View Full Version : character vs. a neutral lens...part 2
back alley
10-17-2010, 18:41
how about we create a list of neutral lenses and lenses that have character...
list what lenses you think are neutral and which have character and maybe explain the nature of that character as well.
is this doable? or is it too subjective?
back alley
10-17-2010, 19:01
i was thinking of lenses we currently own or have owned, so based on personal experience and not just what we have read on the net.
for me...i believe that the elmar m 50/2.8 had lots of character in terms of warmth with colour and it had some added depth to some images.
the rollei 40/2.8 does colour well adds some 'pop' to an image...they seems more lively.
my 28/3.5 and the 50/2.5 cv lenses are more neutral than not.
noimmunity
10-17-2010, 19:03
Before I jump in with specific nominees (pending further definition from Joe), just a thought:
Modern lenses:
faster than f/2 = character
slower than f/2 = neutral
Classic lenses = character, subject to further definition
Damaged, modified, or highly used lenses = very specific character
Sonnar/Ernostar, Tessars...these seem to have more "character" than Double Gauss lenses.
Wide open lenses = more character
Stopped down lenses = more neutrality
how about we create a list of neutral lenses and lenses that have character...
list what lenses you think are neutral and which have character and maybe explain the nature of that character as well.
Seems completely doable. I'd say that a neutral lens is just very well-corrected. I.e., a good lens. Not much spherical aberration, astigmatism, or coma, and doesn't have annoying bokeh or weird color rendition.
The ZM 35/2.8 Biogon-C is probably the most neutral (= best-corrected) lens I've ever used. Little distortion, little flare, improves only slightly on stopping down (that is, sharp at full aperture). Its only fault is significant vignetting wide open. The 35/2.5 Summarit is similar, but with more distortion.
I haven't had the pleasure of using it, but the 50 Summilux ASPH looks like another extremely neutral lens.
I'd also nominate the Nikkor 105/2.5.
In contrast: the 35 Summilux ASPH (one of my favorite lenses ever) has unusual enough bokeh and enough distortion to have character. It is a great lens, but not a neutral one. Lots of character.
back alley
10-17-2010, 19:07
with no scientific basis for our beliefs we can only go by our own experience with known samples of lenses.
sebastel
10-17-2010, 21:10
i guess this is another useless (but entertaining) discussion.
the nikkor 105/2.5 to me was a lens of exremely desirable character, and (again to me) it is the same with the biogon 35mm/2.0.
both are already named as "neutral", and with good reason, too. still they are character lenses for me. so, to speak with a german proverb: one's owl is the other's nigtingale, or here: one's character is the other's neutral.
s.
back alley
10-17-2010, 21:19
i don't think it's a useless discussion...we have debates about lenses yet we can see the same lens and it's affects very differently.
maybe it's time to start defining what we are all talking about.
kshapero
10-17-2010, 21:24
CV 35/2.5 so sharp, great results but neutral
CV 35/1.2 mystical - lots of character
ZM 50/1.5 mystifying - but lots of character
a start
What exactly are we talking here? Bokeh/background blur nonsense, or contrast?
The latter (contrast) is usually what neutral refers to with regards to lens design.
Brian Legge
10-17-2010, 21:59
Take a Summarit, clean the heck out of the front glass. You end up with something that looks like this:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4764935986_b67eeb228f.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4764935986/
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4800562503_25d8f89cff.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4800562503/
Extremely low contrast, light bleeding all over. Its an interesting effect in black and white but doesn't work for color at all. I haven't used one in pristine condition so I don't have a point of comparison.
The lens has so much character that I don't use it enough. It would probably be brilliant for some people but I usually want a much sharper, 'character free' look.
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 05:06
Isn't a definition in order here for 'character?' And for that matter, 'neutral?'
Stating a lens has 'character' doesn't really tell me a thing about that lens...
LeicaFoReVer
10-18-2010, 05:41
to my understanding:
neutral = well corrected, modern look
character = opposite of neutral :)
LeicaFoReVer
10-18-2010, 05:43
Canon 50mm f1.2 - lots of character!
I believe all Contax G lenses are neutral, well corrected neutral look. Am I right?
back alley
10-18-2010, 06:16
i don't have a definition and was hoping that this discussion might help to create one.
Here is a definition, Joe: a lens has character if you recognize it via pictures.
That being said, there are fewer character lenses than many threads here might suggest. :)
damien.murphy
10-18-2010, 06:37
i don't have a definition and was hoping that this discussion might help to create one.
Interesting discussion. Perhaps when people tag a lens so, they can elaborate on what it does for them, that they regard it so. Or better, that they share a pic that typifies a lens and its qualities for them..
dave lackey
10-18-2010, 06:52
Here is a definition, Joe: a lens has character if you recognize it via pictures.
That being said, there are fewer character lenses than many threads here might suggest. :)
Roland, nice answer!
Brian Legge...Check Maddoc's color photos and you will be amazed. In daylight, the Summarit has great retro character:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=82046&stc=1&d=1287413504
back alley
10-18-2010, 06:59
Here is a definition, Joe: a lens has character if you recognize it via pictures.
That being said, there are fewer character lenses than many threads here might suggest. :)
not very scientific but i can live with that easily.
i also agree that many lenses are designated as having character but that it is more passed on folk lore than anything else.
I think it's a great question. I think lenses with 'character' are much like people who are 'characters.' Fun to visit, but you wouldn't necessarily want to live with them. :)
I had the Canon 50/1.2. Lots of character, too much at times. The pre-aspherical Summilux 50 had character, but just the right amount to my tastes. It was evident, but didn't draw too much attention to its own signature.
wlewisiii
10-18-2010, 09:34
Interesting thread joe. I also like the idea of defining it as one you can recognise.
My list and only doing LTM & M:
Canon 28/3.5 - neutral
Canon 35/1.8 - character
Canon 50/1.8 - neutral, and I loved it for that.
Canon 100/4 - neutral
Canon 135/3.5 - neutral
CV 35/2.5 - neutral although it's so sharp it sometimes shows up.
Jupiter 12 35/2.8 - neutral
Industar 22 50/3.5 - little bit of character
Industar 61L/D 50/2.8 - character
Jupiter 8 50/2 - little bit of character
Jupiter 3 50/1.5 - lots of character
Jupiter 9 85/2 - character
Jupiter 11 135/4 - neutral
Leica Summicron 40/2 - neutral, though recognisable due to FOV.
Leica Summar 50/2 - Lots and lots of character
Leica Summitar 50/2 - Lots wide open, neutral stopped down
Leica Summicron 50/2 (collapsible) - neutral
Leica Elmar 90/4 - little bit of character
Leica Elmar 135/4.5 - early one, lots of character.
Dang, I've owned and sold more lenses than I realized... :eek: :bang:
William
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 09:45
I think it's a great question. I think lenses with 'character' are much like people who are 'characters.' Fun to visit, but you wouldn't necessarily want to live with them. :)
Just stop them down, and they become easier to live with. :)
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 09:46
This was shot wide open. Anyone guess the lens?
What's the character here?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5087258066_5802763f28_z.jpg
tbarker13
10-18-2010, 09:52
Here is a definition, Joe: a lens has character if you recognize it via pictures.
That being said, there are fewer character lenses than many threads here might suggest. :)
I like it. But do you really need to be able to identify the specific lens by its photos? For example, you may not know which sonnar lens was used to create an image, but you know it was a sonnar.
As I see it, we basically have two types of lenses in this discussion.
1. Lenses that become a part of the photo by the way they draw.
2. Lenses that stay out of the way and simply show what the photographer saw.
This was shot wide open. Anyone guess the lens?
Care to at least tell us the sensor used?
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 12:07
No such hints yet. :)
kmallick
10-18-2010, 12:21
Character or no character, I will go on a limb and guess Sonnar 50 f/1.5.
This was shot wide open. Anyone guess the lens?
What's the character here?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5087258066_5802763f28_z.jpg
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 16:55
That is incorrect...I could give further hints, but will wait for a few more attempts...
porktaco
10-18-2010, 17:01
cv 28/2 - my guess
helenhill
10-18-2010, 17:12
I'll play :
Digital / 50mm
F2
Planar ...perhaps...:rolleyes:
My Edit:
jeez I could be way off mm wise ...
since i only shoot film
I have Not even considered the crop Factor
monochromejrnl
10-18-2010, 17:16
That is incorrect...I could give further hints, but will wait for a few more attempts...
GF-1 with 20/1.7
This was shot wide open. Anyone guess the lens?
What's the character here?
I would call this neutral, and I believe it is the 50mm f1.7 MC Rokkor?
OK I'll play...
Canon 50/1.4 LTM
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 17:41
Any other guesses? :)
35mm Planar for the Contax G? :-)
helenhill
10-18-2010, 17:48
Drumroll.....
Waiting....
Ho Hum....
:angel:
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 17:51
hah, I think Nando has been looking at my flickr. :)
Helen, you win, you were first to say PLANAR, and it's 50mm equivalent (35/2 on a Sony NEX.)
helenhill
10-18-2010, 17:56
Wow how COOOOOL is that
my mind thought in that Order
a 50mm
then I thought it 'FEELS' maybe F 2 ish
than i narrowed it down to a Planar or Cron and decided Planar
After I posted my answer.... I worried about a Possible Crop factor
Cheers and Thanx... it was FUN !
Sorry. :) I was wondering how you focussed so close with that lens!
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 17:58
So we have established PLANAR character. :)
Anyone have a SONNAR pic to post?
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 18:03
Anyone want to take a guess at this one? It's not digital.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4587171621_d795e1aba9_z.jpg
Not a Sonnar... At least I didn't see a picture of a Sonnar for the camera you used for the photo. Well that's enough from me. :)
helenhill
10-18-2010, 18:18
I really know very Little about teles
so I will vote
85mm
though not sure what lens
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 18:25
Yes, it's not a Sonnar...and it's not a tele, either.
Neutral lenses can't really show what the photographer saw with film IMO ... the influence of the actual fim being used is enormous with 35mm and progressively less so with MF and LF.
Digital would have to be a far better way to analyse whether a lens is charasmatic or neutral.
helenhill
10-18-2010, 18:34
well I'm going w/ 85...Planar
Beautifully Smooth transition...Lovely SHARP
RF_newbie
10-18-2010, 19:43
i know i know!!!
35mm planer on a modified sony mavica !
RF_newbie
10-18-2010, 19:46
ohohoh i got it!!!
85 planer on a Contax 645 !
digitalintrigue
10-18-2010, 19:56
OK I should have ruled certain folk ineligible. :)
80/2 Planar it is...this is equivalent to about a 50/1.2 btw, in 35mm.
What's a "PlanEr" lens? ;)
back alley
10-18-2010, 20:38
What's a "PlanEr" lens? ;)
not a fancy one?
helenhill
10-19-2010, 02:29
Yes, it's not a Sonnar...and it's not a tele, either.
Oh hey Robert...what I meant by tele was something over 50mm
and not really knowing those focal lengths,
my 'EYE' chose 85mm
Pretty Good Estimate !!! and even Closer thinking PLANAR again !!
though the 85 I had in mind was a 1.4...DANG !!
Now who says there nothing to Character... :eek:
Cheers & Thanx for the puzzle...:cool:
helenhill
10-19-2010, 02:46
I DECLARE Myself a 2nd Time WINNER..... :eek:...:p...:D
digitalintrigue
10-19-2010, 06:09
YES, we have a winner! Of course Helen, you are always a winner in my book.
digitalintrigue
10-19-2010, 12:24
Anyone want to take a stab at which lens took this photograph?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5097782632_071bb08f31_z.jpg
A dirty one; no hood either.
digitalintrigue
10-19-2010, 12:36
That is incorrect, although correct about the shade.
Any guesses as to the lens? Does it have character?
Hard to say. Flare is dominant. I've seen some early 50 Summicrons behave like that.
digitalintrigue
10-19-2010, 13:04
Do you think the flare is so dominant that it overwhelms any character that the lens may have? Or is the character there, too?
Some sort of tessar, coated but not a modern coating.
Here is a definition, Joe: a lens has character if you recognize it via pictures.
Definitely true for the 35 'lux ASPH. Highly distinctive signature, at least when shot at 1.4-2.8. The slides pop off the light table.
That is incorrect, although correct about the shade.
Any guesses as to the lens? Does it have character?
Not in this picture. It could be any of two dozen 50's.
That, by the way, is not a criticism of the picture.
digitalintrigue
10-20-2010, 08:17
Well, it's not any of two dozen of 50s. Any other guesses? :)
RF_newbie
10-20-2010, 10:56
I still think its a sony mavica ;)
digitalintrigue
10-20-2010, 20:22
It's definitely not a sony mavica (haha!) and it's not a 50.
It's not a tessar, and it's got modern multi coating. The lens had very little use when I owned it, and was never dirty. I bought it new.
It is, in fact, a Panasonic 14-45 zoom on a GH1.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.