What a difference a lens made

[A G Photography]

I promised to shoot the same subject with different lenses, some new and some old, so to have a nice talk about the results.

I must say the differences are huge indeed, more than I expected actually, and I must say I'm very happy with it because I can clearly see which lens is good for a task. I'm also very interested in your opinions.

All the shots are pure RAW conversion without ANY adjustement.

Here we go:

NIKKOR AF 35/2 1/125 f2.8



CZJ Alu Flektogon 35/2.8 1/80 f2.8 (don't ask me why I had to increase time by 2/3 stop, but it was needed)



Impressive difference! And the lens hasn't no haze neither fungus. It behaves in a completely different manner with this backlight situation but while it could seem an awful result (and I'm sure I could improve it making a hood for this lens), actually it is extremely useful when you need a low contrast image where you need not to lose some details (as with the candle shot where the Nikkor probably would have come out too much contrasty and harsh).

Let's continue

MEYER Lydith 30/3.5 1/80 f3.5 (I had to move the camera about 4-5 cm cloer to get a similar view).



I have to say I love the Lydith a lot. It's "human" just like most of the Meyer lenses. Maybe not sharp, maybe microcontrast is not so good, but whatever... I like them.

Just for the sake of it... two more shots but with very different focals.

CZJ Alu Sonnar 135/4 on extension tube 1/40 f4



Classic sonnar 3d effect, I prefer this lens (the MC version even more) on a extension tube than my 2 micro Nikkors.

INDUSTAR 50/3.5 alu m39 version, battered and worn out...



Ok let the jury examine the evidences, the trial has to begin

[Katastrofo]

Well, for starters, you can put away the alu Flektogon and the Industar.
Very close between the Nikkor and the Lydith, but the Meyer Lydith has the
edge, and I like the closeup with the Sonnar/extension tube.

[A G Photography]

[Katastrofo]

I'm going to be looking for that Meyer Lydith, great performer and superb
colors!

[A G Photography]

Just to explain me better (because I'm sure someone is thinking that I went crazy when I said that I wasn't displeased with the Flek shot), this is the Flek shot after development in PS:



The worse thing in digital is when you clip lights or blacks, a old battered lens that gives me a low contrasted image with plenty of space from which I can develop the final shot is very useful (I'm not saying it's a great miracle lens, it's a useful instrument). I choose the contrast I want, not the coating.

Adding up that the strong diffused light (due to lack of coating) gives also the "sun light" effect that it's very hard to replicate with artificial lights and is very important in food shots.

[Katastrofo]

Well, I can see employing a little legerdemain in PS does win the day with
the Flek. I think I still like the Lydith one better, however, and that was
"right out of the box" as it were?

Hummm, toggling back and forth, the Flek does show more detail..

[A G Photography]

[Richard_D]

I really like the lydith.

What it really shows though is you need a less contrasty nikkor - maybe an old nikkor-o would be perfect

[Laurence]

As soon as I saw the Lydith image, I felt it was the best real world lens, with a look that is low-contrast, yet very realistic. I'm impressed by yet another lens I know nothing about! I love the underdogs when they come through as a superb piece of equipment!

[ChrisLilley]

A lens can't add contrast, it can only loose it through internal reflections which give veiling flare. This is not evenly distributed over the picture.

It seems that, when shooting raw, the tone curve should be used to select the type of contrast you want (lower contrast having a shallower slope in the midrange and a correspondingly greater preservation of hilghight and shadow detail).

Unless one is actually trying to use flare as a special effect (ie, one wants to see flare in particular areas of the image and has set up lighting accordingly to trigger that). I guess uncoated - or even better, coated with lots of scratches - lenses could be used for that.

From this set, it seems that the default curve in raw processing was unsuitable for the type of look that was aimed for.

[poilu]

for me all the versions look soft and flat
maybe it is time for me to find a real monitor to appreciate them

[A G Photography]

[A G Photography]

[Attila]

Interesting and important report from different lens, thank you for sharing!
Lydith is a great very underrated lens I know long time ago.

[ChrisLilley]

[themoleman342]

yes, I have the pentacon branded version of the lydith and I agree it is a wonderful lens. I actually just posted a few pictures of my own from St. Petersburg. I only wish it had a bit more turn in the focus ring, I tend to enjoy a really precise focus even though a wide angle usually does not need it.

[A G Photography]

[LucisPictor]

Don't put away the Nikkor too easily. I guess this lens needs some underexposure. Try it again and you will see. In my eyes the first shot is a little overexposed compared to the Lydith shot.

[A G Photography]

[trifox]

Nice shots!!!! ... my comment:

..had been working and using high-end quality equipment (MAC, Photoshop, Apple monitor proper calibrated) for 4 years for top advertisement agencies (clients such as Citroen, Peugeot, t-Mobile....) as a pre-press operator (I have got through thoushands pics high-top quality pictures) can say this - only one pic is OK and can be processed for print - pic taken with CZ sonnar 4/135 with ext. tube...

nice day, tf

[Orio]

Alessandro Borgia?
Your ananas recipe is perfect for killing someone

Older lenses can be good if you need a lower macro-contrast as a starting point for digital transformations.
However, it's worth noting that the internal reflections can also impact the micro-contrast, with consequences on the perceived sharpness which are not as easy and without consequences to recover as the macro-contrast.

If detail is an issue (e.g. for printing large), then I would suggest to use the sharpest lens available while setting the lowest contrast value in the camera preferences (most DSLR offer this kind of control). This, in addition to the 4-stops latitude range of the RAW file, should provide with enough histogram room to handle also the contrasted lenses.

[poilu]

For a cheap solution, I would suggest a Rodenstock Rodagon
They are almost as good as the Zeiss Makro Planar
They will render food as food and not as photocopied food

[Orio]

[poilu]

[trifox]