Do SLR lenses have personality?

I have three 35mm SLR lenses that I feel have lots of character. A CZJ 20mm f/2.8 Flektogon, a Super Multi Coated Takumar 50 f/1.4, and a Helios 40-2 85 f/1.5. Lens character was the main reason why I got them.

I also have a CZJ 180 f/2.8 Sonnar for my MF rig that blows me away. That lens has a ton of character too.
 
Last edited:
Most definitely
I love the sharpness, bokeh and colour rendition of the Canon 35/1.4 and 85/1.2 these would be two of my favourite SLR lenses along with my Favourite RF lenses and old, knackered Summilux 50/1.4 and a lovely Canon 35/1.5 and 85/2.

plus I am really blown away by the subtlety of the tone I get from the Fuji lens on my GW 690II. I also think the Vivitar 35ES has a great 40/1.7 lens too.

You can read all the charts you like, but I think personal preference and shooting style play a big part too.
 
Last edited:
SLR lenses are valued for bokeh and sharpness for sure. I have a Nikon 85 1.8 AF lens that is great for portraits because of it's bokeh, and if I could afford it I would go for the 85 1.4 which is very well known for beautiful bokeh. Most Nikon shooters will tell you their lenses make images differently than Canons, and vice versa. The RF cameras have a somewhat more defined lens signature mainly because of Leica glass, which gives images that look unique (on some models). The Zeiss and Contax glass has it's own type of signature, but I think most people seem to like the Leica glass for it's look.

I think that what is different w/ SLR glass is that a lot of shooters use zooms and much longer focal lengths than RF users. W/ those lenses there is more concern about lens ratings because you don't want to lose sharpness w/ a telephoto, and you are also more concerned about things like vignette, pin cushion and distortion. Building one of those long lenses and getting everything right is a combination of art and science, and not that many lens makers do it well. On the other hand, a 50mm lens is much easier to design, and nearly every lens manufacturer makes a good one.
 
Some lenses do for certain people. My Zuiko 100mm f/2 is one such lens. It possesses the ability to charm the folks I'm making a portrait of.
 
A resounding yes!

I used to have a Leica M3 and a 50/1.4 Summilux. It made lovely images. However, I preferred the "personality" of my Nikon 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S•C. To that lens, I prefer the personality of my 50mm f/1.2 AI-S.

Some lenses just smack you over the head with something that you can't always explain, but you know that you like.

The 80mm f/1.9 I have for my Mamiya 645 blows my mind all the time. Same goes for my Nikon 24mm f/2. Both produce unique, wonderful looks.

So yes, in short, I believe that SLR lenses can have every bit as much personality as rangefinder lenses.
 
drjoke said:
I guess I should have asked whether they have "remarkable personality" that would make someone dying to get them. There seems to be many legendary lenses for RF with well-known signature.
Click to expand...

58/1.4 Nikkor. 200/3 Vivitar Series 1. 135/1.8 Soligor/Porst. 90/4 Dreamagon. These are just four that I happen to have, or (alas! with the Nikkor) to have had -- I wish I'd never sold it.

There are others.

Cheers,

R.
 
matko said:
takumar 50mm f1.4, never seen anything like that 🙂)))
Click to expand...

Which shows how personal it is. You're not the only person who raves about these lenses but I have one and can't see the magic; I much prefer my 85/1.9 Super-Takumar. I'm not saying you're wrong, not for an instant; just that it's personal.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger, I agree with you, completely... I just found myself in that lens. Any lens has character, it is just matter does it fits you, or do you see the magic in it.🙂
 
the lens I've used with the most personality, subjectively, is an SLR lens: the 80mm Zeiss Planar for Hasselblad.
 
A long time ago I started making slide shows with SLRS , Initially with a Chinon / Prinzflex STTL 50 F 1.7 ...perfectly acceptable to me .

Later , I tried Olympus and Contax , 'cos I was told that these were the ''best '' etc ... but did not like the slides too much ... why ? ...

Then I bought a battered , totally outdated Minlota SRT 102 and humble 50 f 1.7 .

I loved it , and then simply bought more used Rokkors ...

i have no idea why or how they worked magic for me , but they did . Now they are being adapted to my Leica DIgilux 3 [ 4/3rds is the only system they work on ]

But , you know what ? A cheap Vivitar 100mm F 2.8 from Minolta MC days provided a lovely soft focus effect with a not too sharp sweet point in the centre .. it's probably a rubbish lense ... and my later Rokkor 85mm F 1.7 mc is so much better at the same effect - but I love the Vivitar feel .

Incidentally . I have adapted a 1953 Russian I 22 from a Zenit 1 and it has that illusive vintage look similar to the Elmar and Fed collapsible on my M 8 - not everyone is seeking the same sharpness etc .

HOWEVER , if I had chosen Pentax of Canon . or Nikon etc ... would I not have become accustomed to her different face ? Is this simply familiarity ?

dee
 
great stuff

great stuff

Sounds like all great stuff for making photos to me. I've owned most all of below except for the Olympus, and the SRT102 and have also found old Vivitar lenses and the I-22/I-50 to be excellent and interesting lenses to use.

dee said:
A long time ago I started making slide shows with SLRS , Initially with a Chinon / Prinzflex STTL 50 F 1.7 ...perfectly acceptable to me .

Later , I tried Olympus and Contax , 'cos I was told that these were the ''best '' etc ... but did not like the slides too much ... why ? ...

Then I bought a battered , totally outdated Minlota SRT 102 and humble 50 f 1.7 .

I loved it , and then simply bought more used Rokkors ...

i have no idea why or how they worked magic for me , but they did . Now they are being adapted to my Leica DIgilux 3 [ 4/3rds is the only system they work on ]

But , you know what ? A cheap Vivitar 100mm F 2.8 from Minolta MC days provided a lovely soft focus effect with a not too sharp sweet point in the centre .. it's probably a rubbish lense ... and my later Rokkor 85mm F 1.7 mc is so much better at the same effect - but I love the Vivitar feel .

Incidentally . I have adapted a 1953 Russian I 22 from a Zenit 1 and it has that illusive vintage look similar to the Elmar and Fed collapsible on my M 8 - not everyone is seeking the same sharpness etc .

HOWEVER , if I had chosen Pentax of Canon . or Nikon etc ... would I not have become accustomed to her different face ? Is this simply familiarity ?

dee
Click to expand...
 
Rokkors ... especially using B&W film is absolutely excellent, they have tons of personality ... each lens on its own has its own unique qualities and they all seem to have what would be considered close to an ideal bokeh

now when it comes to Nikkors, I find most of their lenses are very medical in their sharpness and with the exception of the 85mm 1.4 (I don't own but have a friend who owns one, I use it when I get the chance) don't have a ton of personality that makes you gravitate to their IQ... but they are generally excellent lenses in performance. I find most modern lenses to be that way, though I must admit the Tamron 17-50 as well as the 28-75 2.8 both have very distinct personalities and are gems if you can get past their build. The one digital specific lens that I have that has a definite personality is the 50-150 2.8 by Sigma you can tell they engineered it to be specific to rendering people.

Of course there are the Helios lenses, especially the 85mm 1.4 that has a ton of personality ... not everyone's favorite personality... but it has lots of it
 
Last edited:
I'm using a Rokkor-X MD f/1.7 85mm, and I'm getting my socks knocked off by the results. It doesn't matter whose kid I'm snapping a portrait of (not only my own), it's just consistently generous with even off-the-cuff shooting. Maybe that's the way with any good short tele but I'm plenty confident in this lens' personality to deliver.
 
I swear Minolta glass has to be about the most underrated glass out there. I love all sorts of lenses, but some of the Rokkors I started out with are still among the best I have ever used. Hell, the 50mm f/1.7 may be the single sharpest lens I've ever used.
 
I'll add an oddity to the list.

Years ago I had a Leica Minizoom. No, not "lux", just "zoom", their first P&S, the one with the black body.

Regardless of focal length it produced images of remarkable quality that were distinctly different enough that my anti-tech wife could look at a 4x6 print and say, "Oh, the Leica." Quite a number of our favorite pix of years past were made with it.

I carried everywhere. One day I stopped by to visit a friend before she jetted off to a family reunion in Wales. Quickly learned she was very upset because her (formerly) trusty Olympus Stylus had just broken and she didn't have a camera to take to this once in a lifetime event. Of course I handed her the Minizoom.

She shot over a dozen rolls of film on her trip of everything from friends/family to landscapes. She fell in love with the camera and refused to return it, saying she had to buy it. She too was entranced by the images it could produce. It broke down after a few more years of regular use and Leica refused to fix it.

So, it wasn't on an SLR, but that lens on that camera definitely produced images that give joy to a lot of people.

FWIW/ScottGee1
 
Many years ago I switched from Canon FD to Olympus system because I liked signature of the Zuicko lenses. An expensive decision, but not one I later regretted. I like the mechanical nature of OM 1n cameras and the glassware is smaller.
 
Absolutly, I use a Yashinon 50 1.4 DS m42 lens on a 5D from time to time, the results are outstanding! Character all over the place and the smoothest out of focus transitions and highlight grays I have ever shot on a digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom