Post-WWII René Burri - what lens?

[Jonathan R]

Does anyone know - or would you care to guess - what lens Burri would have been using in the 40s and 50s to take these shots?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmoUR6hF5M8/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmhpuKNlkmX/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmWAlgslwYc/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmWAlgslwYc/

I love the look, but am struggling both to characterise it and to think how to achieve it nowadays.

(There are many photos on the internet of Burri holding a camera, but almost all are relatively recent showing an M6 with a well-worn 35mm Summicron.)

 

[Sonnar Brian]

He used Leica and online photos of him show he preferred wide-angle lenses. Given the 1957 time frame- I'd guess a 35 Summaron.

The film used makes a big difference in the look of the image. Many of these films are no longer available.

Best to list the characteristics you are aiming for, and then try to line up with a lens and film combination. Then experiment.

 

[Jonathan R]

He used Leica and online photos of him show he preferred wide-angle lenses. Given the 1957 time frame- I'd guess a 35 Summaron.

The film used makes a big difference in the look of the image. Many of these films are no longer available.

Best to list the characteristics you are aiming for, and then try to line up with a lens and film combination. Then experiment.

The time frame for these 4 images is 1947-1957.

Good point about the film. I had to look up some history. Kodak Panatomic-X, Plus-X and Super-X were around, Tri-X towards the end of that period. Ilford FP2/FP3, HP2/HP3. Also Agfa Isopan and Agfapan - I'd forgotten those names. All panchromatic films, so this presumably isn't a question of spectral sensitivity.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The look of specific films is far beyond spectral response- it is also response to the amount of light being collected, grain size, developers used, etc. Many variables- too many to figure out without having exact notes. The Summaron 35/3.5 was probably the best of the Leica wide-angle lenses the time frame. The Summaron came out in 1945. The F2.8 version- a few years later.

I've read that David Douglas Duncan preferred the Leica 3.5cm F3.5 (A Summaron most likely) over the Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5, which is a Tessar formula lens. Later, Nikon introduced the 3.5cm F2.5 which competes with the Summaron.

These days - for a nostalgic look, a Summaron 3.5cm (either) lens and Kodak Super-XX film. If you are on a budget, the Chrome Canon 35/2.8 is also a Summaron type 1-2-2-1 lens and is lower contrast than the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5. The later Canon 35/2.8- probably used a newer type glass, higher contrast- but I am guessing.

 

[Jonathan R]

Just realised that I made an error in copying the 4th link in my original post. The list should read:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmoUR6hF5M8/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmhpuKNlkmX/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmWAlgslwYc/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BlVotqYlSRE/

Also, I think it's likely that @fondationreneburri have made an error in their description of the third one ("1947"), since they put 1957 in the hashtags and that would match the other shots from Turkey. In that case, all of these would have been in 1957, with relatively modern films available.

My hunch is still that it's largely the lens. I don't want to go and buy a 70-year-old lens, but I do want to understand exactly what produced these lovely tones. The characteristic that strikes me most is that backgrounds appear veiled by haze at just a few tens of metres, even though they are reasonably in focus. To me, it gives a theatrical depth to the image, as if the background is behind a stage gauze. It isn't simply back-lighting, because it's no less apparent in the second shot which is side-lit. I guess Burri didn't use a UV filter, but I still think there's more to it than that.

 

[Jonathan R]

The look of specific films is far beyond spectral response- it is also response to the amount of light being collected, grain size, developers used, etc. Many variables- too many to figure out without having exact notes. The Summaron 35/3.5 was probably the best of the Leica wide-angle lenses the time frame. The Summaron came out in 1945. The F2.8 version- a few years later.

I've read that David Douglas Duncan preferred the Leica 3.5cm F3.5 (A Summaron most likely) over the Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5, which is a Tessar formula lens. Later, Nikon introduced the 3.5cm F2.5 which competes with the Summaron.

These days - for a nostalgic look, a Summaron 3.5cm (either) lens and Kodak Super-XX film. If you are on a budget, the Chrome Canon 35/2.8 is also a Summaron type 1-2-2-1 lens and is lower contrast than the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5. The later Canon 35/2.8- probably used a newer type glass, higher contrast- but I am guessing.

Apologies, Brian, our posts crossed in the ether.

I don't know a lot about Burri, but these photos were relatively early in his career, so we need not assume he could afford the latest and best at that time. I just read online that vignetting is a pronounced characteristic of the Summaron 3.5cm - there isn't any apparent in these posted images, although of course it could have been corrected if present in the neg. There is some evidence in the foregrounds of poor corner sharpness. So I guess an Elmar 3.5cm is also in the frame?

In either case, what I'd really like to understand is what was going on in the lenses of that time to produce the effect? Or in the films and processing, if that's the answer?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I shoot with many older lenses, many uncoated lenses. What I notice about the older Leica lenses: Shadow Detail is preserved. The lenses are lower contrast. This works well on film, and on color digital. With my M Monochrom- the uncoated 9cm F4 Elmar "washed out", not enough contrast.

 

[Erik van Straten]

He used Leica and online photos of him show he preferred wide-angle lenses. Given the 1957 time frame- I'd guess a 35 Summaron.

The film used makes a big difference in the look of the image. Many of these films are no longer available.

Also important is how the prints are made. A lens produces a negative on film. But then the negative must be printed. In the 1950's the printers were very important for the photographers.

Erik.