The Lens Education of the Noob

[lilmsmaggie]

OK - I've been following several threads for some time. I'm still learning as I go. I've noticed a certain trend for "classic" older lenses. You lens aficionados out there, you know who you are

I've read these discussions of:

voigtlander's, Pinkham & Smith, Dallmeyer, Cooke, Anastigmat's, Goerz, Tessar's and
Petzval's, Wollensak’s.

OK Help a noob out. What's the attraction? Why select one of these lenses versus a Symmar, or a Rodagon, Fujinon versus a Nikkor, or Sironar, etc.

Is it IQ, or something else? I'm still trying to decipher the lingo.

[CCHarrison]

I think a few articles on my site may help:

Go to http://www.antiquecameras.net

and read "Soft Focus Lenses"

"Soft Focus Lenses 2" and "Petzval Lens"

These lenses all have "character" that you wont find in modern lenses... its akin to driving a classic car...

Dan

[Vick Vickery]

A lot of the time it depends on what you find in a length you want at a good price at any given time! I stole a 215mm Ilex f/4.8 convertible off of eBay thinking it would do in that focal length until I got something better...turns out that I love that lens...sharp, fast, and convertible! It is a little big, but I can live with that!

Dan is right, all the lenses have their own "character", rendering things just a little tonally differently, with more or less inherent contrast, sharpness (of softness), bokeh, etc. You just have to play around with various lenses 'till you find out what you like! And when you get one you don't particularly like, sell it and try something else.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Is it IQ, or something else? I'm still trying to decipher the lingo."

"A lot of the time it depends on what you find in a length you want at a good price at any given time!"

Some times it's nationalist pride: American, German, English, French, ect...
Some time it's 'fan boy' for a particular brand
Some time it's 'filling the tripod holes' of past masters for a certain look

Most times it's just for the hell of it, something to brag about.

[Jim Galli]

I think you've hit the nail. IQ is the problem. Low IQ. Or even better, insanity.

Here's my real take. I think that high end consumer digital cameras have so rapidly closed the gap to what originally set the large formats "above" the rest, that some of us have drifted into this realm where computer's simply can't go. I feel that there is something viable with some of these antique lenses combined with brute force film sizes that's un-touchable in Photoshop. Sort of re-discovering a beauty that was forgotten and lost when Hasselblads took over the professional world.

[BarryS]

In the world of modern lenses and equipment, the process of photography is less visible and I think there's less of a connection to the history of photography. That's probably exactly what some photographers like, but I like more evidence of process in my art and for me--the history of the art is important. It's thrilling to filter your subject through an 1850's Petzval lens that was there at the very beginnings of photography. I'm interested in the processes of memory and collective history, so historical lenses and processes support the motifs I use in my work.

Even if that weren't the case, the links to history, scientific and artistic development and the unique characteristic of antique lenses make them satisfying to use. Current lens designs are not necessarily better and are significantly lacking in lending a unique signature to the image. Optimizing a lens for maximum sharpness, contrast and lack of aberrations out to the edges may serve technical considerations at the expense of artistic variety.

[memorris]

A bit different take here. I have one old lens and had a love affair with it for a while but have since gone to newer, sharper, more contrasty lenses. I like the new lenses better than the older because of the sharpness and clarity they give. It is very much something of personal preference and what works for you.

A more unique lens is not a requirement for personal expression. It can be used that way but is not the only way. Some find the old lenses satisfying, others find using the new lenses satisfying. Play with both and find what works best for you.

[John Kasaian]

What Jim Galli said.
Also money may have a lot to do with it--old lenses are cheap, cheap that is until it gathers a cult following, then they're expensive.

A photographer might never make a nickle on prints, but if you bought up a mess of Wollensak Veritos back when they couldn't give 'em away you might be considering converting them into a beach house on Coronado today!

[lilmsmaggie]

These lenses all have "character" that you wont find in modern lenses... its akin to driving a classic car...

Thanks Dan for the links. I'll have to come back and visit your site.

Wow! Lots and lots of character. Now when I read Ansel Adams "The Camera," it will have more meaning. When he talks about the "making" of a photograph, and "visualizing," he's really attempting to convey to the new photographer the importance of understanding what his lens choices and exposures would produce in terms of the final print.

Someone recently suggested that I keep an eye out for a Cooke. Now I understand why. But as John Kasaian points out, trying to get one of these beautiful pieces of art can put a big hole in one's bank account Even the newer Cooke's are pricey.

[Dan Fromm]

lilmsmaggie, thanks for asking the nasty question. I'm not much of a mind reader, so like you have wondered why soft focus lenses, and, more generally, lenses that are not anastigmats, have come into fashion.

I can't see much of it. The images I've seen with the coveted swirly bokeh make me nauseous.

Neither can anyone else. I've run blind tests with experienced photographers. They've failed miserably at matching shot with lens. IMO most of the noise about lenses' "signatures" and the like is just that. Noise. It is clear, though, that making the noise makes the noisemakers happy.

Soft focus is an aesthetic decision, so is not really fit for discussion. Not to my taste, but that's ok. Not everyone likes what I like, that's equally ok.

lilmsmaggie, I think you've confused a number of ideas.

Wollensak was a company, not a design type. Wollensak made lenses of many designs, including some fairly modern 6/4 plasmat types that are very good. In ancient times, they made lenses that are now coveted by people who like ancient lenses. For much of their history they made tessar type lenses. The Tessar is an anastigmat; tessar types can be very good, especially when used on formats smaller than their nominal coverage.

Dallmeyer was a company. The firm made lenses of many types.

Goerz was several companies. The firms made lenses of several types, including the highly-regarded Dagor, What I find interesting about Dagors is that other companies made Dagor types whose prescriptions are as near as makes no difference to Goerz Dagors' but that don't command nearly the prices. This makes no sense, speaks to photographers' ignorance or ovine nature.

Voigtlaender was a company, is now a brand. Again, the company made and the brand covers many design types.

Cooke is a trade mark or brand, the name of a company (Cooke Optics, formerly Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson), sometimes a design type. The original Cooke triplet was designed by H. D. Taylor of T. Cooke and Sons, a microscope manufacturer. Cooke and Sons had no interest in making photographic objectives, licensed the design to TTH. TTH subsequently used "Cooke" as a trademark of sorts, applied it to to lenses that are not triplets. For example, I have a 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens made by TTH; it is a tessar type. Cooke triplets can be very good even though they were often the low priced option. For example, the 103/4.5 Graftar is a Cooke triplet made by Wollensak (remember them?) for Graflex, Inc, who offered it as the least expensive normal lens for 2x3 Graphics. IMO it is much better than the highly-regarded 105/3.7 Ektar, the most expensive normal lens for 2x3 Graphics.

I use a few pre-WWI lenses, all f/6.3 Tessars; they are very good, were quite inexpensive. I use some other lenses that are now cult objects, e.g., 4"/2.0 (2 1/4" x 2 1/4") TTH Anastigmat, 160/5.6 Pro Raptar; they're fine lenses, cult status notwithstanding, and when I bought them they were less expensive than the alternatives. I use some lenses that aren't cult objects but that were made by well-known firms, e.g., 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, 38/4.5 Biogon. You wouldn't believe how little the Biogon cost. I use some lenses that aren't cult objects but that were made by, um, obscure makers, e.g., Apo-Saphirs; they're superb and were quite inexpensive.

For me, what matters is high quality at a low price. I don't know what matters to the sheep but since they're spending their money, not mine, so as long as they're happy I'm happy for them.