Yes. I do photograph after sunset. Here is a blog post with plenty of samples....

 https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2024/02/last-week-it-was-freezing-and-today.html

What do I look for when I test a new (to me) lens? What are the parameters that are most important?

 

I moved my schedule around today. Instead of heading to swim practice first thing in the morning I decided to go downtown and mess around with the new 50mm lens I wrote about yesterday. I put the Carl Zeiss 50mm f2.0 Planar ZM on a trusty Leica M240 and headed to my usual parking place across from the Treaty Oak. A hug and magnificent tree that's been right there in the middle of Austin for hundreds of years. 

Usually I go out photographing in the afternoons so I thought it would be nice to see what everything looked like when it was lit from the other side. Or backlit by morning sun.

It's always a good idea to test a lens that you've just bought. The one time you use a lens (new or used) right out of the box for client work you might get bit on the butt by the cruel pinchers of fate. Happens. When using a new-to-me used lens I tend to be very circumspect until I've proved to myself that it works as it should.

When testing a lens I want to see how sharp it is wide open, at both close up and distant focus settings. A lot of lenses are good at infinity and fall apart at their closest focusing distances. Many lenses are optimized for best performance at 50X their focal length but lenses with floating lens elements don't fall under that rule of thumb. But good or bad performance at different distances is something you really want to know if you're messing around with rangefinder cameras because while you are out shooting everything looks like it's nicely sharp and in focus through the viewing window. Mostly because the viewing window is very much NOT looking through the actual lens. Funny as it may seem in 2024 it's also possible to accidentally leave the lens cap on and not find out until it's too late. Because....you are viewing through the little window/optical finder and NOT the lens. Embarrassing. All too common. 

When I want to evaluate the sharpness of a lens at the closer distances I look for subjects with a lot of texture. Things like brick walls, peeling paint, rusty manhole covers and the like. For middle distance evaluation one subject that's just great is a tree that's just starting to bud, against a clean blue sky. This is also a good scenario for checking for purple fringing and magenta and green casts as well. 

Good distance subjects are big buildings with lots of balcony railings and other details. I check for sharpness in all these instances at a lens's widest open aperture, then closed down to what I generally consider to be the "optimum" aperture ( usually f4.0 or f5.6) and then again at f11.

It's great if your lens is sharp everywhere but it's even better if it's nice and contrasty at all these settings too. Once a lens convinces me that it's got great sharpness and contrast I also want to start looking at how much it vignettes at various apertures. Most fast primes are going to vignette a bit when used wide open but in most cases the better lenses don't vignette to the extent that software can't fix the issue. My set rule is a lens has grounds for rejection if an f2.0 lens is still vignetting frightfully at f5.6. That's a problem. And one I'm not inclined to mess with.

For me the best way to check for vignetting is to shoot a clean, even blue sky. Generally with the sun directly behind me. Stark, white walls are also good. Shoot in "A" priority and run through all the apertures you'll usually be using and the bring the files into post production and take a good look. You can also use an "eyedropper" tool to actually measure the fall off from the center of the frame to the corners. 

If you are using an after market lens hood and you see too much vignetting you might want to remove the hood and test again. Could be that a generic hood isn't right for your lens even though it's specified for a set focal length. Sometimes that's down to the physical design of the lens. The lens maker's hood is usually the best bet.

One of the most important tests is whether or not the lens in question focuses accurately on your cameras. Back in the DSLR days I had a run of lenses, both Nikon and third party, that backfocused on a Nikon D810 and front focused on a Nikon D800e. You "could" correct for the front or back focus of the lenses using the camera's software but it was a chore and required much trial and error. If you are manually focusing your lenses on a mirrorless camera you'll nail focus every time. Well, if you know how to focus, you use the focusing aids, etc. But even mirrorless cameras can be guilty of having focus issues in AF. 

I've spent quality time calibrating all three of my M cameras and when I get a new lens I focus on a target at infinity and make sure everything is accurate and then focus on a target in the studio at the close focusing distance and evaluate the results on a big screen at 100%. 

For me the focusing accuracy of a lens and the sharpness and contrast are the most important parameters of a lens. Also vignetting under 1.5 stops when used without software corrections. Some people talk about a lens having saturated color but I prefer a lens that's very transparent when it comes to saturation because it's so simple to add saturation to a file after the fact. 

I do all of these tests with raw files even though my preference is to shoot my personal work with Jpegs. The raw files reveal more of the good and the bad in a lens. And if I've shot something at higher ISOs, get more noise than I bargained for, and want to rescue the file I need raw files to take advantage of the A.I. Denoise in Adobe Lightroom. 

I spent the morning downtown with the camera and lens and I have to say that I'm very happy with the performance of both the camera and the lens under test.

I stopped at Taco Deli for a bacon, egg and cheese taco and a cup of their delicious medium roast coffee and then I headed home. A little later I headed to the Rollingwood Pool (AKA: The Western Hills Athletic Club) for the noon masters workout. 68°, brilliant sun, my own lane, and Julie on deck coaching. Heaven. 

My evaluation of the lens leads me to believe that I've got my hands on a small but high performing lens package. Even wide open it's nicely sharp. Works well at f11 and even f16, as well. The lens is slightly less contrasty than the Voigtlander 50mm APO but that's probably good for the environments I usually work in. For the small sum I paid I think I got a real bargain. 

I'm loving the way Leica M cameras handle the color red. 

no lens review seems complete without some mannequin photos. 

Shot near the close focus distance of the lens with the lens set to its widest 

aperture. At least the mannequins are agreeable about standing still and holding

a pose for a while so I can fiddle with the camera settings...

this is not a suit I would consider buying. Or wearing. Or having in my home on

someone else. It's just.....dreadful. Which is why I enjoyed photographing it.

for a popular city with a burgeoning population there sure aren't a lot of people 

out and about in the downtown area before 10 a.m. Hmmmm.

a time honored, middle distance test target that also stays still....

 a decent close-up target for rangefinder cameras. Their minimum focusing distance 

is usually set to (point) .7 meters. Any closer than that and the rangefinder doesn't work

nor do the frame lines move far enough to prevent a lot of parallax. But ---

at 100% I see really great detail on the rusty manhole cover. right?

A lovely medium distance test target. Here we are on the 1st of March and the 

trees are already starting to bud and bloom. If we get enough rain this Spring we 

may just have a green Summer. 

another good test target. lots of textured detail on the pink wall and a sharp line

(where I set the focus) on the metal flashing at the top of the wall.

Any lens testing tips you'd like to pass along?

A fine and useful lens for M mount rangefinder cameras. The Carl Zeiss 50mm f2.0 Planar ZM lens

 

It all started out so innocently...

I'm far past my quota of owning various 50mm lenses. I have variations for L mount cameras, including: two different Zeiss versions. I already have a Voightlander APO 50mm for the M. I even have a 50mm lens from Fuji for the GFX camera. Fifties everywhere. But the best laid inventory control plans of gods and men ofttimes go awry. 

Just as an aside, I love the M series lenses that are made to fit on the Leica M cameras. They are smaller and lighter than the lenses made for DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. They are completely manual and well marked so they are pretty much perfect to use at their hyper focus distance settings for very quick street shots and, with adapters, you can put them on just about any great camera. I've had various M mount lenses on my SL cameras and my Fuji GFX camera by using high quality adapters. It's a great way to make a big, hulking "work" camera into something a bit smaller and stealthier. The camera stays the same size (obviously) but the overall package shrinks. In my studio one of M lenses can serve at least three different cameras systems without breaking a sweat.

Anyway. I was informed by house management (B.) that we're getting a new hardwood floor installed in the living room. I acted shocked as though this was the first time I was hearing this information. Seeing right through my attempted subterfuge the house management handed me an 8.5 by 11 inch piece of paper with the agenda for the deconstruction of the existing wood floor and the installation of the new wood floor. I was floored.

I have, listed on the paper,  two jobs, or assignments. Work which I don't remember bidding on or negotiating payment for. I was briskly informed that my "payment" would consist of "getting to enjoy the new floor for years to come." My assignments were alleged to be "simple." 

The agenda strongly suggested that I be on site one day next week to receive the materials for the project. An additional line item even more strongly suggested that it would be strongly appreciated if I cleaned out all the crap from the floor space of my studio/office and then maybe spent a day or so clearing out all of the furniture, bookshelves, hutches, etc. from the living room, the target of the upcoming renovation, and carrying said objects to my office for "short term" storage. I read the fine print at the bottom of the agenda and discovered that we were expecting one full week of demolition of the old floor, followed by another week of the installation, followed by a replacing of the baseboards and trim, followed by painting of those materials. 

Given my poor performances on previous projects requiring planning, hand skills, dexterity and perseverance (or the necessary follow through) I was summarily excused from doing any of the actual construction work. 

I looked around the studio and discovered that I had a small mountain of gimbals for video work that I had not touched since 2020. Also several ungainly and obese video tripods which initially cost a fortune but which were quickly superseded by the aforementioned gimbals. Drat! Video production can be quite the money pit. Especially if one buys the gear and then, after a few miserable projects, decides that one doesn't ever want to do video ever, EVER again. Add in a couple of photography tripods from the forest of tripods tucked under one big shelf and you have, basically, an SUV's worth of stuff to either take to the dump or otherwise dispose of in a more humane way. And with dispatch. 

I called my favorite equipment retail expert and he let me know that they had no interest in offering to take the equipment in trade for fun and juicy new stuff (the purchase of which kinda defeats the overriding purpose- more space) and that the resale value of now ancient gimbals is plummeting towards zero. I asked if anyone needed equipment donations. He does work with several underserved public schools which could absolutely use the gear. I dreaded having to go from school to school making explanations and wasting time so I was thrilled when my expert offered to accept the gear and donate it for me. Problem solved. Floor space revived. Much needed inventory shrinkage accomplished!!! Yay for me. 

I loaded all the stuff in my vehicle and headed north to the photo store. Noel greeted me warmly and looked over the stuff that took four trips from car-to-counter to deliver. He promised he'd get it into the hands of people who could do something good with it. Now I have a place to stick the sectional couch, multiple big bookcases, an assortment of chairs and .......... so much more.

The house management just delivered architectural drawings to me showing how the furniture should be distributed in my space. I will comply.

But I made one critical mistake. On the way out of the camera store I paused for just a few seconds too long in front of a tall but slender glass case. It's the case in which the store displays their used Leica, Contax and Hasselblad cameras, lenses and accessories. And there they were. Lovely, pristine Carl Zeiss lenses for my M series Leicas. I took off my glasses so I couldn't see all the toys clearly. But it didn't help. I put the glasses back on and, in an instant, spied the one lens in the Carl Zeiss ZM system that I thought I wanted and didn't have. 

It was a demure, black, 50mm f2.0 lens, about the size of an old style enlarging lens, sitting quietly, patiently and begging me to be... more interested. I flagged down my contact in the store and asked him to come and unlock the case so I could take a closer look. Maybe I'd find some deal-breaking flaw that would keep me from having to ask for a raise in my allowance. Haze? Scratches on the glass? A crunchy focusing ring?

But no. A close inspection made it clear that the lens was in great shape. The price was less than half of the new price. The lens came with the lens hood that Zeiss charges over one hundred dollars for, as a separate item. Not included in the box with the lens. And then, the tipping point, the lens had a lovely Leica professional filter on the front. How could I justify not adopting the lens and giving it a good, welcoming "forever" home? 

The way I rationalized it was by the trade off of volume. I left with a hatchback full of unwanted gear and came home with something that fit daintily in the cupholder in the center console of my car. It was destined to be. 

The ZM 50 f2.0 is basically Carl Zeiss's version of the 50mm Summicron but retails for less than half the Leica's new price. The Zeiss lenses, as good as they are, don't have the panache and (nod to MJ) the Veblen appeal of the Leica lenses and so they don't hold their resale value as well. I have convinced myself that all of this impulse buying is fine since the cost of the used lens is but a fraction the cost of the new floor.  I pretend to have the fiscal high ground. 

Yes. I tested the new lens. It's almost as good at the Voigtlander lens I already have. But it looks so cool in the shoulder bag next to the matching 28mm and 35mm ZM lenses. I'll stick the Voigtlander on one of the SL2 cameras and pretend it's just for the big cameras. Then all the lenses in the bag will look like a matched set. I might even take them out and shoot with them for a while. Novel, Yes? 

We're in the middle of the floor project and tax season. Blogging may be choppy for the next few weeks but I'll try my best...

You may profess to "hate" YouTube, and videos in general, but I think there's a ton of great stuff there for photographers. You just have to get picky.

 Bitch about videos all you want but you're missing some good stuff about photography when you turn your nose up to specific YouTube channels. I thought today I'd talk about one photographer whose content always interests me both as a hobbyist photographer (I am) but also as someone who has earned the vast majority of my income for the last 38 years as a full time, working photographer (also me). He's not a "walkie-talkie" video maker and he talks pretty fast but I find him to be one of the more interesting working photographers on the web. With credentials!

I'm talking about a guy named Justin Mott who lives and works in Hanoi, Vietnam. He works for lots of major companies, international in scope, and he also does a fair amount of work, editorially, for prestigious outlets like The New York Times. (Don't like the New York Times? Go read something else).

Here is a link to a video he posted on his channel today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=248KwNdCRoc

His video walks the audience through the nuts and bolts of his recent assignment for the New York Times. It's about old and new coffee culture in Vietnam (coffee, a subject close to my heart) and Justin walks you through every step of the two day project with loads of really good images coupled with great observations about how to work with complete strangers, new locations and the pressures of hitting deadlines while still delivering exactly what the client wants. 

There's none of the pompous, "I am the world's greatest expert in..... blah, blah photography." There's no oppressive hubris. Just really interesting nuts and bolts. He starts by explaining how he was contacted, how he discussed the project with a photo editor at the Times. How he bid the job. How he selected his gear for the assignment (don't whine too much, he's a Leica shooter --- both M and SL). How he works. Why he does these kinds of assignments with no lighting gear. And even a step-by-step explanation of the post-shooting logistics for editing, labeling and delivering the work. 

The thing that caught my interest in watching the video and listening to his work strategies is just how quickly he works, from shot to shot, how largely invisible he is even though he is a larger caucasian man in a sea of Vietnamese natives. And how he can make himself fit in to this different environment without drawing much attention, and how his professional attitude provides a template for him to get work done. I think it boils down to a mindset, and experience. 

There is no swarm of assistants endlessly circling around him. No stylists, no art directors, etc. In this particular editorial/visual description he's very much a one man band. While many bloggers and YouTubers pontificate about what they think photography is all about Justin is actually hands-on with the reality of commercial work. And editorial work. Where the YouTube people who make thinly disguised advertorials for camera makers as their only job constantly suggest the need for the fastest AF cameras, the largest resolution sensors, the need for for long fast zooms and short, even faster zooms Justin shows a more realistic approach. Using single focal length M lenses adapted to an SL (mirrorless) camera and working with a much smaller selection of focal lengths than any of the wannabe "influencers" would have you believe is possible. It's a reality versus fantasy antidote. 

Justin is scruffy and talks pretty fast but his work is good and what he's saying about "how he works" is equally good. Valuable. Even to someone with decades of experience. He's also working in a different culture and on the other side of the world but still is able to attract the clients he needs in order to be successful. Both aesthetically and financially.

Some of his videos are more gear oriented and he is an unapologetic Leica user. But the video I've linked to shows a job that could have been done with any good camera system. In the hands of a real pro. His reasons for using the Leica stuff aren't dealbreakers to enjoying the heart of the video. 

I'm going to share a few more of my favorite channels so my video- reticent readers are exposed to the stuff I look at. And, just to let you know, I am not a big fan of "My name is Bob and I have a video camera strapped to my chest and I'm going to film myself walking through some urban streets annoying all the people around me and then bragging about how great my mostly mediocre images are because I shoot with: Sony, Fuji, Leica, Nikon or any other "fill in the blank" camera system."

My favorite videos are about working artists (Paul Reid), working commercial photographers (Justin Mott) and people who are making a living selling their prints and talking about HOW they shoot instead of WHAT KIND OF GEAR THEY SHOOT WITH (Mostly James Popsys). 

I know, I know, you love to read print and you hate video. If that's the case just read this twice and ignore the link. No one will know....

typing fast is a blessing. written on the flat keyboard that came packaged with my iMacPro computer. 

Time elapsed: 45 minutes; including proof-reading. Advice to other bloggers: drink more coffee so you can think and type faster...

The future of photography blogs. What's next?

It's almost like the joy of discussing new gear and new techniques has been wholly replaced on most of our photo blogs by personal observations about day-to-day routines, life's struggles, diets, and photo walks. When blogs first appeared we were still, to some degree, transitioning from film to digital. From known processes to new realms of imaging that demanded a different processes and, to a certain degree, new skill sets. Darkroom work was quickly giving way to working with Photoshop and outputting images to paper via inkjet printers. And inkjet printers were hardly foolproof and there was much we could learn from photographers who ventured into the inkjet realm before the rest of us. They'd already bled out tons of money on ink and papers and calibration and we could learn and profit from their honest accounting of their triumphs and failures. And they mostly conveyed this knowledge on blogs. 

By my read digital became mature, both for inkjet printers and cameras by around 2010 but the demand for good blogs about the hyper-quickly changing introduction of new cameras models was still going full blast. A blog was also a great place to market things like books, workshops and, eventually, presets for post processing images. Hobbyists and working photographers without access to bricks and mortar camera stores, locally, depended on blog writers to supplement the cheery "no bad cameras" crews at the major, for profit sites with a bit of honest critiquing. 

Still, even as late as 2013 photographers saw value in the writing on blogs about our industry space, about new trends in photography; especially as it became a hybrid practice that started incorporating more and more video. We writers who were also photographers tried to deliver information as well as proof of concept. We bloggers, at least some of us, actually bought the cameras and used them for more than a couple of weeks and then reported what we'd found out. Sometimes posting about a single camera serially, squeezing as much experience as we could from the gear. And then sharing it. Some of us without considering any financial reward.

From 2015 onward the introduction of new cameras started to decline or decelerate. The decline was slow at first but constantly tumbling. And, after years and years of writing about processes, lens evaluations and value propositions of various camera types we capitulated to the onslaught of "camera reviews as entertainment" delivered by YouTube. A completely different, much stickier medium than the static blogs. 

And with YouTube in daily ascendancy blogs began a steady decline in readership, audience interest and, for those who depended on them for financial reward, also income. Blog writers and blog readers aged together until we hit a point where the writers and the readers were equally well informed, from multiple sources,  when it came to tech fluff and other stuff. You could read long reviews of cameras on the review sites which were dedicated to providing that kind of content. The one thing blogs by professional photographers like myself could still deliver was descriptions of how we used various lights and cameras in actual, paying, commercial jobs. We helped deflate the expectation that the latest gear was required by clients for everything. We helped readers understand the value of good practice over the latest acquisitions. We still delivered some value related to the process of photography. And we helped support the mythology that photography was an important and unchanging part of our culture. 

But then the pandemic blew everything up. And the last two years of supply side disruptions along with the realization that nothing much has changed, qualitatively, in the previous three or four years at the core of digital cameras so we ended up with fewer and less interesting work projects to discuss and fewer and less interesting cameras to review or discuss. 

And photo bloggers have been running out of things to sell. There are no real workshops to tout anymore. They still exist but the workshop owners don't need to pay third party bloggers anymore to generate interest and participants. No one needs to buy presets for post processing now that hundreds of presets come for free in Adobe Lightroom. Good luck with making money from affiliate links in a market situation where no one can get their hands on new products because of backorders and limited production runs. And the worst part of it all for bloggers is that the information comes fast and furious and in a very much more entertaining fashion via well produced videos on YouTube. And YouTube, like it or not, is where the makers of cameras are now sending the bulk of their "review" cameras first. The video influencers always have a head start.

Now the few readers who have hung on can read about my swimming practices, the weather in Austin, or how I used a camera on my walk that yielded results that are not demonstrably different from any other camera I've taken along for a walk in the past. Or, they can read about medical issues and keyboard products at Mike's site, with a sprinkling of articles about how things used to work in the "good old days." And then you can bounce back over here to read more about the weather and which lens purchase of the day was motivated by boredom, and mostly intellectual lethargy.  In a year or so all the web/print based blogs will largely vanish. People will tire of reading about which brand of preserves I like with my toast. And which kind of toast I like with my jam. And about coffee. And Mike will be busy reviewing a half dozen electric toasters to see which one is head and shoulders above the rest --- without being Veblen. And he'll probably hold an audience longer... 

Actors like to talk about going out "on top." Meaning at the very top of their game. At the Zenith of their popularity. But I guess I missed the boat on that. 

I still love to take photographs. I like to talk about life but I'm reticent to make any waves so I don't get to rail and rant about money, religion, politics or anything else that's frictional but fun. I love using new cameras but the cameras that are new to me lately are 12+ years old and have been reviewed to death. 

I could write about jobs but we're not doing anything new and different as far as techniques go, so what's the point? No one needs to read about an event job I'm doing for bankers in April. The curious can go back into the VSL archives and find basically the same article from years past. Maybe just substitute different camera brands to make it contemporary. 

I think my first 2500 blog posts were pretty good but boy-oh-boy has the second 2500 been repetitious and boring. "I selected a camera and lens. I walked around. I shot this skyline, this mannequin, this building....I came home and looked at the files. They were good." 

A sad thing about my readers getting older (as am I) is that they/you all remember when houses cost $80,000 and you could get a nice car for $6,000. A hamburger cost less than a dollar. A lot less. Cameras were something you had to save up for and sweat about before you handed over what was, in the earlier days, a big handful of cash. And we carry these memories with us and they pollute our understanding of current values and current finances re: cameras, and everything else, which makes us sound miserly and out of touch. Every new product announcement is met with a certain amount of hand-wringing about the costs. Now people will gladly spend forty, fifty or sixty thousand dollars on a shitty SUV but whine when camera prices go up a couple hundred dollars due to inflation. 

We've collectively turned into a group that wants everything to stay the same, and we want everything at a bargain price, and this stunts our appreciation for completely new and different gear. And the pleasure of experimenting. I know, I know, you love your Speed Graphic and your Minolta SRT201. You never feel the need to upgrade from your first digital camera purchase. You think gear is overrated. Which begs the question: why are you here?

And, the constant reference to price, and critique of prices, is as tiresome as watching a group of self proclaimed "old people" haggling at a restaurant about how to split the check four ways, and "who had the extra diet Coke?" Stuff cost more now. And surprise, you are pulling in more money, statistically, than you probably ever had before. And your kids are through college and your houses are paid for..... but you grimace over the price of a Q3 or a top line Sony. It takes a lot of joy out of the transaction of me writing and you reading and commenting. But at least when you are complaining you are commenting.

The blog can be fun to write. And if you want to pretend that it builds a community you can tell yourself that. Although I've only met and corresponded with a tiny % of you. The 1%? 

I'm going to keep blogging for a while more. But they'll be short on writing and accompanied by an embarrassingly large number of images. That's what everyone tells me really counts. The images. I guess I've basically run out of interesting things to say about cameras and lenses and processes. Just an honest assessment of where everything is right now. Photography has changed from a valid, freestanding art form to something more akin to quick but impermanent performance art hits.

I thought it might just be me but I checked in with my favorite twenty-eight year old data scientist and he concurred that blogs are a dying "art form." I'd hate to be the last one out. The guy tasked to turn out the lights...

 

It's February 25th. We're in the northern hemisphere. It was almost 90° today in Austin. Better start getting acclimated to the heat....

First warm weather walk. Took the heavy rig. The Leica SL2 and the Carl Zeiss Milvus 50mm f1.4 ZF.2. Warm and near 90° but not overwhelming for a three or four mile walk. My left arm will be sore tomorrow after carrying that rig around this afternoon. Shot as close to "wide open" as I thought advisable. Just some random samples.