damien.murphy
Damien
True, Roger. Photography is full of imperfect variables, in my opinion, and the way through is to either work with them, or choose other tools.
Character lenses for me, are like a refreshing alternative opinion on how an image might be rendered, much like a different philosophy..
Character lenses for me, are like a refreshing alternative opinion on how an image might be rendered, much like a different philosophy..
Turtle
Veteran
I just don't care much either way. For me, the starting point is a lens that is 'sharp enough' and otherwise technically competent because this falls under the banner of 'reliable and predictable.' I don't want a lens that makes everything look like it was made by a surgeon, but I don't want something that puts its own stamp on everything I do either. I want people to notice what I have done first and foremost and to ensure that I am not limited by the equipments idiosyncracies (or heavy leaning).
So yes, I pick unremarkable lenses that perform technically well and have a pleasing character which means 'not much of one but not the glaring absence of one either.'
I find it an empty experience looking at shots where the lens character is the star of every photo. To me, this comes painfully close to the notion that simply possessing expensive kit makes you a good photographer, but where cost or technology is simply replaced by exclusivity or 'being in on a secret.' It does not matter whether it is the rookie with the $8K D3X, Leicaphile with a noctilux or long-term photographer obsessing over some rare and unique optic. All suggest a reliance on the equipment for their 'effects.' While effects can be very pleasing to the eye and a lens signature interesting, it tends not to last all that long compared to compelling subject matter or a brilliantly conceived shot. I just don't think character matters much and far less so now for digital workers.
So yes, I pick unremarkable lenses that perform technically well and have a pleasing character which means 'not much of one but not the glaring absence of one either.'
I find it an empty experience looking at shots where the lens character is the star of every photo. To me, this comes painfully close to the notion that simply possessing expensive kit makes you a good photographer, but where cost or technology is simply replaced by exclusivity or 'being in on a secret.' It does not matter whether it is the rookie with the $8K D3X, Leicaphile with a noctilux or long-term photographer obsessing over some rare and unique optic. All suggest a reliance on the equipment for their 'effects.' While effects can be very pleasing to the eye and a lens signature interesting, it tends not to last all that long compared to compelling subject matter or a brilliantly conceived shot. I just don't think character matters much and far less so now for digital workers.
Vics
Veteran
I've been looking for just the right 35mm lens for my M3 and have tried a lot of them out and read lots on this forum, and I finally settled on the 'cron. But what vintage? Then someone posted this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97129 and I was convinced that the V4 had just the look I wanted. No more doubts. This is the "character" I want. Now I just need to sell a BUNCH of guitars or cameras or both, so I can buy one!
Last edited:
keepright
matthew
That lens was a huge part of the reason why I bought an M-mount camera, and I bought the 1,5/50 just so that it could be used for a few of my wedding photos. Worth every penny.
Otherwise I choose lenses for their technical merits, especially optical distortion, even before I consider details like focal length. The Zeiss 2/35 biogon is another huge part of the reason why I bought my M-mount camera. Even sharpness and illumination are also important to me, but that's why they invented f/5.6.
If I like a lenses' personality - even if that means that it's clinical and overly precise - I find that I can be happy with any focal length, even though I usually end up with short telephotos.
back alley
IMAGES
the one lens that i bought strickly based on it's character and the look of the images it made was the collapsable 50/2.8, leica, discontinued (somewhat) recently.
i really liked the warmth and character of the images it produced.
but i sold it because it turns out i don't like collapsable lenses.
as of today, all my lenses are the smallest ones that cv makes, good price/value, love the tiny size (though i liked the big 50/1.1 as well) and they are all better at making images than i am.
i really liked the warmth and character of the images it produced.
but i sold it because it turns out i don't like collapsable lenses.
as of today, all my lenses are the smallest ones that cv makes, good price/value, love the tiny size (though i liked the big 50/1.1 as well) and they are all better at making images than i am.
It depends on my mood. Sometimes I like sharp and clinical, sometimes soft and full of charecter, sometimes just sufficient for the cash. I think for me it comes down to price first, then charecter, then size... these days. Sometimes size trumps everything for me. Some days, I think that lens type doesn't matter and good photos can be made with anything.
oftheherd
Veteran
The first two extra lenses I bought were Yashikors, a 28mm and a 135mm, for my SLR. They were available. Then I got a Spiratone 18mm and Sun 35mm: cost. Then I got my first Fujinon glass. That was good. There have been many since; Vivitar and Yashinon lenses, as well as a Contax 50mm, Sigma and whatnot. Mostly for focal length, but cost as well.
Character? I'm not even sure I can define it. Well, maybe with the Zeiss copies for FSU cameras.
Character? I'm not even sure I can define it. Well, maybe with the Zeiss copies for FSU cameras.
Kent
Finally at home...
There is more to a lens that "just" the image character that convinces me to use it.
I really like the "feel" of a lens. Some very good lenses I have sold again, because I did never use them. Others I always use, even though they might not be the best lenses available.
But, as I said, it's not only the image character, it's rather how it handles and how it feels in your hands...
I really like the "feel" of a lens. Some very good lenses I have sold again, because I did never use them. Others I always use, even though they might not be the best lenses available.
But, as I said, it's not only the image character, it's rather how it handles and how it feels in your hands...
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
I do like older lenses... uncoated Tessars and Elmars I have are great for a lot of things.. I will admit though recently I've been leaning towards newer optics, I don't like to have a camera bag that is so weighed down due to the fact that every time a flare-prone situation pops up I need to pop on a different lens. Of course, for me new is a 3,5CM F/1.8 w-Nikkor S I've found the new C/V lenses are a good balance of all 3 (character, price and size) while still controlling flare well enough to make them useful in almost all situations.
I've found the new C/V lenses are a good balance of all 3 (character, price and size) while still controlling flare well enough to make them useful in almost all situations.
taskoni
Well-known
I definitely know which lens is "THE lens" for me even though I don't owe one. I am a 50mm shooter now and I carry one 35mm as well, but I'd love to have a 40mm lens.
I prefer not collapsible lenses - I find the more comfortable while handling the camera somehow but both my Summar and Elmar are collapsible
The price was essential when I bought my Elmar 50mm for my M2, I almost had money to get a new 40mm nokton but I went for leica glass.
I would love to get a 40mm f/2 Summicron for my M2 and I would be happy and possible would shoot only with that lens and the 50mm Summar on my Leia III.
Regards,
bobby
I prefer not collapsible lenses - I find the more comfortable while handling the camera somehow but both my Summar and Elmar are collapsible
The price was essential when I bought my Elmar 50mm for my M2, I almost had money to get a new 40mm nokton but I went for leica glass.
I would love to get a 40mm f/2 Summicron for my M2 and I would be happy and possible would shoot only with that lens and the 50mm Summar on my Leia III.
Regards,
bobby
traveler_101
American abroad
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
The closest I have to what you're talking about is my Summilux 75/1.4 - which certainly wasn't chosen because I like its price or size! It is most assuredly not my "standard" lens. But for certain types of photo I like to take there is no substitute (at least none that I've found or, I'm guessing, could afford). I have to be in the right circumstances and the right mood to use it, though. It isn't a lens I drag out casually, though sometimes I drag it around with me just in case the fancy strikes me.
...Mike