HCB and his lenses

J

jett

Well-known
Local time
6:30 AM
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
223
OK so everyone knows that HCB was famous for shooting with a 50mm, and a Summicron. Well, some say that he sometimes shot 35mm/90mm and I do not doubt that but he for sure was famous for the 50mm focal length.

Which lenses did he use? I read that he started using a 50mm Sonnar in LTM then moved into a Collapsible Summicron and I thought he just stuck with that. In a recent thread, i see that he had used a Noctilux too. I'm wondering, did he play around with different 50mm lenses or was he the type of person who just stuck with one lens.

I get the impression that he is more of a photographer than a gearhead and didn't really care about the drawing, bokeh, sharpness, and etc. And for that reason, I don't see why he would play around with different lenses unless there was a clear reason to.
 
There's also pictures of him shooting a Minolta CLE with a 40mm lens.

It doesn't matter, really.


I can't understand this fascination of what lenses were used by whatever photographer... The pictures are there to enjoy, even if they were shot through a marmalade jar!
 
It's true that he used a Sonnar 1.5, but I heard Beaumont Newhall say that it was adapted to his Leica (LTM). It's true also that it doesn't matter, as much zone-focusing as he did.
 
I know it doesn't matter and I'm not really his biggest fan either to tell you the truth. I'm just curious.
 
What are these insane myths surrounding this man? Is it such an unacceptable idea that he might have been a fondler, in private, just like any and all of us?

He was a rich kid from a rich family. He liked to wear luxurious clothes with luxurious materials. Which is no surprise. We all love a nice Ralph Lauren shirt. So what's so unusual with the fact that he probably loved to fondle some cameras and lenses here and there?
 
Don't forget the photo of Henri using that bottomloader Canon with the Canon/Serenar 50mm f1.8 ... or was it the f1.5?

I do not think it mattered or if it made any difference if he used a Jupiter 8 lens.
 
nothing wrong with being curious...he was noted for using a leica with a 50mm lens so when we hear differently it intrigues us...and there is no doubt that he is famous and still a topic of conversation,
 
It would cause some people severe trauma if proof could be found that HCB used a pinhole camera liberally sprinkled with fairy dust to take his more iconic images.

The shock could well prove fatal in some cases.... (!)
 
there is little need to mock others...some are young , some are young to photography and some maybe just becoming more interested in the lives of the famous...
 
and while i'm thinking of it...for the mockers...why not invest some energy critiquing some images instead of poking fun at others...it would be greatly appreciated by many i would think...
 
I'm sorry for being curious.

No, I haven't studied the history of art or photography because I'm not really trying to become an artist or photographer. I just like to take pictures.

Some things, I just like to know. Isn't that normal? Isn't that why people read biographies? I don't care so much about his life, I just had interest in knowing this small facet.

Heck, if he had used a Nikon F100, then I wouldn't think any more or less of him but I would find that interesting.
 
I wasn't mocking, if your post was directed at me.
HCB was a photographer by profession, therefore he had to own a vast array of equipment. His professionalism and work ethics would have dictated that.
It's only normal.
I really wonder where these myths come from. I also wonder how one creates such myths around oneself.
I'm totally curious.
 
No serious mockery coming from me, Joe, just a little light-hearted banter to enliven a cold, wet evening here in the UK.

In truth, I'm just as intrigued as you in the matter of Henri's photographic hardware and his working practices.

The man is rightfully called a legend...
 
Clint Troy said:
What are these insane myths surrounding this man? Is it such an unacceptable idea that he might have been a fondler, in private, just like any and all of us?

He was a rich kid from a rich family. He liked to wear luxurious clothes with luxurious materials. Which is no surprise. We all love a nice Ralph Lauren shirt. So what's so unusual with the fact that he probably loved to fondle some cameras and lenses here and there?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it is the poor who are more likely to be fondlers - a material item is much more likely to be precious to them. That said, from what I have read, HCB also treasured his gear, despite his financial status.

I speak as someone who becomes very attached to material items, and recognizes said trait in others.

Randy
 
That was an interesting thread on the Noctilux 1.2. The idea that it was given to him to try or keep seems very likely. In later years it was in Leica's interest to be giving him new cameras, like the M6, to use. I don't think Cartier-Bresson can be overestimated.

There are indeed myths about his disdain for equipment or his lack of interest in technical matters. An indian photographer posted here last year about their time together travelling through India. See if you can find that. A first hand account of what he actually did.
 
I've seen many people claim he only used 50s, only used a single lens, etc. Its typically a condescending attack on people who dabble with different lenses; its used as evidence in the 'all a photographer should need is a single body and single lens' argument.

Acknowledging that he used a wider range of equipment (and that Adams shot 35mm, etc) is valuable as it helps remove dogma about the craft.
 
When HCB was much older he also had a Minilux for tooling around, though he took very few pictures at that stage of his life.
 
Clint Troy said:
I wasn't mocking, if your post was directed at me.
Click to expand...

My post wasn't directed at any individual.

I just asked what I thought was a simple question and I get what I think are sarcastic responses with undertones of mockery as if my question was somehow a violation.
 
PKR--thanks for the link!
VERY interesting read.
He was no doubt a great fellow to those who knew him.
Thanks again.
Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom