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.info/forum/showthread.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.

[Chauncey Walden]

Jim, I saw them; they aren't outrageous, they're out in the garage!

[Jim Graves]

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


" . . . a couple of lenses . . ." ??????????

[Ole Tjugen]

How about using an Aplanat Casket set on a Speed Graphic?

My sharpest lens, no contest at all, is a ca. 1905 270mm Aplanat. Nothing "modern" comes even close to that on-film resolution...

[Bernard Kaye]

Again, I tout the quality of 100mm. f 3.5 Ektar that is on a Kodak Medalist and its brother, the 105mm. f 3.7 Ektar; many have favorably commented on longer Ektars, Commercial Ektars and Wide Angle Ektars; it may be that these lenses and certain older lenses produced images and resolution that were equal to the limit of the human eye to discern; we can count more line pairs per millimeter with a magnifying assist but can we really see the difference in the picture in the book or on the wall? Perhaps it is the subjective difference as between a Tessar & a Heliar and not the "sharpness bugaboo."
Bernie

[Jim Galli]

Jim, I saw them; they aren't outrageous, they're out in the garage!


" . . . a couple of lenses . . ." ??????????

Remember, I said not outrageous. The rest of that junk is wacked.

[catshaver]

Outrageous? Not sure what this is supposed to infer.
I stopped using modern lenses (had a brand new Rodenstock APO 150 Sironar S and sold it) in favor of Wollensak Raptars and a 203 Ektar. The beat up old 135 Raptar that came with my Busch Pressman was just about to be thrown out, when I decided to shoot a couple negs just to see what it would do. The negatives exhibited a line and texture with this lens that was exactly the character I had been looking for. The Rodenstock images looked, how to say this, "normal and overly correct" in my estimation, and didn't thrill me.

After purchasing a 241 Raptar with the sale proceeds, I took the money I had left over from the sale and bought a 16x20 print washer AND a dry mount press.

It is completely a matter of taste whether you find those older lens designs artistically suitable to your style. They do give a look that newer lens designs have "corrected" I guess. I happen to like that uncorrected look.

http://scottedwards.us

[Glenn Thoreson]

I have, and use, a lot of lenses that the purists would consider outrageous. I only have one really "modern" lens, a 240 Sironar N. A lens considered worthless by many, a Zeiss Novar, is one of my favorites. I have several in various focal lengths. They get quite snappy when well stopped down. I have a number of oddball oldies that I've never used. One that might prove interesting is a tiny 135mm Leitmeyer Dialyt. Aplanats, Rapid Rectilinears, Kodak Anastigmats and other outrageous things abound around here. :D

[John Jarosz]

Don't know if this is considered outrageous or not, but I use a 300 mm Metrogon on my 8x20. I bought a pristine example fromm ebay, made the mounting with waterhouse stops for the 6x6 lensboard. Very sharp when stopped down. Excellent uniformity of exposure when using the red or yellow filters with the center ND section.
The downside or what makes it outrageous? Why the weight of course. It's a real boat anchor.

John

[sanking]

Don't know if this is considered outrageous or not, but I use a 300 mm Metrogon on my 8x20. I bought a pristine example fromm ebay, made the mounting with waterhouse stops for the 6x6 lensboard. Very sharp when stopped down. Excellent uniformity of exposure when using the red or yellow filters with the center ND section.
The downside or what makes it outrageous? Why the weight of course. It's a real boat anchor.

John

BTW, if anyone wants one of these 300 mm f/6.3 Metrogon lenses I have one in good condition that I would be willing to sell for a good price. I bought the lens years ago from Surplus Shed with the intention of making a wide field telescope but never got around to it so it is just taking up space. The Metrogon is a modern version of the Topogon that was developed by Zeiss for aerial mapping and this particular version was designed to cover 9X18". It is reputed to give excellent contrast and sharpness, though I have never actually used it to make a negative.

Sandy King

[rdenney]

It seems to me that using an ancient Darlot or similar that costs more than most modern lenses doesn't quite fulfill the intent Dan describes.

Some of the so-called junk lenses listed here do fulfill that intent.

Me? Outrageous? I'm the host of a forum devoted to Kiev and Pentacon Six cameras and lenses. If you make a good image with one of those pieces of Junque, then people are amazed. Turns out, they aren't that bad, and some of the lenses in that line are actually good by any standard.

I've always been attracted to the tessars, for a couple of reasons. One is that in the longer focal lengths, they have more than enough coverage for 4x5. Another is that they tend to be a bit slower, and thus smaller for a given focal length. An example is the 240mm/6.8 Caltar Type Y--a Rodenstock Ysarex or similar--that is happy in a #1 shutter instead of the #3 shutter needed by f/5.6 plasmats. The Ilex/Calumet 12"/6.3 is another example--it's happy in an Ilex No. 4 shutter instead of the No. 5 needed by f/5.6 lenses. Goodness knows the No. 4 is big enough.

On the other end of the size thing, the tessars also sometimes come in fast lenses. I have a Paragon 8-1/2" f/4.5 that is faster than any plasmat at that focal length and that makes it good for when I need selective focus. The tessar rendering of out-of-focus areas is a bit clumpy, but smoother than many plasmats and double-gauss normal lenses.

Mostly, though, the post-war tessar designs are usually quite good, coated, and mounted in competent shutters. And they are CHEAP. The image-quality-to-price ratio is about the highest of any lenses currently available. For example, any of the tessar designs are cheaper than, say, a Rodenstock Geronar triplet, and they are more useful at wider apertures, too.

Rick "who enjoys have a wide range of lens choices rather than snob appeal with just one or two" Denney

[domaz]

I love my Hugo Meyer Plasmat 15.3cm convertible mounted in an old Compur shutter- Super sharp. I also just picked up a tiny 16.5cm 6.3 tessar that I just mounted to a lensboard. I got both of these great lenses for the price of a DSLR kit lens that most people throw away- that's pretty outrageous.