Any difference between Leica, CZ, Nikon, Canon lenses when used on the same body?
- Thread starter lsisaxon
- Start date
- Status
interesting read, well this is my take on it.
i believe what bro lsisaxon is talking about is the character of the lens
to me, test data like mtf, distortion, mag ratio are all rubbish.
how to read and comprehend so much (ok i am just too lazy la)
and there is also something unmeasureable, a human's perception.
hence some say sharp, soft, this contrast better, that vignette lesser ...
each lens from each company has its own character, feel and on the RFF, its unique signature. there is no comparison between lens from each company. the age of lens and its purpose also plays a large part. not really fair to compare a summitar 50mm and a nikkor 50mm rite... and u haven't factor things like build for film or dx etc etc...
so my take, there is not really much to compare.
if really wanna compare, do it with the older lens (old rangerfinder lens are a good start)
to see a good comparison, do it on a b&w film and not the DSLR
that is when u see more and feel more about the lens differences.
i believe what bro lsisaxon is talking about is the character of the lens
to me, test data like mtf, distortion, mag ratio are all rubbish.
how to read and comprehend so much (ok i am just too lazy la)
and there is also something unmeasureable, a human's perception.
hence some say sharp, soft, this contrast better, that vignette lesser ...
each lens from each company has its own character, feel and on the RFF, its unique signature. there is no comparison between lens from each company. the age of lens and its purpose also plays a large part. not really fair to compare a summitar 50mm and a nikkor 50mm rite... and u haven't factor things like build for film or dx etc etc...
so my take, there is not really much to compare.
if really wanna compare, do it with the older lens (old rangerfinder lens are a good start)
to see a good comparison, do it on a b&w film and not the DSLR
that is when u see more and feel more about the lens differences.
if that's the case, then it is your personal preference that counts because the differences are in the feel rather than in the absolute technical quality... you've gotta try them out yourself...
tell you what, i dont mind trading my ZFs for some of the nikon AIS and the newer nikon zooms. esp the 24/70
Hahaha... I don't have that lens yet.. ;p
Yeah.. In a way, I guess this probably has a lot to do with preference. I have no problems with Nikon optics. They serve me well. It's just that I always see something different in shots taken with CZ lenses, be they Hass, Contax , ZF or ZA. Even if the composition is bad etc.. there is still something about the colour that makes me take a second look. I would like to be able to quantify that... Transmission curves? Spherical aberration correction? I believe it's curves but I think it's more than just that because even though the curves on Sony and Nikon are different, shots with ZA and ZF appears to have something in common.
Rollei lenses do somehow have a different feel (sharper, contrastier) even though they are CZ also.. Might be because they use HFT coating instead of T*? :dunno: The Sony prosumers using CZ optics with T* coating doesn't seem to have this something also.
if its a particular colour rendition you prefer, shoot in RAW and adjust the colours to your liking from there ;p in the days of film, the lens had a huge part to play in the colour you capture, but with digital, we can tweek the colours to our hearts delight...
... or if still prefering to shoot in jpegs, just batch in some curves which adjust the colour feel you like...if its a particular colour rendition you prefer, shoot in RAW and adjust the colours to your liking from there ;p in the days of film, the lens had a huge part to play in the colour you capture, but with digital, we can tweek the colours to our hearts delight...
Can you imagine tweaking every single picture to the style you want? You might be able to get 80% of the look if you try very hard and work for very long, but I can simply use the said lens and take seconds to take a shot and know it'll come out the way I want it.
Plus, the lens signature isn't very obvious, making it even harder to spot. Plus you have micro contrast and increased sharpness that you can't PS on.
Samuel
if its a particular colour rendition you prefer, shoot in RAW and adjust the colours to your liking from there ;p in the days of film, the lens had a huge part to play in the colour you capture, but with digital, we can tweek the colours to our hearts delight...
Tried tweaking camera curves before before but it's really difficult to get the right feel.. Maybe need separate RGB curves.. Can get close but still missing something. Might be microcontrast like what alternative mentioned?
I like this discussion because we get to see both views. People who advocate these lenses and people who don't. I'm sitting on the fence.
:thumbsup:that's why I mentioned batching the curve if on jpg or using a particular group of settings if processing RAW... the results should be as consistent as if using a particular lens which would give a particular colour rendition... season to taste
like I mentioned, the colour adjustment is only if one is looking for a particular colour rendition, not for micro contrast, bokeh, optical aberration, or any number of other items...
you probably need to adjust individual colour curves... otherwise, you would only affect the overall brightness and contrast...Tried tweaking camera curves before before but it's really difficult to get the right feel.. Maybe need separate RGB curves.. Can get close but still missing something. Might be microcontrast like what alternative mentioned?
I like this discussion because we get to see both views. People who advocate these lenses and people who don't. I'm sitting on the fence.
for me, if its a colour issue, I'ld forget about getting the lens... if the lens gives me other advantages (depending on usage) like sharpness, bokeh, faster lens, better AF, closer focusing, etc, I would consider making the purchase, budget willing...
for me, if its a colour issue, I'ld forget about getting the lens... if the lens gives me other advantages (depending on usage) like sharpness, bokeh, faster lens, better AF, closer focusing, etc, I would consider making the purchase, budget willing...
i believe u r a photo editing expert. not all photographers are photo editing experts. some will prefer lenses that give good or refreshing colours without photo editing.
:embrass:i believe u r a photo editing expert. not all photographers are photo editing experts. some will prefer lenses that give good or refreshing colours without photo editing.
but its the same kind of commitment with enthusiasts who develop their own film... and now, as some have said, we can make the choice of colour, not someone in Fujifilm or Kodak, or some lens manufacturer
:embrass:
but its the same kind of commitment with enthusiasts who develop their own film... and now, as some have said, we can make the choice of colour, not someone in Fujifilm or Kodak, or some lens manufacturer
Similarly, not many people tweak chemicals and processing time to give certain kind of effects. That's probably why they prefer to shoot slides instead of negs. ;p
Strange that the discussion does not mention about the Pentax Limiteds i.e. 31mm, 43mm and 77mm. The first and the third were really some great glass, not to mention affordable too.
So far, there has been lots of talk/text, but no one has posted any pictures to illustrate if there is any visible difference for a direct comparison.
Maybe, the difference is so very minute that you need a magnifying glass to see at 100%. So far, I have not seen any comparison in any website or any magazine. Hope that someone could do some meaningful comparison. We have seen 3 pages of text and not a single picture to show...... :think:
Maybe, the difference is so very minute that you need a magnifying glass to see at 100%. So far, I have not seen any comparison in any website or any magazine. Hope that someone could do some meaningful comparison. We have seen 3 pages of text and not a single picture to show...... :think:
Because there's no way to show the quality of the Nikon, Canon, CZ and leica lenses on the same body.
On sony, you can show the Minolta vs Leica (Minolta made lenses for Leica) vs Sony G vs CZ comparison. But not the Nikon or Canon lenses.
- Status
Similar threads
