Searching for Best lens to get vintage looks

[Deleted member 65559]

Good point.

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

Charles, I know Erik VS likes his. I bought one on a whim and was surprised how good the results were (my example has no haze). It's now the tiny normal lens on my CL (film). I think I paid $175 USD for it, although a quick look on Eb*y just now shows astonishingly high asking prices...

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Crikey, I bought mine from a dealer a few months ago for a lot less.

Lovely lens though - the Hotel Ernst Leitz, Wetzlar on my 1932 Elmar, Kodak Tmax400 at 200, Perceptol 1:2 (the Erik von Straten formula)

 

[ka7197]

I recommended the Canon 19 mm f/3.5.

No. I recommend Ilford HP5+.

 

[Bingley]

For a “vintage” look a la 1950s, I’d second the recommendation on the Summaron 35mm f3.5. Another option that I didn’t see mentioned in this thread is the Canon 35mm f1.8, made in the late 1950s (about the time the Leica M2 appeared). This Canon 35 has lower contrast than the later Canon 35mm f2.0, and works really well with bw film. With color film, it gives a more desaturated look than more modern 35s. It’s also quite small, with a deeply recessed front element so you don’t really need a hood. The major downside of this lens is its tendency to flare wildly when pointed at a light source (e.g. a window or opem door). But for a look that says 1950s, this is a good option.

IMO, though, the Canon 35mm f.2.0 is a better 35 overall. I had both the 1.8 and the 2.0, and kept the 2.0.

 

[Highway 61]

There are two kinds of lenses : good lenses, and the other stuff.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Elmar 35mm is good stuff.

No flare and great sharpness:

Leica M2, Elmar 35mm f/3.5 nickel/uncoated, 400-2TMY/Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

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

OOOPs!

Having said that I have heard it mentioned that in the 1930s the most popular focal length after 50mm was 90mm.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

OOOPs!

Having said that I have heard it mentioned that in the 1930s the most popular focal length after 50mm was 90mm.

The original post: "The whole reason i moved to the 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)"

....another compositionally strong photographer relying the 35 & 28mm was National Geo photographer Wm Allard.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

That was a better way to go about explaining your ideas (despite the gear head talk). Thank you.

 

[jsrockit]

There are two kinds of lenses : good lenses, and the other stuff.

Or ones that work well and ones that have issues... 😉 For me, most lenses these days work well enough.

 

[largedrink]

I know this thread is about lenses, but wouldn't film choice also play a large part in the 'look'? What would be the closest equivalent films available today to match the HCB and GW look, to go with the lens?

 

[Rob-F]

50mm Collapsiple Summicron, wide open:

Fujichrome100 prior to Velvia

 

[wpb]

Film choice and development would be the next step after you found the lens that gave you the rendering you are after. Tri-X today ain't your grandpa's Tri-X, so you will need to give it a little "push" to give it some of the grain of yesteryear. But I think this is part of the problem, you can't really replicate the "look" of the older films without altering the processing. Modern Tri-X doesn't have the grain or silver content of the old emulsion. Film was often slightly over developed to give some contrast back that was lost, especially lenses with more complex designs and multiple air to glass surfaces, so that also boosted the gain slightly. Some photographers went with "high acutance" developers (such as Acufine) and that made things even more grainy but the sharpness was enhanced.

I honestly think to pull off a more "nostalgic" look you need at least a two stop ND filter. If you shoot @ ISO 800 and extend development you will be closer of to the "look" of old Tri-X (circa 1954) but if you expose @ ISO 800 your shutter/aperture combo would be 2 stops away from where "grandpa's" settings would have been, hence the need for the two stop ND filter. Now you can have the grainy/contrasty look of old Tri-X and the same shutter/aperture combo that would have been used for any given light level.

Next we will do printing. Be forewarned, it involves "graded" papers...

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"So i just bought my first Leica m, a m6 classic and now i want to get a lens"......
"So if anyone has any suggestions for wide angle lenses with a vintage rendering, that would be much appreciated."

....good luck with the M6. You've got some nicely composed photos on Instagram.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Shoot on Kodak Double X, EK5222. This film hasn't changed at all in over 50 years. If you can find a slow black and white motion picture reversal stock like Tri-X (which is ISO 200, not 400) shoot it and develop only as negative. I'd say the best bet would be to shoot 5222 though but considering what I've learned about film stocks from motion picture work, just shoot anything.
Get a really nice lens like a UC Hexanon, because if you get an "old" optic, you're going to get sick of that then you're going to want something newer/faster/modern. Maybe a V2 Summilux would fit the bill.
Phil Forrest

 

[Rayt]

I had the same idea back in the 90's when I wanted a vintage look to emulate the masters. I agree with Ko.Fe. The darkroom is where it is. Using a lower contrast lens of any vintage with correct exposure on any film will yield an "ideal" negative when printed on grade 2 paper. Portiga Rapid and other warm paper will give a more vintage look for portraits. At the time I prefer Ilford Galerie #2 or multi-grade fiber no filter for street.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The darkroom is where it is.

The tonal structure of a scanned negative or a digital file is totally different from that of a print. Prints - wet silver gelatine - are old fashioned and so they have a vintage look, even when scanned.


Erik.

 

[David Hughes]

FWIW, a long, long time ago I went from that vintage look to the modern look when I traded in my Periflex and bought an Olympus-35 SP.

My 2d worth is that the lens, focussing and exposure improved and were probably spot on for the first time in years. Also in those days the standards for what a correctly exposed negative should look like were different* and a lot of adjustments (or correction of mistakes) were made in the darkroom.

I don't know how film latitude today compares with it when I used just Ilford FP3 but the Olympus meant I could go over to slide film full-time and not worry. That meant ISO 25 then...

Regards, David


* IIRC a lot of us would say that the negatives were under-exposed then.