So what are the Ansel Adams lenses(for 8x10 anyway?)

[John Kasaian]

With all the interest in AA's Cooke 12-1/4" series XV triple convertible, I was wondering what other lenses Adam's employed on his 8x10? I know he used the 10" Wide Field Ektar, Turner Reich 12-1/4" triple convertible and 12" Dagor for some of his more famous photographs. Anyone here know of any others? In other large formats they(AA's lenses) range from the Spencer Port-land to Ross Express to Super Angulons to Tessars, Dagors, and Protars but in 8x10 format I haven't been able to find references beyond those already mentioned.

Cheers!

[John Cook]

Sorry John, I don’t have a clue what Ansel used. But your question reminds me of a funny incident.

Remember how Popular Photography used to provide the f-stop and shutter speed of all photographs it published? It was almost as if the reader knew these numbers he could easily reproduce the photograph himself.

When I was in art school, W. Eugene Smith once came to spend the day with my class. He brought his portfolio and spent a lot of time talking about his pictures and his experiences.

One jerk had the chutzpah to ask Mr. Smith what f-stop he had used on one of his photographs. (His reply was very gracious.)

[Huib]

John,

Are you asking this from a photographic, historic or personal interest point of view?

As John Cook already pointed out: from a photographic pov it is not very usefull. To add a bit to that response: AA used numerous lenses and camera's throughout his life time, he used what was available.

Moonrize Hernandez could have been taken with a Schneider, Kodak, Cooke or any other 'modern' lens at that time and we wouldn't see the difference.

Huib

[John Kasaian]

John & Huib,

Its more of an interest in trivia than anything else---I'm not looking for any more "magic bullets"(I've already got enough of those in the 'arsenal'!)

It seems like if Ansel used a lens, the price of it has gone up(apparently enough to make the people at Cooke reintroduce one of them!) What I find interesting is that I imagine some will attribute a certain "look" to a lens. If there is an Ansel Adams "look" it can't be attributed to the lens design though, since in his negatives of less than 8x10 his selection of lenses was pretty eclectic(tessars, dagors, double gnauss, etc...)

As Huib points out AA's lenses were representative of what was available at the time. If there is a practical issue to consider, its this: Someone just getting started in LF has a lot of choices to make regarding equipment. It would be natural to look at photographers who insipre and buy what they used since there isn't anything else to reference that would probably be understandable to the 'average joe' photographer.

There is also the prevalent attitude that we need the latest and greatest of whatever in order to enjoy an activity or to improve enough to be considered seriously good.

To the contrary, I think AA and even more so Edward Weston are examples of using what is available to achieve a skillfull level of artistry.

I think Art is becoming more and more "high tech" to the detriment of us all, which is every bit as disturbing a development as getting stuck in a stylistic copycat rut.

Thats all. My brain is empty.

[Merg Ross]

Hi John,

Ansel used an 18" Zeiss Apo-Tessar on his 8x10. He also used an 18" on the 4x5 (Frozen Lake and Cliffs, Sierra Nevada) which may have been the aforementioned lens. That's my contribution to trivia for today.

[Huib]

Hey John,

To find out what he used: just check all references to lenses in books like 'The Print', 'The Negative' and the very annecdotical 'Examples, the making of 40 photographs'.

Much of his wizardry was done in the darkroom, he was, IMHO, even a better printer than photographer.

Huib

[N Dhananjay]

I think "Frozen Lakes and Cliffs" was made with a single component of a Dagor, which yielded about 18 or 19". I also seem to recall a letter to Weston suggesting a Protar, which he suggested offered the most "life-like" image, although the Dagor offered more enlargement potential - so he probably fooled around with the Protar also. My trivia contribution for the day. Cheers, DJ

[John Cook]

John,

Speaking of a photograph having a certain “look”, I have recently begun to notice that outdoor pictures taken when I was a child (1940-ish) do somehow look different.

If you are old enough to remember Arthur Godfrey, you may recall him, as a pre-1950 private pilot, talking about pollutants in the air. He once reminisced about how easy it was in the early days to find a city - just fly toward an area of smoke on the horizon. He then warned that technique no longer works - there is now smoke and filth in the air everywhere.

I wonder if the early scenic photographs look different because they were shot in cleaner air.

[CP Goerz]

AA must have used hundreds of lenses as he shot about every format there was. The lenses you mentioned pretty much cover at least 95% of all he shot in 8x10 during the 30-40s.



As to trying to choose what to shoot today....I think when you start out in LF you want the sharpest newest lenses you can possibly afford. After a while of looking at what other photographers do with certain lenses you may find that the sharpest/contrastiest/APO corrected lens may not actually give you the image you most admire. I think at that point you then look into vintage/older lenses to try and get the best negative that fits the image in your minds eye.

I've had a couple of Cooke lenses as mentioned previously one coated and one not and thought they were slightly above average but nothing particularly special. The Wollensak Series 1a Raptar performed better in about every category but no-one is beating down the doors for them like the Cooke. What makes the Cooke special is that Ansel used it on the day that 'Moonrise' and a few other famous pictures were in front of him. Imagine the price of an APO Tessar if he shot all those pics with that glass(of course I jest since that lens couldn't possibly make a good image ;-)

CP Goerz

[Andre Noble]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the continued appeal for these 'Apo Red Dots', 'Kodak Ektars'- whatever, old lenses named in inches, or any of the lenses the old man used. I don't like the look of them. It's hard for me to tell them from junk. Obsolete shutters and full of seed fungus, ready to blossom.

Now I can look at the iridescent sheen off a modern multicoated Schneider Super Angulon XL or a Rodenstock Apo Grandagon lens and tell it's an awesome performing thing of beauty.

[Jim_3565]

The continued appeal for me is the iridescent sheen off the prints I make from negatives shot with my old uncoated Dagor or my Red Dot Artar.

[Jim_3565]

"I wonder if the early scenic photographs look different because they were shot in cleaner air."

I think there's a lot to that. When my Dad was learning to fly in the mid 50's, he could take off from Bowman Field in Louisville, Ky. and most days see the smokestacks at the power plant in Madison, Ind. 30 miles away upon reaching pattern altitude (about 1000 ft. above the ground.). It was an unusually hazy day when he couldn't see them.

When I learned to fly 20 years later, I only saw them upon reaching pattern altitude one time. Every time I go back to Kentucky I'm just amazed at how polluted that place has become..

[Jim Rhoades]

I'm happy to see Dagor 77 backing the Wolly. I've just finished printing up a bunch of stuff taken in the Smokies with a Wollensak 1A 13-20-25 triple. The contrast and detail, even in the corners, have made me a happy camper.

Of course, I may have much lower standards than you. The appeal is that I did not pay the price of a good used car for the lens.

I'm still waiting to see some prints from a Super Cosmic XLCH that are better than Weston or Adams.

O. Winston Link did a lot of his train photo's with a Optar.

[jantman]

Wollensak: We who are about to photograph salute you!

My first lens for 8x10 was an Apochromatic Raptar of 21 1/4". Great lens. A bit long, but great. Would be even nicer with a shutter.

Somewhere I have the list of some of his lenses, which I took from Examples. That's probably the best-bet source. BTW, I only wrote down the 8x10 lenses.

My "good" lens is a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar. I shoot B&W and transparency. I was talking with a friend who worked as a New York fashion photog for many years, and he tols me that he'd only buy a Schneider or Rodenstock LF lens, that he didn't even think Fuji or Nikkor was good enough. Well, my response was simple. If it was good enough for Adams, it's good enough for me.

[Dan Smith]

One thing you will notice with many of Adams photos is the use of a longer than "normal" lens and an elevated viewpoint. Not a specific lens other than he used what he had at the time, but a way of photographing that gave him the perspective & view he wanted.

[Jim Chinn]

After skimming through "Examples: The making of 40 Photographs" 2 things jump out. In the examples in the book the majority were not made with an 8x10 camera, but for the ones that were the majority were made with either a goerz dagor or the Cooke Triple Covertible. For wide lenses he used Commercial Ektars.

[Mark Sawyer]

Being fortunate enough to have met the grand old man a couple of times in his later years, I'll note two things: he was quite fond of the dagors, and he preferred using a butt-ugly aluminum 8x10 that I think was originally custom-made for some obscure polar expedition. Also, while most of his prints are technically outstanding, I've seen a few from the height of his career (original prints at the Center for Creative Photography, Tucson) which are simply not very sharp, (though otherwise beautifully seen and realized). It's possible there was shake in the tripod or enlarger or some other gremlin at work, but to my eye, it mostly seemed like the culprit was the lens.

-Mark Sawyer

[David Richhart]

I remember reading a quote from AA that said he preferred to only carry one lens at a time. If he was carrying two or more lenses he had a difficult time deciding which one to use. I can certainly relate to that thought!!!