Lens Generations, Imitation and Originality

[notturtle]

A common topic is the issue of lens generations and the vast range of imaging options we have (subject to pocket) for RF cameras and the personal choices we make (in B&W), particularly for reportage. There are many different views on whether to go for asphs, pre-asphs, the ZMs which are somewhere in the middle or CVs which vary wildly in their look. We make personal choices and I am not attempting to claim anyone is right or wrong, but would like the explore the 'why'.

How much is influenced by the generation we are from and what we are used to? I know some younger shooters use older lenses quite deliberately....
How much is influenced by work that we admire... with the danger of imitation or association lingering in the air...
How much of what we think matters does matter when our images are good enough?

I ask this not be provocative, but because there are more than a few pros documentary photographers using modern asphs in a very traditional style, just as there are amateurs swearing that nothing but the V4 cron will do for them. Has the golden era of B&W reportage has perhaps conditioned the vision of many and there is this temptation to try to produce images with the same look rather than accept that as much if not more is possible with modern optics?

Would CB, or Robert Capa or Elliott Erwitt have said 'no thanks' to the current model 50 summicron or 35 biogon has one been placed in their hand back then (with improved performance wide open, flare resistance etc) on the basis that they are after 'a certain look?' Would they would have said a huge thanks and been grateful for the greater number of images devoid of flare etc? I know Salgado stuck with his older gen lenses but then again he was so used to them (and the resultant exposure and shooting considerations) that it is hardly surprising he did not rush to change to use asphs. A great leap in contrast would have unravelled years of intuitive and predictable use.

The reason I bring this up is that there tends to be an awful lot of looking backwards as if B&W reached its apex about twenty to thirty years ago from a 'desirable imaging characteristics and style' perspective, with the 35 Cron V4 being the 'ideal' etc. I personally do not subscribe to this and think that there are some of the negative aspects of modern lenses are easily dealt with by film selection, processing or printing (should youn desire), resulting in more creative options and opportuinity than ever before (and less unpredictable flare etc).

Is that nostalgic look just a cheap gimmick taking the place of real content and interest? Would a really talented 35mm RF photographer emerging today be likely to care much about the arguments of the pre-asph adherents or be more worried about avoiding flare and getting superb sharpness across the board?

My interest in this piqued when playing with my new 35 CV pancake 2, which is tiny, sharp and has very nice bokeh (I own mainly ZM and some pre-asph Leica). Maybe the bokeh will not be as creamy as the V4 cron (I dont know either way), but the CV is according to some, every bit as sharp (some have claimed sharper), with better flare resistance. Overall imaging is really superb, albeit with moderately high contrast (easy fix with D&P adjustment), and it is probably even smaller than the V4. It costs about $275 used with a hood, or about 1/4 to 1/5 of a very clean late V4.

I am not bashing the V4 (it is merely an example of a lens that represents for many the best of the subjective) or bashing the choices many have made. I am merely asking has it always been for the right reasons? Has it sometimes been a creative crutch, a safe bet or an easy way of getting our images to superficially resemble ones universally regarded as great from the golden age - a kind of imaging insurance against criticism?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I prefer the Vintage look, but use equipment that spans 75 years.

I have a lot of stuff.

 

[tbarker13]

I generally prefer the look of images shot with pre-asph glass. The 50 summilux, 75 lux, 90 cron, 35 cron (v 3 or 4), etc.
Used wide open, I don't think they are quite as sharp as their asph brethren. But I still like the way they render.

I'm sure many (but certainly not all) of those older photogs would do the same thing today that they did in their day - seek out the best glass available.

In the end, it really doesn't matter all that much. A good photo is a good photo, regardless of whether it was shot on film, on digital, with 50-year-old glass or 5-day-old glass.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I would guess that a very good reason that a lot of contemporary pro documentary photographers are using modern glass is because when you buy contemporary cameras you get modern glass. I don't think that very many of them are worrying much about perfect bokeh. Resistance to flare? Probably. Sharpness? Will a moderate crop still enlarge to full page or a front cover and still look decent?

The nitty gritty still comes down to interesting images, catching the moment, hopefully great composition and framing but not always possible in a news situation, the same with exposure, and the constant trade-off between stopping action vs. depth of field.

Obsessing about the way your lenses "draw" an image isn't going to make for better photographs.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Well, I guess that's true, but: this weekend my brother was getting married. I tend to like the supersharp pix from the 50/1.4 Asph, but there is something about the imperfections of older glass (I think it's called "flare") that really matches the look I wanted for his wedding. So: lenses used primarily -- 50/1.5 Summarit and a 35/3.5 Summaron with Neopan 1600 rated at 800. I also used an M8. I don't see why the same logic (choosing the lens to fit the look you want) wouldn't apply, regardless of the subject matter.

I don't necessarily think that all development has stopped -- I think some folks hit a look they like (either because of how they learned to see photographically, or because of the touchstone photographs to which they turn for inspiration) and stick with it. My father used one camera, one lens (an East German Practika with a 50mm lens) and one film (Tri-X) for 30 years and my vision of photography is at least as influenced by his pictures as it is by HCB or any other icon you could mention.

I used to say that the actual gear that you hold in your hand doesn't make a difference. I have reconsidered that position over the last several years. True, you may not always have the ability to put the camera/lens/film you want in your hands, but when you can tilt the playing field in your favor in terms of your ultimate vision, you should do so, I think.

Ben

 

[sevo]

I would guess that a very good reason that a lot of contemporary pro documentary photographers are using modern glass is because when you buy contemporary cameras you get modern glass. I don't think that very many of them are worrying much about perfect bokeh.

Very few professional documentary photographers have any opportunity to worry about bokeh - for one, it is best applied to composed pictures (and these are rarely considered legitimate among documentary pros that still have old-school ethics), for the other, subtle bokeh won't survive newsprint rasterization, and coarsely obvious bokeh does not sell. Photo editors have to follow the taste of the unwashed masses, and these consider severely blurry pics as something which even Aunt Mabel would have done better.

Sevo

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Very few photographers worry about bokeh as much as we do. 😉

f8 and be there, you know.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Very few professional documentary photographers have any opportunity to worry about bokeh - for one, it is best applied to composed pictures (and these are rarely considered legitimate among documentary pros that still have old-school ethics), for the other, subtle bokeh won't survive newsprint rasterization, and coarsely obvious bokeh does not sell. Photo editors have to follow the taste of the unwashed masses, and these consider severely blurry pics as something which even Aunt Mabel would have done better.

Sevo

It's very refreshing to find someone allowing that there are still documentary photographers who view composed [ictures as unethical. Thanks.

In these days of small sensor cameraas most people haven't even got any sense of depth of field - except for the odd really out of focus or shaken picture everything is sharp. Sometimes this is good.

Mike