much and when to use various PP options.
Dec 10, 2011 at 03:02 AM
carlitos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Importance of lens in the digital era


I think the character lens can be important. It depends on what the purpose of the image will be. I welcome the newer wide angle lenses that are sharp all the way to the corners. Photoshop techniques (like watercolor) can make for interesting images on paper, but sharpness across the frame is still a benefit. USM on out of focus areas doesn't work very well.

But in the future if everyone has multiple 60" LCD monitors scattered around the house (prediction of Bill Gates many years ago), and is running slide shows on them, I wonder if individual lenses may not become more important. One goes out to take pictures with several vintage lenses, and come back with several "flavors" of the picture. Will Photoshop artifacts be acceptable if the output device is a 60" LCD?
Dec 10, 2011 at 03:49 PM
carlitos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · Importance of lens in the digital era


Also these days, with slide film + processing at about $18 a 36 exposure roll, each frame becomes important - it concentrates the mind.
Dec 10, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · Importance of lens in the digital era


adrianb wrote:
Yes, I know exactly where I'm going with this film experience,but I don't wanna deny myself this experience..

Obviously ...it's not like I'm gonna rush and get a Eos 1V and start shooting everything on film, but you know that cliché that film...has something apart? Well,there is much truth to that...and I really wanted to see it for myself...It's better late than never..

I don't wanna invest in a film body, since I know that I won't shoot that long,although I had a very good deal for an Elan 7NE and I regret I didn't take it...


You sound like a perfect candidate for one of the antique classics - including those in the medium format range.

In that case I wouldn't limit it to just SLRs. Some of the older RF and/or TLR cameras are pretty classy and can be had from $200 and under! Voigtlander and Zeiss cameras come to mind...


Dec 10, 2011 at 05:39 PM
1      
2
       3       end
FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register