Searching for Best lens to get vintage looks

[ka7197]

The whole reason I moved to the Leica M system is my admiration for the works of all the Magnum photographers and the overall “look” of the 50s and 60s documentary photography (mostly the ones on 28s and 35s). So my question is, considering how there weren't any Asph or super-sharp glass back then, what would be the best lens to get that look and not just necessarily the sharpest, most distortion-free results?

If your photographs don't look like HCB's, Lee Friedlander's or Garry Winogrand's then it's because you are no HCB, Friedlander, or Winogrand.

The lens you're using won't make any significant difference. So just grab one and start shooting. If you don't like your results then don't blame the lens but keep practicing.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Uncoated lenses usually produce an older look. However, the world around us is no longer the mid-twentieth century. You cannot bring it back.

Erik.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Hear, hear. Messieurs Bresson and Winogrand and many other photographers from that era have expired and, today the darkroom is just another way to create images. In the context of the OP's post, it is more helpful to refer to lenses, some of which were created quite recently, with a bit of character.

 

[raid]

A Canon 19mm 3.5 FD with Canon adapter B.
You will get a vintage look.

 

[jsrockit]

Empty gearheads talks...The rest is empty talk of gearheads.

And if that is what people want to do here, then they are free to do so. Don't be hypocritical.

 

[Dralowid]

Just how vintage do you want? Summar, into the sun, no hood.

CNV00017 by dralowid, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

Michael, with a Summar and no hood it is not difficult to get "vintage". I can do it too.


Erik.

 

[Highway 61]

(...) considering how there weren't any ASPH or super sharp glass back then, (...)

Currently made aspherical not, but super sharp lenses for the 24x36 format exist since the mid 1930s.

Like some others said : the photos taken by the great XXth century masters you admire (for some good reason) depict a world which is now gone. You won't re-find the Pittsburgh photographed by W. Eugene Smith or the Spain photographed by Henri Cartier-Bresson in the 1930s and Erik Van Straten in the 1970s.

You want a 35mm lens for your M6 ? Get a C-Biogon 35mm f/2.8 T* and enjoy it to death, you cannot find a best bang for the bucks (second hand, they sell for $600, average).

The "vintage lenses rendition" is more a hoax than anything else. Today, mostly because of the "digital vs film" thing, people who talk about "classic" lenses keep raving about some odd concepts which optics engineers from the 1950s and 1960s would frankly laugh at.

Don't start your hobby with fake concepts in your head. Get a good lens matching your budget for your new film camera body and then buy some film and work around your subjects without losing your time with mis-thinking about lenses. And, moreover, quickly learn to master the B&W films processing so that you can develop your stuff cleanly at home and get constant, repetable and consistent results, without anything deceptive like stains, scratches etc.

 

[raid]

Some RFF members enjoy trying out many lenses over their past years of photography. It starts with one lens. I started out with 50mm lenses and followed up with 35mm lenses. For my preferences in photography, any reasonably good lens is adequate. Today, I am using a Pentax M 50/1.4. Last weekend it was a CV 50/3.5 and the weekend before it was a Zeiss Hologon 16/8. In your case, I recommend that you first choose your favorite focal length. The rest is easy to do. Many people here at RFF have extensive experience with lenses. Browse through their posted photos.

Good luck.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

And if that is what people want to do here, then they are free to do so. Don't be hypocritical.

I'm just honest. It is main mistake of many of those who thinks what gear is the answer.
"if I'll buy camera with same M letter as HCB did and find retro lens, my scanned images are going to looks the same".
But none of the gear-heads are willing to think more and realize what all of the retro images they are looking at are prints. Prints on single grade, FB paper. The difference between old paper prints and scans is obvious.
I'm big fan of HCB and even more so of GW. I print even if I want just to share it on the net.
GW used different lenses over decades, some were next to mediocre, like Canon 28 3.5, which is visible on the prints. But it is prints which makes it looks as it is.

 

[Richard G]

Currently made aspherical not, but super sharp lenses for the 24x36 format exist since the mid 1930s.

Like some others said : the photos taken by the great XXth century masters you admire (for some good reason) depict a world which is now gone. You won't re-find the Pittsburgh photographed by W. Eugene Smith or the Spain photographed by Henri Cartier-Bresson in the 1930s and Erik Van Straten in the 1970s.

You want a 35mm lens for your M6 ? Get a C-Biogon 35mm f/2.8 T* and enjoy it to death, you cannot find a best bang for the bucks (second hand, they sell for $600, average).

The "vintage lenses rendition" is more a hoax than anything else. Today, mostly because of the "digital vs film" thing, people who talk about "classic" lenses keep raving about some odd concepts which optics engineers from the 1950s and 1960s would frankly laugh at.

Don't start your hobby with fake concepts in your head. Get a good lens matching your budget for your new film camera body and then buy some film and work around your subjects without losing your time with mis-thinking about lenses. And, moreover, quickly learn to master the B&W films processing so that you can develop your stuff cleanly at home and get constant, repetable and consistent results, without anything deceptive like stains, scratches etc.

This is good advice, including that lens.

 

[Dralowid]

Michael, with a Summar and no hood it is not difficult to get "vintage". I can do it too.


Erik.

Erik, It is surely hard not to get the vintage look into the sun without a hood!

I forgot to add that a well worn front element, polished over the years by various ties and handkerchiefs adds to the effect.

Michael

 

[burninfilm]

Honestly, I loved the look my Summar created. Very cool lens that can make great images when in decent condition. I even liked the way it’d flare around bright light sources. About as “vintage look” as it gets, and normally fairly affordable so always worth a try!

 

[raid]

Steinheil 85/2.8

Summar 5cm 2

It often is the choice of film and developing that creates a vintage look too.

Same image in B&W:

Ilford HP5

EFKE 25

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M2, Summar 50mm f/2, 400-2TMY/Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

 

[lxmike]

I use a Leitz Summar quite a bit, its a typical example of an uncoated lens

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Summitar with M adapter is sharp and inexpensive, Summaron has lovely rendering, if not quite so cheap. The Nokton Classic is more vintage in looks, but without the flare etc of age. I have the Biogon C 35mm f2.8 and it is bitingly sharp and contrasty - I'd struggle to say vintage unless you shot it with say Retropan, at which point you've just wasted it.

I'd say film choice has a vital role to play. TriX and HP5 for example have a more old school look. Yet using top grade magical Tmax 400 with an old lens developed the right way can retain the look but add sharpness.

Find one lens and play with film and developer choice, it's taken me 2 years to decide what I really like, and I've still numerous films, developers and lenses to try.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

...i know we're quite a ways into the thread, but the OP was looking for a wide angle....

 

[raid]

There are many good options. I recommended the Canon 19/3.5.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

...i know we're quite a ways into the thread, but the OP was looking for a wide angle....

Good point.

Elmar 35mm f3.5 should also be considered. Uncoated and old school.