Many double blind test were being conducted and more often than not the result always a 50/50 between modern and Stradivarius. Yet many artists would prefer the Stradivarius (or his counterpart Guarneri Del Gesu) over the supposedly as good modern violins.
It's a very personal and intimate relationship with the instruments which may or may not make differences to the audiences, the old master violins usually make things easier for the players to get there and more. And I felt the very same with cameras. I can still work on images to look the way I desired but certain gear allowed me to get there pretty much right off the bat.
airfrogusmc wrote:
There are some lenses like the 50 1.0 Noctilux, 35 1.4 lux pre aspherical, 90 pre apo all have a look.
You mean they are under-corrected ? I've used them all on film and I have no nostalgia.
I remember very well the day I tried the 90/2 APO ASPH. I owned the 90 pre apo at the time and did not expect to be impressed.
Except that in low light, the APO colors shined. It was like using a set of pro flashes. The non APO was very flat compared to it.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Many modern lenses are insamely sharp but many lack the look many older lenses exhibit.
Yes, they are better corrected. To me this is not just about sharpness but about colors, micro-contrast, etc.
If I want an old lens rendering, I can get it in post-proc.
I wonder how many images are really better because they were shot with a 35/1.4 pre-asph instead of a LFE or 35/2 ASPH.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Nothing wrong with either it just depends on what you are looking to get out of your work and whether the lens will give you that.
Indeed. But "character" is often a way to say "what I am used too" and "implicitly or explicitly superior".
jeffersoncasey talked about violins and he is right. And you have the same discussion about so many things, cars, etc. Basically, it goes down "it's older so it is better" which is sometimes true but nor a rule.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
I can strongly relate this to the violin world 🙂
Many double blind test were being conducted and more often than not the result always a 50/50 between modern and Stradivarius. Yet many artists would prefer the Stradivarius (or his counterpart Guarneri Del Gesu) over the supposedly as good modern violins.
In fact, some studies showed that the traditional violin shape has more to do with the mechanical resistance of the materials and building techniques used several centuries ago than with sound.
pmeheut wrote:
You mean they are under-corrected ? I've used them all on film and I have no nostalgia.
I remember very well the day I tried the 90/2 APO ASPH. I owned the 90 pre apo at the time and did not expect to be impressed.
Except that in low light, the APO colors shined. It was like using a set of pro flashes. The non APO was very flat compared to it.
Yes, they are better corrected. To me this is not just about sharpness but about colors, micro-contrast, etc.
If I want an old lens rendering, I can get it in post-proc.
I wonder how many images are really better because they were shot with a 35/1.4 pre-asph instead of a LFE or 35/2 ASPH.
Indeed. But "character" is often a way to say "what I am used too" and "implicitly or explicitly superior".
jeffersoncasey talked about violins and he is right. And you have the same discussion about so many things, cars, etc. Basically, it goes down "it's older so it is better" which is sometimes true but nor a rule.
Unless I'm wrong, this is not the link you wanted to post as this is this exact same thread.
I never implied the pre asph 35 was better. Just different and it could be better for some that want that kind of rendering. Not for others. And I never said older is better just different.
I had a 90 pre APO and I now have the APO and the pre APO wide open definitely had more glow than the APO. Some might prefer that look. Some maybe not. Nice to have choices that match vision.
Plus one for the 90/2 APO, one of their three great APO lenses from that 14 year period 1998-2012.
I must disagree re the character argument being more or less in the mind's eye, and something we can dial up in post, PM. Keeping an open mind however, you might consider doing one for us: 'I can get it in post-proc.'
You can definitely 'emulate' (in broad terms and viewed uncritically at full size) what you might consider the old lens look, but you quickly run into the same conundrum as faced trying to doing lens emulations in present day lenses, one to another.
Particularly in the critical aspects of the transition zone of focus, bokeh onset, level of structure retention and associated color/contrast at the local level in various parts of the frame. Curvature can't be altered in post, obviously.
So one view is that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, and that the limits to de-modernising modern APO images appear rapidly, and presents as a formidable and time-consuming challenge.
Were it that easy, everyone in the cine business would use the flat Zeiss lenses in the Supreme Prime range and dress them up in post.
They don't because such lenses are not vintage-capable, and large sections of the industry are presently dedicated to producing audience-friendly 'hybrid' lenses, optics that bring modern optical excellence tempered by astute designer judgment to instill a more artistic look.
Permit me to include some quotes from those charged with designing and producing $25,000 cine lenses, describing those lenses :
‘they are designed to emulate the look of older lenses, offering a look that is clear but not overly sharp, with a smooth and forgiving focus.’
‘a combination of modern lens technology and the desirable characteristics of vintage lenses.’
‘the surrealist bokeh blends the structure of out-of-focus features in a textured way that creates separation without feeling like a flat backdrop.’
‘curving focus roll-off creates a dimensionality that has always set M lenses apart from more advanced optics that can be precise to the point of boring.’
‘modern lenses pop into focus in a flat and layered manner that appears unrealistic by drawing attention to themselves.’
You can ask yourself how you would go about post-engineering images from something like the APO-Summicron-M 35/2 to achieve virtually anything mentioned in these descriptions. These qualities are embedded in the design and development processes. It's why lens makers develop their own 'house styles' at that stage.
Mind you, some of the clean, surgical lens designers (like Iain Neil) are trying to provide various mechanical fixes in the form of filtration and aberration introduction, now they have seen the light and discovered the error of their former ways:
Meet Module 8, the $900 Aberration Generator that can adjust the degradation of the image. 'It's a whole new game.'
'It allows the designers to develop specific or combined aberrations into the lens for distinct visuals. They can incorporate third and higher-order spherical aberration and subtle chromatic aberration..'
There are others doing similar..a new game awaits!
Who needs them old lenses anyway, apart from the largest cine industry in the world, senior figures of whom are now selling kits aimed precisely and professionally at reproducing the look of these 'lower performing', aberration-riddled, older lenses. Strange world, but we have to live in it.
PS How about a Module 8 L4 Tuner; a Summilux 50mm f1.4 CF aberration-balanced 'look? It'd be back-ordered for a decade!
airfrogusmc wrote:
I never implied the pre asph 35 was better. Just different and it could be better for some that want that kind of rendering. Not for others. And I never said older is better just different.
Sorry: I never said you said so but I can see how my post can appear to do so.
Your post was very clear and I had no intention of dismissing what you said.
As I said, yes, people can prefer anything they want and I have no problem with that.
My point was more that sometimes, this is simply nostalgia or urban legends but not always.
My view of the subject is a kind of consolidation of everything that has been observed so far by those smarter than me.
I think that during a fundamentally formative period in the development of lenses, the "Leica look" thanks to its then-prevailing technological sophistication became synonymous with one of two, broadly speaking, dichotomous/competing approaches to visual representation... close to similar dichotomies of human nature:
- The so-called "fidelity to life", with all the optical attributes so far cleverly listed, is actually a response to a more introverted-inviting, more co-participatively valued inclusion of external reality... represented by a preference for becoming part of the whole and its witness from within.
- The so-called "hyper or more than life" is a more extroverted-observational oriented, let's say more cognitively processed or deliberate involvement of the passionately-curious distant human-traveler through the phenomenon of life... represented by a preference for elevated (mind-purified) transparency and a mind-dignified power of perceiving detail.
Both approaches are legitimate, both deeply humane, because they emphasize different genuinely unquestionably present aspects. We can trace this dichotomy through the highest reaches of visual art: say, the portraiture of Rembrandt versus Hans Holbein, the nature paintings of Gustave Courbet versus those of Isaac Levitan.
^ "...Were it that easy, everyone in the cine business would use the flat Zeiss lenses in the Supreme Prime range and dress them up in post."
I am personally (among other areas of expertise) one of those in the cine business .. and I must note that characterizing the Zeiss Supreme lenses as flat in that sphere would sound, so to say, as little bit "recurrently ignorant"... and is not needed in your so inspiring and eloquent presentations.
As I have already stated elsewhere - the Supreme series is Zeiss's "deviation" towards the above-mentioned "more true-to-life" approach... specifically, as a more value-affordable and less weight/portable equivalent to the Ari Signature series.
The point is that today's truly high-end artistic moviemaking always implies a respectable but also unobtrusive detail that you, I think rightly, imply as undesirable... but which, in fact, does not attract anyone at the given highest artistic rank.
But, here, judge for yourself - this is a typical evaluating offer that rental houses approach me with... so based on these extremely dry/strictly comparative views, can we so easy to claim/confirm that the Supreme Series is comparatively "flat" compared to the Arri Signature... or is the Arri Signature maybe also "flat"?
Without wishing to offend anyone I have found in reading this thread great difficulty distinguishing between the good and the bad advice/comments and the sensible and the frankly foolish ones.
Having enjoyed many years using many Leica cameras and lenses - and several other makes as well - my suggestion would be just get a Leica camera and a Leica lens (or a good Zeiss or other 3rd party one) and learn how they work for you ..... then you will have YOUR Leica look !
Why would anyone want anyone else's look
krug wrote:
Without wishing to offend anyone I have found in reading this thread great difficulty distinguishing between the good and the bad advice/comments and the sensible and the frankly foolish ones.
Perfect. Welcome to the internet information sewer. Cinema guys post videos with color charts and flashlights spending hours trying to figure out small rendering differences between lenses and photography guys just deny they exist.
I’m new to the Leica world. Over many years I’ve shot dozens of lenses including hasselblads, Fuji, canon, Nikon, etc. each had their own pros and cons. I do say I love the Leica lenses. But then again I cannot see “the look” specifically. Then again I also like to use other lenses on my Leica bodies including voigtlanders and Zeiss glass. Each have their own contribution to my style.
rji2goleez wrote:
But like with any new tool, it sometimes takes a bit of time to get to our maxiumum efficiency in using a tool before passing judgement.
rji2goleez wrote:
But like with any new tool, it sometimes takes a bit of time to get to our maxiumum efficiency in using a tool before passing judgement.
A tool? Did you just call the EV1 a tool? A luxury toy - yes, a fetish - yes, but a tool? 😄
.. and I must note that characterizing the Zeiss Supreme lenses as flat in that sphere would sound, so to say, as little bit "recurrently ignorant"... and is not needed in your so inspiring and eloquent presentations.