The appeal of lenses

One of the things I like the most about lenses is the way they render what’s in focus and what’s out of focus. I’m not talking about bokeh and I’m not talking about sharpness. I’m talking about the way they behave from their maximum aperture to f5.6.

I can’t deny, I like short depth of field and I almost never use a lens above f8 so it is interesting to go through a bunch of lenses to see the differences between them.

A “softer” lens can render a scene in a way I prefer over the sharpest of lenses.
A slow lens opening at f3.5 can have more character than a lens that opens at f0.95.

I do believe that some lenses have charm, a very special signature… do I dare to say… soul?
In the most naive way I do dare to say that some lenses have soul.

It’s not about quality, certainly not about the price, it’s just about the way they do what they do.

So… here are some samples from various lenses and cameras.

Zeiss 60mm CT for the Hasselblad

 

Zeiss 150mm CT for the Hasselblad

 

Zeiss 80mm CT for the Hasselblad

 

Zeiss 120mm Makro Planar for the Hasselblad

 

 

Zeiss 80mm for the Rollei 6006

 

Zeiss 150mm for the Rollei 6006

 

Zeiss 80mm for the Contax 645

 

Zeiss 45mm for the Contax 645

 

Mamiya 80mm for the Mamiya 645 Pro TL

 

Mamiya 80mm for the Mamiya 645 AFD

 

Zenzanon 80mm for the Zenza Bronica SQ AM

 

Mamiya 80mm for the Mamiya 7ii

 

Summicron 50mm/f2.8 on a Zeiss ZM

 

Summicron C40mm for the Leica CL

 

Zeiss G35mm on a Contax 62

 

Zeiss G45mm on a Contax G2

 

Nikon 28Ti

 

Ricoh GR1s

 

Konica Hexar AF

Rolleiflex 6006 + Zeiss 80mm and 150mm + Ilford Delta

Gear:
Rolleiflex 6006
Zeiss 80mm/f2.8 HFT lens
Zeiss 150mm/f4 HFT lens
34mm extension tube

Recipe:
Ilford Delta 400 and 3200 film
Ilfosol 3 developer

One curious story about my Rolleiflex.
I posted a WTS add on Flickr for my system about 2 years ago. I did the same on GET DPI and Photo.net and I got zero responses. Not a single soul asked about my kit when all Hasselblad adds got immediate answers.

I even started a thread on Photo.net wondering the reasons for the sucess of the Hasselblad V system versus the Rolleiflex 6000 system, the ugly duck of 6×6 medium format?
As usual the input was great, take a look.

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Z3zG

With the 34mm extension tube.

Delta 3200, beautiful grain.

Delta 3200

Rolleiflex 6006 steps into the ring

Gear:
Rolleiflex 6006
Zeiss 80mm lens

Recipe:
Ilford Delta 400 and Ilford HP5+
Some at 1600 and some at 3200 ISO.
Ilfosol 3

Well… I’m not the smartest guy on the planet, so when I got the chance to take pictures of two boxers training I toke the Rolleiflex 6006. I didn’t know the place, or the light available but I figured that having the possibility to use the films at 1600 or 3200 ISO I would be okay. Dead wrong!

The problem was not the light. ISO 1600 and 3200 were just fine working with apertures from 2.8 to 5.6. The problem was the shutter speed. Those guys move lightning fast and there was no way to “freeze” their movements even at 1/500 which I never could use, maybe on a couple of shots at 2.8 and ISO 3200.

On top of that the Rolleiflex 6006 is not an action sports camera and I’m not an action sports photographer. I was just pretending to be David Burnett who toke breathtaking pictures of the Olympics using a Speed Graphics.

I went back there a couple of weeks later and did a proper job using a Mamiya 645 AFD and a Contax N1.

PS: David Burnett was kind enough to answer some questions a while back. A real gentleman.
You can read the interview here.

Rolleiflex 6006 + Ilford Delta 400@1600

Gear:
Rolleiflex 6006
Zeiss 80mm lens

Recipe:
Ilford Delta 400 @ 1600
Ilfosol 3
1:9
22 min.
20 C
Agitation: first 10 seconds of each minute.

Browsing through old folders I came across some negatives from back in the days when I used a Rolleiflex 6006. I had a major love affair with that camera and the Zeiss lenses were amazing in every way.

The Rolleiflex didn’t make it big in the USA but in Europe Rolleiflex is a well regarded name at the same level as Hasselblad. Sure, the 6000 series and the Hasselblads are totally different systems but the performance of the Zeiss lenses is equal on both.

This was an extreme low light situation with a peak of “white” coming from a nearby street lamp. It enhanced the texture of the skin making it a bit… sablé. 🙂
“Sablé” is a word used in watchmaking to described something with a light sand texture.

I will try to post some new images from the Contax G1 and G2, with the 45 and the 28mm lenses. I’m also waiting for some Fuji Neopan 1600. Yes, the famous Neopan 1600. Stay tuned and please forgive my poor English.

Hasselblad 500CM + Planar 80mm + 21mm extension tube

Gear:
Hasselblad 500CM
Zeiss Planar 80mm lens
21mm extension tube

Recipe:
Kodak Trix 400
Stock
8 min
20C
Agitation: first 10 seconds of each minute.

I was aiming for a tight head shot of my son. I can’t do it using the 80mm lens and the 21mm extension tube. The magnification is too big and I’m always forced to choose between cutting the chin or cutting the head.

Hasselblad 500CM + Kodak Trix 400 @ 3200 in Xtol

Gear:
Hasselblad 500CM
Zeiss Planar CT* 80mm

Recipe:
Kodak Trix 400 @ 3200
Xtol
stock
11 min.
20 C
Agitation: first 10 seconds of each minute.

This gentleman is Julião Sarmento a Portuguese artist.
I had the chance of taking some photos of him with the Hasselblad as an alternative approach to digital which was being done by another photographer at the same time.
The outcome was strange to say the least. I got beautifully exposed shots along with… heavy contrast, heavy grain shots.
It was a rather controlled environment and I’ve used Xtol and ID11 with Trix pushed to 3200 many times. Can’t explain it. No matter how many formulas, recipes and such, film has it’s way.

Please excuse my poor English.
Thank you

Hasselblad 55mm extension tube + Kodak Trix 400@3200

Gear:
Hasselblad 500CM
Zeiss Planar CT* 80mm
55mm extension tube

Recipe:
Kodak Trix 400 @ 3200
D76
1:1
18 min.
20 C
Agitation: first 10 seconds of each minute.

The Hasselblad 55mm extension tube allows me to get really close. Right at the edge of visual abstraction. I wanted that, I wanted to get all the organic feel of film magnified by the extension tube. I didn’t make any kind of exposure compensation by using the tube. I’ve measured the light, the shadow and came up with a value in between.
Please notice the first shot and how shallow the DOF is.

Please forgive my poor English.
Thank you

Hasselblad 21mm extension tube

Gear:
Hasselblad 500CM
Zeiss Planar CT* 80mm
21mm extension tube

Recipe:
Kodak TriX 400
Xtol
Stock
9 min
20 C
Agitation: first 10 seconds of each minute

Along with the 80mm lens, the 21mm tube makes a cool combination to carry around for a weekend.
Sure it has some limitations being the most immediate loosing the ability to focus at the infinity.

I admit I’m a sucker for shallow depth of field and using extension tubes allows me to get a more “creamy” bokeh from the Zeiss, although I love the harsh, organic signature of the Zeiss lenses.

Please forgive my poor English.
Paulo

Hasselblad 500 cm, Zeiss Planar 80mm, 55mm extension tube

Gear:
Hasselblad 500CM
Zeiss Planar CT* 80mm
55mm extension tube

Recipe:
Kodak Trix 400
Microphen 1:1
11 min.
20 C
Agitation: 10 seconds each minute.