102 year old lens on a Canon 5DmkII

Unedited ha!

wow

  On 9/20/2010 at 12:35 PM, mcbpete said:

Well I call bull on that. The first has that blue cross processing you get with polaroid emulation, the second is sepia tinted with mid level vignetting, and the third with the vibrance turned down and heavy vignetting.

 

I'd like to be wrong though ...

i fully believe this stuff isn't postprocessed. colour rendition is a huge factor in lenses - something that modern lenses (the more expensive ones, anyway) have been more cleverly optimised for.

so it stands to reason that a lens from 100 years ago would lack some of the colour rendition of something more recent. clearly a few of those shots are B&W, which negates any such factors - but the ones you specifically mention as seeming 'sepia tinted' look that way because of the way the lens renders the image.

the vignetting (which, admittedly, is artificially applied to MANY photos and video these days) is probably because the lens (which is a 35mm according to the full post on C5D) can't cover the entire full-frame 5DII sensor. i myself have vintage lenses that exhibit this. vignetting was a natural artifact long before it became an artistic flourish.

having said all that, this thing is pretty cool. it's nothing you COULDN'T produce using digital trickery... but there's a "feel" to lenses like this. i have a 50mm super multi coated takumar 1.4 that i ADORE because of how it renders stuff. it just looks ridiculous. every lens has unique characteristics.

also, keep in mind that perception is key. a lot of the subtleties of a lens like this are lost on people who don't obsess over lenses. just like most music laypersons can't tell a minimoog from its VST version.

anyway, cool stuff.

didn't know anyone else here frequented C5D.

  On 9/20/2010 at 11:53 AM, mcbpete said:

  On 9/18/2010 at 8:10 PM, Craig Anderson said:

  On 9/18/2010 at 7:56 PM, Babar said:

Can someone explain me why this lens is so special compared to modern lens ?

Mr. Anderson your facepalm emoticon is actually actually more of a facepalm in itself.

this is always the case with mr. anderson. in every instance that i've witnessed him attempt to correct, or clarify a "fail" on another's behalf, it has instead turned right around and been so for mr. anderson, himself. i'd go so far as to say that i still have yet to see no sign of underlying incompetence inherent in all of craig's posts.

I just saw that this dude shot a video with his 5D.

Pretty fucking sick.

http://vimeo.com/15524618

http://blog.planet5d.com/2010/10/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-video-from-a-102-year-old-lens-a-blast-from-the-past/

OK, so I can see some of the natural vignetting on that now - but it really highlights that the photos on page 1 must have had some form of post processing in terms of colour correction and grading. Especially how a lot of the shots in the video pretty much show that the lens is pretty much identical (eg the shots inside the bedroom) to modern lenses mounted onto such a good camera in the first place, the colours on some of the autumnal drive parts are nice but again I'm pretty sure they've been graded to up the 'warmth' of the colour.

  Quote

***There is NO color correction or footage manipulation what so ever***

That statement, for what it's worth, sent my bullshit detector into hyperdrive. I don't believe it for one second.

Anyhow, it's pretty cool to do something like mount an old lens to a modern digital body, but people fetishize technology to a ridiculous degree.

If you're gonna go out and shoot with this setup, though, why point your gear at bulls and amateurish models standing around in the sun? The reactions to the video are a bit over the top, no? Looks like a bad Levis or Budweiser commercial. Robert Frank, this is not.