Is there any "Charcater" to MF Nikkor lenses?

[chip j]

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

 

[mike c]

There el Nikor enlager lens seem to me to be more contrasty!!

 

[snapguy]

zilch

"Rounded" and "clinical" mean zilch so you are chasing a whiff of party animal smoke here. I had a Nikon lens that was rounded until I dropped it on a cement floor and now it's heart-shaped. Each lens is a little different anyway. Your lens and the next guy's lens, although the appear to be the same, will be a bit different. There is only one thing that counts -- use the darn lens and see for yourself. Are Nissans rounded and Toyotas clinical? Balderdash and humbug. There is no way around doing things the hard way. Intellectualizing everything while lounging around with other geniuses in the pool hall will not get you the info. You need to dig.

 

[darkosaric]

105mm f2.5 nikkor character is sometimes called "like summicron", 90mm summicron in thought.

 

[wildbill]

What is charcater?
I don't think mine have it.

 

[pentaxuser]

"Rounded" and "clinical" mean zilch so you are chasing a whiff of party animal smoke here. .

Zilch, surely this can't be right? That Don Draper is always using such scientifically rigorous adjectives

I use a "rounded" lens for the grand-daughter's shots and the "clinical" one for those of my bank manager as befits my relationship with each.

The bank manager so needs a clinical lens. He makes Jed Clampett's bank manager look like a saint

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

Lenses do vary in character but that's down to the design characteristics chosen by the manufacturer.

Leica/Leitz lenses are made to have high definition, be sharp with good tonality, early Zeiss lenses were similar, Nikon lenses are designed to give high micro contrast - that gives higher apparent sharpness with a trade off slight drop in definition. An analogy would be a fast film in an acutance developer would look sharp on first inspection of a print, while a slow film in a developer like Perceptol or the late Microdol-X would be more subtle and have less apparent sharpness.

In the Korean war Press photographers using Contax cameras and lenses began buying Nikon lenses while returning from the War zone to Japan, the wiry micro contrast of the Nikon/Nikkor lenses suited their work better.

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

In answer to the question can you see a difference between Leica lenses and Pentax/Canon, Nikon what surprised me was non photographers did more than once when they saw images and commented.

Ian

 

[semi-ambivalent]

There el Nikor enlager lens seem to me to be more contrasty!!

Yea! concurrence! I've long thought that the 50/2.8 (last, plastic) EL-Nikkor was punchier than the 50/2.8 Componon-S. Perhaps I wasn't imagining it.

s-a

 

[NB23]

Its all mega bullsheet.

Yesh, sure, I'm a Leica fanatic, I own all best. And when I pick up my Nikons I'm all "yeeeewwww". But my prints don't lie. I was amazed at the terrific character fromy negs. I mean WOW! I was like "so this is the Leica character they're talking about", ehile looking at a 20x24 print made from a 28-70mm f2.8 lens.

I'm still a Leica snob just because I'm weak minded and a victim. And my goal is to kill my Leica bodies. I confess. And the size.

But for character? It's all bullshiat.

 

[frank]

Ill argue to the contrary and say that I believe that older lenses like my Summar have a character that modern lenses lack.

 

[gone]

The only trend I've noticed is that the older lenses tend to be German, hence less contrast than the newer Japanese lenses, mostly due to the early coatings, or the complete lack of any. It's why I always go for single coated or uncoated optics, vs newer multicoated glass. Too much contrast, no matter who made the lens.

A clean Leica Summar is one of the sharpest lenses you can find, and just loaded w/ character (stellar, pleasing IQ).

 

[MattKing]

"Character" is an unfortunate truncation of "characteristic".

Different lenses have different characteristics. Some times certain brands or lines of lenses are designed and manufactured to emphasize certain characteristics.

 

[chip j]

Yes, I've used Nikon lenses since the &0's, and they do appear to lack definition, whereas the Leica M outfit I had at one time was superb in this regard. I hope My Contax G system can come close to that. My latest EL-Nikkor (China) is contrasty, but not as contrasty as my Leitz Focotar-2 (or as sharp!).

 

[Bill Burk]

I've noticed "signatures" of several lenses for MF cameras, early Ricohflex, early Rolleiflex Tessar, Zeiss Ikonta Tessar...

But I never felt there was a "signature" to the lens on my Tower Reflex, a Nikkor-Q.C 75/3.5

I always thought it was clean and crisp. A good lens that gave me consistently good results.

 

[250swb]

An interesting thread and very revealing. It must be the reason that photographers who use Nikon's, Don McCullin for instance, make such bland unemotional photographs?

On the other hand it raises the question of 'it's not what you have, it's what you do with it that counts'?




Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

Its all mega bullsheet.

Yesh, sure, I'm a Leica fanatic, I own all best. And when I pick up my Nikons I'm all "yeeeewwww". But my prints don't lie. I was amazed at the terrific character fromy negs. I mean WOW! I was like "so this is the Leica character they're talking about", ehile looking at a 20x24 print made from a 28-70mm f2.8 lens.

I'm still a Leica snob just because I'm weak minded and a victim. And my goal is to kill my Leica bodies. I confess. And the size.

But for character? It's all bullshiat.

You're in a very tiny, insignificant, minority with those views.

Lens designers make critical decisions when they choose the characteristics of their lenses, and they try to keep those characteristics similar across a range.

It's important to know what is meant by sharpness and definition. Geoffrey Crawley in a 1961 précis of his 1960-61 series of articles on developers clarified what he meant by sharpness, definition etc:

" Sharpness " - the overall impression of a print or projected image, measured scientifically as "acutance ", seen from normal viewing distance.

" Definition " - the extent to which fine detail is recognisably rendered in a print, etc. When acutance of fine detail is good, then definition is good.

" Acutance " - the contrast at the edge of significant detail, a scientific measurement of the density gradient at that point.

" Resolving Power " - the scientific measurement of the actual fineness of detail recordable by a lens, film, or developer, or any combination of these three.

So when Bill Burke uses the word "signature" he's talking about the balance of the characteristics of a lens, of course choice of film and developer can have an effect when it comes to prints or slides..

If there weren't any differences in lenses characteristics, you could just buy the cheapest available and get the same quality results as the most expensive for any given focal length.

How much importance we as photographers put on the character or signature when we choose lenses is personal choice. I'm using Character/Signature as the sum of the individual characteristics.

Like Bill I've seen quite a difference in the lenses on my TLRs, a Yashinon, Opton Tessar, Xpres. and Xenotar overall stopped down they are all good sharp lenses, subtle differences in micro contrast and definition when printed, using the same film & developer, their character changes as you open up and shoot at wider apertures.

Ian

 

[blockend]

Three element lenses have plenty of character. They may lack absolute sharpness, but have some nice quirks (or astigmatism for the literal minded) which suits medium format roll film particularly well. Given a base line of branded quality lenses, film, exposure, development and printing techniques make far more difference to the look than the lens manufacturer.

 

[film_man]

All lenses have a character. Even the bland ones: they have a bland character.

 

[dynachrome]

Is micro contrast the same thing as macro contrast? Over time each lens line makes changes. The lenses of a particular focal length might be better coated, larger, smaller, have fewer elements, have more elements, have rubber coated focusing rings, not have rubber coated focusing rings etc. An example would be the 35/2.8 manual focus SLR Nikkors (not including any of the perspective control models). The Nikkor S has seven elements. It isn't a bad lens but it's nothing special either. As far as I know there was never a 35/2.8 SC. Nikon went straight to the 'K' model which has improved coating and six elements. This design continued through the first version of the 35/2.8 AI. It's excellent. I have two of the 'K' models and an early AI. The late AI and AIS lenses had five elements. How good are the late AI and AIS 35/2.8 Nikkors? They are OK but not as good as the earlier six element design. I have one late AI model. What is the character of Nikon's 35/2.8 manual focus (non-PC) SLR lenses? Some are excellent and some are only good. No lens line has a consistent character which carries through every redesign and every focal length. If you want to know how good a lens is, try using it. No amount of report and rumor and opinion reading is a substitute for using it yourself. Your own technique in using a lens is also important. Even the best lenses can be used badly.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ian Grant pretty well summed up what I think.

Sometimes I enjoy using cameras with lenses that have a certain "look".

Other times I want the lens to get out of the way. I feel that the Nikkor gets out of the way. And I think that makes it a good lens.

Too bad I didn't learn earlier-on that I would come to appreciate different "looks". I got rid of many of those cameras and lenses that I thought were inferior because they gave me excessive flare, unsharp corners or odd color rendering. I kind of regret that.

 

[frank]

Yep. A "bad" lens is good to find.

 

[blockend]

Looking at some of Garry Winogrand's work today, I came across this image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6M2E6dGLX...AAhlI/Z3NtldXnQig/s1600/garry+winogrand+3.jpg
The edges are very soft and there's lots of vignetting, neither of which detract from the image. The lens would fail most bench tests, but the photo looks fine to me.

 

[NB23]

That's a Masterpiece lens. "Summicron ASPH Micro-contrast ThreeDeeNess" is for amateurs.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to shoot medium format Bronica EC's. The 75mm Nikkor normal lenses were plenty sharp and contrasty. I owned the 40mm wide angle lens and it was also sharp and contrasty and I was surprised at the low distortion. It was a real jewel of a lens! I also owned the 135mm which was known to be a bit soft. My example was the same. The 50mm and 200mm lenses were said to be great performers also.

I don't know about "Character", they were just great lenses and known for their nice bokeh too.


It just occurred to me, do you mean MF as in medium format or manual focus?

 

[Bill Burk]

It just occurred to me, do you mean MF as in medium format or manual focus?

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