Or paper-weight.Originally Posted by Vaughn
Or paper-weight.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
I expect a lens to be set into a shutter that won't implode
Beyond that I expect a lens to be well suited to some particular task with proper balancing of features, defects and price and not a generic compromise between all three.
For example, a Petzval design could be expected to do well for portraiture but not landscapes. The Petzval is suited to a task and the design balanced towards that task without dipping into the mediocrity of the generic.
All I ask of it is to focus an image on film.
I ask that the lens see like me.
To return the favor, I try to see like the lens.
Keeps the relationship strong, but tense moments do come and go.
I own more than 30 hammers. There are no duplicates, each is different. I do not collect hammers; each one has a specific job, or failing that each one has a set of attributes that makes it worthwhile for me to keep it in my hammer drawer in my roll-away toolbox. Yet, when I'm building something, I do not get up in the morning and think: "I'm going to build something that requires a 22oz Eastwing framing hammer". I build things, and in the process of building whatever, I choose the appropriate hammer from my hammer drawer. Luckily, I have every imaginable hammer (almost*) sitting handily in a drawer to be used at my pleasure.
When I'm composing an image, yes I do think in terms of whatever lens I happen to have in my camera bag that day, but the composition and vision I have in my mind is not dependent on a lens; I visualize what I would like, and from practice I tend to visualize what is possible with the tools at hand. I have on occasion spent mega $$$ on specialty lenses (last big purchase, mid 1990s, was a Canon FD 800L 5.6). I choose not to do this anymore. My requirements for my most expensive lens in the last year were: 'normal' focal length for 8x10, decent shutter. I bought a 'junk' (scratched to h-ll) Fujinon-W 300/5.6 in Copal 3 for 200 Euros. I overpaid a little, it was far more scratched-up than the seller let on. But, as hammers go, it does the job.
* I would like to have a 5-10 ton power hammer, but I think my suburban neighbors would complain if I started building a junkyard hammer in my driveway.
Resolution.
Regardless of your film, processing, etc...
You can't display something that's not on the negative in the first place.
If I take a photo of an old barn 100 meters away, I want to see the grain and knotholes in the wood.
All of my "standard" 4x5 lenses (135mm to 300mm) are Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S.
I don't think any lens made will put more information on the film.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
I'm not always trying to put actual factual information on film. Often it's just a mood or composition I'm trying to put on film.
Agreed, if I want a soft focus effect or some other cinematic attribute in a photo, I want that to be employed by me, not a limitation of the lens.
It took awhile to arrive at the 8 lenses I have now, but every one of them is razor sharp to the very corners, it's one less thing for me to think about as I make the decision as to what the photograph is to convey.
Of course adequate coverage, contrast and flare resistance are not far behind...
Lenses have a personality, part of getting the best of of them is spending enough time with each lens to learn their personality and using them for what they do best and less well.
It is all part of the image making process..
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks