In some ways I tend to be a throwback to a different time. A time in which we were required, in math class, or engineering, to show our work. To show how we arrived at a solution. To offer a proof, as it were, that our hypotheses were valid and the solutions repeatable. We could not just write a paper and say, "The Answer is 11.395. You'll just have to take my word for it." That would never fly. Imagine buying a house with some property attached but without having a survey or access to a previous land survey. "Sure. It's 1.52 acres --- take my word for it." Says the seller. And you happily write the check.
There is a saying on the web when someone tells an outlandish story. A story that aggrandizes the teller and at the same time strains the credulity of the listener. That saying is: "Photos or it didn't happen."
Along the same lines there are far too many photo bloggers, website copywriters, and some v-loggers who spin endless tales about miraculous lenses from the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and the 1990's. Thick with nostalgia these lenses become talismans of great photographic power and seemingly their powers were only appreciated by an anointed few. The true cognoscenti. A priesthood sharing of cultish photo knowledge which they now insist on passing down like a story of a lost "grail." To hear the tales it's as if these lenses had magical powers which lent images taken with them a special and almost indescribable affect or power. Like Harry Potter's wand. Or Excalibur.
When "less" educated photographers try the lens out on their own and fail to "appreciate" the specialness of the optic the members of the cult are quick to explain that this or that neophyte just doesn't (yet) appreciate the special "character" the lens can bring to an image. And round and round we go.
A few lenses go on to achieve the highest level in the pantheon of camera lenses. But their charms are only apparent to people from the "hallowed" film era. People over 50 or maybe 60 years old. People representing the religion of the Tri-X, the beliefs of the coven of Kodachrome. But to lay people, often the special powers of the lenses are hidden behind opaque curtains. The acolytes must first enter into a suspension of disbelief, engendered by a new belief in the cult master, who will lead them to the appropriate epiphany.
The cult master becomes the reference standard and gate keeper of great knowledge only after repeating over and over again how special and deep his knowledge and understanding are. As Goebbels and Roy Cohn knew all too well, repeating something endlessly turns it into fact --- over time.
Though we are mostly aware that technology moves on and lenses get better and better, as do cameras, we still want to believe in the magic being peddled. And this isn't just aimed at ancient and obsolete equipment but also a new gear. The gist of all this is the idea also of context.
When I was a young photographer I happened to be on a beach in Mexico with a beautiful girl who was dressed in next to nothing, striking an alluring pose in front of the most amazing sunset I have ever seen. Golden hour everywhere. Soft, billowing, cascading light. I took a photograph on slide film. The image was, to me, incredible. I praised the lens to the heavens though on some level I knew it was a huge confluence of things, all at just the right time, that made the shot work for me...spilling punctum everywhere. But I let everyone I knew hear about the magic of that lens. I took a photograph months later. It was on a job. I used the magic lens to photograph an unattractive scientist who was bored, boring, far too fat, and we did this shoot in a florescent lit room decorated by mimeographed notices and dead houseplants. The lens was horrible. Who could work with such a lens? Why had I fooled myself so badly? I sold the "holy" lens a short time later.
This is all to say that after hearing that X 50mm lens from the 1970s is one of the best 50mm lenses ever for the 1,001th time I decided never to believe the written word about magic lenses ever again. If the writer of an article, blog post, or memoir starts to rattle on about some mythic lens I want to see the proof. I want to see actual results. Not results 640 pixel on the wide side. Nope I want to see proof that makes me sit up and notice. 8K or better. With a sworn statement promising that the image is right out of the camera; no clarity slider action, no complex sharpening, no multi-step color regeneration.
I want the writer to put his lens where his keyboard says it lives. Making photographs. Proving a point.
Memory is fickle but memory is always our personal ally.
It's almost never fact.
Show me, or it never existed.
Contax Aria camera with Contax 28-70mm zoom.
contax 50mm f1.7
Mamiya 6. Mamiya 50mm f4
Sony R1 (NOT RX...) with built in zoom lens.
Hasselblad 500 C/M with 150mm f4.0 Planar
Canon 50mm f1.4 FD
Hasselblad 500 C/M + 150mm f4.0 Planar
Nikon D700. Nikon 24-120mm zoom.
Minox ML. Built in 35mm lens.
Samsung Galaxy NX + 85mm Samsung lens.
Canon Rebel film camera. Canon EF 50mm f1.8
The power of a lens depends on the context and the content of an image.
All lenses are beautiful if you point them at the right subject with the
right lighting and the right styling.
11 comments:
Magic lens = fetish object
Amen. Old lenses can be very good, new lenses can be very good, and I take with a grain of salt the professed "character" of a given lens. Including, ahem, the Leica glass. But I'm not making big prints. After post processing on the computer, what is left of lens "character," if indeed it ever existed?
Ps. I actually hope to be proven wrong, but I'll need some convincing.
I once new an artist who praised the type of brush that he favoured for portraiture; finest yak hair with a hand shaped yew wood handle crafted by an artesanal carver and polished with a beeswax polish from wild bees. I never liked his art, always seemed mushy and fussy to me.
I still have most of the lenses I acquired since 1974. All either Nikon F, L or M mount. I sold off the few that did not perform well for me or had new versions released with features I wanted. They older ones have become like old priends and I continue to use them. Some have a reputation as classics. My Noct-Nikkor 58mm f1.2 being one. The Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-D lens still produces its highly regarded "cream machine" images.
That said, they do not compare to my Leica L-Mount APO primes or my Nikon 135mm f1.8 Plena. Or most of the other modern glass I use. But my old lenses still produce results I consider good enough, and bring back a lot of memories of places, people, and times long past.
I have some adapters for old lenses that I tried on my Fuji XE3. I don't particularly like old lenses, manly because I love the autofocus of modern ones. But my point here is another: old lenses may have excellent sharpness, but in my hands they usually have poor contrast. I recently bought the adapter for a reasonably old Elmar 50 mm f:2.8: good sharpness, low contrast. There is no way it can compete with my Sigma 56 mm f:1.4!
When I was trying to be serious, I shot some journalistic photos and photos for academic publications that only had to be good enough, as opposed to serious pro advertising photos that had to be the highest quality possible. So I never worried much about lenses -- I simply used mainline big-brand lenses, and they were fine. What really drove my photo purchases were the cameras, which added usability, like in-camera light meters (starting with the Pentax Spotmatic) and then autofocus, etc., moving from the Spotmatic to the F3 and up the Nikon line to (eventually) the Z7II. On a reporting trip to Iraq during the war, I took a Nikon D3 and the Holy Trinity and they were just fine, if heavy. Because they were good enough.
The same could be said about cars, planes, motorcycles and watches. An extreme would be audiophiles slobbering all over vintage tube amps. The only lenses I insisted on having the best were large format lenses. Any Blad/Rollei lens was good enough for me in MF and any Canon or Nikon lens was good enough for me in 35mm. The whole "Leica" look was invented by Leica way back in the day because the Contax lenses were sharper than Leica. So they had to invent something that could not be measured. If a photo is boring no amount of voodoo will save it.
Eric
Geezers love to idolize the lenses that were "hip" when they first started out. Sitting by the fireplace, slippers on their feet, a cup of Sanka on a side table, gently petting their old film camera. It's the way of the boomer.
Ya we boomers know how to do it!
Boom, boom, boom, boom
I'm gonna shoot you right down
Right off your feet
Take you home with me
Put you in my house
Boom, boom, boom, boom
Mmmm hmmm
Mm hm hm hm
-John Lee Hooker
I am not one to put “legendary” lenses of yesteryear on some high pedestal. But I won’t dismiss their merits either.
When I bought my full-frame mirrorless camera I bought one native lens to go with it. I figured I might as well also use my old 30+ year-old AF 50mm f1.8 lens (adapted) until I got some new glass in the same focal length. The old “nifty fifty” still produces fine photos. But I found that out-of-focus areas often lacked smoothness that I desired. I eventually bought a new, native 40mm f2 lens, which produces nicer images overall, to my eye, than the old “nifty fifty”. That “forty” has become one of my most-used lenses.
That said, I regularly use two last-generation adapted telephoto zoom lenses. Those lenses still produce very fine photos. The only benefit to using current glass would be AF motors that work better with current camera AF systems. Some older glass is still worth acquiring, IMO.
Post a Comment