Is there any "Charcater" to MF Nikkor lenses?

Alan Gales · Feb 15, 2015

Bill Burk said:
Alan Gales, I think you are right, in context I think Original Poster meant Manual Focus, while my answers related to Medium Format.

Thanks Bill. I always think medium format when I see MF.

frank · Feb 15, 2015

Alan Gales said:
Thanks Bill. I always think medium format when I see MF.

+ 1

darinwc · Feb 15, 2015

I dare anyone here to show two images of the same scene taken with different lenses where different "character" is noticeable.

-wait, let me explain that a bit. Because their are lenses with character. But not usually from the top brands.

Alan Gales · Feb 15, 2015

When I think of lenses with character I think of old large format lenses like Petzvals, Veritos, Heliars, Dagors, Cookes, Ektars, etc. Of course all the late model large format lenses are all sharp and contrasty which isn't a bad thing.

I used to shoot a Contax 139 with Zeiss lenses. I didn't find a whole lot of difference between 35mm lenses between the major manufacturers. Yes, there were subtle differences but most were sharp and contrasty. I wonder about the early rangefinder lenses from Contax and Leica. A friend of mine inherited an early Leica with an uncoated lens. He shot it and told me the results were in his opinion, soft and unremarkable.

frank · Feb 15, 2015

The optical design of a lens would be the basis of its optical characteristics. People talk of the Tessar look, or the Sonnar look.

narsuitus · Feb 15, 2015

darinwc said:
I dare anyone here to show two images of the same scene taken with different lenses where different "character" is noticeable.

A few years ago, I took a series of images of the same subject with different lenses. I was surprised that the differences in characteristics were very subtle.

https://flic.kr/p/aaioyS

Patrick Robert James · Feb 15, 2015

Differences in lens character do exist but it isn't as great as the difference in skill level of individual photographers.

In other words, don't fret too much about it, and don't think your pictures will all of a sudden be great because you bought a lens that "so and so" used. If you believe that you will be chasing your tail. But, if you keep trying different lenses to see which you like, you will arrive at one that will make you forget about the search. Since photography is supposed to be fun, there is nothing wrong with that.

I have always gotten along better with Canon and Zeiss. I have had Nikon and Leica before too, but for some reason prefer Canon and Zeiss. In around '05 I picked up a Pentax with a 50mm lens on it because I had read so much about how good the 50mm Pentax is, and it was the truth. I kept the lens around but never used it because it was the only Pentax lens I had. One day a few years ago I saw someone had converted it to Leica M mount. Bingo! I converted mine and haven't looked back. It is a perfect lens for me. The point is everyone will have different tastes. A lens won't make you a better photographer, but it may allow you to like your pictures a little more. Think of it as salt or pepper on a steak. It won't change the quality of the meat or how it is cooked, but it will slightly change the taste. Some people prefer salt, some people prefer pepper.

benjiboy · Feb 16, 2015

I prefer marque Canon FD lenses on my FD cameras because they all are coated to match the same colour balance as the 50mm f1.4 standard lens and when shooting colour slides and you change lensers there is no colour shift which is apparent if you're projecting the slides.

removed account4 · Feb 16, 2015

i don't worry about lens-character
because i think like most things equipment wise
it is usually the photographer that talks about it
and the person who isn't a photographer doesn't even notice.
to me at least, it all seems like marketing hype .. what what do i know.

i think what matters most is the negative made from whatever lens it is
and then the print made with whatever enlarger lens it is .. is interesting.

frank · Feb 16, 2015

Probably the nuances of different paint brushes are important to painters, but lost on the viewing public.

flavio81 · Feb 16, 2015

chip j said:
Leica lenses have been described as "rounded", Zeiss ones as "clinical";

Myths, myths, myths.

There are only "good" lenses and "poor" lenses, and even "poor" lenses can be quite usable.

All manufacturers have made one or a few "poor" lenses, even Leitz Wetzlar and Leitz Canada, aka "Leica glass" for the young people.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 16, 2015

chip j said:
Leica lenses have been described as "rounded", Zeiss ones as "clinical"; what about Nikon?

How about 'excellent value for money? No seriously:sharp with medium contrast;ecellent for portraits and general photography

elekm · Feb 16, 2015

I was always a bit disappointed with my 50/2 Nikkor. It was good but never great.

I've been shooting a lot with a 50/1.8 Planar (Rolleiflex QBM), and I am seriously impressed with that lens.

I've always loved the Nikkor 105/2.5 and thought it to be outstanding. I don't have a huge number of Nikkor lenses: 20, 28. 50 and 105. I shot the heck out of all of these in the late 1970s-1990. I think they all feel high quality.

flavio81 · Feb 16, 2015

elekm said:
I was always a bit disappointed with my 50/2 Nikkor. It was good but never great.

Do you refer to the pre-AI "Nikkor-H" version or the later AI version?

darkosaric · Feb 16, 2015

I like nikkor-H f2 the most: I sold f1.8 Ai and f1.4 version, nikkor-H is my personal best.

RalphLambrecht · Mar 6, 2015

+1 on sharpness

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 6, 2015

If you try to describe an lens character of Leitz with ordinary terms like acutance , sharpness , it reveals you have no business with optics and knowlegable people would close their noses.

You pay Leitz because their lenses act different on many different light temperatures , grades , volumes with referencing old classical painting art.

Leitz lenses and their three dimensional optical transfer function been designed to act on difference of reference objects volume , light and color difference.

Lens designer looks to a old dutch , spanish and italian painting and finds the volumetric change counts.

He puts that in to the lens equation and leica sees how velasquez , rembrandt and da vinci sees or solves the problem.

Same as for grades.

And he selects variables how these grades , colors , nonlinear grades , grains, volumes transforms in to a picture as he solves the painting problem.

chip j · Mar 8, 2015

Hey Mustafa, what about Zeiss lenses??

Alan Gales · Mar 8, 2015

chip j said:
Hey Mustafa, what about Zeiss lenses??

Naw. Zeiss renders more like Picasso and Warhol.

chip j · Mar 8, 2015

You might be right. I just read a review that Zeiss was more "Modern" than Leica!

Alan Gales · Mar 8, 2015

chip j said:
You might be right. I just read a review that Zeiss was more "Modern" than Leica!

Ya know, Chip, back in the 80's I was shooting a Contax 139 with Zeiss lenses. I picked up a Minolta XGM with a 50mm to flip. I ran a roll through it to make sure the camera worked properly and to show a potential buyer what it could do. I can't remember if the photos were 4x6 or the slightly smaller size of the time but I showed them to a friend of mine who was looking to purchase a 35mm camera. He swore that the photos were shot with one of my Zeiss lenses. I had to tell him to shoot the camera and if he was not satisfied I would give him his money back. He kept the camera.

I used to belong to St. Louis Camera club back then. Members shot Zeiss, Leitz, Nikkor, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, and what ever. We projected our slides for critique and to save my life I could not tell you what photo was shot with what lens.

Shoot whatever 35mm camera and lenses you like and if it's not sharp enough then you need to move up a format. Yes, there are subtleties between 35mm lenses but it's more the photographer than the lens.

snapguy · Mar 8, 2015

Wonder

I just have to wonder who would want to find himself within 25 feet of a lens that gives you a different rendition depending on the phases of the moon or the ambient temperature? Oh, yeah, those Lomo Loonies who refuse to knuckle down and actually learn anything like craft or art and always want to stun you with "look what whacko stuff I got THIS TIME. Ain't it grand?"

chip j · Mar 8, 2015

I can easily tell on my lightbox what slides were shot w/Nikkor and which w/Zeiss G lenses---The Zeiss have "SPARKLE", for one thing. And in a few classic car shots I made (B&W) w/a M3 & 50 "Cron", the metal and chrome look heavier than w/Nikon!

Steve Smith · Mar 8, 2015

Ian Grant said:
As to MF Nikkor lenses I only used a couple when I did some runner (sub contract work) for another photographer, the Nikkors were just as good as his Zenzanons and CZJ lenses on his Bronica SIa, they weren't any better or worse

It's likely that the OP meant Manual Focus rather than Medium Format when writing MF. However, I agree that the Nikkors I have for my Bronica S2 are good.

Steve.

benjiboy · Mar 8, 2015

I once spent a great deal of money on a new Nikon F 2 and several Nikkor lenses, and a few months later bought my first medium format camera a second hand Yashica 124 G for £40 ( about $61 U.S.) from a friend who no longer used it and was completely pissed off when I saw the difference in photo technical quality that the medium format camera could produce.

Is there any "Charcater" to MF Nikkor lenses?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency