Outrageous?

[Dan Fromm]

Richard K started a thread on the oldest lenses owned and used.

When I responded to it, it occurred to me that one of the reasons I use my old f/6.3 Tessars is to be outrageous. These gems' image quality is a slap in the face to people who insist that only the latest most expensive lenses are worth using.

Has anyone bought and perhaps even used a lens because it was, in one way or another, outrageous? If so, please tell us about it.

I use, didn't buy, my f/6.3 Tessars in part to be, um, contrary.

I bought a 6"/1.9 Dallmeyer Super Six with the idea of having it mounted in front of a 2x3 Pacemaker Graphic board just to be outrageous. Not that the Super Six is a bad or useless lens, y'understand, but it is enormous and heavy and would have looked ridiculous on a 2x3 Speed. I never had it put on board, $135 seemed too much for a joke, later sold it for 20 times what I'd paid for it.

I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on my Century Graphic. Absurd combination, according to the good folks at ALPA Capaul & Weber Ltd.

Cheers,

Dan

[BrianShaw]

"Outrageous" isn't the word I'd use, but after years of using sharp modern lenses I now favor a Kodak Commercial Ektar over all of the lenses I own.

[Wayne R. Scott]

I bought a brass Darlot Petzval with hood and flange for $2.00 at a country auction to use for portraits on my 5x7. Granted it does not have a shutter or autofocus but it gives a different signature to the portraits than the d*****l lens used by most of the photographers in this area.

I am sure most normal people will find it absurd to use a 130 year old lens instead of a modern whiz bang 28-300mm f5.6 zoom.

Wayne

[Mark Sawyer]

Has anyone bought and perhaps even used a lens because it was, in one way or another, outrageous? If so, please tell us about it.

Well, there was my vintage genuine $30 Bi-Quality Pinkham and Smith lens...

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=35482

Okay, so maybe it was Bi-nocular-Quality...

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Dan, I enjoy using the little 135mm f/4.7 Wollensak Raptar tessars because they're common, cheap, tiny post WWII hard-coated American lenses that are extremely sharp but for the very corners, and whose Rapax shutters have also withstood the test of time. They also happen to look handsomely appropriate on period cameras like my Meridians with the chromed stainless faces.

The most exotic lenses I've got are for 35mm, also the most expensive. (One or two of which each cost more than all my used LF gear combined.)

I recently thought I'd scored a coup with a 210mm f/5.6 Pro Raptar but was disgusted and dismayed to find the seller BS'd about the condition. It had severe etching from fungus so I returned it. If I were into 8x10 I might have tried it anyhow. If I can ever find another in better shape I'll snap it up so as to never worry about running out of image circle on 4x5.

[Bruce Watson]

Richard K started a thread on the oldest lenses owned and used.

When I responded to it, it occurred to me that one of the reasons I use my old f/6.3 Tessars is to be outrageous. These gems' image quality is a slap in the face to people who insist that only the latest most expensive lenses are worth using.

I have to admit, this has never occurred to me. I make my art for me. I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of it. The idea of using a particular lens just because it might insult someone else is... well, I just can't process it.

So... why do you think you need to "slap in the face" people with whom you disagree about image quality? Wait, that's rhetorical. Don't tell me. I really don't want to know. But you might want to figure that out for yourself. Just sayin'.

[Dan Fromm]

Bruce, "slap in the face" is a little strong. But I don't like being told that I have to use expensive gear to get good results. If you pay attention to the "which lens should I buy?" threads here, you'll notice that many of the responses tout Schneider and Rodenstock's latest and most best.

These excellent -- no doubt about that -- lenses have advantages over ancient lenses, but that doesn't mean that for most of us the advantages are worth much.

Cheers,

Dan

[Brian Stein]

In keeping with Dans comment about the "which lens should I buy" I will add a small anecdote:
Working alt. proc. means I need film area (havent yet got into digital negs), so my quick trip travel camera has become a patent etui with 6x9 back.
The outrageous thing I experienced was in taking some photos in Bangkok and having a gentleman bewailing the lack of excellence of his dSLR (demonstrated by showing me the images on the lcd) and asking whether using this sort of camera would get better photos.

[erie patsellis]

Dan, you know my feelings about having good enough, without being silly. Even in this day and age, marketing seems to provide much fodder for those that simply must have them. I know Adams was a toy freak, but his images that spoke to him were often taken with his older, less than perfect equipment.

You only need to look at Weston's work, with a no name lens he bought used in Mexico, to see that the tools don't make the craftsman.

For some reason, this attitude extends to cameras as well. I have a Sinar P, and it's nice, but I see little reason to buy the latest and greatest multi kilobuck camera or lens, it just doesn't make sense. (and I couldn't make enough with them to even break even with them, even if I amortized them over 2 or 3 years)

[Jim Galli]

I have and use a couple of lenses that aren't outrageous.