It changed in Japan! Ernst Haas wrote because of confined smaller areas and crowds,HCB started to use 35mm way more!Henri Cartier-Bresson on the 50mm: “It corresponds to a certain vision and at the same time has enough depth of focus, a thing you don’t have in longer lenses. I worked with a 90. It cuts much of the foreground if you take a landscape, but if people are running at you, there is no depth of focus. The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.”
Love it
In digital I have learned to use f4 zooms although with all the electronics built into the lenses, they are even bigger and heavier (thinking Nikon S line for Z cameras).
Thank you, kmtrider, I hope you will have a darkroom soon!
gelatin silver print (cooke amotal 50mm f2) leica m2
Amsterdam 2022
View attachment 4848152
Thank you, boojum! This one is for you.
gelatin silver print (cooke amotal 50mm f2) leica m2
Amsterdam, 2022
View attachment 4848257
Pierre Assouline, author of the excellent biography of HCB, wrote of his preference for the 'standard' lens that the photographer liked the '50' (he used the Elmar but no-one is sure if it was the 3.5 or the 2.8, likely the slower version until the 1950s) because it doesn't "cheat" - it lets the photographer look at the world at eye level, meaning as the human eye sees everything around it.
It seems he also carried a 90 and a 35, but rarely used those as he disliked their perspectives. He was also known to have owned a Plaubel for his color work, which he did for Magnum's publishing clients in the 1950s and 1960s.
Even after having supposedly "given up" photography in 1970, which he insisted went on until his death in the early '00s, he went on using a Leica and the nifty fifty. Easy, simple, direct. His work spoke for itself.
An aside. The Assouline book sold for AUD $60 in Melbourne. I know, I bought one. Subsequently during visa trips to Malaysia I discovered a chain of discount book shops and managed to snag FOUR copies of this book, paying on average AUD $6 for each. So win-win for me. I've gifted a few of those to friends I know value them. It's well worth acquiring if you can find a copy.
There are some photos floating around of HCB in his later years with a Minilux.Even after having supposedly "given up" photography in 1970, which he insisted went on until his death in the early '00s, he went on using a Leica and the nifty fifty. Easy, simple, direct. His work spoke for itself.
The lens is great for skin tones. I would like to use the lens more, it is a very fine lens, much better than the Summar, Summitar and the early versions of the Summicron. Its optics are made by Taylor, Taylor and Hobson - not the least of the lens makers to put it mildly - for use on the American "Foton" camera. The version I have is in a rather clumsy way remounted on a Summitar frame, but sofar I've managed to keep it working.The Amotal has its failings, it is not a perfect lens. But how it handles light and color, mono or full spectrum, is really unique. I am biased, yes, but the Amotal does see things differently. Maybe it likes the ladies, too; good one. Proost.
Yes.There are some photos floating around of HCB in his later years with a Minilux.