Jump to content

Lenses with character


NLsafari

Recommended Posts

Compared to lenses on new digital cameras like the A7 which produce sterile high resolution images legacy lenses like the chrome nose Canon FD 50mm/1.4 S.S.C. are supposed to be more desirable because their images have character. Is this statement accurate/valid and where does the Canon FD 50mm/1.4 S.S.C. fall in the "CHARACTER" scale compared to other legacy 50mm/1.4 lenses?

 

Raphael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read, there's supposed to be a difference designing a lens for a sensor or for film. Any FD lens was designed for film, so it should have a slightly different look, than a designed for a sensor lens, especially if shot close to wide-open. I doubt you could see a big difference when shooting at F8. I do use my FD 50/1.4 on my Leica M240. I can't say I notice any different character when compared to other contemporary 50mm lenses. I do see a character difference when using older 50mm lenses on any of my cameras. My old LTM Canon 50/14 and F50/1.2 lenses have tons of character when compared to a more modern lens. I suppose designing a lens by hand is much different than designing a lens on a computer.

 

Don't know if I answered your question. It isn't so much character that determines what lens I use, but ease of use. It's a hassle to use my FD 50/1.4 on my M240. I have to use "live view" to focus. It's much easier to se a LTM lens on the Leica since they're rangefinder coupled. So the Canon LTM 50/1.4 is my standard 50mm lens that I use on my M240.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read, there's supposed to be a difference designing a lens for a sensor or for film. Any FD lens was designed for film, so it should have a slightly different look, than a designed for a sensor lens, especially if shot close to wide-open. I doubt you could see a big difference when shooting at F8. I do use my FD 50/1.4 on my Leica M240. I can't say I notice any different character when compared to other contemporary 50mm lenses. I do see a character difference when using older 50mm lenses on any of my cameras. My old LTM Canon 50/14 and F50/1.2 lenses have tons of character when compared to a more modern lens. I suppose designing a lens by hand is much different than designing a lens on a computer.

 

Don't know if I answered your question. It isn't so much character that determines what lens I use, but ease of use. It's a hassle to use my FD 50/1.4 on my M240. I have to use "live view" to focus. It's much easier to se a LTM lens on the Leica since they're rangefinder coupled. So the Canon LTM 50/1.4 is my standard 50mm lens that I use on my M240.

Thanks for the input. Maybe I am getting cabin fever from being in LOCK DOWN so long ( I work in New York City ) but I should have also asked how do you define the "CHARACTER" of a lens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Describing lens character reminds me of what a Supreme Court Justice once said in talking about pornography, “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it.” Lens character is probably the same. To me, it’s image quality that sets a lens apart from other lenses. Usually I see it with my faster lenses when shooting wide-open or close to it. Often it’s the quality of the out-of-focus image (what some call bokeh). Or it’s how the focused image pops out from the out-of-focus image. Again, I see it more at F1.4 (or whatever) than I do at F8.

 

I’m sure optical design is part of it too. Tessar-based lens, Gauss-based lens, etc., each see the image a bit differently than the other.

 

Interesting question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many older lenses are not as well corrected for spherical abberation, something which can lead to an interesting look and also give interesting bokeh if you care about that. These are some of the things that often go into what's described as "character."

 

It's been a while since I've shot with my chrome nose 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C.(or anything of my FD stuff), but I don't remember anything in particular about it standing out. I remember it being a nice, predicable, smooth performing lens but always used it pretty much interchangeably with my nFD 50mm f/1.4.

 

Among normal or normal-ish lenses, the older f/1.2s are some of the most interesting to me. I no longer have my FL mount 55mm f/1.2, but it did certainly give a look that I wouldn't get from any other lens. Since largely transitioning to Nikon, I've added an old non-AI(AI-converted) fluted focus ring 55mm f/1.2 that has its own look. It's different from the FL mount lens I had, and also different from the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors of the same age. The ancient Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 is another with a look all its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What many people describe as "character", including myself, is actually a whole range of aberrations, ranging from flare to spherical and, yes, bokeh. The "character" factor has become of interest to many modern photographers, because older lenses typically had many more aberrations than more modern designs, which incorporate computerized vs manual calculations and lens production in attempting to reduce aberrations, better lens coatings, different adhesives joining lens elements, significantly better "sharpness" (as defined by both contrast and resolution), and on and on. Suffice it to say, IMHO, the digital age has given us the tools to really differentiate between lenses designed for film (much more forgiving) and those designed for sensors, and allowed users to "pixel peep". I love my 1940-70s lenses for the "character they impart on both film and digital, but many people are put off by the imperfections demonstrated by older lenses on digital bodies.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCL summed it up perfectly.

 

High resolution digital sensors are ruthless, but not nearly as ruthless as some half-obsessed photographers who pixel peep everything at 300%. Since this is the most vocal and influential enthusiast group, and because contemporary pros deal with clients of the same mindset, current lenses are engineered to be as aberration-free as the science and mfr limitations of the moment allow. Most will prefer the obvious performance improvements in the new lenses, esp those in demanding fields like landscape, architecture, fashion, and museum/art documentation.

 

A significant minority doing more personal work feels images made with these lenses look "clinical" "sterile" "dead" "ordinary" or otherwise "too perfect". This is very subjective visual taste: many photographers and most viewers don't see or don't care about these distinctions. I wonder sometimes if those who don't really see "lens character" are better off: they can simply buy a few of the best, most recent lenses for their system and get on with their lives, confident in their tools. Those of us who do see and enjoy lens character tend to be trapped on a hamster wheel, always chasing the next "interesting" bit of glass.

 

Almost any halfway-decent legacy lens will perform similarly to the most recent super-duper designs at f/8.0, the "character" kicks in at wider apertures. Fast legacy glass is technically rather poor at f/1.4, but one photographer's "poor" is another's "artistic tool". A modern digital lens, esp expensive premium series, will typically be more consistent in the "look" of the images they produce from f/1.4 on down. Older "character" lenses will wander like an alley cat as you shift from f/1.4 to 2.0, 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6, the most noticeable aberrations and bokeh effects will slowly diminish as you stop down.

 

It is this unpredictability and variance that is prized by those who seek "character". Older designs with residual aberrations will often have a veiling softness wide open, sometimes with accompanying color cast. Out of focus background bokeh will be either much smoother than a modern lens, or strikingly weirder (this can become a cliche, like the popular "swirly" Helios portraits of a person surrounded by foliage that appears to be spinning). Tonal and/or color contrast of older lenses can be decidedly different, transition areas of the image ("focus falloff") can be more appealing. Often the lens will only be sharp in the center at wide apertures, with the sides and corners dropping out almost completely: some despise this effect, others depend on it. How the lens manifests ghosts, flare, sunstars and vignetting are other factors that may or may not be a priority.

 

Of course there's a range: below a certain performance threshold, "character" becomes just an overall crummy lens, and some bleeding-edge new premium designs like Zeiss Otis series or Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 somehow manage to offer high technical achievement without seeming quite as sterile. The Canon FD 50mm/1.4 S.S.C falls solidly in the popular/useful "character" category: an older design that holds up very well at moderate apertures, with interesting (but not overwhelming in a bad way) effects wider open. Many Sony A7 mirrorless full-frame camera owners rate the Canon as one of the top five legacy 50/1.4 choices. Broadly speaking the Canon is considered marginally more appealing than comparable Nikkors but slightly less interesting than certain Minolta and Pentax variants. Of which there are many, almost too many: for better and worse, Canon and Nikon tended not to make umpteen changes year after year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCL summed it up perfectly.

 

High resolution digital sensors are ruthless, but not nearly as ruthless as some half-obsessed photographers who pixel peep everything at 300%. Since this is the most vocal and influential enthusiast group, and because contemporary pros deal with clients of the same mindset, current lenses are engineered to be as aberration-free as the science and mfr limitations of the moment allow. Most will prefer the obvious performance improvements in the new lenses, esp those in demanding fields like landscape, architecture, fashion, and museum/art documentation.

 

A significant minority doing more personal work feels images made with these lenses look "clinical" "sterile" "dead" "ordinary" or otherwise "too perfect". This is very subjective visual taste: many photographers and most viewers don't see or don't care about these distinctions. I wonder sometimes if those who don't really see "lens character" are better off: they can simply buy a few of the best, most recent lenses for their system and get on with their lives, confident in their tools. Those of us who do see and enjoy lens character tend to be trapped on a hamster wheel, always chasing the next "interesting" bit of glass.

 

Almost any halfway-decent legacy lens will perform similarly to the most recent super-duper designs at f/8.0, the "character" kicks in at wider apertures. Fast legacy glass is technically rather poor at f/1.4, but one photographer's "poor" is another's "artistic tool". A modern digital lens, esp expensive premium series, will typically be more consistent in the "look" of the images they produce from f/1.4 on down. Older "character" lenses will wander like an alley cat as you shift from f/1.4 to 2.0, 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6, the most noticeable aberrations and bokeh effects will slowly diminish as you stop down.

 

It is this unpredictability and variance that is prized by those who seek "character". Older designs with residual aberrations will often have a veiling softness wide open, sometimes with accompanying color cast. Out of focus background bokeh will be either much smoother than a modern lens, or strikingly weirder (this can become a cliche, like the popular "swirly" Helios portraits of a person surrounded by foliage that appears to be spinning). Tonal and/or color contrast of older lenses can be decidedly different, transition areas of the image ("focus falloff") can be more appealing. Often the lens will only be sharp in the center at wide apertures, with the sides and corners dropping out almost completely: some despise this effect, others depend on it. How the lens manifests ghosts, flare, sunstars and vignetting are other factors that may or may not be a priority.

 

Of course there's a range: below a certain performance threshold, "character" becomes just an overall crummy lens, and some bleeding-edge new premium designs like Zeiss Otis series or Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 somehow manage to offer high technical achievement without seeming quite as sterile. The Canon FD 50mm/1.4 S.S.C falls solidly in the popular/useful "character" category: an older design that holds up very well at moderate apertures, with interesting (but not overwhelming in a bad way) effects wider open. Many Sony A7 mirrorless full-frame camera owners rate the Canon as one of the top five legacy 50/1.4 choices. Broadly speaking the Canon is considered marginally more appealing than comparable Nikkors but slightly less interesting than certain Minolta and Pentax variants. Of which there are many, almost too many: for better and worse, Canon and Nikon tended not to make umpteen changes year after year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about lens "character" made me go to the attic where I found my old Pentax Spotmatic with a Super Takumar 50mm/1.4 on it. I will shoot some rolls with it and compare the results to my trusty Canon FD 50mm/1.4 S.S.C. It should be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about lens "character" made me go to the attic where I found my old Pentax Spotmatic with a Super Takumar 50mm/1.4 on it. I will shoot some rolls with it and compare the results to my trusty Canon FD 50mm/1.4 S.S.C. It should be fun.

Several years ago, I compared the FD 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4 and the Takumar 50/1.4. Test was on film, with all lenses on my old F-1 using the appropriate adaptors. Very little difference between the three lenses , the main differences being in the out-of-focus area. To me, the Takumar was the best, then the Canon, then the Nikkor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several years ago, I compared the FD 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4 and the Takumar 50/1.4. Test was on film, with all lenses on my old F-1 using the appropriate adaptors. Very little difference between the three lenses , the main differences being in the out-of-focus area. To me, the Takumar was the best, then the Canon, then the Nikkor.

That pretty much confirms what I've observed with those lenses, both on film and my mfd digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several years ago, I compared the FD 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4 and the Takumar 50/1.4. Test was on film, with all lenses on my old F-1 using the appropriate adaptors. Very little difference between the three lenses , the main differences being in the out-of-focus area. To me, the Takumar was the best, then the Canon, then the Nikkor.

 

This tracks with the opinions posted by many Sony A7 / Canon 5D users: one of the rare instances where everyone seems to agree. Apparently theres a trick with the Takumars, however: some have the nicer "character" their rep would seem to promise, while others are closer to a good Nikkor. Not that vintage Nikkor 50/1.4s are bad or worse than other options, their 'character" is just different: sort of an averaged blending of qualities (which can be a good thing when you need it). The most interesting Pentax Takumars are like the most interesting Minolta Rokkors: distinctive in an almost Germanic way. The catch is Pentax and Minolta tinkered with their 50mm lineup constantly, so parsing thru the versions can be difficult for the uninitiated.

 

Canon and Nikon largely avoided frequent fussing, so their 50 designs can be considered constants in a sea of change. Other than adding multicoating, Nikon's 50/1.4 remained unchanged from 1962 thru almost 1976, the Canon FD and FDn having a similarly long run. There is some debate over whether the original FD SSC with silver breech lock ring offers quite the same exact character as the more popular button-mount all-black FDn, but that seems probably related to glass or mechanical wear throwing the oldest examples slightly off. While Canon typically edges out Nikon in 50/1.4 for most mirrorless users, this reverses when moving to the faster f/1.2, where the vintage Nikkor 55mm often gets the nod over the 55mm Canon FL/FD for most interesting and usable character.

 

I like the Konica Hexanon AR 50/1.4 a bit more than the others on Sony mirrorless, but thats me. The term "YMMV" was invented for these sorts of subjective impressions. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was getting ready to show some quick photos taken with two old Nikkors(5.8cm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 chrome nose) but my Df decided to act up(I'm afraid it's something serious...). The 5.8cm has the swirly bokeh that some prize wide open, although it's gone by f/4 or so.

 

I know m43 has been a popular solution to use a lot of legacy lenses, but at the same time pretty much all lenses are good in the center at any aperture and m43 really does cut off a lot of the character that happens out toward the edges. 24x36mm sensors give you the full profile of the lens as seen on film(although digital has its own differences in how it renders things relative to film).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was getting ready to show some quick photos taken with two old Nikkors(5.8cm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 chrome nose) but my Df decided to act up(I'm afraid it's something serious...). The 5.8cm has the swirly bokeh that some prize wide open, although it's gone by f/4 or so.

 

Sorry to hear your Df is weirding out on you! :eek: Hope it diagnoses less serious than it seems.

 

The ancient Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 is a really cool lens: definitely more interesting than the later long-lived 50/1.4 S-SC-K-AI versions (which do perform better but lose some of the thrill). I got one a couple years ago in a pre-AI "grab-bag, as-is" lens lot from a camera dealer (the 5.8cm, a 50/2 K, 5cm/2, and 50/1.4S). What I was really after was the 5cm f/2.0 Nikkor-S, one of my favorite rare-ish pre-AI optics. I figured I could sell the other three lenses and end up with a "free" 5cm, but it didn't quite work out. The two ordinary lenses sold right away, but I could not unload the 5.8cm for months because it had pretty bad separation in the rear group (which I now know is a very common defect in the 5.8cm due to questionable adhesives Nikon employed at the time).

 

Even with 60% separation occluding the rear group, I got some nice use from the 5.8cm 1.4 before it finally sold (at a dead loss). Stopping down to f/4.0 bypassed most of the problem area, while still allowing some of the swirly bokeh and other "character" the lens is known for to come through. If I could find an undamaged example at reasonable cost I'd jump on it, but clean ones are much too expensive now considering the separation risks, difficult AI modification factor, and severe field curvature that limits their utility for all-around daily driver purposes. Great fun if you stumble across a good one cheap: a cross between a Helios and Topcor in character.

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found my lens test from several years back. Tested three lenses. Canon FD 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4 and a Takumar 50/1.4. Canon F-1, on a tripod, mirror locked up, using an eyepiece magnifier to aid in focusing. All three shots are at f1.4. My neighbor's old junk Merkur served as the subject. Can you tell what lens is what?

 

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/486257-1/z.jpg

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/486251-1/e.jpg

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/486254-1/q.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bottom: Nikkor

 

Hah! I knew it! Couldn't reliably recognize which the other two were, but the bottom image practically screamed "50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S" at me. ;) I should really use my M42 SMC Takumar more often: beautiful imaging and silky handling, tho not quite as distinctive as the earlier Takumar or later Pentax M 50/1.4

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another fun one added to the mix-the Nikkor 5.8cm that I threw out earlier. There's an interesting article on Nikon's website about this lens: basically it's a modified 7 element Gauss-type design, and the 58mm focal length was chosen to make it a bit easier to design around the mirror.

 

Now that my Df has decided to cooperate, I can post photos. The fern out front provided a willing subject.

 

At f/1.4, as can be seen the overall contrast is fairly low and there is a lot of spherical abberation, but this shows lots of the "swirly" bokeh that some love.

 

DSC_3075.thumb.JPG.67d34f746deb744c7216efae6fdabd7a.JPG

 

f/4 cleans it up and improves contrast noticeably

 

DSC_3076.thumb.JPG.f5ee53691147b6962e5a07ee23a2282b.JPG

 

f/8 cleans up even more but still retains a lot of the overall look of the lens.

 

DSC_3078.thumb.JPG.a009d88fed465e8f39f79d54c801005c.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What year is the Takumar in the top pic? After my brother completed his service in Vietnam in 1968 he stopped in Hong Kong and I asked him to buy me a Pentax Spot Matic with a 50mm/1.4. The serial number of the 50/1.4 is 1588125 and of the body is 1218953. Is the vintage of the Takumar 50/1.4 in the top pic earlier or later than the one I have?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What year is the Takumar in the top pic? After my brother completed his service in Vietnam in 1968 he stopped in Hong Kong and I asked him to buy me a Pentax Spot Matic with a 50mm/1.4. The serial number of the 50/1.4 is 1588125 and of the body is 1218953. Is the vintage of the Takumar 50/1.4 in the top pic earlier or later than the one I have?

Sorry, can't help you. I sold that Pentax and 50/1.4 a few months ago. I currently have a black-bodied Spotmatic with another 50/1.4 that I bought a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Takumar 50mm/1.4 I believe emits radiation. Does anyone know if the Takumar 135mm/3.5 of the same vintage also emits radiation ? In this era of "warning from the state of CA this product is known to contain cancer causing substance " should owners of these hot lenses keep them in lead bags such as those used to protect film from x-ray screening in airports?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...