'Technical Excellence' vs 'Mythical Look'

[BradS]

The 55mm lenses are of variable quality Brad I had to try four new ones when they were current before I got a good one, and the dedicated Mamiya hood http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/2314...4543&item=231400405016&lgeo=1&vectorid=229508 is essential to deal with the flare problems it's prone to, the 135 is a wonderful portrait lens I love mine.

Yes, I think that the hood would have helped a lot.

 

[blockend]

Yes, I think that the hood would have helped a lot.

I had a hood on the C330, and it certainly helped. Along with selling my mint, early number, plain prism Nikon F, flogging the Mamiya outfit was one of my dumber photographic decisions.

 

[fstop]

I don't worry about "mythical lenses", I have always bought marque lenses from the major manufacturers and always found them better lenses than I'm a photographer, people should worry more about if their work has any meaning, or says anything about the human condition than the line pairs per millimetre, or M.T.F. of their lenses, nobody ever want's to know what brushes or what pallet Rembrandt used.

Well put.
In the photography course I took in early 70s our instructor told us composition was the key to great images. Good composition will over shadow technical detail any day of the week.

 

[georg16nik]

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

Just about every other lens in the past 60 years is technically excellent for still shots.
The few ones having a “mythical look” are designed to solve optical issues, important to cinematographers, without taking shortcuts.

Photographers are generally knowledgeable to the point of being a good(regular) customers, then photographers.
Cinematography require deeper knowledge and as result better understanding of the subject.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's kind of a gestalt that goes with the look. I find that a Heliar has the "Heliar look" when it's on the long side of the normal lens for the format, at close enough range and wide enough aperture to allow for selective focus, but stopped down enough for the sharp areas to look sharp (often that's around f:5.6-8).

I think the current Zeiss 85/1.4 has the look, despite or perhaps because of "technical issues." A little field curvature and some spherical abberation close to wide open gives it the look of a classic large format portrait lens for small format cameras. For flat field technical perfection, judging by the published tests, they make a 100/2.0 Makro-Planar, but I don't have that one.

 

[MattKrull]

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.

I've had both a Zeiss Ikon Nettar and a Minister-700, and I loved the images from both. The Ziess was too much of a pain to use, so I don't mind parting with it, but the Minister... I keep saying if I find a good deal on a Lynx 14 I'll grab it in a second. The way the Minister made images feel 3D (even on cheap c41 film) was second to none.

 

[benjiboy]

Yes, I think that the hood would have helped a lot.

The later lenses with the black bodies and the blue dot on the cocking lever I think are multi-coated and more flare free Brad, but all the Mamiya C lenses really benefit from using the correct dedicated hood.

 

[Nathan King]

I regularly use Leica lenses, which some ascribe "mythical" qualities to. Certainly they are very high quality, well corrected optics; however, any small variance in exposure, processing, or printing makes a much larger difference in an image than any lens' "signature" does. I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a print made from a negative created with a Summilux and another with a Canon FD lens. Both lenses easily resolve more detail than Kodak T-Max is capable of recording. The latest aspherical lens design will never bridge the chasm between the quality of my photographs and those of Michael Kenna. I think people want to believe the opposite because buying something is easy; spending decades of your life on disciplined practice of a craft is difficult.

P.S. Yes, the FD 50mm 1.4 lens is amazing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Hasselblad 38mm Biogon lens in the Hasselblad SWCs are rectilinearly correct.

 

[benjiboy]

I regularly use Leica lenses, which some ascribe "mythical" qualities to. Certainly they are very high quality, well corrected optics; however, any small variance in exposure, processing, or printing makes a much larger difference in an image than any lens' "signature" does. I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a print made from a negative created with a Summilux and another with a Canon FD lens. Both lenses easily resolve more detail than Kodak T-Max is capable of recording. The latest aspherical lens design will never bridge the chasm between the quality of my photographs and those of Michael Kenna. I think people want to believe the opposite because buying something is easy; spending decades of your life on disciplined practice of a craft is difficult.

P.S. Yes, the FD 50mm 1.4 lens is amazing.

The FD 50mm f1.4 is a completely different ball game to the FD 1.8 which is a good lens that I used for more than 20 years, but the 1.4 is a stunner. I agree entirely Nathan with your remarks about buying stuff, in my more than sixty years involvement in photography I learned by bitter experience that achieving photographic excellence couldn't be achieved by throwing money at the problem, and that buying a Stradivarius makes one a Stradivarius owner, not a concert violinist

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I had the FD 50/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2L, and I thought that the 1.4 was very accurate, but not terribly distinguished in any way, which is what it was supposed to be. My favorite 50mm lens for the 35mm format with regard to the "elusive je ne sais quoi" is the Voigtlander Ultron 50/2.0 that I had on the Vitessa-L, and it was also made for the Prominent, and some other models.

Interestingly, of the 3 FD 50mm lenses that I have, the 1.8 was unquestionably the sharpest when reversed for macro use.

 

[darinwc]

I had the FD 50/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2L, and I thought that the 1.4 was very accurate, but not terribly distinguished in any way, which is what it was supposed to be. My favorite 50mm lens for the 35mm format with regard to the "elusive je ne sais quoi" is the Voigtlander Ultron 50/2.0 that I had on the Vitessa-L, and it was also made for the Prominent, and some other models.

Interestingly, of the 3 FD 50mm lenses that I have, the 1.8 was unquestionably the sharpest when reversed for macro use.

The SLR 50mm lenses are plain janes.. They were designed to be sharp across the frame, render colors accurate, and be relatively inexpensive enough to be the standard lens accompaniment of the SLR kit. -BORING!

Of the FD 50's I have had, the f1.4 is the one I kept. (dont even have a FD body any more)

Regarding the f1.8, does not surprise me that it performs well reversed, as it is symmetrical 6/4 design, correct?


-So for the Ultron what qualities do you like about it? Have any examples? (I'm trying to finish a roll on a Vitessa myself).

Photo attached: Canon F1N, 50mm f1.4

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

-So for the Ultron what qualities do you like about it? Have any examples? (I'm trying to finish a roll on a Vitessa myself).

As I recall the Canon 50/1.8 is indeed the most symmetrical of the three.

The Ultron has great in focus/out of focus separation, nice rendering of textures, and smooth out-of-focus rendering behind the focal plane. Here's an old favorite that I've posted before:

This was from my last roll of Kodachrome in 2005, after which I sold the camera, because I haven't been shooting as much 35mm in general (but I've still got 5 other 35mm cameras, go figure)--

 

[film_man]

I don't know if it qualifies as mythical but having used lenses from Canon, Nikon, Leica R, Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and a few other M42 lenses I'd say that each brand and within each brand certain lenses have their own special look. No lens is perfect and besides perfection is overrated!

If I was to compare 50s (and I mean 50mm leaving other lenses nearby like 40, 55 and 58mm out) I have tried these:

Canon 50/1.8
Nikon 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G, 50/1.4D
Olympus OM 50/1.8
Leica Summicron-R 50
Zeiss ZF2 50/1.4
Some dinky old M42 50/2 lens.

Of those they all had their own look. Least liked, the Nikon 50/1.8 (D and G) were really bland and low contrast, just about acceptably sharp wide open and basically a waste of money, IMHO. The OM 50/1.8 was super sharp and contrasty but otherwise a bit indifferent but probably the best value of them all (got it for £29 complete with OM-1MD body). The Zeiss 50/1.4 was the most "flawed", ie focus shift, soft wide open (in a pixel peeper way) but it was my favourite lens across all 135 systems I've tried. Until I got the Summicron-R, which is, again, a flawed lens in some respects (not that sharp wide open) but it is now my favourite and the reason I bought an R8.

So mythical? I would think mythical is something that is so perfect it is beyond perfect. But I don't think they make such a lens. I mean if you believe the internets a mythical 50 is probably the Zeiss 50/2 MP but I've gone way past that "sharpness at 400% in photoshop with contrast that makes your eye hurt" stage.

 

[blockend]

I had the FD 50/1.8, 1.4, and 1.2L, and I thought that the 1.4 was very accurate, but not terribly distinguished in any way, which is what it was supposed to be.

The FD 50mm 1.4 has its weaknesses. It's sufficiently soft wide open that highlights carry a glow into surrounding shadows. From f2.8 to f4 there's noticeable focus shift, something I floated on a Flickr forum and was confirmed by other users in their examples, to their surprise. From f5.6 to f8 it is indeed a nice lens, and before anyone asks, mine is in excellent condition optically and mechanically. The FD 50mm f1.8 is more of an all-rounder and exhibits none of the 1.4's flaws. The 1.8 typically sells for under £20, which is a steal.

Bang for buck, the 50mm Nikons of f2 and f1.8 take a helluva lot of beating as general use lenses. I have some from chrome nose Nikkor-H, through AIS to AF, and all are pin sharp.

 

[flavio81]

Canon 50/1.8
Nikon 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G, 50/1.4D
Olympus OM 50/1.8
Leica Summicron-R 50
Zeiss ZF2 50/1.4
Some dinky old M42 50/2 lens.

Of those they all had their own look. Least liked, the Nikon 50/1.8 (D and G) were really bland and low contrast, just about acceptably sharp wide open and basically a waste of money,

I don't know but my Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI is extremely sharp and contrasty. I think it is well known as one of the best 50mm lenses by Nikon.

The FD 50mm f1.8 is more of an all-rounder and exhibits none of the 1.4's flaws. The 1.8 typically sells for under £20, which is a steal.

Yes, it seems likely. Lens technique specialist Marco Cavina tested a FDn (new) 50mm f1.8 against a Summicron 50/2.0 and they were identical performers at about f4.0. I was surprised; i thought it wasn't such a good lens. However some of the sharpest, crispest shots i've on slides were made with my old FDn 50/1.8. I thought it had lowish contrast (but in fairness the front coating had some fungus that could never be removed and surely it reduced the contrast.

My FD 50/1.8 S.C. has good contrast. In general the FD lenses are contrasty; that was one of the goals of the system.

As for the 50/1.4, i jumped straight to the FD 55/1.2 SSC non-aspherical and that was a wonderful lens in all regards. Smooth bokeh, and from f2.8 onwards it was extremely sharp and contrasty. Even at f1.2 it was usable for some shots.

I still blame myself for selling it, and wish i can find another one in perfect shape in this city.

 

[blockend]

If the OP wants to try something off beat, the 50mm Domiplan 2.8 is weird. It's a 3-element design, and was often fitted to the very cheapest Praktica cameras. It's reasonably sharp in the centre, particularly once you stop down, but the edges are blurry (astigmatism). It's subject to wide variations in quality, but I've seen some beautiful work done on them especially in black and white. Videographers seem to like them for moody portrait shots but they are still pretty cheap.

http://www.mflenses.com/meyer-optik-goerlitz-domiplan-50mm-f28-lens-review.html

 

[darkosaric]

I would say if you get bad results from any nikkor or canon 50mm f1.8 lens - you are either doing something wrong, or your sample lens is bad.

 

[flavio81]

I would say if you get bad results from any nikkor or canon 50mm f1.8 lens - you are either doing something wrong, or your sample lens is bad.

+1

Regarding "mythical" lenses, i have no doubt that in 20 years from now the Canon EF 85/1.8 will be described as a "mythical" lens. It is everything a lens should be; just perfect.

 

[MattKrull]

I think the current Zeiss 85/1.4 has the look, despite or perhaps because of "technical issues." A little field curvature and some spherical abberation ...

Not to derail this conversation into unwanted territory, but I'm learning that a little field curvature is (to me) desirable. I just did a maternity shoot, and for a few shots meant to exagerate perspective, I put a Zuiko 17mm (35mm FOV equivalent) F2.8 pancake on my camera. This is a very poorly rated lens for a number of reasons; low overall resolution, high CA in the corners, and a significant distortion. Seeing the corrected images with perfectly straight lines vs the uncorrected images, I much preferred the feel of the uncorrected images.

I'm learning that I really like the 35mm FOV (especially from my Bronica ETR 50mm F2.8, but I think that lens falls more into "technically good" vs "mythical"), and I think part of that is the slight distortion it causes, not as much as 28mm, but more than 50mm.

While not mythical in any sense, I'm finding the Zuiko 135mm F3.5 to produce unique (amongst my collection) results. At f5.6 it is sharp, picking up details and textures in clothing, without being too sharp (It doesn't pull out every pore in your subject's face), and while it requires a lot of space to use, it does a great job of seperating the subject from the background. Oh, and it weights nothing and has an integrated hood. Fun lens

 

[film_man]

I don't know but my Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI is extremely sharp and contrasty. I think it is well known as one of the best 50mm lenses by Nikon.

Don't know about the AI, I was talking about the AF versions, D and G when used wide open. The D in particular was junk. Maybe I had a dud but when I replaced it with a 50/1.4D it was like night and day with sub f/2.8 apertures. Once you got to f/4 or more stopped down it was pretty much the same.

 

[flavio81]

I put a Zuiko 17mm (35mm FOV equivalent) F2.8 pancake on my camera. This is a very poorly rated lens for a number of reasons; low overall resolution, high CA in the corners, and a significant distortion.

I have posted this twice, but once again doesn't hurt: That's what happens when manufacturers (and consumers) place too much value on compactness... Tell lens designers to make the lens tiny and something (be it distortion, resolution, chromatic aberration, vignetting) will have to suffer.

 

[flavio81]

Don't know about the AI, I was talking about the AF versions, D and G when used wide open. The D in particular was junk. Maybe I had a dud but when I replaced it with a 50/1.4D it was like night and day with sub f/2.8 apertures. Once you got to f/4 or more stopped down it was pretty much the same.

That's what i am saying between lines: Try the AI version of the 50/1.8; it is great.

 

[pdeeh]

Hmm.
Once I stopped mounting my lenses on digital cameras (and so stopped peering into the corners of my photographs at ludicrous magnifications) and starting putting them on film cameras and printing the results in the darkroom at ~10x8, I rapidly realised I could no longer tell the difference between my £800 Summicron and my £20 Jupiter ...

 

[Pioneer]

Hmm.
Once I stopped mounting my lenses on digital cameras (and so stopped peering into the corners of my photographs at ludicrous magnifications) and starting putting them on film cameras and printing the results in the darkroom at ~10x8, I rapidly realised I could no longer tell the difference between my £800 Summicron and my £20 Jupiter ...

True statement here. I have become much happier with my pretty pedestrian lenses when I stopped trying to see the results at 100%. My photos look a lot better too!