[paulh]

Vivitar 19/3.8

[noelpolar]

Voigt 20/3.5


Early morning at Currency Creek by Noel Leahy, on Flickr


Finniss way tonight by Noel Leahy, on Flickr

[JensE]

May I enter with my Voitgländer Color Skopar 20mm F/3.5 on K-1? I really like it, but looking at the excellent images here, I'm starting to think I may want to keep my eyes open for a Pentax (F)A 20mm. Or maybe not? I do like the starburst pattern of the Skopar better.

[bpv_UW]

Last Dollar Road, between Ouray and Telluride, CO. K-1 and Fa 20. Single exposure. Xpost to K-1 pics thread.



-Brandon

[todd]

FA20 from a couple weeks ago

[zzeitg]

Sigma 20mm f1.8

[paulh]

From April with a Vivitar 19/3.8

[Andrew_Oid]

I bought a Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-f4.5 AF zoom for a hundred dollars (going price) on eBay about six months ago. I was curious to see how good it was especially at the 20mm end. I had some Tokina lenses when I was shooting film with Nikons and some of them seemed quite good. Anyway, today I did some shots at 20, 24, 28 and 35 in Auto AF, near distance, middle distance and far. To finish up I took a shot in manual AP at f11 which seems to be the best aperture for the lens then put the SMC Takumar 20mm f4.5 lens on and took the same scene focused at infinity at f11. There's an obvious color cast with the Tokina being cool and the Takumar warm, but apart from that not much difference that I can detect. Both photos were sharpened a bit and brightened a little in post. I just have a hard time taking AF lenses seriously . . .

[tim60]

Was the rear element of the Tak20 one of the thorium glass? Could yellowing associated with that explain the colour cast.

[Andrew_Oid]

Was the rear element of the Tak20 one of the thorium glass? Could yellowing associated with that explain the colour cast.

My experience with Takumars is that, with few exceptions, the lenses tend to be "warm". If I remember right the preset 35 3.5 is one of those exceptions. Photos taken with it are very noticeably "bluer". I would think if thorium glass accounted for the color cast it would be common knowledge. It's probably due to the glasses and coatings used in manufacture, or so it seems to me. I like a warmer tone myself, but I expect there are people who prefer a cooler one.

[tim60]

The warm tone is something I like. And the may be a different factor contributing.

[Andrew_Oid]

The warm tone is something I like. And the may be a different factor contributing.

I was wondering if some change over time in the glass or the coating could contribute to it. We would need optical data from the time of manufacture showing wavelength transmission if it exists and similar data for the lenses today to see if that could be the case. These lenses are 50 years old. And then the digital sensor might be an influence, too.

[tim60]

Another place to look might be whether photographers from when they were new stated any comparative views about tone comparisons between brands, particularly those using transparencies which gave less processing opportunity to manipulate colour.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Another place to look might be whether photographers from when they were new stated any comparative views about tone comparisons between brands, particularly those using transparencies which gave less processing opportunity to manipulate colour.

The mention of transparencies reminds me of a strange phenomenon that I've noticed: the colour rendering characteristics of the same lens can be quite different between digital and film. For example, the Takumar 20mm as mentioned above does give a warm rendering on a digital body, and that has applied whichever body I've used it on. But the same copy of the same lens tends to give a markedly cool rendering when I shoot film, and that applies no matter which film stock I've tried it on -- negatives, transparencies, the effect is the same. I'd definitely be interested to know if anyone else has noticed a similar effect, and if there are any theories that might explain it.

At least when we're shooting digitally we're able to adjust the colours to our liking without the hassle of optical filters. There was a time when I used to custom profile the colour rendering of all my lenses using Adobe Profile Editor and a Macbeth card, but nowadays I prefer to let their true character show through.

[Andrew_Oid]

The mention of transparencies reminds me of a strange phenomenon that I've noticed: the colour rendering characteristics of the same lens can be quite different between digital and film. For example, the Takumar 20mm as mentioned above does give a warm rendering on a digital body, and that has applied whichever body I've used it on. But the same copy of the same lens tends to give a markedly cool rendering when I shoot film, and that applies no matter which film stock I've tried it on -- negatives, transparencies, the effect is the same. I'd definitely be interested to know if anyone else has noticed a similar effect, and if there are any theories that might explain it.

At least when we're shooting digitally we're able to adjust the colours to our liking without the hassle of optical filters. There was a time when I used to custom profile the colour rendering of all my lenses using Adobe Profile Editor and a Macbeth card, but nowadays I prefer to let their true character show through.

Very interesting, Dave, that there's that difference between film and digital. I would suspect that the digital sensor is more sensitive or insensitive to some wavelength(s) of light, less sensitive to blue perhaps. Maybe the glass formulations factor into it, too. Is there an optical engineer in the house?