character vs. a neutral lens

[damien.murphy]

Great timing on the thread, Joe. I am close to pulling the trigger on a voigtlander 50mm f1.1, and aside from the heft (which is a given with such a wide lens), it has been the lenses alleged neutral rendering which has made me think on my purchase decision a lot.

I shoot all b&w film, and as such, have always had a more preferable predisposition to lenses with a little character in their rendition. If I shot colour, I'm sure I would be more concerned by things such as lens contrast and veiling flare, but as I'm not, I have the luxury of appreciating the things these lens 'flaws' bring to a black and white image.

 

[Roger Hicks]

From Dr. Nasse at Zeiss: "You don't really know how a lens is going to behave until you build it."

Why are some lenses 'magic' and others not? NO-ONE knows. And, of course, there are very nearly as many opinions about 'the best lens' as there are photographers. The same design may have 'magic' at one focal length but not another (Summicrons spring to mind), or at one maximum aperture but not another (I can't see why peple rave about Tessars except the f/6.3 versions), or at a very limited range of working apertures (Thambar).

Does a 75/2 Summicron ASPH have 'character'? I think so. That's why I bought one. But others might find it too 'modern'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gavinlg]

I like neutral lenses. I don't want someone to look at my photos see a lens signature. I want the lens to work for me, and behave according to my light and subject.

For this reason I like Canon L lenses and Zeiss ZE primes. They're strong performers and very neutral.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

These images are dominated by flaws in the optical corrections.





If you like them, you like the character of the lens.

If you do not like them, you do not like the character of the lens.

Think of them as a Photographic Rorschach Test.

 

[noimmunity]

Does a 75/2 Summicron ASPH have 'character'? I think so. That's why I bought one. But others might find it too 'modern'.

I think it was your review of the 75 cron, Roger, that got me to give that lens a serious look in the first place. And the more I use it, the more I appreciate what it can do!

Given the currency the word "character" enjoys to describe aberrations and imperfections, it's not the word that comes first to mind to describe the 75 cron. Yet that makes me think we might come up with a better word than neutral to describe the alternative to character.

With a lens like the cron, I'm inclined to use the words "high fidelity."

 

[ottluuk]

I have the Canon 135/2.8 "with softfocus" lens for my DSLR. It has dial-in spherical aberration (I think?) to create glow and softness. Does that mean I have on-demand character built in the lens? 😀 I bet Canon would sell more units with that rhetoric than the "soft" thing. Nobody likes soft, these days.

But seriously, the softness setting has its uses. With "soft" at 0, the lens performs like any other cheap 135mm prime. Not exceptional, but sharp enough wide open and capable of excellent detail at f/5.6 or f/8. What I've found is this: with busy backgrounds in contrasty light, dialing in a tiny bit of "soft" will deliver noticeably smoother OOF areas and the negative effect on sharpness in focused areas remains minimal. Just another tool in the kit box, really. Much the way same as some B&W shooters keep uncoated/single coated lenses in their bag to use in harsh light.

 

[le vrai rdu]

I like neutral lenses. I don't want someone to look at my photos see a lens signature. I want the lens to work for me, and behave according to my light and subject.

For this reason I like Canon L lenses and Zeiss ZE primes. They're strong performers and very neutral.

I agree, I don't want to have written on my picture "hey, I was shot with a noctilux or something else"

 

[monochromejrnl]

agree with Mr. Sweeney - lenses are either corrected or not (being a matter of degrees) and you either like the aberrations or you don't (given certain and varying conditions)...

For 35mm film, I prefer corrected lenses (35 (v3) and 50 (v3) crons) but have a soft spot for my Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5.

 

[DougFord]

Exploiting the 'character' of any given lens seems reasonable to me.
A professional DP puts a positive spin "enhanced chromatic aberrations" on the character of a lens.

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1558