character vs. a neutral lens...part 2

[back alley]

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]

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]

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

 

[semilog]

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]

with no scientific basis for our beliefs we can only go by our own experience with known samples of lenses.

 

[sebastel]

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]

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]

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

 

[clayne]

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]

Take a Summarit, clean the heck out of the front glass. You end up with something that looks like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4764935986/

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.

 

[splitimageview]

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]

to my understanding:

neutral = well corrected, modern look
character = opposite of neutral 🙂

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Canon 50mm f1.2 - lots of character!

I believe all Contax G lenses are neutral, well corrected neutral look. Am I right?

 

[back alley]

i don't have a definition and was hoping that this discussion might help to create one.

 

[ferider]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[kevin m]

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]

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... 😱 :bang:

William