'Technical Excellence' vs 'Mythical Look'

[BradS]

We've all read about or perhaps, even owned one of those super expensive lenses that are purported to produce results with mythical qualities. You know what I'm talking about, the Leica small format lenses, the Hassleblad medium format lenses, the Cooke large format and cine lenses...there are probably others(*).

I do not deny that these lenses have some pretty special qualities. However, I'm not really even interested in them. (I don't think I could ever spend $2500 on a single optic)

Let's talk about the technically excellent (not necessarily superior) optics that are not generally thought of as having mythical properties.

I'm specifically thinking of what keeps these great lenses from achieving the mythical status?

Some obvious choices...the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS...absolutely fantastic lens, one of my all time favorites in small format...no mythical properties...why?
What other lenses are excellent but not poseesed of mythical properties...and, if possible why?

Are there some that could go either way? I'm thinking here of the 50mm Super-Takumar or pre-AI Nikkor...super lens, seeminly pedestrian but, described by some as "having a special look', etc...


*note: although, this is posted in a 35mm sub category, let's not limit the discussion to small format only.

 

[flavio81]

We've all read about or perhaps, even owned one of those super expensive lenses that produce results with a mythical quality.

Well, to think that such a quality will only be available on super expensive lenses would be a myth in itself, but of course you know that already.

What other lenses are excellent but not poseesed of mythical properties...and, if possible why?

You mean "mythical" = having a certain "look" = having nice out of focus areas or separation between in-focus and out-focus zones?

Most lenses with strong uncorrected aberrations (like spherical aberration or perhaps coma flare) will give such a look, i'd guess. For example i own one of my most favorite lenses, the Nikkor-S 58/1.4, it has excellent out-of-focus areas, and the 58mm focal length makes it a bit better for portraits than the 50mm focal length. I'd call that lens "mythical", although it is not the sharpest lens out there. It has strong curvature of field, coma, and coma flare.

The only lens that puzzles me is the Canon EF 85/1.8, which has almost perfect sharpness wideopen but it has excellent "bo-keh". However, the Canon EF 100/2.0 is cited to be perfectly sharp wide open, yet it does not have the same qualities, bokeh being more 'neutral' or 'plain vanilla', at least from what i've seen. So perhaps some aberrations were purposedly left uncorrected on the 85 to preserve a nice 'bokeh'.

 

[gone]

Canon FD 135 2.5. Just a fantastic, high quality lens. Makes stunning portraits, by f4 it's as sharp as Leica, and images very much like one. It's bigish and heavy.

Canon FD 85 1.8. Even better than the 135, although a bit pricier ($40 to $60 for the 135, about $140 for the 85). One of the best 135mm format portrait lenses I've ever used. Beautifully soft at 1.8 that is very flattering to your sitter, excellent smooth bokeh, and sharp as a tack by f4.

Leica R 90 2.8. The R 90 2 Summicron gets the mythical nod every time, but the Elmarit produces stunning images too. The Summicron is only better at f2, and at that aperture it can't be beat for that soft/sharp look to portraits. By 2.8 they're about the same, w/ the Elmarit being a little bit sharper, but not too sharp for portraits. $400 to $750 for a good one, and they are known for fungus/haze issues, so be careful when you buy.

A lot of people know about these though.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Continuing from Flavio, I had years ago a Petri 55mm 1.4 (it was stolen from me) that was very enjoyable. Coupled with a Petri doubler, it was a nice portrait lens.
My current Petri 55mm 1.8 is similar.

 

[Paul Howell]

Konica AR 50 1.7 reputed to be the 50mm that the Japanese government used to measure other 50mm lens.
Konica AR 57 1.2 I lens I had and sold, still it 42 years later
Konica 38,, 1.9 on the S3, called one of the sharpest lens ever tested by Modern Photography.
Kowa 50mm 1.9 on the SE, very sharp
Canon 50mm F2 collapsible in 39mm
Konica AR 135 3.2
Pentax 50mm 1.4 in 42mm
Pentax 35mm 2.o0 in 42mm

 

[E. von Hoegh]

We've all read about or perhaps, even owned one of those super expensive lenses that produce results with a mythical quality. You know what I'm talking about, the Leica small format lenses, the Hassleblad medium format lenses, the Cooke large format and cine lenses...there are probably others(*).

I do not deny that these lenses have some pretty special qualities. However, I'm not really even interested in them. (I don't think I could ever spend $2500 on a single optic)

Let's talk about the technically excellent (not necessarily superior) optics that are not generally thought of as having mythical properties.

I'm specifically thinking of what keeps these great lenses from achieving the mythical status?

Some obvious choices...the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS...absolutely fantastic lens, one of my all time favorites in small format...no mythical properties...why?
What other lenses are excellent but not poseesed of mythical properties...and, if possible why?

Are there some that could go either way? I'm thinking here of the 50mm Super-Takumar or pre-AI Nikkor...super lens, seeminly pedestrian but, described by some as "having a special look', etc...


*note: although, this is posted in a 35mm sub category, let's not limit the discussion to small format only.

In 35mm and 6x6, the double Gauss 50s and 80s. Good, sharp, contrasty and without much other character. For LF, the Plasmats for the same reasons.


As for mythical status, the obvious candidate is the Dagor .I think it was Jim Galli (or perhaps Dan Fromm) who described it (accurately) as "the most over rated lens in the world" - and based on about 30 years of experience using them I agree. It's a shame, too, because a good Dagor really is a lovely lens. However, they don't cover 80 degrees. Say 65 degrees if you're enlarging the results. They aren't magic either, I can show anyone who's interested some very sharp, beautifully smooth, and utterly boring pictures made with Dagors.
When one claims inaccurate or over rated qualities, that denigrates the real qualities.

 

[Dan Fromm]

E., it wasn't me, could well have been Jim. Thinking of Dagors, I've never had a Goerz Dagor, have one CZJ Goerz Dagor (45/9, not cataloged, don't waste your time looking for information about it) and most of the shorter f/6.8 Boyer Beryls (85, 90, 135, 180, 210, 250). I like 'em. Beryls bring us back to Jim. He's taken a fancy to them. A while ago I came across a 110 in France for a very reasonable price, decided that Jim needed it more than I did and told him about it. He bought it.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

E., it wasn't me, could well have been Jim. Thinking of Dagors, I've never had a Goerz Dagor, have one CZJ Goerz Dagor (45/9, not cataloged, don't waste your time looking for information about it) and most of the shorter f/6.8 Boyer Beryls (85, 90, 135, 180, 210, 250). I like 'em. Beryls bring us back to Jim. He's taken a fancy to them. A while ago I came across a 110 in France for a very reasonable price, decided that Jim needed it more than I did and told him about it. He bought it.

That's a WA Dagor and should cover 100 degrees, according to my prewar Zeiss literature. (See, took no time at all )

I have a Dagor made in N.Y. marked " Goerz Dagor 1:6.8 f=60mm" mounted in a miniscule Ilex shutter.

 

[benjiboy]

I suggest from my personal experience of more than thirty years of using them, the Canon FD 85 mm f1.2L, the FD 50mm f1.4, FD 35mm f2 chrome nosed Thorium lens, and the Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 lens, they will one day have to prise these optics from my cold dead hands.

 

[flavio81]

I suggest from my personal experience of more than thirty years of using them, the Canon FD 85 mm f1.2L, the FD 50mm f1.4, FD 35mm f2 chrome nosed Thorium lens, and the Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 lens, they will one day have to prise these optics from my cold dead hands.

If you keep holding that Canon FD 35/2.0 in your hands... you'll get a quite high dose of radioactivity!!

 

[flavio81]

Canon FD 135 2.5. .

Sshhshshshshhshhh...

Don't tell anyone.

Tell 'em that's a crappy old lens.

 

[NJH]

For me this is easy. The most impressive lens I have used by a country mile is the Leica 28mm Elmarit ASPH, many people don't even like that lens it is the opposite of a mythical lens but really it is just faultlessly good in my experience, very compact and perfect handling. At the opposite end of the M world spectrum is the Zeiss 50 Sonnar, probably the most over rated lens I have owned but of course full of the mythical stuff for those that like that sort of thing.

 

[Dan Fromm]

That's a WA Dagor and should cover 100 degrees, according to my prewar Zeiss literature. (See, took no time at all )

Doesn't quite due to mechanical vignetting. The barrel's too narrow/the outer glasses are too small. Barely usable on 2x3, the corners are very dark. On the whole a 47/5.6 SA is preferable. But none of this has to do with lenses for 35 mm cameras.

 

[benjiboy]

If you keep holding that Canon FD 35/2.0 in your hands... you'll get a quite high dose of radioactivity!!

THis is a p[opular myth, one of my sons is a nuclear physicist I asked him to investigate this matter and he tells me that the level of radiation emitted is about the same as if you would get if you ate a banana every day, and well within the allowed safe level that workers in the nuclear industry are allowed to absorb (which is incredibly measured in bananas per day because they are mildly radioactive),http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose and if the lens was very radioactive since it's the rear element that's Thorium glass it would fog film. He told me it was safe as long as didn't sleep with it under by pillow every night.
Read this http://www.lummukka.com/canonfd35.html

 

[blockend]

Although I own some nice glass (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc), I really like the look of black and white photographs taken on my Yashica Minister D rangefinder, and Zeiss Ikon Nettar folder. They wouldn't win any category in optical test, but some lenses are more than the sum of the parts. I often use my single coated Yashica DSB lenses in preference to the "better" ML multi-coated versions for similar reasons.

Some lenses reproduce what the eye sees brilliantly, while others show the scene in the mind's eye. Technically, they're uncorrected aberrations, but pictures only show the results, not the theory.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) to me more in taking, developing and printing Not with the lens.

.... one of those super expensive lenses that produce results with a mythical quality...

In 2500 and above range? I'm with you, not interested in because I'm not able to buy them.
I have lenses in $1K range and currently learning about Leica Summicron in same price range.
And let me tell you, quality is here but zero of it is mythical, you just see it or you don't.
I guess this Leica lens is too cheap

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I've never owned nor used a lens with magical qualities... probably because I wouldn't have known how to take advantage of said magic. That stated... I do believe some lenses lack visual sweetness and finesse while others have it in droves if one knows how to harness it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For 35mm lenses, I'd say there's a lens that merits the hype it does get, but isn't into that "mythical" range - the Contax 85mm f1.4 . It does have the Zeiss "mystique" but the lens does what it's supposed to do, does it very well, and doesn't carry a ridiculous price tag. A compatriot that I think is actually underrated is the Contax 35-70 f3.4.

 

[BradS]

You mean "mythical" = having a certain "look" = having nice out of focus areas or separation between in-focus and out-focus zones?

No not really. That may be reading too much into it. By 'mythical', I'm just referring to those relatively few, relatively expensive lenses that people always seem to descibe as "having a special look" or some similar non-specific goodness that (it seems) is not or cannot be achieved by any other lens. The Leica Summicron and the Cooke XVa are the two prototypical examples (in my mind). I'm definitely thinking sharp...and absurdly expensive.

As I said, I'm not knocking anybody's preference or experience. Just trying to explore the space of excellent optics that don't cost a fortune.


There are some great posts already....keep 'em coming.

 

[NJH]

A secondhand 50 summicron is not that expensive though, the obvious Leica mythical lens is the Noctilux but I don't really know much about them or have much interest in them other than by reputation. I guess such extreme narrow DoF is not really for me, many of the images I have seen make me feel a bit queasy to be honest but I guess some guys like a bokeh effect which is akin to the after effects of a long night down the pub.

 

[BradS]

a couple more that I've enjoyed.

Small format:
135mm f/2.5 Asahi Pentax (original K series bayonet mount) - The 105 gets all the love. The 135 is the one I have and love.

Medium format:
80mm f/2.8 Mamiya Sekor (TLR) - this was the Hassleblad substitute for me. Its slightly longer brother, the 105mm f/3.5 Mamiya-Sekor is even better...but harder to focus.

The stock Bronica RF645 65mm f/4 lens - just blows me a way evey time I use it. I put up with the quirky body just to be able to use this lens.


Large format (mostly 4x5)
the lowly 135mm f/4.7 Graflex Optar / Wollensak Raptar...completely pedestrian in every respect...yet, it is amazingly sharp with just the right contrast. I have two of these...both need shuttter work.

Rodenstock 210mm f/6.3 Ysarex - With 4 elements in 3 groups this completely pedestrian tessar type is sharp and gives results that look subtly different from a plasmat. It is related to the Schneider Xenar, of course, and I love the modern Xenars too but there is something slightly different about the Ysarex that grabs my fancy. Its probably all in my head...but, it real to me. Unfortunately, this one too need shutter work. I use the Xenars in modern Copal shutters instead.

 

[ic-racer]

We've all read about or perhaps, even owned one of those super expensive lenses that produce results with a mythical quality. You know what I'm talking about, the Leica small format lenses, the Hassleblad medium format lenses, the Cooke large format and cine lenses...there are probably others(*).

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you post an example. The differences between quality optics are minimal to indiscernible in usual photography.

 

[BradS]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you post an example. The differences between quality optics are minimal to indiscernible in usual photography.

hmmm...I probably should have said....

We've all read about or perhaps, even owned one of those super expensive lenses that are purported to produce results with a mythical quality.

I've corrected the OP.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have a Nikon 50-135 f3.5 constant aperture that I think I paid $135 for,don't really remember. Great lens with good qualities across the board. Kinda big and heavy compared to the new plastic fantastics but I've got 17" biceps and can live with it. It gets used on both film and digital. I've gained an appreciation for the Nikon MF lenses and hardly use the AF stuff I own.

 

[flavio81]

He told me it was safe as long as didn't sleep with it under by pillow every night.

That's why my joke made use of the hypotetical situation where the owner of the precious FD 35/2.0 would hold it forever in his/her hands constantly...