Do you get sentimental about your lenses?

[Bernice Loui]

Hasselblad SWC, done twice, gone twice.

Primary advantage of the Biogon is excellent optical performance at full aperture of f4.5, with reasonable light fall off. The trade offs are, modest image circle, when used on 6x6 image format the square image format is not always that agreeable and if cropped to rectangular porpotions that SWC is not that "wide" anymore.. Then we have the limited image circle of the Biogon which puts a un-welcomed limit on camera movement.. many times FAR more importaint for using a view camera on a tripod or similar camera support than uber optical performance at full aperture. For hand camera images, high optical performace at full lens aperture DOES make a differnce as it allows using faster shutter speeds. The need for camera movement with a hand held camera is nil, negating the need for a wide angle lens with an image circle much larger than the film format.

It's been decades since the introduction of the revolutionary Bigon & Lamegon wide angle lens design. Since then this variaty of wide angle lens has evolved to meet the needs of real world view camera image making needs.. stuff like larger image circle, larger angle of view, center filters to correct for light fall off, optimized optical performace at f11 (APO grandagon) or f22 (most of the rest), trade offs for geometric distortion -vs- full aperture -vs- taking aperture -vs- lens size/weight and cost...

This tree image was made using a 58mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL on the Linhof TK23s with a bag bellows, 6x9 on 120 roll film. Nearly 40mm rise with combined stilt/swing to bring the bushes near the ground into percieved focus. This requires significant image circle capability from the lens. Inherient light fall off of the lens was used to advantge in the way a graduated density filter would behave. Image like this would not be possible with a Hasselblad SWC (same applies to the 40mm Zeiss Distagon boat anchor) or similar lens fixed to a light tight box camera.


Yes, the Biogon is a great lens with historical significance, but it is not in any way a magical/mircale lens. The Biogon/Lamegon needs to be used based on what these designs offer as their design optimization..

IMO, the strenghts and great advantages of what a view camera can do is not fully appreciated initially by those venturing into this view camera stuff (with a history of fixed lens box camera) until some mastery of what camera movements can contribute to a given image..


Bernice

Not sentimental (which almost implies looking back on something that has been lost, or is from a different, bygone age) but I'm certainly very fond of a couple of lenses that seem to have special qualities and have consistently given me a higher proportion of what I consider to be 'good' images.

- The 38mm f4.5 Biogon (on the Hasselblad SWC - is this the same as the LF lens that Dan mentions?)

[Bernice Loui]

Zeiss did make the Sonnar design/formula for view cameras as the 180mm f4.8 Sonnar(almost covers 4x5 at infinity) and 250mm f5.6 Sonnar(easily covers 4x5 at infinity), both were in shutter, have fab performance at full aperture with very nice in/to out of focus rendition..

If you're into selective focus using a view camera, these Zeiss Sonnar lenses can fit that need good. Use a 180mm f4.8 Sonnar on the Linhof TK23s for 6x9, plenty of image circle to allow camera dancing..



The Linhof TK23s configured to produce this image.





Nice as the in/to out of focus rendition of the Sonnar is, a Good Tessar design/formula is not much lesser compared to the Sonnar.. and the Tessar is smaller/lower weight than the Sonnar.

This cactus image was made with a 250mm f4.7 Fujinar SC at f4.7 using the Linhof TK23s. Similar applies, much camera dancing involved. The 250mm f4.7 Fujinar covers 8x10 or far more image circle than the Linhof TK23s is capable of. The far excessive image circle produces internal bellows flare slightly lowering image contrast.. which is not always a bad thing.


There is a very real reason why the Tessar lens design/formula has been made by many brands in vast quanities over so many decades of view camera production.


Bernice

Not sentimental (which almost implies looking back on something that has been lost, or is from a different, bygone age) but I'm certainly very fond of a couple of lenses that seem to have special qualities and have consistently given me a higher proportion of what I consider to be 'good' images.

- The older (Sonnar) 105mm f2.5 Nikkor-P on 35mm (an FE). I really like the rendering of Sonnars, shame there aren't any for LF

[Bernice Loui]

Sentimental or mere tools and means to achieve a given image goal/result..
The current lens set for the Linhof TK23s, The TK23s Must fully support (camera/bellows extension, bag bellows, camera movement front & rear) the demands from each lens in the effort to achieve/meet the image goal.



Most often used, 127mm Kodak Ektar & 203mm Kodak Ektar. Sentimental, not really they simply do what needs to be done.


Bernice

[Robert Opheim]

They all have different personalities - especially when printed with different light sourced enlargers and with different films and papers. Its a group of old and newer friends.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes indeediee, they are friends old and new in every way with their individually distinctive personalities all working together in harmony with a properly supportive camera to aid in achieving the image maker-creators goals..

Bernice

They all have different personalities - especially when printed with different light sourced enlargers and with different film. Its a group of old and newer friends.

[otto.f]

Not sure if sentimental is the right word.

Agree. Sentimental is sort of disproportional emotional, and thus a bit fake isn’t it? What’s wrong with loving your lens if you made photographs with it which were unexpectedly strong, nice, beautiful, etc. which was clearly due to how the lens draws?

[peter brooks]

...What’s wrong with loving your lens if you made photographs with it which were unexpectedly strong, nice, beautiful, etc. which was clearly due to how the lens draws?

Well said.

IMHO this thread (for once) isn't about judging lenses, why you shouldn't be using a lens, why another one will do just as well... but simply sharing the love we might have for them.

Personally I do love the Biogon and to me yes, it is magical... as, to a lesser degree, is the rendition of that Nikkor-P.

I have seen the Sonnars that you mention Bernice and the prices asked for them are so ridiculous that I consider them to be 'unavailable' (to me anyway) in LF!

[Salmo22]

...What’s wrong with loving your lens if you made photographs with it which were unexpectedly strong, nice, beautiful, etc. which was clearly due to how the lens draws?

Bravo.

[archphotofisher]

I had a 120 mm lens that was, no more than an inch high in a Copal shutter; traded it out for something photographic 30 years ago; I didn't realize I loved that lens until I needed it 2 weeks later. Then I turned around and sold a 65 mm Ilex, the clearest and sharpest lens I ever owned, and didn't realize it. It's just like leaving your current love only to find out she was the one and it's too late, all gone never to be found again.

[Bernice Loui]

Those Zeiss Sonnars, 180mm f4.8 and 250mm f5.6 in shutter were not desierable or ridiculously pricy back in the day. Identical was true for the 135mm f3.5 Planar, 150mm f2.8 Xenotar, Aero Ektar and the entire group of large aperture sheet film lenses. It is current fashion that has driven their market value to where it is today. It seems so many image makers that grew up on digital ventured into 35mm film, then 120 roll film then into this 4x5 sheet film stuff. They have carried their habits of large aperture lenses, hand held camera (thus the _!_ Speed/Crown Graphic_!_ and similar 4x5 press camera market prices today)

Limitations of these large aperture sheet film view camera lenses were image circle size. Their just enought to cover image circle (exception being the 250mm f5.6 Sonnar as mentioned) greatly limited their ability to apply camera movements coupled with the very common use exposure apertures of f22 greatly limited the appeal of these large aperture lenses back in the day..

Same applies to market value of monorails -vs- light weight field folders. There was a time when light weight field folders where not desierable, low market value while high quality modular monorail view camera held high market value and desirability.

It is much a reflection of the folks making images today, their history and image making perfernces/goals.

Speaking of Sonnar, one of the fave Zeiss-Hasselblad lenses was the 150mm f2.8 Sonnar "F" lens, no leaf shutter. Has nice rendering at f2.8, not popular with the Hassy crowd back then due to the lack of in lens shutter. The less than round iris is an issues Zeiss-Hasselblad could have done better from that era.. Again another reflection of how image makers used and valued lens personality. Then we get in to the Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 Sonnar which can be adapted to focal plane shutter Hasselblad bodies.. with really good results, in many ways better than the Zeiss-Hasselblad 150mm f2.8 Sonnar.


Bernice

I have seen the Sonnars that you mention Bernice and the prices asked for them are so ridiculous that I consider them to be 'unavailable' (to me anyway) in LF!