I have a local dealer who deals with second hand gear. He has an internet shop that seems to create a fast turnover in gear. The items that really seem to be getting the "reserved" tag, often in a matter of hours, are old film cameras, and particularly old lenses, that in the near past were considered "car boot sale" junk.
I see more and more articles and forum posts about "old lenses", particularly old manual focus gear, often long, and optically, best forgotten forgotten Russian lenses.
What is this "lens character" that crops up so often?
i picked up a 25mm 0.95 lens for my em12 a few years ago to shoot senior portraits, everyone said it had character and have the look will look of a FF camera.
well it didnt ,and the rest is history sold my m43 and went FF.
I agree in part… A significant chunk of what you see advertised as "lens character" or a certain "look" are likely buzzwords, either propagated by sellers or enthusiasts convincing themselves they have something special. I also agree that most of the lens character is actually considered flaws in modern lens design, like abberations mentioned, flare, low contrast but also swirl/image circle limitations or distortion.
All that being said I strongly disagree if someone claims that these things can‘t make an unique and interesting look. Here‘s two lenses I would attribute a lot of character to:
Not all lenses render every scene the same, so the way a particular lens renders a particular scene different from most other lenses can be called its character. For example, a Meyer 100 f/2.8 Trioplan renders out-of-focus highlights as soap bubbles - as far as I know, no other lens exhibits this characteristic.
Lots of lenses render oof highlights as soap bubbles… but still many of them look quite different from the Trioplan. It‘s the combination of different lens characteristics/strengths and flaws which make it unique. One example: different aperture shapes can make certain images look quite unique: I‘ve created a thread about it here:
You know how images are supposed to look according to theory? "Lens character" is anything that creates alterations to what is expected. More flaring, odd bokeh, coatings pre 1960s making for color shifts, materials used in the creation of lens, etc. Lensbaby sells nothing but lenses with character.
`I have a lens that is an achromatic doublet -- just two elements cemented together. It probably came from a periscope or something.
It gives very soft images that work for some subjects. You can make a diaphragm for such a lens from black paper, with a circular aperture or a slit or whatever.
I've been a photographer for a very long time. I've found images from old, large format camera lenses that some photographers have occasionally done as somewhat interesting.
Of course, over the years, the goal of the optics industry has been to produce better and better lenses, with distortions and optical aberrations minimized or eliminated. The Holy Grail being lenses that impart no quality of their own to the image.
But there were always those found who interest in some old lenses and the "character" they imparted to images. Sometimes just for fun, other times in a more serious effort.
Now the Internet, in its inexorable searching and voracious appetite for every aspect of human activity has discovered lens "character" as "a thing."
My jaded view of the situation is that of individuals, who having no photographic skills, responding to a seemingly infinite number of "influencers" with equally lacking credentials, all of whom are hopelessly entrenched in the misguided belief that just the right magical piece of gear will suddenly transform them into "Great Photographers." (Whatever that means)
It's all about gear. Gear is the mantra. They are devotees of the the newest piece of gear any manufacturer produces. They typically own every lens in a manufacturer's line, making sure there are absolutely no gaps in focal length of their collection of primes or zooms. They adhere to extremely strong brand loyalty but are prone to suddenly "Jumping ship" and switching completely and irrevocably from one brand to another. They speak in absolutes and are adherents to the philosophy that "My camera brand can kill your camera brand."
Ironically, when they stumble onto the cult of "Character Lenses" they are seeking old equipment rather than the newest thing. But it's the same Gear Acquisition Syndrome. They express frustration with the images their current gear produces, proclaiming lackluster results from their stellar Fuji, Canon, Sony lenses. Of course, the few images they produce have no merit whatever as the result of their own lack of any skill. But that is never the point. It's that their "nifty fifty" itself creates boring images. They want "more character" in a lens. More character is the latest magical formula that will elevate their photography to "The Next Level."
I find it all quite childish and self-indulgent.
My apologies to those practitioners who have adapted various optics for closeup work, and other use, whose motivation for such use has had nothing to do with some Internet fad. Do good work, guys.
And my apologies for the rantings of an old photographer who cringes at the very words, "Internet influencer."
In professional audio, modern microphones are made with as flat a frequency response as possible. Examples are those made by DPA with designs dating back to the early 1980s. On the other hand, older designs, such as the AKG C12 and the Neumann U47 (from 30 years earlier) are highly prized by engineers and musicians for their musical sound, even though they are not technically as “perfect” as modern microphones. I myself, as a recording engineer, use the C12 for recording instruments, and would use the U47 for vocals (as did Sinatra, Streisand, etc). After years using them, I found the modern microphones produce a boring sound by comparison. These older microphones were designed as much by ear as by measurement.
I suppose that old lenses which, like microphones, collect light, as opposed to sound, might be cherished for the imperfect ways that they do this, though I am sceptical personally, as I find lenses like the best of the Canon EF and RF series give me excellent results that I cannot find fault with.
