character vs. a neutral lens

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
9:26 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
lots of talk on the forum and web in general about lenses and the character they might have but less chatter about neutral rendering lenses.

i would think a neutral lens would be just as desirable as a lens with character, in that, a neutral lens would allow for even more of the photographer to come through in the image.
the image would be more affected by the shooter than the inherent character.

this, however, does not seem to be the case...

any thoughts?
 
Both types of lenses are desireable for different reasons/purposes. The advantage of a characterful lens, is that most images we we see are made with modern/perfect lenses. An image made with an older lens is just slightly different, and that nuance may be important/significant to some people, but certainly not to all, and probably not even to most.

For me, photography is often about a memory thing, and a vintage/atmospheric look enhances that aspect.
 
Last edited:
Just another "tool" in the toolbox, Joe. Character, or the lack of it, both have their place IMO. Just depends on the look you're after.
 
are the character lens users just more vocal about it?

i don't see much in the way of positive/desirable comments from the neutral lens camp.
 
If the only ice cream you could buy was vanilla ... who'd bother with it?

:D
 
Right. One is not better than the other, they are just different. Just like film and digital.
 
I dont like vanilla ice cream :D

Of course its what you need but neutral lenses are boring for me. And most of the character one are neutral when stopped down.
 
back alley said:
are the character lens users just more vocal about it?

i don't see much in the way of positive/desirable comments from the neutral lens camp.
Click to expand...

It's a really good point, Joe. Occasionally I do see people comment in a positive way about the neutrality of certain lenses. The ZM lenses like the 35/2 Biogon seem to elicit this kind of praise the most.

One of the reasons I love the 75/2 summicron is because it is extremely reliable and the same--magically the same--at any aperture.
 
I probably prefer neutral lenses, if I did more portraits then maybe I'd want character/softness though. I like shooting landscape and architecture, so sharpness is more important I think.
 
All lenses have character. Some characters suit some photographers or subjects (or both) more than others.

The photographer makes far more difference than the lens (or character, or format, or medium), so the only difference is whether you personally are a fractionally better photographer with one or another. Or maybe just happier, which may be why you're better.

Cheers,

R.
 
noimmunity said:
It's a really good point, Joe. Occasionally I do see people comment in a positive way about the neutrality of certain lenses. The ZM lenses like the 35/2 Biogon seem to elicit this kind of praise the most.

One of the reasons I love the 75/2 summicron is because it is extremely reliable and the same--magically the same--at any aperture.
Click to expand...

And here we get to personal definitions. To me the ZM Biogon is a character lens due to it's high level of 3D esk microcontrast. It's a lens I always pull out when I need to pretty someone up a bit. Most consider character lenses to be more vintage in their look. They all seem to have character. Again the painter and his/her brushes comparison is handy.
 
Modern lenses don't usually have "character" in the same sense that older lenses do. Actually, what I call character is combination of faults like flare ("glow"), softness, low contrast, wild bokeh etc. I do like character to some extent but as many have said before, it's just a tool.
 
Carlos M said:
I'll vote for a neutral look every time. I can always add character in the darkroom or PS.

Too much use of characterful lenses and you risk becoming "just that guy with the xxxxxx lens/lenses".
Click to expand...

I dunno.

For some reason, I am reminded of Jon Spencer's guitar with the foil DeArmond pickups. Apparently, the pickups were damaged along the way and give a distinctive sound he equates to a vacuum cleaner being amped. It's part of their sound. It's not the defining character, but it has a multiplier effect on his strengths as a guitarist.
 
Forgive me, but I don't understand what the discussion is about when there is no definition of what is "character" and what constitutes "neutrality" in a lens. One lens, the Biogon, has been claimed on one side, then counterclaimed into the other. Surely one person's opinion on what may constitute "neutrality" for instance may differ from anyone else's opinion, but we don't know that until the definitions have been agreed. Is that not reasonable?

For example, some people seem to assume that because a lens is "old" it has "character". So do ALL old lenses have "character"? How old do they have to be? What constitutes the "character" of those old lenses compared to "neutrality" - is it in o-o-f rendering, colour fidelity, sharpness, contrast, flare, a combination of any or all of the above or what? What defines "neutral" Is there an example of one lens in each camp that everyone could agree on so that they could be used as references?

Everyone could go on arguing this until the cows come home but without some sort of agreed definition everyone is potentially talking at cross purposes.

AND I won't hear a word said against vanilla ice cream!
 
Spherical Aberrration.

picture.php


Astigmatism.

picture.php


Curfvature of Field.

picture.php


Lenses with symmetric designs are the "most Neutral" as the front and rear sections tend to cancel each others aberrations.

I like Sonnars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom