Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Lenses with Character
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think Flektogon 35/2.8 is in fact 37/2.8, too, but it was more popular to use typical values in Germany, so it was rounded.

One of the widest "35mm" M42 lenses is S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5. In fact 35mm Takumar is more than 5% wider than 35mm Flektogon Smile


PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
fish4570 wrote:
i mentioned the 55/2 takumar ... Very Happy

I love all the Takumars I have so far, but I don't think I'd say they have a particularly strong character all their own which distinguishes them from other good lenses (except maybe a yellowed 1.4/50). I can't look at a picture and say for certain, "Ah, that was taken with a Takumar 2/55". That's how i would judge a lens with character. In that sense, my cr*ppy Domiplan has more character than the 2/55. Just my 2p. Smile


Really concur with this statement in the case of this thread. It's easy to come down to our favorite lenses and describe why - but many of my favorites are good for many reasons (including price, build, etc), not necessarily their distinguishable character quirks.

Also, I do concur with my experience that the Meyer lenses do do things in a unique way from the two I own. The Meyer Oreston 50/1.8 has extreme Ni-Sen bokeh and soft glow wide open, while being well CA corrected and sharp stopped down. It isn't as immediately recognizable as the Trioplan, but also not common in rendering appearance -

sample - http://kellysereda.com/img/v0/p182225065-4.jpg

In fact, for many samples of any lens I mention, visit http://kellysereda.com and search for the lens name or focal length. In the consequent result, click the photos tab.

My list of lenses in my experience in which I have at least a good chance of spotting (if shot nearer wide open, featuring specular highlights) based on rendering - not all of which I would call favorites:

Helios 40-2
Zeiss Jena Biotar 75/1.5
Porst Color Reflex 55/1.2
Minolta/Sony 135/2.8[T4.5] STF
and aforementioned Meyers

To a slightly lesser degree:

Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2
Topcon Topcor 58/1.4 (and similarly the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4)

Special mention goes to West German Zeiss Contax stuff I've used or the newer manual Cosina Zeiss and Voigtlander incarnations, all of which are pleasing to the eye and quite different to modern (generally) AF glass - but perhaps 'too good' to be immediately unique.

Looking forward to still others experience on the topic,


Kelly.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DigiChromeEd wrote:
beachboy2 wrote:
For character its hard to beat the Mir 1B. Even the focal length of 37mm is different!

I would tend to agree. It was my most recent purchase and the one I use more than any other at the moment. I love it! Very Happy


I think it is fairly common to use a lens frequently when first received.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
I concur with Jiri. The chrome Meyers are FTW! Cool


Source

A sample picture with the Meyer pre-war Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9: click


My Dream Set! (I sill miss some of them unfortunately)


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Went to a junk shop looking for a Vivitar 70-210 3.5 (struck out) but I did find another treasure in there. Tucked away in the corner was a Zenit 35mm camera with a Helios 44M 58mm 2.0. Bought the camera and lens for $30 and the damn thing is amazing. Truly one of the more unique lenses I ever shot with and the epitomy of lens character. Video soon!

Chris W


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
beachboy2 wrote:
For character its hard to beat the Mir 1B. Even the focal length of 37mm is different!


I totally agree, one of my favourite lenses!

Awsome finishing, beautiful design, bubble lens case, many blades and infinite number of apertures!

Another lens with lots of character and tiny volume is the Industar 50-2 f/3.5. Surprisingly sharp (at least my copy is) and extremely small.

Also the Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 is pretty notable. Lightweight, plastic and a very very simple lens design but with exotic Zebra colors. It is cheap, it feels cheap and it looks cheap but it gave me some very sharp results on my E-510.

Last but not least, I have to say the Zuiko 50mm f1.8.
It seems to be the lens with the less "character" but:
1) It is cheap
2) It is sharp
3) It is small, almost a "pancake" lens
4) It was the standard lens of one of the most capable SLR systems ever made (Olympus OM)

All of the above make this lens a "must have" lens and one of the most desirable lens for digital users. It;s its simplicity and effectiveness that give this lens more character than many comparable lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
peterqd wrote:
fish4570 wrote:
i mentioned the 55/2 takumar ... Very Happy

I love all the Takumars I have so far, but I don't think I'd say they have a particularly strong character all their own which distinguishes them from other good lenses (except maybe a yellowed 1.4/50). I can't look at a picture and say for certain, "Ah, that was taken with a Takumar 2/55". That's how i would judge a lens with character. In that sense, my cr*ppy Domiplan has more character than the 2/55. Just my 2p. Smile


You put the finger in one interesant question. The character is. . . .What?

I have to understan, for example, that the particular backgrounds of the helios 44-2/3 constitute the character of the lens ? The same about the J-9 at F/2-2,8?
Perhaps, the character is what difference one lens rendering of other lenses
The character is that only if I can distinguishe the lens used at first? Do I need a comparision between some lenses to recognice the character of one or more lenses ? Both circumstances ?

Peter, you did complicate the things !! Laughing

Rino.

Well, I was actually trying to simplify things! Smile

If everyone just lists their favourite lenses we're not going to find the ones with best "character". Character is something distinctive about a lens and it doesn't mean the same as quality, you can find both good and bad character lenses, just like people! Smile

How would you define "character" then?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're right, peterqd, this thread has morphed into a favorite lens - or best lens list. Character should be described along with the recommendation.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe you guys can also describe what is the special character that you like about the lens mentioned?

I was using my newly de-yellowed S-M-C 50/1.4 While it doesn't have distinct characteristic such as swirly bokeh or biting sharpness, its drawing is very graceful and non-imposing, which I consider this to be the character of this lens.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"its drawing is very graceful and non-imposing"

excellent characterization ...


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Maybe you guys can also describe what is the special character that you like about the lens mentioned?

Yes.

old meyer SLR lenses have some similarities: verly low CA (both axial and lateral), typical bokeh, which smoothness depends on aperture value (stopping down by one f-stop makes the bokeh smoother)

Primoplans - f/1.9 lenses, central sharpness is good, borders are soft, bokeh is very specific, sometimes slightly sonnar-ish, but it has its own character... at f1.9 the bokeh discs are bordered by thin circles, which aren't distracting and disappears if the lens is stopped-down slightly

Trioplans - f/2.8 lenses... 50mm and 100mm... stopped down they are quite sharp - borders are sharper than on Primoplans. At f/2.8 trioplans produce nice soft-effect: acceptably sharp image surrounded by nice soft glow free of CA artifacting... 50mm Trioplan is sharper. Both of them has etremely smooth bokeh without any double-lining artifacts when stopped down


as for soviet lenses:

Volna-9 Macro is unique by extremely smooth and compact bokeh at f/2.8 (none lens is able to beat in on my opinion), CA is again very low

Tair 11A has also very smooth and untypical bokeh, hard to describe Smile


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Maybe you guys can also describe what is the special character that you like about the lens mentioned?


As I wrote earlier, all the Russian lenses I know are characterised by extreme sharpness stopped down, usually good contrast, dense and warm colours, creamy wide open and sometimes weird bokehs. The dense colours make them virtually unmistakeable.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fish4570 wrote:
"its drawing is very graceful and non-imposing"

excellent characterization ...


This is what I was thinking when I wrote "Steinheil München Quinar 2.8/135mm" + light weight and very handy. A real pleasure to look at, to handle and use.

And a very good Image Quality, quite specific.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
You're right, peterqd, this thread has morphed into a favorite lens - or best lens list. Character should be described along with the recommendation.


+1,

but the question is silly too..

IMHO it would be a far better question, to ask which lens has a unique "fingerprint" and not, which one has character...

The answer to the initial question will logical transport the personal favourites from each of us and gives not an answer to the question, what is the unique "fingerprint" of a lens.

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
estudleon wrote:
peterqd wrote:
fish4570 wrote:
i mentioned the 55/2 takumar ... Very Happy

I love all the Takumars I have so far, but I don't think I'd say they have a particularly strong character all their own which distinguishes them from other good lenses (except maybe a yellowed 1.4/50). I can't look at a picture and say for certain, "Ah, that was taken with a Takumar 2/55". That's how i would judge a lens with character. In that sense, my cr*ppy Domiplan has more character than the 2/55. Just my 2p. Smile


You put the finger in one interesant question. The character is. . . .What?

I have to understan, for example, that the particular backgrounds of the helios 44-2/3 constitute the character of the lens ? The same about the J-9 at F/2-2,8?
Perhaps, the character is what difference one lens rendering of other lenses
The character is that only if I can distinguishe the lens used at first? Do I need a comparision between some lenses to recognice the character of one or more lenses ? Both circumstances ?

Peter, you did complicate the things !! Laughing

Rino.

Well, I was actually trying to simplify things! Smile

If everyone just lists their favourite lenses we're not going to find the ones with best "character". Character is something distinctive about a lens and it doesn't mean the same as quality, you can find both good and bad character lenses, just like people! Smile

How would you define "character" then?


I think that there are two differents " characters"

a) By one side, you can speack about the Character as meaning the caracteristics of the lens. For example low CA, rendering colors like warmish, etc. In this way the lens can have a lot of similarities with other lenses.

b) By the other side, when you use the term character, you can mention a particular atributes of the lens that make it not common in his range. The pic taken with the lens with character, is different of the the same subject taken with the more common lenses.
In this way, the character can be into our taste or not, but it's different lens.

I understand character like the "b)" meaning.

Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For the 50mm Oreston fans which include myself:-

Kodak gold outdated 6 years, Meyer lens, Pentax S3, supermarket low scan, adjusted and sharpened in Photoshop.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Photo19_16.jpg


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do lenses have a character?
Yes they do. But it doesn't always come out.
This depends on the camera and, mostly, the photographer.

Lens-photographer union is like a marriage.
Almost everyone can get together with everyone else. But only a few unions really work and last.

There are photographers that make a lens, or series of lenses, shine. But when they are given a different set of lenses, they don't understand it.
If they are good photographers, their class will always surface. But that special bell may not always ring.

I have seen lenses that have indeed a great character, seem dull in the hands of people who did not understand them. And I have seen lenses that are usually anonymous, seem magical in the hands of some specific people.

I guess everyone of us here have some images in their mind, that they try to achieve in reality. There are lenses that help them take them out, and lenses that do not collaborate much.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"lenses that do not collaborate much"

a well-turned phrase, that ... Very Happy

i think also that with one film or another, and in one kind of light or another a particular lens' special character is revealed.

i do not particularly care, for example, for the renderings by my jupiter-8 - except with xp2 in even light. then, i see it has much character ...


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aside from the many lenses already mentioned, I would suggest:

EBC Fujinon 55mm f/1.8

It has a very “painterly” bokeh, and wide open it can get bright outlines and a hint of swirliness. Also excellent colours, and a cheap lens to buy (but excellent quality).


PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Absolutely and very well said! ...and can not stress enough the importance of getting to know your lenses intimately.

Orio wrote:
Do lenses have a character?
Yes they do. But it doesn't always come out.
This depends on the camera and, mostly, the photographer.

Lens-photographer union is like a marriage.
Almost everyone can get together with everyone else. But only a few unions really work and last.

There are photographers that make a lens, or series of lenses, shine. But when they are given a different set of lenses, they don't understand it.
If they are good photographers, their class will always surface. But that special bell may not always ring.

I have seen lenses that have indeed a great character, seem dull in the hands of people who did not understand them. And I have seen lenses that are usually anonymous, seem magical in the hands of some specific people.

I guess everyone of us here have some images in their mind, that they try to achieve in reality. There are lenses that help them take them out, and lenses that do not collaborate much.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
For the 50mm Oreston fans which include myself:-

Kodak gold outdated 6 years, Meyer lens, Pentax S3, supermarket low scan, adjusted and sharpened in Photoshop.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Photo19_16.jpg


I have had the Oreston with (oily diaphragm) for many years and just got a Pentacon MC 50 f1.8 (same optical formula) at the local flea market for $25. Soft corners until f8 but fantastic central resolution, nice bokeh and a real presence.
http://homepage.mac.com/galoot_9/photos/IMGP0093_2_fb.jpg


PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tom in Delaware wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
For the 50mm Oreston fans which include myself:-

Kodak gold outdated 6 years, Meyer lens, Pentax S3, supermarket low scan, adjusted and sharpened in Photoshop.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Photo19_16.jpg


I have had the Oreston with (oily diaphragm) for many years and just got a Pentacon MC 50 f1.8 (same optical formula) at the local flea market for $25. Soft corners until f8 but fantastic central resolution, nice bokeh and a real presence.
http://homepage.mac.com/galoot_9/photos/IMGP0093_2_fb.jpg


...and I seem to disagree with others who say "it's a low contrast lens".....erm well maybe the supermarket/lab or my scanner adds the contrast.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome Tom! I agree with your opinion this is a great lens as well.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really appreciate all the responses to this discussion and your insight. I've had this thread open in one tab and Ebay in the other Smile After all, that electric bill can wait till next month Smile. Seriously, this thread has been a very valuable resource for me!

Chris W


PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't want to sound as controversial but I think that any kind of lens has its "character". Everything is based on photography skills of every photographer. Something what is characteristic for certain lenses (swirl bokeh in Russian lenses for example) doesn't mean that lens has its own character. I know only few lenses which you can recognized looking at RAW photo regarding digital, the same story is with film based on this how many manipulation you have to do in darkroom to get sharp and contrasty print using enlarger. Manual and AF lenses perform different on digital and film. We can use 35mm lens as a portrait lens, as a short telephoto, as a wide one, to make close-up, then we change image using post processing, we add frame and then - then how to discuss character of this lens? There existing 2 exceptions in my opinion from the above - some of the Leica lenses and Angenieux ones. If we would try to make list of lenses, do not forget about pinhole - it means no lens at all.
Sorry Orio, I didn't read your post before, I agree with you in 100%
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2