DominikDUK
Well-known
I agree with you a general purpose lens is often if not always the best. Ultra fast lenses are not general purpose lenses and never will be, old style lenses are often not the best choice unless you are after a certain look. Regarding the question if I trust a doctor when I am ill I would say it depends. There are many quacks in this profession, in fact they remind me of so called photography experts R.H. excluded.
99% of the times if someone ask me what lens he/she/it should buy I tell him/her/it to test the lens to see whether they like it's look and feel. As I stated the best lens is lens one feels most comfortable with and is therefore a highly personal choice/opinion.
Dominik
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dominik,
We are in 100% agreement, especially the highlighted portion.The ONLY reason to recommend one lens over another is if the questioner doesn't have the luxury of testing. Then, I'd suggest, buy a 'general purpose' lens and if it doesn't do what you want, ask yourself (a) why not and (b) what might.
Cheers,
R.
No, I am just still curious why something this obvious needs a thread. And I'm curious who you think the fools are.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Well, the 'argument from authority' is one of the fallacies of formal logic. In any case, to extend your example, should we trust the authority of a doctor who has actually studied and practised a subject, or a journalist (or someone of the sort) who has mostly just written about it? I have a cousin who is a well known medical malpractice lawyer in the UK who has an astonishingly detailed knowledge of some aspects of medical techniques and practises; I wouldn't want her operating on me.
Going back to the original sense of the thread, I don't imagine anyone would deny that there have been significant advances in lens design and construction over the last fifty years but I think it is legitimate to argue that these newer lenses are only better in certain circumstances. On a specialised forum like this, it is quite easy to imagine someone might be seeking an LTM lens because they want a retro look for their finished photographs.
JB-Dancer
Established
Roger,
35MM F3.5 ELMAR (1930 - 1950) Which I read that you consider "Old and Mushy".
With regard to the 35mm f3.5 Elmar lens I cannot put this lens into any of the above (highly specialized,antique,ridiculously cheap or alarmingly expensive) categories that you quote.
It certainly isn't antique having been last produced in 1950.Antique is usually described as being over 100 years old.That category would fit lenses made for use with old plate cameras but not yet for the screw Leica lenses (Leica Ic.standardised 1931 onwards).
One can find a nice clean bright 35mm Elmar uncoated or coated that will certainly fit your description of "a good general purpose [ medium wide angle] lens" and I have seen many fine photo's taken with this lens on this Rangefinder Forum.
Even Ivor Matanle in his book "Collecting and Using Classic Cameras" recommends to the new beginner to Leica screw camera use, the acquisition of a 35mm f3.5 Elmar, for general purpose photography and he has been a very reliable,experienced dealer,photographer,and photographic book author for many years.
I rarely post, as you can see, on this forum but couldn't let this lens be ridiculed on this thread after giving many years of excellent and useful service to Leica screw camera photographers world-wide.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Eminently true,. But an opinion is not a matter of formal logic. Your point was?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ridiculed? No. Described as technically inferior (contrast, sharpness, vgnetting, field flatness) as compared with a 35/2.5 Color-Skopar? Yes. I doubt Ivor'd disagree, and I've known him for a third of a century or so.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, with 90 posts, far from all of them mine, far from all of them in disagreement with me, there are clearly a few who think it's worth discussing. Including those who disagree with me, or presumably they'd not have bothered to post. Remember: any discussion on the internet is akin to a legal argument. Sometimes it's the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). Sometimes it's the civil standard (balance of probability). If I am persuaded by someone else's argument, I'll cheerfully admit it. But there are an awful lot of feeble arguments on the internet.No, I am just still curious why something this obvious needs a thread. And I'm curious who you think the fools are.
Cheers,
R.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sorry for the continued digression from more serious ponderings... ;-)
Reading up on them, the original models, '34 to '52ish, were heavy steel stampings. The later ones were even more durable castings. Certainly tough and heavy.
I immediately like the Robot II. It feels like my Rollei 35 in the hand but FAR more durable (and certainly far far heavier). The focal length/FoV/square format suits me too. And the big thing about it that I *really* like is the astonishing responsiveness of the shutter and wind: you can make exposures about as fast as you can press the shutter release. For street photography, aside from the "shiirsht" of the advance, this is going to be a kick. It fits in a very small bag. Load it up with a long roll, 50 shots to play with, and concentrate on what you're doing. Use the speed to capture stuff that slower cameras can't get to...
I might look for a later model AR-coated lens for it. There's a Schneider 38-40mm f/1.9 that seems pretty common. This lovely un-coated Zeiss Biotar needs a deep shade and careful management of where the light is to minimize flare and make it sing.
I posted my scan index sheet for the entertainment value...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2072049#post2072049
This roll was mostly a camera test ... Likely the first time the camera's had a roll of film through it in 30-40 years! ... but now that I understand it better I think I'm going to have some real fun. And I think some of these first snaps have some legs and deserve to be rendered.
Fun fun fun!
G
Reading up on them, the original models, '34 to '52ish, were heavy steel stampings. The later ones were even more durable castings. Certainly tough and heavy.
I immediately like the Robot II. It feels like my Rollei 35 in the hand but FAR more durable (and certainly far far heavier). The focal length/FoV/square format suits me too. And the big thing about it that I *really* like is the astonishing responsiveness of the shutter and wind: you can make exposures about as fast as you can press the shutter release. For street photography, aside from the "shiirsht" of the advance, this is going to be a kick. It fits in a very small bag. Load it up with a long roll, 50 shots to play with, and concentrate on what you're doing. Use the speed to capture stuff that slower cameras can't get to...
I might look for a later model AR-coated lens for it. There's a Schneider 38-40mm f/1.9 that seems pretty common. This lovely un-coated Zeiss Biotar needs a deep shade and careful management of where the light is to minimize flare and make it sing.
I posted my scan index sheet for the entertainment value...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2072049#post2072049
This roll was mostly a camera test ... Likely the first time the camera's had a roll of film through it in 30-40 years! ... but now that I understand it better I think I'm going to have some real fun. And I think some of these first snaps have some legs and deserve to be rendered.
Fun fun fun!
G
flyalf
Well-known
Hmmm, perhaps its hard to question the above quote. So that leads us to follow-up questions for all:
1. Any other old lenses that can be used on the new Leica M that can compared technically to newer counterparts within reason? Leica 135/4? Not-so-old 50mm Summicrons? 35mm Summicrons?
2. Good bang for buck? Is discussed in this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2027580#post2027580
I can't argue with that.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I chose 60 years because although the collapsible Summicron came out 60 years ago, it's not reckoned to be as good as the rigid Summicron ('56). Likewise the 135/4 Elmar, 1960, or the 35 Summicron (1958). And these are among the best of the era.
Cheers,
R.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Even with many posts I don't see a reason for a rant. Everyone says what (s)he thinks and the funny thing is that in a way they (or should I say we?) are all right.
Lomoists have their point: "Taking pictures is more important than chasing gear", Leicaists have their: "A Summichron is sharper than a Lomo lens and keeping the film flat could make some sense in most kind of photography", even DSLRists have their point: "All is fine as long as you are taking picture of stationary objects, as soon as you get into something moving really fast you might want those 8fps" and, of course, strobists have their: "Control the light and you will control your image". I have my own motto (not invented by me, just told to me by a fellow who also didn't invent it): "Light well, compose well, print well...". You have just to pick your way and do it as well as you can.
(By the way, I guess than what most of us would really really need is more money, if I didn't have to choose between a lens or a flash or a softbox I would buy all Leica catalogue, from the point and shot to the S2, as well as Nikon's, Canon's, Olympus' and Pentax, but since I have to decide I don't always go with that better lens.)
GLF
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not if they/we fail to distinguish logically different questions.
All I'm pleading for is clarity of thought.
Cheers,
R.
PAN F
Established
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Believe it or not I think this is probably the only Forum about anything where I find all member nice. Really, I might not agree with someone but it is the only forum where I see no reason to filter, you never know one day you go to that car boot sale and find that very rare strange prewar American camera and maybe the only guy who can give you the right piece of information is going to be that filtered guy...
GLF
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Sure, I might have not expressed correctly myself, I meant that maybe you can just get what's useful for you and ignore the rest from each one.
GLF
RichL
Well-known
Years ago I made a series of pinhole "lenses". As I recall, the holes varied in size from about 1/256" to a bit under 1/8".
I tried numerous board/bellows extension/film type combinations and, as would be expected, came up with wildly differing results.
After reading the various posts here I got to wondering "Would people have argued the merits of the various pinhole sizes and quality of the hole if the photographs had been posted on the (then non existent) web?"
For me this brought together Roger's whole idea of lens quality and picture quality. Inextricably related they are but the arguments for each are not interchangeable. The quality of the photograph is judged on how well it meets the photographers vision. The quality of a lens is judged on how well it meets the designers criteria.
I tried numerous board/bellows extension/film type combinations and, as would be expected, came up with wildly differing results.
After reading the various posts here I got to wondering "Would people have argued the merits of the various pinhole sizes and quality of the hole if the photographs had been posted on the (then non existent) web?"
For me this brought together Roger's whole idea of lens quality and picture quality. Inextricably related they are but the arguments for each are not interchangeable. The quality of the photograph is judged on how well it meets the photographers vision. The quality of a lens is judged on how well it meets the designers criteria.
sparrow6224
Well-known
I think the esteemed Mr Hicks was pointing up two fallacies prevalent among all us bloviators on photo forums: one is the cult of equipment, that once a new lens/camera is introduced, it is thereafter impossible to take good photographs with the older one; and an equally tenacious fallacy that says oh the equipment doesn't matter a great photographer can make a great photograph with any equipment. I like to look here to two photographers: Eugene Smith, and Ansel Adams. Couldn't be more different. Adams commented on Smith in his letters at one point, acknlowedging his achievement while remaining suspicious of the aesthetic claims made for photojournalism. Ansel Adams could not have done what he did (artistically; commiercially is another matter) with just any equipment: he needed very large format (mostly 8x10) and the selection of lenses he used was very carefully considered. Everything was tested, position, focus, exposure, development, printing. His whole life was a series of tests, photographically. He simply could not have done what he did with an Exacta.
Smith got fired from Newsweek and drove them nuts because he insisted on using 35mm when they were still using Graflex's. It was believed and possibly correctly that acceptable resolution was not to be had at that size, for a printed page in a national magazine. He believed differently and for him he was right. He always had what he considered to be the very best equipment -- usually Leica cameras and lenses -- that he could afford at any given moment. Then he'd hock it when he was broke and have to get it all back again. If he could, and often he could, he'd wear five or six cameras with different focal length lenses. He deeply understood his equipment and he was considered somewhat miraculous in the darkroom. In lighting conditions that would undo most of us today with modern lenses he was able to extract great photographs. here are two quite different ones, one candid and one set up with some kind of manipulation of lighting. He is, to my mind, the master of darkness in modern photography. It's always the dark that matters and the light is used to isolate particular things and to reveal part of the darkness.
First, from The Jazz Loft Project:
http://chicagoartmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Smith-Zoo-Sims1-1957.jpg
Then, his iconic picture from Minamata:
http://arafiqui.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/smith_minimata.jpg?w=604&h=406
Another from Jazz Loft and another from Minamata just to show what he could do. First is a quite considerable crop.
http://sauer-thompson.com/conversations/archives/2010/05/13/SmithEJazzLoftProjectMonk.jpg
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2TYRYDDWZXTR
(I see this doesn't direct to the precise picture: I was meaning to show the one called FUNABA'S CRIPPLED HAND, 1971)
The man wanted the best possible equipment and got everything he could from it. And yet I don't know a single Gene Smith photograph that you look at and say, my god, look at that detail, look at that sharpness. You do say that sometimes with Ansel Adams or Edward Weston or more contemporary, Steve McCrurry (Afghan Girl, among many others). There are simply no great photographers who say, regarding equipment, oh just give me any old thing, it doesn't matter. But there are none as well who would say that only the best equipment can make the best photographs.
Smith got fired from Newsweek and drove them nuts because he insisted on using 35mm when they were still using Graflex's. It was believed and possibly correctly that acceptable resolution was not to be had at that size, for a printed page in a national magazine. He believed differently and for him he was right. He always had what he considered to be the very best equipment -- usually Leica cameras and lenses -- that he could afford at any given moment. Then he'd hock it when he was broke and have to get it all back again. If he could, and often he could, he'd wear five or six cameras with different focal length lenses. He deeply understood his equipment and he was considered somewhat miraculous in the darkroom. In lighting conditions that would undo most of us today with modern lenses he was able to extract great photographs. here are two quite different ones, one candid and one set up with some kind of manipulation of lighting. He is, to my mind, the master of darkness in modern photography. It's always the dark that matters and the light is used to isolate particular things and to reveal part of the darkness.
First, from The Jazz Loft Project:
http://chicagoartmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Smith-Zoo-Sims1-1957.jpg
Then, his iconic picture from Minamata:
http://arafiqui.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/smith_minimata.jpg?w=604&h=406
Another from Jazz Loft and another from Minamata just to show what he could do. First is a quite considerable crop.
http://sauer-thompson.com/conversations/archives/2010/05/13/SmithEJazzLoftProjectMonk.jpg
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2TYRYDDWZXTR
(I see this doesn't direct to the precise picture: I was meaning to show the one called FUNABA'S CRIPPLED HAND, 1971)
The man wanted the best possible equipment and got everything he could from it. And yet I don't know a single Gene Smith photograph that you look at and say, my god, look at that detail, look at that sharpness. You do say that sometimes with Ansel Adams or Edward Weston or more contemporary, Steve McCrurry (Afghan Girl, among many others). There are simply no great photographers who say, regarding equipment, oh just give me any old thing, it doesn't matter. But there are none as well who would say that only the best equipment can make the best photographs.
Mcary
Well-known
Great post!