I must admit, it's quite surprising, but after examining the samples shared on the other forum, I have to agree with you.
The samples provided by @highdesertmesa of the prototype nearly convinced me to purchase one. It's possible that something has changed in the lens formula since then or perhaps those were not optimal copies.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I must admit, it's quite surprising, but after examining the samples shared on the other forum, I have to agree with you.
The samples provided by @highdesertmesa@ of the prototype nearly convinced me to purchase one. It's possible that something has changed in the lens formula since then or perhaps those were not optimal copies.
Yes, the prototype was like an entirely different lens. I know they said there would be a change in the coatings to make them more like the originals, but the samples so far look more like the optical formula was altered or some other change (or manufacturing error) was made to one or more elements.
What do people actually mean when they describe the look as 'cinematic'? It's a word thrown around when describing the SPII. If by that they mean softer/more glowy then my CV 50 2.5 and 7A 1.1 are 'cinematic' wide open.
From what I've seen, it's the subject matter, lighting and narrow DOF that makes a scene 'cinematic'. Even more so if you throw in some lens flare!
Think about all the instances when you see someone describe an image as 'cinematic'. Pretty much always dark/moody lighting. Maybe a little back lit. Throw in some deep shadows. You don't need an SPII for that. Grab what you have and go at it.
Desmolicious wrote:
What do people actually mean when they describe the look as 'cinematic'? It's a word thrown around when describing the SPII. If by that they mean softer/more glowy then my CV 50 2.5 and 7A 1.1 are 'cinematic' wide open.
From what I've seen, it's the subject matter, lighting and narrow DOF that makes a scene 'cinematic'. Even more so if you throw in some lens flare!
Think about all the instances when you see someone describe an image as 'cinematic'. Pretty much always dark/moody lighting. Maybe a little back lit. Throw in some deep shadows. You don't need an SPII for that. Grab what you have and go at it.
(I'm gonna take some cinematic snaps of my dogs)...Show more →
Yup, never seen an image that looked cinematic without cinema-style lighting.
That said, this lens is an outlier as the originals were used to film movies that all have a similar look (perhaps only recognizable to cinematographers/photographers, but…).
One can certainly take a non-cinematic photo with a cinema lens or a cinematic-looking photo with any other lens.
Another complication is half of what makes images look cinematic is the nature of “moving pictures”. Still images can only ever be as cinematic as a cinema still.
I think this came about because some reviewer read up on the history of the Speed Panchros, learned that they were cine lenses, and then described what he was seeing as cinematic.
Mainly, though, the "Cooke look" has to do with sharpness being concentrated in the center of the image and declining from the midfield to the corners. This was a deliberate design; there are interviews with Cooke lens designers where they touted this quality; e.g. at https://www.fdtimes.com/2020/04/07/cooke-tour-2020/ (you have to download the full PDF article), but here's the key quote:
"Part of the Cooke Look is the focus fall-off at the edges. Our lenses are not 'flat' meaning that we do not try to make the corners and the center equally sharp.
If you draw a vertical line through the center axis and you spin that around and make a circle, that’s what we call the picture height area. Obviously, that’s a larger circle in Full Frame than it is in Super35. This area on a Cooke lens, the sweet spot, is where we pay a lot of attention. Outside that circle, we let the image fall off to the corners. The center is as sharp as can be, and as we move to the edges of frame, it gets slightly softer. We do that because most of the time you are filming people or things where the area of interest is towards the center, and the edge fall-off adds a pleasing dimensionality to the image and brings the viewer’s attention toward the center."
bjhurley wrote:
I think this came about because some reviewer read up on the history of the Speed Panchros, learned that they were cine lenses, and then described what he was seeing as cinematic.
Mainly, though, the "Cooke look" has to do with sharpness being concentrated in the center of the image and declining from the midfield to the corners. This was a deliberate design; there are interviews with Cooke lens designers where they touted this quality; e.g. at https://www.fdtimes.com/2020/04/07/cooke-tour-2020/ (you have to download the full PDF article), but here's the key quote:
"Part of the Cooke Look is the focus fall-off at the edges. Our lenses are not 'flat' meaning that we do not try to make the corners and the center equally sharp.
If you draw a vertical line through the center axis and you spin that around and make a circle, that’s what we call the picture height area. Obviously, that’s a larger circle in Full Frame than it is in Super35. This area on a Cooke lens, the sweet spot, is where we pay a lot of attention. Outside that circle, we let the image fall off to the corners. The center is as sharp as can be, and as we move to the edges of frame, it gets slightly softer. We do that because most of the time you are filming people or things where the area of interest is towards the center, and the edge fall-off adds a pleasing dimensionality to the image and brings the viewer’s attention toward the center."...Show more →
Thanks for that explanation. But then it seems there are an awful lot of lenses out there that have the Cooke looke, whether they meant to or not!
Maybe I'm getting jaded here, but his continuous talk of every image looks like a still from a movie etc etc.
The test is take the same shot at the same time with another lens. Say a Summicron 50 - which does not have great flare protection just like the SP II. And then compare side by side, cropped the same way in that movie format the way he shows. And in a blind taste test pick the one you like more.
I bet it's all about the composition, lighting, framing and whatever lens used would result in the 'it's so cinematic' claim.
I'll even go further and say if this lens was released w/o this fanfare, and w/o associating it to Cooke lenses, people would go 'man that lens is crap. Sharpish in the middle, falls off rapidly, low contrast and lousy flare protection'.
But spin it as a 'cinema' lens, and then it becomes a lens of orgasmic wonder.
Yours truly, Huss the Lomo Minitar user (so I know crap!)
Desmolicious wrote:
Maybe I'm getting jaded here, but his continuous talk of every image looks like a still from a movie etc etc.
The test is take the same shot at the same time with another lens. Say a Summicron 50 - which does not have great flare protection just like the SP II. And then compare side by side, cropped the same way in that movie format the way he shows. And in a blind taste test pick the one you like more.
I bet it's all about the composition, lighting, framing and whatever lens used would result in the 'it's so cinematic' claim.
I'll even go further and say if this lens was released w/o this fanfare, and w/o associating it to Cooke lenses, people would go 'man that lens is crap. Sharpish in the middle, falls off rapidly, low contrast and lousy flare protection'.
But spin it as a 'cinema' lens, and then it becomes a lens of orgasmic wonder.
Yours truly, Huss the Lomo Minitar user (so I know crap!)...Show more →
The mention of Cooke evokes strong emotions in some people. The lens definitely has a unique look, and LLL should take pride in it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The mention of Cooke evokes strong emotions in some people. The lens definitely has a unique look, and LLL should take pride in it.
Would you feel the same way about the images if there was no mention about what lens was used?
Desmolicious wrote:
Maybe I'm getting jaded here, but his continuous talk of every image looks like a still from a movie etc etc.
The test is take the same shot at the same time with another lens. Say a Summicron 50 - which does not have great flare protection just like the SP II. And then compare side by side, cropped the same way in that movie format the way he shows. And in a blind taste test pick the one you like more.
I bet it's all about the composition, lighting, framing and whatever lens used would result in the 'it's so cinematic' claim.
I'll even go further and say if this lens was released w/o this fanfare, and w/o associating it to Cooke lenses, people would go 'man that lens is crap. Sharpish in the middle, falls off rapidly, low contrast and lousy flare protection'.
But spin it as a 'cinema' lens, and then it becomes a lens of orgasmic wonder.
Yours truly, Huss the Lomo Minitar user (so I know crap!)...Show more →
Yeah, but we can just let happy people be happy. I only posted it since there aren't a lot of images taken with it floating around yet. Probably the best video to show the crazy retro look of this lens is Matt Osborne's video about the 75 1.9 SC vs MC. He doesn't talk about the SPII, but there's a still of it on his SL2-S in the video, and he clearly used it to film some of the clips. It definitely does not look like the 50 Cron. The video looks like it was taken with an anamorphic lens minus the elongated bokeh.
Very few non-gear-saavy photographers (much less non-photographers) could tell the difference between images taken with any given 50mm f/2 lens made for the M mount except perhaps when you put results from the 50 APOs from CV and Leica next to a non-APO.
And by the way, the 50 Cron (at least the v5) does not flare like the SPII images from that video at all. Not even close. The 50 Cron flare is much, much more artistic and less veiling to my eye. Flare would not be the reason I would want the SPII from LLL. Not sure why the person who made that video was so obsessed with that look, but whatever.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Clip from Matt's video that looks like it was shot on the SPII:
?t=58
and at:
?t=143
I appreciate the distinctive rendering style of the lens, but in my opinion, the optical vignetting is excessively pronounced and the overall appearance doesn't show a significant difference compared to the 50/2 Cron (Rigid). Additionally, when shooting wide open, it appears to be softer with more glow.
Maybe the SPII lens has more similarities with the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Heliar when used at f/2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I appreciate the distinctive rendering style of the lens, but in my opinion, the optical vignetting is excessively pronounced and the overall appearance doesn't show a significant difference compared to the 50/2 Cron (Rigid). Additionally, when shooting wide open, it appears to be softer with more glow.
Maybe the SPII lens has more similarities with the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Heliar when used at f/2.
I watched another of Matt's videos the other day, and I think he was filming with something besides the SPII. But still, given the size of the LLL SPII and the character of the known samples, I would definitely go for a Cron (any Cron) instead. The rendering of the production models of the LLL is nothing like the original SPII, whereas the prototypes were. I wonder if they had a bad batch of glass and just didn't realize it. I don't see any glow or softness in these samples, just sharp images with a gentle rendering:
