PDA

View Full Version : Lens for Landscape



Jwheeler331
27-Nov-2018, 09:57
Hello, I am trying to decide on a lens for Landscape Photography in the Wet Plate Process. I have mostly done portraits with lenses such as the 300mm and 360mm Carl Zeiss 4.5 lenses. I attempted to shoot some landscape with those lenses and was not pleased overall.

I am looking for ideas on what type of lens would be better suited for landscape.

I mostly shoot 4x5-8x10

Thanks.

Louis Pacilla
27-Nov-2018, 10:40
How about a period correct landscape lens or a bit later WA Rectilinear type?

You don't need speed for WP landscape photography so much but you'll want better coverage and as sharp as your vision wishes your image to be. If you want falloff in the corners then stretch the coverage by going to a shorter focal length by a bit depending on size of plate your shooting.

Jwheeler331
27-Nov-2018, 11:01
I have a couple of vintage lenses. One Rapid Rectilinear lens that I just remembered when you mentioned it. I don't remember the specs on the lens but it may work. I know its a slow lens but it may not matter.

Was wanting something sharp with good coverage to work mostly from quarter plate to whole plate but may consider 8x10 if the lens is capable.

Two23
27-Nov-2018, 11:42
I'm shooting dry plate 4x5 and 5x7 with achromatic doublet lenses vintage 1845 to 1855. Don't see the point of shooting plates with modern lens. My most used is 6 inch on 4x5, 12 inch on 5x7.


Kent in SD

paulbarden
27-Nov-2018, 11:47
I have a Darlot Wide Angle Hemispherical No. 4 that I use specifically for making wet plate landscape works. Its a modest wide angle (probably in the 240mm range) and covers up to 10 X 12 inches, so it allows for decent movements on 8X10. Lenses of this type are very well suited to making wet plate landscape imagery, IMO, because they do not have "modern sharpness/contrast" which can be rather harsh for the wet plate technique. I've used my sharp Ektar 203mm F7.7 on my 4x5 and 5x7 cameras, and unless shot wide open, they are far too sharp for the wet plate medium. Choose carefully! Period lenses may be your best choice.

Here is an 8X10 glass plate negative (collodion) shot with the Darlot Wide Hemispherical:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1741/41915617674_5daad3fcd9_h.jpg

8x10 user
27-Nov-2018, 12:24
Dallmeyer Bergheim

184805

184806

Jwheeler331
27-Nov-2018, 12:44
I have a Darlot Wide Angle Hemispherical No. 4 that I use specifically for making wet plate landscape works. Its a modest wide angle (probably in the 240mm range) and covers up to 10 X 12 inches, so it allows for decent movements on 8X10. Lenses of this type are very well suited to making wet plate landscape imagery, IMO, because they do not have "modern sharpness/contrast" which can be rather harsh for the wet plate technique. I've used my sharp Ektar 203mm F7.7 on my 4x5 and 5x7 cameras, and unless shot wide open, they are far too sharp for the wet plate medium. Choose carefully! Period lenses may be your best choice.

Here is an 8X10 glass plate negative (collodion) shot with the Darlot Wide Hemispherical:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1741/41915617674_5daad3fcd9_h.jpg


This may be something I have to look into. Finding a decent period lens that won't break the bank would be nice. Like the photo by the way. Thanks for sharing. Landscape is not something I do very much but I have been thinking about trying some.

Jwheeler331
27-Nov-2018, 12:48
Here are really the only two landscape images I have made with the wet plate process. The barn was shot with the old Burke & James Metascope f8 12" 8x10 lens. The other was made with a Carl Zeiss 300mm f4.4 lens shot on f22 at 25 seconds.

paulbarden
27-Nov-2018, 13:24
This may be something I have to look into. Finding a decent period lens that won't break the bank would be nice. Like the photo by the way. Thanks for sharing. Landscape is not something I do very much but I have been thinking about trying some.

Thanks, glad you like it.
The Darlot lens cost me about $225 if I remember correctly. Not expensive at all.

Two23
27-Nov-2018, 14:46
The rapid rectilinears are exactly correct for most of the wet plate period. They have apertures of one sort or another, and since they are relatively common they go for very reasonable prices. My favorite RR is the 6 in. f11 in Unicum shutter, about 1901. I paid about $125 for it. It looks really cool too! For wet plate I'd probably go with something from the 1865 to 1880 period, such as the Dallmeyer or Voigtlander RR.


Kent in SD

Willie
27-Nov-2018, 18:17
If you look at a number of Ansel Adams landscapes you will see he often used a longer than normal lens, often from an elevated viewpoint. Not the wide angles and superwide lenses so many think are needed for landscape work.
Play with what you have and see which direction you need to go so the images are "yours", no matter what any of us may use.

h2oman
27-Nov-2018, 19:01
Good thing some folks who know what they are talking about stepped up. I've deleted my post so that my ignorance is not on display any longer! :cool:

Jwheeler331
28-Nov-2018, 19:05
Thanks for the pointers everyone. I’ll continue with what I have and keep on the look out for older brass.

Jim Jones
28-Nov-2018, 19:21
If you look at a number of Ansel Adams landscapes you will see he often used a longer than normal lens, often from an elevated viewpoint. Not the wide angles and superwide lenses so many think are needed for landscape work.
Play with what you have and see which direction you need to go so the images are "yours", no matter what any of us may use.

Some of the grand vistas of the Great American West cry out for a wide angle lens. However, within that one vista there may be many opportunities for well composed and detailed images captured with a long lens. I rarely used a wide lens out west, but sometimes wished for something longer than 8x a normal lens.

goamules
29-Nov-2018, 05:55
Actually, the meniscus achromat landscape "view" lenses were the most common for landscapes. Made by the thousands by Darlot, Hermagis, and the other French makers, as well as many in the UK like Dallmeyer (their Triple achromat is three cemented lenses on one end). These are the lenses with glass on one end, towards the plate, and a hole for an iris in the front. Often with wheel stops.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4074/4802180016_7ab102d4d2_z.jpg

The F8 Rapid Rectilinear was actually made as a portrait lens to replace the Petzval, and remove it's aberrations. But the F9-F11 Globe, Lever Stop Darlot, and Dallmeyer's Wide Angle Rectilinear, Morrison were landscape designs very commonly used.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3045/2557689415_d75b75c854_z.jpg?zz=1

Paul, what do you mean a lens is "too sharp for wetplate"? A Petzval was one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and works wonderfully on wetplate. Many extremely sharp lenses were used in the 1840s through 1870s period.

goamules
29-Nov-2018, 06:11
This was with a Darlot Wide Angle hemispherical No. 3 (Lever Stop) on 5x6 plate. It was a field shoot, and I don't really like the development/contrast caused by me, but it shows the lens ability.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2905/14137969907_165cc8d606_b.jpg

Pere Casals
29-Nov-2018, 09:36
Was wanting something sharp with good coverage to work mostly from quarter plate to whole plate but may consider 8x10 if the lens is capable.

If the CZ tessar is not enough for you then you may want a plasmat for 360mm focal and under. If vintage glass look not required...

...a Symmar-S, Sironar-N, Nikon W, or eq. Fujinons, in a budget. Collodion is able to record insane amounts of image quality with a modern lens. Some not see point to use modern lenses with wet plate, but this is a personal choice.

An interesting choice would be a Symmar 300mm f/5.6 convertible to 500mm f/12. Well, f/12 is slow for wet, but anyway there are not many fast choices for 500...

Jwheeler331
29-Nov-2018, 12:10
If the CZ tessar is not enough for you then you may want a plasmat for 360mm focal and under. If vintage glass look not required...

...a Symmar-S, Sironar-N, Nikon W, or eq. Fujinons, in a budget. Collodion is able to record insane amounts of image quality with a modern lens. Some not see point to use modern lenses with wet plate, but this is a personal choice.

An interesting choice would be a Symmar 300mm f/5.6 convertible to 500mm f/12. Well, f/12 is slow for wet, but anyway there are not many fast choices for 500...

If I was in a setting that required period lenses I would try to stick to that but when I am out and about shooting what I want I get whatever I can afford and what will get the job done. Modern or not. Of course I love the look of the older lenses but sometimes the prices are such that I just cant justify spending the money on them.

Pere Casals
29-Nov-2018, 12:22
My view is that's irrelevant if the lens is antique or not, it's about what you do with the lens. A true artist may craft great things by using a new Sironar S o instead with the bottom of a coke bottle, and he knows when he wants one thing or the other, or simply he makes art with what he has in the hand... Depending on the day....

If you want a sharp lens for the wet just get it, many sharp glasses on budget are out there...