Jump to content

Which lenses have 'character'?


seratti

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

 

I understand completely and felt the same for many years. I don't see either type of optical formula as bad, just different options for different aesthetics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Yes, I get your point but I'd argue that I'm talking about a fan brush vs. a mop brush, a fine-point round brush vs an angled brush. They're all brushes, they all apply paint, but they don't apply it the same. There is a difference even in the hands of the same artist. Yes, the artist is the most important element but it's not the only element. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Sell me the Ektar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Elmarit-R 19mm v2 is extraordinary in every respect, as a true wide conveying a mood and 3D on axis.

 

Elmarit-M 24mm ASPH draws most naturally and delivers saturated, real colors.

 

Summicron-M 28mm ASPH is a scalpel, out to the very corners.

 

APO Summicron-M 50mm ASPH delivers color nuance like no other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

Michelangelos David for example. The statue is aesthetically pleasing to look at, it conveys a certain image of a hero, an underdog I suppose. But if you look at the statue, it is technically incorrect. Most obviously the lower hand is huge of course - but I don't think you wanted me to elaborate on that?

 

A perfect lens for photography is the one that gives you the image you want. Technical aspects on paper shouldn't drive the decision.  

A technically perfect lens (irrespective of photography) among other things focuses all wavelengths to the same point with a high and uniform MTF, corner to corner. So it would have high contrast and resolution for all wavelengths with even illumination across the field. I'd argue that the out of focus redesign is purely an aesthetic, not technical parameter, and is only relevant in photography. For example, it is entirely irrelevant in microscopes or telescopes.

 

(I'm not the best writer, so non sequiturs are generally a disconnect between my brain and hand)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Special character, how about Summar?
This guy is quite easy to spot: dreamy and glowy. :)

 

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!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

which Summar?

The one and only Summar 2,0 / 5cm from Leitz (1933-1940) for Schraubleica. SUMAR (1933) or collapsible SUMUS (1934 - 1940).

 

There exist many Summars in the market in a not so good condition and fewer in good condition. I think one should have both.

 

The following photo I made with a Summar in a not so good condition. My favourite for vintage portraits. I have also one in very good condition that I prefer for all other purposes.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's start with a lens I don't own anymore, deeply sorry to say; the APO-Elmarit 180 R, I have no body for it because I can't get over the yellow cast of the M240 and up.

This lens has a really gorgeous drawing. I don't know if Karbe designed it, but it's a modern Leica lens and it *is* perfect and it *has* character. Although I agree to a great extent with what pico said earlier about Karbe etc., I thought I'd show an example of how modern lenses can show character too. 

This has been shot on Kodachrome btw. and this films scans poorly, so don't judge the sharpness in itself here too much, because it is real sharp, just want to show the beautiful bo-keh here.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another one with the same lens, probably a better demonstration. R8 with Tri-X in HC110

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can use the 50 Summar on modern cameras, such as the M-P 240?

what results to expect? which ring to use?

kengai, I made this above photo with the Summar 5cm adapted on a Sony Nex-7. But with the adapterring Schraubleica 39 to Leica M Bajonett - offered also by Leica since the earliest Leica M´s times - I use all my early Schraubleica lenses also on my Leica M6 with best results on film. They were made for film.

 

I wouldn´t see any problem with an M-P 240 because old Leica Lenses work often best with Leica digital cameras. But I own no digital Body of Leica - only an Leica II, Leica IIIg and M6) and therefore have no special experience in this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 50 DR has good character and so has the 50 Summarit f1.5. For really distinctive character you have to go back to the LTM lenses from the 1920s and 1930s, particularly the uncoated ones. The 50mm f2.5 Hektor is excellent character-wise, but I completely agree with the comments above about the Summar. It has a wonderful distinctive character, particularly in out of focus areas. Examples below taken with the Summar on an M8. The normal adaptor for a 50mm lens will do.

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

William

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I get your point but I'd argue that I'm talking about a fan brush vs. a mop brush, a fine-point round brush vs an angled brush. They're all brushes, they all apply paint, but they don't apply it the same. There is a difference even in the hands of the same artist. Yes, the artist is the most important element but it's not the only element. 

Indeed! And there are bad brushes, good brushes, excellent ones...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the 75lux couldn't be left unmentioned! The first is on the MM1, the others ones film

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...