Up close & personal, but what about far back?

[Timmyjoe]

I've got a number of "vintage" lenses which I really enjoy shooting on film cameras, but I've noticed that most of them seem to be optimized for close-in, wide-open shooting. (Think Nikkor 5cm f1.4 Tokyo (1950)).

This month I'm starting a project that will be more landscape/cityscape, and I'd love to find lenses with a similar "vintage" look (lower contrast, smoother mid-tones) but that are optimized for more distant subjects and more medium range apertures. Rangefinder(Leica M, LTM or Nikon S mount) or SLR(Nikon or Canon FD mount).

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Bingley]

A Summitar in good condition, either coated or uncoated, can be a wonderful landscape lens, for urban or non-urban projects. Ditto the classic Elmar 50/3.5. I've got an ongoing project on urban/vernacular architecture in the outer Richmond and Sunset districts in San Francisco that's shot entirely with an uncoated Summitar on color film. Check out the "Foglandia" album on my Flickr.

You don't say what focal length you prefer. If you're considering using a 35 lens, I'd recommend either the Leica Summaron 35/3.5 (another lens I regularly use for urban landscape photography) or the Canon 35/1.8. The latter especially gives a lower contrast look while still being sharp, although does have a tendency to flare when pointed at a light source (like an open door or window). It can give lovely results with BW film. The Canon 35/2.0 is much more modern in its look and probably not what you're looking for re: this project.

The inexpensive but very good Canon 50/1.8 is another good candidate for landscape photography, although the look it gives may be a little too modern for your project.

There may be other good candidates out there for your project, but I've used the lenses mentioned above and think they would work for you.

 

[02Pilot]

Agreed that the Elmar 50/3.5 and Summitar are both good choices. I shot my Berlin series exclusively with a coated Elmar; everything was pushed to 1600, so apertures were small in most cases. I also really like it for its compactness when working in urban settings. See here for samples: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161907

 

[anindyo]

Summaron 35/2.8. My everyday, multipurpose lens on M8.
Sharp for street, travel, landscape, but rather 'boring' for portrait.

 

[BillBingham2]

I know it may sound, well different, but, you might think about a longer lens. Early generation 85/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8 perhaps. There are some shots that I like the expansiveness of a wide for landscape. Others respond well to the compression of something longer.

B2 (;->

 

[Timmyjoe]

Hey Bill, I've got the 85/1.8 and 105/2.5 and I'll try those. Hadn't really thought of that.

Steve and everyone else, thanks for the suggestions. Haven't explored the old Leica glass.

Best,
-Tim

 

[retinax]

My understanding was that optimization is done for wide apertures, and can indeed be for different distances, but stopping down will always improve things, so no need to optimize a lens for stopped down use (except enlarging lenses and maybe large format which are not meant to be ever used at wider apertures). Of course certain trade-offs may be made that could entail accepting that a lens is not good in certain regards wide open, to ensure it performs well stopped down, which is necessary condition for being a decent lens at all. Work would still be done to make it as good as possible at wider apertures. Is that not correct?

 

[jmilkins]

Steve, the colours in your Foglandia photos are just beautiful...thanks for opening my eyes to the potential...

A Summitar in good condition, either coated or uncoated, can be a wonderful landscape lens, for urban or non-urban projects. Ditto the classic Elmar 50/3.5. I've got an ongoing project on urban/vernacular architecture in the outer Richmond and Sunset districts in San Francisco that's shot entirely with an uncoated Summitar on color film. Check out the "Foglandia" album on my Flickr.
snip>

 

[02Pilot]

I know it may sound, well different, but, you might think about a longer lens. Early generation 85/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8 perhaps. There are some shots that I like the expansiveness of a wide for landscape. Others respond well to the compression of something longer.

This is a good point. I've probably taken more successful landscape shots with my Elmar 90/4 or Canon 100/3.5 than I have with wides.

 

[retinax]

This is a good point. I've probably taken more successful landscape shots with my Elmar 90/4 or Canon 100/3.5 than I have with wides.

Yup. I don't understand where the "landscape-wide"-association comes from.

 

[Bingley]

Steve, the colours in your Foglandia photos are just beautiful...thanks for opening my eyes to the potential...

Thank you, John. I'm fortunate to have an uncoated Summitar with glass in pristine condition.

 

[shimokita]

A couple that I have and enjoy...

Canon: 135 f/3.5 in LTM
Nikon: Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 & 85mm f/1.4

Not one of your listed mount options, but...
Pentax: SMCT 105mm f/2.8 & 135mm f/3.5

 

[Contarama]

Nikkor 135. Power.

 

[Bingley]

If you’re considering a longer lens, but still want lower contrast and desaturated colors, I’d recommend a Leitz Elmar 90/4.0, coated or uncoated.

 

[Richard G]

If you’re considering a longer lens, but still want lower contrast and desaturated colors, I’d recommend a Leitz Elmar 90/4.0, coated or uncoated.

Yes that gives a nice look. 02Pilot's Berlin series was great with the Elmar 50 3.5.

Off to look at Steve's Foglandia.

Great thread for us all.