Which lenses have 'character'?

[seratti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which lenses, in your opinion, have that special character that separates them from just being good to being special?

 

There are a lot of 'good' lenses that are sharp in the center, sharp across the frame, lack distortion etc. and for some applications those features are critical. However over the years I've been drawn to those lenses that offer something different, those that have a special characteristic that other lenses don't have. Being new to the Leica world, I'd like to know what lenses, in your opinion, have that special characteristic that separates them from the pack. Please also describe what the characteristic is as well. Any image examples you care to share would be great too.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

Welcome to the group. Yours is a perennial question, and you will receive many answers.

 

My small contribution would be the first generation Summilux 35mm lens. Wide-open (f/1.4) it is slightly soft and in contrasty light can give a halo of sorts. Stopped down to f/2 and better it becomes sharp. Two lenses in one.

[Jeff S]

This 'pinned' thread may be of interest...  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/186858-the-view-through-older-glass/

 

Not limited to M lenses.  And of course depends on one's definition of character.

 

Jeff

[ola.fiske]

 

My dual range 50mm summicron sure has character. Here are two examples in the "closeup range"

[ola.fiske]

My dual range 50mm summicron sure has character. Here are two examples in the "closeup range"

[LucisPictor]

Without being able to prove it, I have always thought that Mandler lenses have a special "character".

[gberger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Screw Mount 50mm f3.5 Elmar that was on my IIIc. Used it for many a Kodachrome slide. 

 

Yeah, it had "character!"

[Wayne]

I suppose the answer will vary with the users capacity to note and relate technical aspects of a lens' behavior. Me, all I can do is look at a photograph and determine if there is something enchanting about it. I find, to some degree, this characteristic in almost all of the Leica LTM glass. Some more that others. I would describe it as a lens' capacity to render a result that is imperfect, but at the same time makes you wish you could turn on that view at will.

 

As far as my  M glass goes, the closest example of this characteristic exists in my non-aspherical 35 Summilux. The photo below is my grandson, taken with that lens, using an M7 and TriX. It does not hurt that he is quite the character, himself.

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[michaelwj]

Of course the 35mm pre-aspherical summilux. A brilliant lens.

If you want to read up on the Mandler lenses here you go: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/45272-in-praise-of-the-mandler-lenses/

 

I'll add the 21 Super Angulon. A perfect pair to the 35mm pre-asph summilux.

 

Keep in mind that what we call character is really just uncorrected aberrations. 

[pico]

Keep in mind that what we call character is really just uncorrected aberrations. 

 

Therein the criticism of uncorrected is something just so aesthetically wrong.

It is like disrespecting calligraphy by comparing it to computer fonts/typefaces.

.

[michaelwj]

Therein the criticism of uncorrected is something just so aesthetically wrong.

It is like disrespecting calligraphy by comparing it to computer fonts/typefaces.

.

 

 

Agree. Uncorrected is not aesthetically wrong, but it is technically imperfect.

 

Many of the greatest works of art are aesthetically perfect due to their technical imperfections. Think Michelangelo's David for example.

[DwF]

Out of the lenses I have, I must say I was quite surprised by a collapsible 50 summicron screw mount. Just the right amount of contrast and a certain glow for B&W photography

I agree that this lens, while I haven't had one in years, yielded beautiful results (when you have one where coating is still okay).  The bokeh is very soft and seems to balance beautifully with the low contrast somehow.  That said, I never met a 50 'cron I didn't love.

[DwF]

I had a 50mm Dual Range for a while with my M6 and here is one made with that combo while traveling through Amsterdam. Looks like XP-2

 

[seratti]

Wow, lots of great replies, thanks. I'm going to have to check some of these out. We're lucky to have access to so many modern lenses, but they're so good that they're almost boring to me sometimes. I think that's why I switched over to Leica; my Fuji X-pro2 was just so dang good and so perfect and easy to use that ironically I felt bored with it. Not the camera's fault of course, it's all in my mind, but it became a crutch. Regardless, I'm really enjoying photography once again and looking forward to trying some of these legacy and modern M-Mount and screw mount lenses. 

[pico]

Agree. Uncorrected is not aesthetically wrong, but it is technically imperfect.

 

Many of the greatest works of art are aesthetically perfect due to their technical imperfections. Think Michelangelo's David for example.

 

Non sequitur.

 

What are the requisites for a technically perfect lens for photography? Really, is the lens supposed to image what the human eyes sees? I think not. I deeply respect Peter Karbe's design, his strident pursuit of optical excellence, however I'm torn - does his design anticipate (or create) humankind's impression of an aesthetic? You see, I'm an older person who sees back over a hundred years of photography; at one time photographers chose lenses for their peculiar rendering, none of it perfect but there was a huge range of photographic vocabulary.

 

If you wish I can elaborate.

[Peter H]

Wow, lots of great replies, thanks. I'm going to have to check some of these out. We're lucky to have access to so many modern lenses, but they're so good that they're almost boring to me sometimes. I think that's why I switched over to Leica; my Fuji X-pro2 was just so dang good and so perfect and easy to use that ironically I felt bored with it. Not the camera's fault of course, it's all in my mind, but it became a crutch. Regardless, I'm really enjoying photography once again and looking forward to trying some of these legacy and modern M-Mount and screw mount lenses. 

 

 

It's a matter of taste.

 

To my mind, the better the lens, the less character it has, and that's what I prefer. I dislike it when the quality of the scene that I'm trying to photograph is noticeably affected by the lens, yet I believe that is what people call character.

[lct]

Great to have both transparent and character lenses if you can.

For example: 21/3.4 pre-asph vs 21/3.4 asph; 35/1.4 pre-asph vs 35/1.4 FLE. 50/1.4 pre-asph vs 50/1.4 asph; 50/2 rigid vs 50/2 apo; 50/2.8 v2 vs 50/2.5; 75/1.4 vs 75/2; 90/2 v2 vs 90/2 apo; 90/4 collaps. vs 90/4 macro; 135/4 vs 135/3.4 apo.

[NB23]

Aero ektar. Wo-oow.

Noctilux to some extent.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

Aero ektar. Wo-oow.

Ya think? I've never mentioned my former penchant for aerial lenses. I have had never-used Aero Ektars (yellow dot), and even have one I use as a foot-rest here in the living room. Guess you can tell how I respect them. Talk to me about aero Biogons. I am a Biogon bigot. Never found one I did not like.

.

[rramesh]

A lens is like a paint brush. On it's own, it's just a brush. But with a painter's eye for imagery and choice of the right mediums, technique and composition, you might have a work of art.

 

Within your budget, any lens has potential to help you excel.