perfect lens vs character lens

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, ianman said:

Spectacular and boring?

A friend stopped dating a stunning, beautiful and charming woman. When asked why, he said "She was perfect; I felt dead in her presence."

 

[ianman]

19 minutes ago, pico said:

A friend stopped dating a stunning, beautiful and charming woman. When asked why, he said "She was perfect; I felt dead in her presence."

 

Now that's pushing it too far 😁

[evikne]

Too perfect models or too perfect lenses — both are boring. I think that's two sides of the same coin.

Edited August 24, 2019 by evikne

[Guest]

13 hours ago, adan said:

It was more the arrival of new technology than a "mission" that created that change. In particular, the development of pressed or molded aspherics, but also CNC machining and increasingly-sophisticated lens design software.

It is not as though Dr. Mandler (or other Leica designers, or designers at other companies) said "OOoooo! Let's design romantic lenses with character!!" They built the most "perfect" lenses they could with the technology of the era. Or - sometimes built lesser lenses to compete on price (not so much Leica, though). Up until at least 1990, Leica was still primarily designing with hard-nosed magazine and newspaper photojournalists in mind - not noted for "romance," or glamorizing their subjects.

The 75mm Summilux, for example, is what it is because - in 1980 - that was optical perfection for a lens of that speed and focal length. The best in the world.

Intentionally designing lenses with character is a rather late development, not early (although soft-focus portrait lenses have been a niche all across the industry back to 140 years ago - Leitz Thambar, Rodenstock Imagons, Petzval lenses*, etc.) "Character lenses" from Nikon and Canon - the "variable bokeh/blur" 105s and 135s - arrived very late in their lens lines, after AF came in (late 1980s).

Dr. Mandler designed the original original Noctilux (50mm f/1.2 - 1966) using two aspheric surfaces. They had to be hand-ground. Massively expensive to make, due to the number of "spoiled" units that had to be discarded. Couldn't be sold at a price that covered the cost of production. Same thing happened again with the original hand-ground Aspherical (not ASPH) 35 f/1.4 (1990)  - the technology was just not yet ready for primetime.

However, once the technology was available, a Leica CEO did say in a speech, around 2000±, that "Leica lenses will always be expensive (because of their hand-made, cottage-industry manufacture) - all we can do is make them worth the money." That could be taken as a mission statement for optical excellence (if not perfection). Incidentally, that CEO was ousted by new owner Andreas Kaufmann a few years later, after the company got into financial difficulties.

Anyway, to answer the question:

I generally prefer the lenses from around 1980 - the pinnacle of Leitz Canada design. Not because they are romantic or have character as such (I am a photojournalist - I want reality to look real). But because I find practical advantages to them. I prefer their greener color rendering (makes skin looked tanned rather than sunburnt-pink, and skies realistically cyan rather than purple). I find a little spherical aberration makes nailing "approximate, pretty good" focus easier with the teles - on a rangefinder. The 35mm f/2's are so light compared to the ASPH versions, which I find front-heavy on the camera (and pink as a baby's bottom!). Their lower macro-contrast is very useful at holding highlight and shadow detail on color slides (when I started using them) and digital (which I use today). And many of them have center resolution at least as good as (and sometimes better than) their "more perfect" successors. Because in that era, resolution (the number of pickets in the fence) was still treated as a separate attribute to be designed for, and not just subsumed into MTF.

Additionally, I find them more reliable in some ways. No floating elements to stiffen the focus or jump the track and go fuzzy (ASPH 50 lux and 75 cron). Longer focus throws on the teles for more precise, vernier focusing with an RF. Back in WW2, the German Tiger tanks were wonders of engineering in many ways - but so over-engineered and difficult to maintain that they were wiped off the map of Europe by clunky old American Shermans. My idea of a "perfect tank" (or a perfect lens) is one that goes into the shop for servicing about once every 35 years (I grew up with plain-prism Nikon Fs - I have high expectations. )

If they happen to have character - that can be a two-edged sword. Sometimes it is useful, and sometimes it gets in the way of the primary function - recording reality. Fortunately, I can make use of it - or work around it - as needed.

___________________

*although the Petzval lens was called a "portrait lens" mostly because it was fast (aperture of f/3.5 - the "Summilux" of the 1840s). It allowed exposures of just a few seconds instead of minutes, which meant subjects did not have to sit as long with their head gripped in the iron restrainer that prevented movement during the exposure. Coincidentally the large aperture made for artistic vignetting and swirly bokeh.

I cannot thank you enough for this incredible contribution- so many questions answered; endlessly valuable to a newbie like myself. Thank you, sir. 

[UliWer]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb pico:

I cannot imagine what rendering by a perfect lens would be.

I think you could call the rendering „illusionary“ or „unicorn-like“.

A perfect lens, i.e. a lens without optical faults, cannot exist, since it goes against the laws of optics, which are much more intransigent than man made laws.

Bertele‘s Sonnar from the 1930s was a much more „perfect“ lens than the good old Tessar (or Elmar) - if you don‘t look at distortion, a discipline in which the Tessar/Elmar were (almost) perfect and the Sonnar was very, very bad. 

The Apo-Summicron-M 1:2/50 mm ASPH seems to be almost perfect - if you don‘t pay attention to maximum opening (and vignetting). Though the new Apo-Summicron-SL 1:2/50 ASPH. seems to be even more perfect than its M-counterpart - if you don‘t look at its size (and I don‘t know if it is just sloppiness why Leica does not give any data for the distortion and vignetting of this lens - may be they have to rely on camera electronics to achieve „perfection“ in this respect...).

Whoever looks at „perfection“ and/or „character“ should look at the results of his perfect or characterful lens and should point out the precise differences to less perfect or characterful examples. 

Photography is about seeing something, not believing in something. 

 

[robgo2]

I find this to be a great discussion topic, as it is relevant to my current transition from an SL to a CL. The reasons for this are the CL's smaller size, lower weight and native autofocus lenses that are both excellent and lightweight. With the SL, I tried the 24-90-SL but found it far too large and heavy for my aging, arthritic hands. I did not even bother with any of the native SL prime lenses for the same reason.  Instead, I went with a selection of M and R lenses with a strong inclination towards character over technical perfection, but even they are becoming a burden for my hands. Hence the move to the CL, which gives results on a par with the SL and is a pleasure to use, not a burden.

But here's the rub. The two TL prime lenses that I own (Summicron 23 f2 and Summilux 35 f1.4) are incredibly sharp and well corrected, especially the Lux, but they do seem to render a bit clinically compared to my M and R lenses. The TLs produce stunning images, but they do not have the same depth rendering and glow (I'm talking about you, Summilux-R 80) that I have come to love.  I really don't see any way out of this dilemma, other than accepting the compromises necessary for me to continue indulging in my photography passion. I think that I can still use some of my MF lenses for certain purposes. I have a Summilux-R 50 f1.4 (E60) that I can manage on the CL. It has a lovely "Leica rendering," and on the CL, it is 75mm(E) which is perfect for portraits.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by robgo2

[PFM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

 

You might just have bad copy of I-22. Why not to get another one? They cost low. I had I-22 on M3, which I shimmed by using of M-E.

Easy to shim lens.

I think it might be more the camera, now that I think about it.  I got better distant photos before replacing the body it came on.  But I'm not going to worry about it, just practice street photography more often.  I'll check it on another camera to see if my theory holds true.

PF

[Guest]

sorry if this is a crazy question, but are the zeiss sonnar 50 1.5 and konica hexanon 60 1.2 in any way similar in the images they produce/render? just last night i discovered the konica online and was blown away by the way it draws, but it sort of reminded me of the zeiss i thought- just curious if anyone else saw this or if i'm crazy (ok, i know i'm crazy regardless!). and while on this topic, i know it's a totally different mount, but is there perhaps some parallel to the noct-nikkor 58 1.2 or is that too sharp wide open to be considered in this company? 

[horosu]

The Konica is a very sharp lens, even wide open. It is superb in every way and has no focus shift. The Sonnar has a very noticeable focus shift and a mellower output. And BTW, the Konica is way sharper that the Noct-Nikkor.

[Ecar]

What Horea says: very different optical formulas, resulting in very different rendering and characteristics.

Both are amazing, but I wouldn't buy either for a starter lens.

At current prices, the 60/1.2 would tie up a substantial amount of money that could be put to better (photographic) use. Plus, it's a bit of an odd focal length.

Handling the focus shift on the ZM 50/1.5 may end up in frustration with the whole RF experience.

[lct]

8 minutes ago, Ecar said:

Handling the focus shift on the ZM 50/1.5 may end up in frustration with the whole RF experience

+1

[Ko.Fe.]

9 hours ago, PFM said:

I think it might be more the camera, now that I think about it.  I got better distant photos before replacing the body it came on.  But I'm not going to worry about it, just practice street photography more often.  I'll check it on another camera to see if my theory holds true.

PF

Try Jupiter-12 for it. At f22 almost entire focus range is going to be in focus. From 1.2 meters to infinity. 

I have 7artisans focus tab on mine. Sold separately on eBay. Makes big difference on the street. 

[james.liam]

6 hours ago, horosu said:

The Konica is a very sharp lens, even wide open. It is superb in every way and has no focus shift. The Sonnar has a very noticeable focus shift and a mellower output. And BTW, the Konica is way sharper that the Noct-Nikkor.

I have experience with the NOCT Nikkor. Unlike the Konica the 40 year-old NOCT, as its name implies is a low-light "one-trick pony". It still impresses wide-open, with gentle colors, signature bokeh, minimized coma and is pretty damned sharp in the center by ƒ/1.4 (still better than any Nikkor 50/1.4) but suffers from extreme field curvature up close. Its narrow performance envelope ends at about ƒ/4 (personally never push it beyond ƒ/2.8). The comparison therefore is "apples & oranges".

A Noctilux, or Konica 60/1.2 it most definitely is not.

 

NOCT @ ƒ1.4, D700

 

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!

Edited August 25, 2019 by james.liam

[PFM]

2 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Try Jupiter-12 for it. At f22 almost entire focus range is going to be in focus. From 1.2 meters to infinity. 

I have 7artisans focus tab on mine. Sold separately on eBay. Makes big difference on the street. 

I'll think about it.  I want to do a test of all my 50's first.

PF

[farnz]

On 8/23/2019 at 5:18 PM, White Buffalo said:

it also brings up the question "what is character?" ... however if we could just focus on their rendering, that would be great.

To concentrate on the rendering maybe take a wander through the "View through older glass" thread.  It is a long thread now but is intended to show through photographs the rendering of different lenses and often defines 'character' visually.  Sometimes it's better to swap words for pictures and let your eyes and emotions guide you.

Pete.

[Alberti]

When I started off with the M8 after decades with the M2 and  M6 I got immediate feedback from my shooting. What a new world it was. I learned a lot. Because I used PC screens with about 1.5-2 MP (low density) the 100% pictures were HUGE when blown up (Capture One). This allowed me to see the smallest differences in focus and the structure of the bokeh. 

I also found out I wanted very fast focussing lenses, and quickly traded in my older lenses (summicron 50mm V2 and elmar 90 V1) for the newer lenses with a 90 degrees throw. Smooth and slick working. 

When I studied the bokeh at that larger than life rendering I found out that the newer and sharper lenses tended to have a prettier unsharpness to the back (in the distance) than to the front. And that the newer lenses had non-round diafragmas that all at once were visible at some settings. But also, the new lenses had a ridiculously small and shallow plane of focus at say 80 cm to 1 m. Not only at the maximum opening but also at settings of F4-F5.6. 

Interestingly, when taken in the distance of 2-3 meters the shallowness remained and this rendering is part of the composition. The new lenses combined well overall with the CCD and what I would now say, gave a nice colour cast. Naturalezza. Spezzatura. I do not expect Leica to come again with a CCD camera, even now the new Kodak Imaging line has a 50MP CCD sensor. Come on, L can make more money (margin) with a CMOS! 

 

Once the CMOS camera came in my life, pictures got sharper. Man, razor sharp. better focussing. But I missed something at times. Was it the colour blend? Many times I saw the pictures were more ‘flat’, with a less than natural 3D. Drab at times. Boring? I don’t know why, but less keepers. [Behold, there are more variables in the equation, having had multifocal glasses certainly did not help working with the RF.]

I experimented with ‘old glass’ and bought many an old lens. I did find a nice character, by oh my, this was much more working. Blood sweat and tears. Great pictures very often, but at a cost.

Hard to turn the focus, they give front focus, or back focus etc. etc. Even when adjusted. Many will recognize this. Glad the M240 camera has life view!

Now I start to appreciate again the Planar or Double Gauss lenses (that is roughly how I would call the Summicron 50’s, the 35’s and also my M-Rokkor/Summicron 40mm) for their excellent focussing and pairing with the RF, and looking at the photographic result, they are TOP of the bill.

So over all I will quietly converge again to standard glass (less Sonnars).  

 

Based on this journey, I can safely say to the OP (white buffalo): do have a good look at the Leica glass, also if needed for size or budget, the Summarit line. Avoid the Summicron 75 or summilux 75: hard to focus. Try the Summarit 75 as a starter. The quest for perfection comes after >>10.000 photos - start off with easy handling.

I do whish that Leica have affordable lenses. My wife has no LV bag, I don’t drive a Jag: I’m in another traditional client category. Thinking of the new Leica brand strategy that started off several years ago, I feel out of place.

 

 

[Exodies]

I can’t imagine why you don’t see perfection as character. Given that perfection is undefined all we have is character.

[farnz]

I don't see perfection as character in this context (assuming that perfection would be possible) because a perfect lens would render a perfect image of an object and therefore not modulate the image with its 'signature' at all.  There's nothing wrong with this and lens designers strive to produce the perfect lens (without aberration, distortion, or other flaws), which they can only approach but never reach since a perfect lens is an imaginary concept by definition.

'Character' in the context of lenses - in my view - is where a lens alters the image in some beneficial or appealing way (clearly subjective) and imposes its character on the image.  The nearer a lens comes to perfection, eg the 50/2 APO-Summicron asph, the less character it possesses.

Pete.

[pico]

Character reflects our human vision, flaws, and our desire to evince them. A perfect lens would be an unacceptable violation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Definition of perfection? Something that makes you yawn when you think of it .