drjoke
Well-known
It is my observation that people often judge lenses of SLR's based on technical (numerical) attributes alone, whereas lenses of RF's are also judged on personalities. We have Bokeh king and etc. Is this a valid observation?
Would a SLR users collect classical SLR lenses because of certain personality aspects, or would a RF user be able to find SLR lenses with personality he is used to in RF? Even if we leave Japanese makers out of this, do Leica R lenses match their M counterparts in this respect?
I also find that people here take photography as a hobby, where has the hardcore SLR users take photography as a profession (wedding, sports, etc).
Would a SLR users collect classical SLR lenses because of certain personality aspects, or would a RF user be able to find SLR lenses with personality he is used to in RF? Even if we leave Japanese makers out of this, do Leica R lenses match their M counterparts in this respect?
I also find that people here take photography as a hobby, where has the hardcore SLR users take photography as a profession (wedding, sports, etc).
GeneW
Veteran
I've collected several SLR lenses for their 'personality'. Many people have found the SMC Takumar 50/1.4, for instance, to be very Summicron-like. I have an older Nikkor-O 35/2 that renders a very 3D kind of look. The Nikkor 105/2.5 is widely believed to be one of the most outstanding lenses in its focal range. The list goes on and on. RF's have no lock on great lenses.
Gene
Gene
keithwms
Established
All lenses have different personalities, as do all films.
There is a tendency to regard the "best" lens as the one with the highest MTF across the frame... and to regard the "best" film as the one with the lowest rms grain.
But there is no "best" if you think in terms of personality, if you think in terms of using a tool to capture an idea, rather than letting the equipment determine the shot.
All of us have seen remarkably effective shots on Holgas or Dianas. We have also seen remarkably effective shots on Leica Ms with summis. Or on Tmax100, Delta 100, or polaroid, or whatever the heck that was that HCB used.
Whatever.
There is a tendency to regard the "best" lens as the one with the highest MTF across the frame... and to regard the "best" film as the one with the lowest rms grain.
But there is no "best" if you think in terms of personality, if you think in terms of using a tool to capture an idea, rather than letting the equipment determine the shot.
All of us have seen remarkably effective shots on Holgas or Dianas. We have also seen remarkably effective shots on Leica Ms with summis. Or on Tmax100, Delta 100, or polaroid, or whatever the heck that was that HCB used.
Whatever.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Well, with RF cameras the lens mounts have been fairly stable over time and often shared between manufacturers (and lenses have often been made for "other" manufacturers lens mounts). SLR's have usually run with a variety of lens mounts, things have changed and changed again within the one manufacturer's line (esp. with the rise of autofocus) and zoom lenses are, of course, much more prevalent (which makes getting used to "a" signature somewhat, um, problematic). Nonetheless, Canon has its "holy trinity" (the EF 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L and 135/2L), the near mythical old 200/1.8L (I believe there's a new 200/2 coming or out) and so on. But there tend to be far fewer primes at each focal length available in each lens mount. I'm sure there are similar views in other lens lines. And its not that SLR types don't argue about lenses, it just tends to be about fewer of them that exactly "match up" against each other.
...Mike
...Mike
Last edited:
tripod
Well-known
SLR lenses do have some personality, certainly more than lenses on digital cameras, but not as much as lenses for RF cameras.
mhv
Registered User
Absolutely
Absolutely
Insofar as we're talking primes, you'll find people paying attention to personalities. I'm not sure about zoom lenses; there are some outstanding zooms in existence, but I don't know if subjective taste parameters like bokeh &c plays a role in how people choose them--it's just that I don't use them! At any rate, many zooms have crappy bokeh.
Absolutely
Insofar as we're talking primes, you'll find people paying attention to personalities. I'm not sure about zoom lenses; there are some outstanding zooms in existence, but I don't know if subjective taste parameters like bokeh &c plays a role in how people choose them--it's just that I don't use them! At any rate, many zooms have crappy bokeh.
drjoke
Well-known
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.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
See my comment earlier re the Canon "Holy Trinity". Add in the (also mentioned) 200/1.8 and the 300/2.8 and things can get plenty expensive as well. And anyone who thinks a Noctilux (or, my favourite, Summilux 75) is big and heavy (and expensive) has never seen a Canon 400/2.8! And, yes, people do lust after them. I can admit to a desire for some of them as well (especially, for me, the 85/1.2 and 135/2, and, damnit, the 300/2.8 though I'll never afford it).
...Mike
Last edited:
BillBingham2
Registered User
Yes, just like RF space, there are good ones, so so ones and bad ones. Take a look at the Nikkor 28mm space. There are about 10 different lenses in that focal length, f2, f2.8, f3.5 with several different formulas. The best one every made is said to be the 28/2.8 AIs, very low in distortion, focuses VERY close, sharp as the dickens and great color rendition.
Problem is in the SLR space is that there are often so many different versions with different glass that it's a pain to have any meaningful testing run. Though I think this group of camera geeks might be the place to do it.
B2 (;->
Problem is in the SLR space is that there are often so many different versions with different glass that it's a pain to have any meaningful testing run. Though I think this group of camera geeks might be the place to do it.
B2 (;->
oscroft
Veteran
I think that's a very interesting question. For many years I did solely SLR photography, and all that I really thought about when it came to choosing lenses was sharpness and focal length (and later, zoom range). I knew contrast was important, but with the lenses I was using I couldn't really see a great deal of difference. I used some early SMC Takumar lenses, and some independent zooms (Tamron, Tokina), and in general I was happy with what I got - which was mostly colour transparency. After an extended period of living in and traveling around SE Asia during which I did a lot of shooting, I came back to the UK in the 90s and pretty much left photography alone for a while.
In recent years, the "digital revolution" has got me firmly back into photography - not because I have any interest in digital cameras, but because it suddenly had everyone selling for pennies all that wonderful film gear that I had previously only dreamed of.
So armed with a bunch of Olympus OM equipment and this wonderful thing called the Internet (which wasn't around in my previous life), I looked for photo sites and I happened upon this forum and got involved in RF (which I now love). And I heard tell of things like lens character, signature, etc, that had never really crossed my mind before. And I found big differences in lens character that I'd never dreamed existed (so much so that I now have a selection of RF 50s chosen for their different characters, and I'm trying to do the same with 35s). And it is rubbing off onto my OM gear too. Although there is much more of a similarity amongst the Zuiko range of lenses, I am beginning to notice specific lens "looks" that please me - my single coated "silvernose" 50/1.4 seems to produce more delicate tonality, ceteris paribus, than my multi-coated 50/1.8. And there's something special about my 100/2.8 that I can't really put my finger on but I'm sure is there. And looking back on old results from my old SLR lenses, I think my SMC Takumar 28/3.5 was one of the most pleasing lenses I've ever used.
But I do think that the character differences between individual SLR lenses are a lot less marked than between different RF lenses. I'm not sure why, but I think I can offer some speculation on a couple of possible reasons...
1) RF lenses are simpler in design, because there's none of the retrofocus stuff that SLR lenses need. This means that RF lenses can be better corrected, and the character of specific designs is not masked by degradations caused by retrofocus compromises (eg loss of contrast due to more and bigger elements being needed).
2) RF lens mounts have lasted far longer than SLR mounts - I use RF lenses ranging from 1939 to the present day, while all of my Zuiko lenses date from a much more limited period from the late 1970s to the 1980s. This means that I have a much wider range of lens technologies, designs, etc available for RF use.
3) One of the great strengths of SLR photography is in its enabling of zoom lenses (and that's a very significant strength). But compared to prime lenses, it really is much more difficult with zooms and their relatively large number of elements to do much more than get the sharpness and contrast as good as possible (which is a long way behind prime lenses). And so there is a lot less scope for individual design character to come through.
4) I'm sure I had a #4 in mind, but I forget it now. But I've probably waffled enough already - I'll add #4 later if I remember it.
So yes, there certainly are differences in character amongst SLR lenses, and it is RF photography that has helped me to re-examine and appreciate that. But I think the differences are more subtle than with RF lenses.
My reasoning is, as I say, pure speculation - I'd be interested to hear what others think.
In recent years, the "digital revolution" has got me firmly back into photography - not because I have any interest in digital cameras, but because it suddenly had everyone selling for pennies all that wonderful film gear that I had previously only dreamed of.
So armed with a bunch of Olympus OM equipment and this wonderful thing called the Internet (which wasn't around in my previous life), I looked for photo sites and I happened upon this forum and got involved in RF (which I now love). And I heard tell of things like lens character, signature, etc, that had never really crossed my mind before. And I found big differences in lens character that I'd never dreamed existed (so much so that I now have a selection of RF 50s chosen for their different characters, and I'm trying to do the same with 35s). And it is rubbing off onto my OM gear too. Although there is much more of a similarity amongst the Zuiko range of lenses, I am beginning to notice specific lens "looks" that please me - my single coated "silvernose" 50/1.4 seems to produce more delicate tonality, ceteris paribus, than my multi-coated 50/1.8. And there's something special about my 100/2.8 that I can't really put my finger on but I'm sure is there. And looking back on old results from my old SLR lenses, I think my SMC Takumar 28/3.5 was one of the most pleasing lenses I've ever used.
But I do think that the character differences between individual SLR lenses are a lot less marked than between different RF lenses. I'm not sure why, but I think I can offer some speculation on a couple of possible reasons...
1) RF lenses are simpler in design, because there's none of the retrofocus stuff that SLR lenses need. This means that RF lenses can be better corrected, and the character of specific designs is not masked by degradations caused by retrofocus compromises (eg loss of contrast due to more and bigger elements being needed).
2) RF lens mounts have lasted far longer than SLR mounts - I use RF lenses ranging from 1939 to the present day, while all of my Zuiko lenses date from a much more limited period from the late 1970s to the 1980s. This means that I have a much wider range of lens technologies, designs, etc available for RF use.
3) One of the great strengths of SLR photography is in its enabling of zoom lenses (and that's a very significant strength). But compared to prime lenses, it really is much more difficult with zooms and their relatively large number of elements to do much more than get the sharpness and contrast as good as possible (which is a long way behind prime lenses). And so there is a lot less scope for individual design character to come through.
4) I'm sure I had a #4 in mind, but I forget it now. But I've probably waffled enough already - I'll add #4 later if I remember it.
So yes, there certainly are differences in character amongst SLR lenses, and it is RF photography that has helped me to re-examine and appreciate that. But I think the differences are more subtle than with RF lenses.
My reasoning is, as I say, pure speculation - I'd be interested to hear what others think.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
There are certain manual focus SLR Nikkors that fit this description as well -- I think of the 35/1.4, the 180/2.8ED, the 28/2.8 AIS, the 85/1.4, the 24/2.8, the 55/2.8 macro, to name several in addition to the 105/2.5. I'm sure others can name ones I've forgotten.
aizan
Veteran
can't forget the 85/1.8 takumar.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Absolutely. I'm an Olympus OM system user, and if you ever read the OM email list you'll see us talking all the time about character of SLR lenses. For OM lovers, there are certain lenses that are legendary:
The 50mm f1.4 last generation with serial over 1,100,000 (much sharper then older generations)
50mm f1.8 with made in japan written on front ring. (sharpest Olympus 50mm 1.8)
85mm f2 (exceptional Bokeh)
50mm f2 Macro (reputed by many to be the sharpest lens ever made for a 35mm system)
35-80mm f2.8 zoom (popular photography called it the sharpest zoom they had ever tested)
40mm f2 pancake (bokeh)
24mm f2.8 (one of the sharpest 24mm lenses ever made)
The 50mm f1.4 last generation with serial over 1,100,000 (much sharper then older generations)
50mm f1.8 with made in japan written on front ring. (sharpest Olympus 50mm 1.8)
85mm f2 (exceptional Bokeh)
50mm f2 Macro (reputed by many to be the sharpest lens ever made for a 35mm system)
35-80mm f2.8 zoom (popular photography called it the sharpest zoom they had ever tested)
40mm f2 pancake (bokeh)
24mm f2.8 (one of the sharpest 24mm lenses ever made)
kalokeri
larger than 35mm
The answer is definitly YES.
Because I do like this specific focal lenght it happened that I have or had different 85mm lenses for Yashica/Contax, Canon EF, Nikon Ai and AFD. The Sonnar 2,8/85 with Y/C-mount had a special fingerprint compared to the Nikon Ai 2,0/85 and the AFD 1,8/85. The Canon EF 1,8/85 is also different. Even all four are very good lenses the pictures look different.
Lenses for slr cameras are difficult to compare ´cause there are so much different mounts. It´s a lot easier to compare 10 M-mount or M39 lenses - all you need is one body. But it would be interesting to compare - for example - the different 85mm lenses Nikon offered in F-mount since 1959. ( Maybe I should start searching for the Ai 1,8/85, produced before they changed the design to a 2,0. )
Thomas
Because I do like this specific focal lenght it happened that I have or had different 85mm lenses for Yashica/Contax, Canon EF, Nikon Ai and AFD. The Sonnar 2,8/85 with Y/C-mount had a special fingerprint compared to the Nikon Ai 2,0/85 and the AFD 1,8/85. The Canon EF 1,8/85 is also different. Even all four are very good lenses the pictures look different.
Lenses for slr cameras are difficult to compare ´cause there are so much different mounts. It´s a lot easier to compare 10 M-mount or M39 lenses - all you need is one body. But it would be interesting to compare - for example - the different 85mm lenses Nikon offered in F-mount since 1959. ( Maybe I should start searching for the Ai 1,8/85, produced before they changed the design to a 2,0. )
Thomas
ferider
Veteran
I ordered an M42 Helios 40-2 yesterday. I expect this lens to have more personality than any other lens I own
OldNick
Well-known
I agree with GeneW. The SMC Takumar 50/1.4 has more useful character or personality than any other lens that I have owned. Others, such as the Leica Hektor 73/1.9 and the Summarit 50/1.5 had personality, but it did not help the resulting images.
Jim N.
minoltist7
pussy photographer
All lenses have personalities. There can be subtle differences in transition between sharp and soft areas, bokeh, etc.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
my OM lenses (a "mij" 1.8 and second-to-last gen 1.4) give me something I like but I'm not sure why...I think it's the way they render greens. I'd like to try one of those last gen 1.4's...I have a hard time getting sharp pics, but to quote Sting, it's probably me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98037901@N00/sets/72157600827716160/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98037901@N00/sets/72157600827716160/
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I'm hoping so.
I just ordered a Pentax K10D to use for my telephoto needs, paired with the M8.
I'm waiting for it and the previously mentioned SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I'll probably add the 85/1.8 as well.
I just ordered a Pentax K10D to use for my telephoto needs, paired with the M8.
I'm waiting for it and the previously mentioned SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I'll probably add the 85/1.8 as well.
oscroft
Veteran
I had a 35-70/3.6 once, and it was the zoom that came closest to prime lens sharpness that I've ever seen. (I sold it because it was too bulky, and I only ever use zoom lenses these days if I need to go light/small)
I'd love one of those, but they just go too expensively for me - I'm "making do" with a Pentax 40/2.8 pancake on an MX, and it's really not a bad second choice.
Yes, I'd include that with my 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 amongst my favourite Zuiko lenses.