Lenses

[cantsin]

10 minutes ago, mercer said:

@cantsin and @BTM_Pix , it was my understanding that they were Minolta designs but Leica built with Leica glass?

Probably Minolta-built. There's even a Leica camera (the famous Leica CL) whose successor was a Minolta camera (the CLE), and whose standard lens, the Summicron 40mm/f2, has been available both with Leica and Minolta branding.

There are many such cases in past and recent camera history. Out of my head: The Zeiss-designed Pentax lens in the 70s, the Nikon SLR bodies sold as Kodak and Fuji, of course the "Zeiss"  branding for Sony lenses and "Leica" branding for Panasonic lenses - one of which actually happens to be designed and built by Sigma. Or the "Pentax" lenses on Samsung bodies that became "Schneider Kreuznach" lenses when Samsung switched branding contracts.

...and there's a good chance that many of these lenses are actually being manufactured by Cosina (which is also the company behind the Voigtländer brand, and which still manufactures an analog SLR that is sold both with Canon and Nikon branding).

[BTM_Pix]

25 minutes ago, mercer said:

@cantsin and @BTM_Pix , it was my understanding that they were Minolta designs but Leica built with Leica glass?

I’ve had both the Minolta 35-70mm 3.5 and the Leica version and although similar in looks, the Leica was definitely different.

Sadly, the guy who sold me the Leica, decided that the zoom ring was completely locked up in shipping, so I was forced to return it before I had the chance to use it, but most online accounts describe the glass has Leica written all over it?

My understanding of it is they were produced by Minolta in Japan( this 75-200 certainly has Made In Japan stamped proudly on it) and then sent for QC in Germany.

Whether the differences that they show between Minolta and Leica versions is down to that QC exercise (ie a lot of the Minolta branded ones wouldn't have passed muster by Leica) or some different tweak such as an additional coating I wouldn't know.

A history of the collaboration is reproduced here 

http://forum.mflenses.com/the-leica-minolta-collaboration-t77452.html#1495308

Sigma made the Leica R mount 28-70 and Kyocera made the f4 version of the 35-70 So they had a few different collaborations on the go for zoom lenses.

[kidzrevil]

48 minutes ago, cantsin said:

A question to the collective wisdom of this forum:

Which MFT lens is better, the Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro or the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95?

Their prices are roughly the same. The Voigtlander is manual-only (and designed for manual operation - a plus in my book), but the Olympus has the clever mechanical clutch for manual focus operation.

The Voigtlander is half a stop faster on paper, but like the 25mm/0.95 (which I own) seems be hazy/extremely soft open, not just because of the shallow DoF, but also for the areas that are in focus. Reviews suggest that the Olympus is sharp at 1.2. Regarding the actually usable aperture range, the Olympus may therefore be the 'faster' lens of the two.

The Olympus has the more complex optical construction, 15 elements in 11 groups vs. 13 elements in 9 groups in the Voigt. 

The Voigt, on the other hand, has an (optionally stepless) aperture ring which the Olympus doesn' t have. It will also work on cameras with passive MFT mounts like the old BMCC 2.5K.

- Any more ideas? 

 

The olympus lenses will always be sharper but I really like the character of the voigtlander glass. Stopped down to f2 they are super sharp

[mercer]

24 minutes ago, cantsin said:

Probably Minolta-built. There's even a Leica camera (the famous Leica CL) whose successor was a Minolta camera (the CLE), and whose standard lens, the Summicron 40mm/f2, has been available both with Leica and Minolta branding.

There are many such cases in past and recent camera history. Out of my head: The Zeiss-designed Pentax lens in the 70s, the Nikon SLR bodies sold as Kodak and Fuji, of course the "Zeiss"  branding for Sony lenses and "Leica" branding for Panasonic lenses - one of which actually happens to be designed and built by Sigma. Or the "Pentax" lenses on Samsung bodies that became "Schneider Kreuznach" lenses when Samsung switched branding contracts.

...and there's a good chance that many of these lenses are actually being manufactured by Cosina (which is also the company behind the Voigtländer brand, and which still manufactures an analog SLR that is sold both with Canon and Nikon branding).

 

7 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

My understanding of it is they were produced by Minolta in Japan( this 75-200 certainly has Made In Japan stamped proudly on it) and then sent for QC in Germany.

Whether the differences that they show between Minolta and Leica versions is down to that QC exercise (ie a lot of the Minolta branded ones wouldn't have passed muster by Leica) or some different tweak such as an additional coating I wouldn't know.

A history of the collaboration is reproduced here 

http://forum.mflenses.com/the-leica-minolta-collaboration-t77452.html#1495308

Sigma made the Leica R mount 28-70 and Kyocera made the f4 version of the 35-70 So they had a few different collaborations on the go for zoom lenses.

Okay, sorry I misspoke when I wrote Leica built, I meant... built to Leica specs with Leica glass. For instance, the Leica 35-70mm 3.5 has a later version that was built in West Germany. It is the same exact optical design, but clearly a different exterior than the previous, Made in Japan, version. So I think it's probably similar to Contax Zeiss and Yashica. The Contax Zeiss lenses were built in the same factory as Yashica lenses but the Zeiss lenses had Zeiss glass... as you probably know there are unsubstantiated rumors that some of the Yashica ML lenses used Zeiss glass overstock. I have one of the rumored lenses... the 50mm f/2 and it does seem a little more Zeissish... but that could be in my head. 

[BTM_Pix]

21 minutes ago, mercer said:

 

Okay, sorry I misspoke when I wrote Leica built, I meant... built to Leica specs with Leica glass. For instance, the Leica 35-70mm 3.5 has a later version that was built in West Germany. It is the same exact optical design, but clearly a different exterior than the previous, Made in Japan, version. So I think it's probably similar to Contax Zeiss and Yashica. The Contax Zeiss lenses were built in the same factory as Yashica lenses but the Zeiss lenses had Zeiss glass... as you probably know there are unsubstantiated rumors that some of the Yashica ML lenses used Zeiss glass overstock. I have one of the rumored lenses... the 50mm f/2 and it does seem a little more Zeissish... but that could be in my head. 

It was easier in the old days to compare these things as if you had one lens on a Minolta and I had the same version for Leica we could just put the same type of film in our different cameras and still make the comparison valid.

These days with variances in sensor and processing pipeline you'd have to have both lenses yourself and test them on the same camera.

Having said that, if it was the old days, we'd have had to find each other on ham radio to even have the discussion in the first place and then post the negs to a 3rd party by surface mail to arbitrate who could then send us the results by telegram so, you know, swings and roundabouts and all that

[cantsin]

There is no such thing as "Leica glass". This expression is only used as a photographer's colloquialism for lenses as a whole ("Leica glass", "Nikon glass", "Canon glass"  etc.), but these manufacturers do not actually produce their own glass material.

[mercer]

5 minutes ago, cantsin said:

There is no such thing as "Leica glass". This expression is only used as a photographer's colloquialism for lenses as a whole ("Leica glass", "Nikon glass", "Canon glass"  etc.), but these manufacturers do not actually produce their own glass material.

Sorry but that is just incorrect... especially for vintage lenses. Perhaps modern lens manufacturers started using 3rd party glass manufacturers once trade and manufacturing changed in the late 20th century but for this discussion, Leica glass, Zeiss glass, Minolta glass are definitely relevant parts of their lenses, their designs and their overall look. 

Even Nikon wholly owns a subsidiary that manufacturers the glass for Nikkor lenses...

https://nofilmschool.com/2016/10/nikon-shows-you-how-they-make-glass-nikkor-lenses-factory-tour

[anonim]

2 hours ago, cantsin said:

- Any more ideas? 

 

Not idea - there are so much samples and reviews - just my own modest experience-test about actual light transmission.

At the moment I have Voigts and analogue set of Zeiss Contax - Voigt 17.5 0.95 has full stop (or little bit more) advantage over Distagon 35mm f1.4 at max aperture.... but, probably more interesting

I had Panaleica 42.5mm f1.2, but Voigt have little less than 2 stop advantage over it at max aperture! (I. e. Nocticron has T value around T1.8-9, Voigt T1.1)... So, if Oly 17mm f1.2 (or 42mm) has the same light transmission as Panaleica 42.5 because of extremely complex construction filled with corrective glasses - maybe it is wise to question and test again statement about lowlight performance.

For my eyes and taste regarding video usage - f0.95 is not just completely usable, but very often (actually, tonight I had a session in the cellar :) and so-call "life saver". 

Of course, that's just me.

[Simco123]

3 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Thats cool but none of this applies to me soooo redirect your energy bro ?? save your assumptions, prejudgements and sweeping accusations for someone less experienced with filmmaking. How a LUT affects the color of an image and the look of a “clinically” sharp lens are two completely separate topics.

”those who are against the clinical look tend to look for excuse of not able to light their scene properly” <— nice talking point but doesn’t apply here. 

 

 

 

LUTS and lens are all part of creating image quality. LUTS are processing baked into an image to provide it with a look. If you use a lens that is flat and low in contrast would you not use a LUT that has more punch? Likewise a contrasty lens would look too clinical with a LUT that is already has a lot of contrast dialled in. My reference to Deakins choosing sharp clean lens comes from the man himself. Deakins avoid using vintage lens because he got the look from lightings. Vintage lens are flawed lens that help mask harsh lightings.

There has been a number or articles out recently showing how "relevent" vintage glass from 100 years ago can look when mated with a RED Monstro, the result is it look like it was shot with any modern lens. This does not come as any surprise as it is a modern digital sensor and the LUTs are digital process.

Likewise if you mate a modern Zeiss Milvus or Otus lens with a film camera from 60 years ago you get a vintage looking images.

Just because you use a vintage lens over a digital sensor does not give a you a vintage look.

[anonim]

11 minutes ago, Simco123 said:

LUTS and lens are all part of creating image quality. LUTS are processing baked into an image to provide it with a look. If you use a lens that is flat and low in contrast would you not use a LUT that has more punch? Likewise a contrasty lens would look too clinical with a LUT that is already has a lot of contrast dialled in. My reference to Deakins choosing sharp clean lens comes from the man himself. Deakins avoid using vintage lens because he got the look from lightings. Vintage lens are flawed lens and help mask harsh lightings.

Of course, Deakins has at disposal hundreds of solution for filtration and lightning. I'd say that question about, say, Milvus over older Distagons design is not so much in ''sharpness", but in "baked' initial contrast. Many DP's choose older Zeiss's  Superprimes (that share base construction with Zeiss Contax's, especially from AE years) because of more sleeping latitude (some of them claim even up to 2 stops achievable DR) in noncontrasty max aperture image... Deakins may have ultimate wish to get proper image right during filming - but DP's with lesser opportunities may rather choose to save every single DR nuance for post work...

But I'm sure you already know it, as also all other visitors of this forum So, just to remind.

[kidzrevil]

1 hour ago, Simco123 said:

LUTS and lens are all part of creating image quality. LUTS are processing baked into an image to provide it with a look. If you use a lens that is flat and low in contrast would you not use a LUT that has more punch? Likewise a contrasty lens would look too clinical with a LUT that is already has a lot of contrast dialled in. My reference to Deakins choosing sharp clean lens comes from the man himself. Deakins avoid using vintage lens because he got the look from lightings. Vintage lens are flawed lens that help mask harsh lightings.

There has been a number or articles out recently showing how "relevent" vintage glass from 100 years ago can look when mated with a RED Monstro, the result is it look like it was shot with any modern lens. This does not come as any surprise as it is a modern digital sensor and the LUTs are digital process.

Likewise if you mate a modern Zeiss Milvus or Otus lens with a film camera from 60 years ago you get a vintage looking images.

Just because you use a vintage lens over a digital sensor does not give a you a vintage look.

I haven’t said any of those things thats the funny part. For starters no one is talking about LUTs in a thread dedicated to lenses. Plus if you knew LUTs are a viable option to correct the lack of contrast then you should know that alleviates the “problem” of shooting with vintage less contrasty lenses or diffused modern lenses. I never mentioned not once that a vintage lens makes the image look vintage because that is simply is not true. What’s true is that these are things YOU are saying and points YOU are trying to make. I use vintage lenses solely for their character and thats it. A lens from 1960 doesn’t make your image look like a period piece from the 60s but there are optical characteristics that are directly related to the construction of older glass. I’ve shot with everything from high end zeiss to vintage zeiss amongst other glass and forum members who frequent this forum could tell you that. Why modern lenses look the way they are do because they have more optical elements for the sake of correcting distortion. This was not common practice with vintage lenses which leads to their character.

As far as Deakins is concerned he is not the only DOP in existence and we all have our own style. Quentin Tarantino’s DP went to panavision to get their oldest glass to shoot Hateful eight. Everyone has their own style. I have mine and other DP’s have their own. I do not like the optical characteristics of modern glass in my work. Am I wrong for that ? 

[webrunner5]

Part of the reason newer Digital cameras look so Clinical is what Kidzrevil said. All the new cameras have lots of corrections going on so you don't see any distortions for crap any more. You could have Never used lenses as wide as we have now. They were Fisheye lens if they were that wide back in the day.

I just yesterday was showing my son those 4 lenses I bought from a Thrift Store for 16 Dollars. There were two 28mm f2.8's in the bunch. A 55mm f2.8, also Pentax M42..

Both 28mm, one a Canon FD,, one a Pentax M42. They are day and night different from each other color wise. The Canon has way more punchy colors than the Pentax on my A7s.. The 135mm Pentax M42 is super sharp but sort of sterile. We put on my Sony FE 16-35mm Zeiss and it was even sharper than both 28's but a lot more sterile looking than the other three mentioned. It was better in a clinical sense. More Modern for sure.

So long story short old lenses do look more Classic, mellow whoever you want to name them. Of the 5 lenses we did test shots of all of them looked different, in a good or bad way depending on your mood or need.

 

[kidzrevil]

Exactly ! The widest you can go without worrying about distortion with a vintage lens is at 35mm. The 24-28 mm range is usually tolerable for me but the distortion is definitely there. Its a complete different look from modern lenses even on  a modern cam @webrunner5 

Like you said pick the glass for the mood youre going for

[noone]

I don't  really buy into the sterile VS clinical thing and to me it is just a different look from lens to lens (I love some older ones and some newer ones equally).       If you put some of the latest lenses on older cameras you might find they have even more distortion for instance than some older ones as some manufacturers seem to be cutting costs or making the lenses better in other ways by correcting in camera and either make cheaper or make it better in some other area.

I have a lovely old Canon EF 20-35 2.8 L (hard to imagine some EF lenses are now around 30 years old) and it probably has a bit less distortion than most newer similar lenses (Canon has updated it four times since via 17-35 and 16-35 lenses) but it doesn't get corrected like the more recent ones do on the latest cameras.

I also think the laws regarding use of glass with lead in it (now outlawed) might have a difference on the look of some lenses.

[webrunner5]

12 minutes ago, noone said:

I also think the laws regarding use of glass with lead in it (now outlawed) might have a difference on the look of some lenses.

It had to be more than just the lead. Maybe the coatings, heck some sort of dye they out in the glass as they manufactured it, I don't know, but that FD Canon lens has colors that were almost Olympus looking compared to the Pentax ones. That was no accident.

[noone]

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

It had to be more than just the lead. Maybe the coatings, heck some sort of dye they out in the glass as they manufactured it, I don't know, but that FD Canon lens has colors that were almost Olympus looking compared to the Pentax ones. That was no accident.

I used to use Pentax as my main system and have had a few FD lenses too.        Most of those lenses have gone but I still have a couple of FDs and K and M42 mount lenses.    They were certainly different for the most part.

FD 50 1.2 L was my favourite normal lens (until I got the FE Sony Zeiss 55 1.8) but my Pentax 50 1.2 k was another I loved but they were very different (sold the FD and tossed the Pentax when it fell to bits from overuse) and both would have been fairly similar in age I think.

I might see if I can shoot my ancient Promura 28 2.8 in m42 mount against my ancient EF 20-35 2.8 L at 28mm and then the 20-35 against my also ancient FD 24 1.4 L at 24 2.8.

I am not even sure if the Promura has any coating or maybe a single coating

[jonpais]

Just to add some nonsense about Voigtlander vs Olympus Pro ?, part of the experience of shooting with the Voigts is the sheer pleasure of handling a device that is made with old world craftsmanship and knowing that with proper care, it should last for decades. And there’s this: that because video AF-C with micro four thirds cameras as they are currently made is pretty unreliable, I often find myself focusing manually anyhow. And if you’re shooting a film, which is going to function better with a follow focus unit? But still - I prefer Olympus Pro! ?

[kidzrevil]

@noone @webrunner5 yeah its all in the optical design and the materials used. I have brand new voigtlander lenses that are based on their age old designs and they look beautiful. The coating and materials used do effect the look as well. The coatings on my Takumar set gives gold and purple tones. There is so much that goes into the look of the lens but if I were to guess I would say its definitely a combo of coatings, optical design, materials (like thorium,lead etc.) lead to the look, not the time period the lens was built.

[anonim]

On 7/22/2018 at 2:54 AM, jonpais said:

Just to add some nonsense about Voigtlander vs Olympus Pro ?, part of the experience of shooting with the Voigts is the sheer pleasure of handling a device that is made with old world craftsmanship and knowing that with proper care, it should last for decades. And there’s this: that because video AF-C with micro four thirds cameras as they are currently made is pretty unreliable, I often find myself focusing manually anyhow. And if you’re shooting a film, which is going to function better with a follow focus unit? But still - I prefer Olympus Pro! ?

I like this pair of testers - so, if someone missed, here they are in action with two last Olympus Pro prime

 

[anonim]