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.
” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.
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!
Thanks for the pointers everyone. I’ll continue with what I have and keep on the look out for older brass.
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.Originally Posted by Willie
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.
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.
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.
Garrett
flickr galleries
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.
Garrett
flickr galleries
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.
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...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks