yet another lens choice question

[WestMichigan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Again,

I would say that the blurring of backgrounds is a wonderful benefit of a f1.2 lens, no doubting that. As a point in favor of the Nokton 35 - the fact you would be using it primarily on a tripod for 'set-piece' images of your sculptures would definitely help to mitigate the quite real challenges of using very wide aperture lenses on a rangefinder camera. Narrow Depths of Field, Calibration of Focusing Mechanisms (both in Camera & in Lens), and Focus Shift with Aperture Changes, make achieving top flight results with fast glass a bit like playing Three Dimensional Chess. The variables can be daunting.

I do have a question about what amount of 'narrow depth of field' is appropriate for 'Catalog Photographs' of your Sculptures. It's a question I sincerely can't answer because I have quite little experience with static photography or 'catalog' photogrpahy either. If your sculptures, as noted above, are roughly triple life size - I wonder as to the appropriateness of reaching for purchasing a lens designed for getting a few inches in focus and aggressively de-focusing the rest in an escalating fashion based on distance. I could easily image a 'portrait' of one of them where you've got the 'eye' in critical focus and the closest and farthest edges of it's 'head' are bathed in a swath of absolute blur.

If you would be forced to be 'stopping down' a fair bit to smaller apertures to over come the challenges of your subjects 'size' - it occurs to me it might, from a 'photographic quality' standpoint, be more appropriate to go with a Zeiss or Leica, or a less 'aspirational' Voigtlander lens than the Nokton 35/f1.2. My limited understanding is that the Nokton f1.2 gives up a bit of 'absolute image quality' abilities to achieve the benefits of such a fast aperture - maybe gives up a lot compared to a Biogon or Elmarit when used at f4, f5.6, or something.

 

Hope I've been helpful with these thoughts. I was always a favorite of professors in college because, as a number of them said, I ask great questions. I take a bit of pride in that.

 

Richard in Michigan

 

 

 

Hi Richard, all very considerate suggestions especially you thinking of how much space I may have in my workshop, the Zeiss 85/2.8, very sharp, (couldn't see any reason to get the fast portrait version when it was going to become ef 170mm) was a little crampted for room!!

 

Your lux ideas reinforce my first idea of getting the fastest of my under $AU1k options, the Nokton 35/1.2 latest version which is OK with M8, my bones are sort of telling me that it's speed will alow me to blurr out the studio with pretty nice bokeh to what ever degree I want. The more I look at the Zeiss picture examples the more worried I get - I don't mean to offend anyone but after a while of looking at the many images on the net I started to realise that both Biogon 35/2 and 2.8 regularly made what I'd call calendar photos, sure the users may have done that on purpose and clearly lots of people like it, but I've now judged that it's not quite right for my work.

 

A bit of Nokton grunge is becoming quite appealing especially as it has quite a different look to what you'd expect for sculpture - which is as much part of the game as anything else. Being new to M8 just getting it to work may be the biggest challenge.

 

thanks again - Clive

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MikeD700]

Hello Again,

I would say that the blurring of backgrounds is a wonderful benefit of a f1.2 lens, no doubting that. As a point in favor of the Nokton 35 - the fact you would be using it primarily on a tripod for 'set-piece' images of your sculptures would definitely help to mitigate the quite real challenges of using very wide aperture lenses on a rangefinder camera. Narrow Depths of Field, Calibration of Focusing Mechanisms (both in Camera & in Lens), and Focus Shift with Aperture Changes, make achieving top flight results with fast glass a bit like playing Three Dimensional Chess. The variables can be daunting.

I do have a question about what amount of 'narrow depth of field' is appropriate for 'Catalog Photographs' of your Sculptures. It's a question I sincerely can't answer because I have quite little experience with static photography or 'catalog' photogrpahy either. If your sculptures, as noted above, are roughly triple life size - I wonder as to the appropriateness of reaching for purchasing a lens designed for getting a few inches in focus and aggressively de-focusing the rest in an escalating fashion based on distance. I could easily image a 'portrait' of one of them where you've got the 'eye' in critical focus and the closest and farthest edges of it's 'head' are bathed in a swath of absolute blur.

If you would be forced to be 'stopping down' a fair bit to smaller apertures to over come the challenges of your subjects 'size' - it occurs to me it might, from a 'photographic quality' standpoint, be more appropriate to go with a Zeiss or Leica, or a less 'aspirational' Voigtlander lens than the Nokton 35/f1.2. My limited understanding is that the Nokton f1.2 gives up a bit of 'absolute image quality' abilities to achieve the benefits of such a fast aperture - maybe gives up a lot compared to a Biogon or Elmarit when used at f4, f5.6, or something.

 

Hope I've been helpful with these thoughts. I was always a favorite of professors in college because, as a number of them said, I ask great questions. I take a bit of pride in that.

 

Richard in Michigan

 

That's actually a very well considered exposé Richard in M. I've always found that curiosity, as in asking questions, is a sign of intelligence; knowing everything is not.

 

Anyway, I would think that Clive is also looking for some three-dimensionality in the images of his sculptures (and some well apportioned drama). Clive, chime in if I'm wrong! A 35mm (full frame equivalent), with wide apertures used intelligently, would do that job very well imo. Why not a Voigtlander or a Zeiss? Why pay Leitz money?

 

Background isn't necessarily a static "given", hang up some white (grey, black) sheets (that would on is own provide a lot of "blurring") a few meters behind the sculpture, give thought to the lighting; ambient or fluorescent, diffuse or directional, and you're on to a winner, at reasonable cost.

 

Just my 2cts...

[carstenw]

Why pay Leitz money?

 

I think you are in the wrong forum with this thought Might I recommend a Nikon forum

[MikeD700]

I think you are in the wrong forum with this thought Might I recommend a Nikon forum

 

Heh heh... I've used Zeiss glass on my D700 for a while. Excellent.

[WestMichigan]

Mike gets a pass on the Nikon thing from me. He's been good at avoiding the 'Fanboy' antics - that is unless it would be truly funny that is!

Also, there is an appropriateness to saying 'why pay leitz prices' when Clive himself indicated that his budget is $1k-Australian. Quite a few Leica Lenses (even used) have trouble skating in under that price point is something I'd say is a pretty fair statement!

Further, I would say that Zeiss Glass (in general) has a reputation for more 'pop' and 'three dimensionality' to it's output than Leica Glass. There are valid aesthetic and technical reasons to advise reaching for something from the ZM lineup over Leica's M offerings. Besides - my recall is that Mike has practical experience with Zeiss' Nikon Lens offerings. His input isn't entirely generated from whole cloth.

 

Besides, I've fooled him into thinking I'm Intelligent! Can't go giving him the bum's rush at this point, now, can I?

R. in Mi.

 

I think you are in the wrong forum with this thought Might I recommend a Nikon forum

[carstenw]

I also use Zeiss glass on my D3, so I am on board here I just find that from what I have seen, and there is a lot of information in the ZF/ZE and M8/M9/X1 threads over on FM to support this, that the ZM glass isn't up to the standards of the ZF glass. More aberrations, less sharpness up close, some CA, funky boke on occasion...

[Clive Murray-White]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I value MikeD700's views and one of the things that I find very engaging about LUF is that just about everybody isn't exclusively Leica - which contributes to far less biased general discussion than on other forums.

 

I think both MikeD and Richard in M have made a concerted effort to "understand" what I try to achieve, that's not to say other comments have not been extremely helpful.I think I tend to look at lenses as if they were different type bristle paint brushes, or one could be a pencil another could be a stick of charcoal, each to be used according to their natural characteristics.

 

When over 90% of all photos of sculpture are taken with either Nikon or Canon these days, both which have their own look, I think it was a very wise decision to start using Leica not only because its very good but its images often state that their makers have an independant point of view.

 

The relationship between photography and sculpture is a very interesting one, because in reality most people make up thier minds about a sculptor's work from the pictures they see of it. The general convention for sculpture pictures has always been to just show the sculpture in complete isolation but my view is that as sculpture is always seen in some relation to its environment I should attempt to at least try to give the impression that it would be possible to place these sculptures in just about any environment.

 

I think with each work I do try to make a sucinct and memorable image of it - far more than blandly documenting it.

[WestMichigan]

Good info to have Carsten. Thanks for passing it along. I'll have to wander back through the FM Threads again - I haven't visited there in ages.

 

The operative question, though, might be whether ZF/ZE lenses exhibiting better performance on Nikon & Canon Bodies than the ZM variants do on Leica Bodies would be a determinative factor in attempting to choose between lens options for Clive's M8.

 

I also wonder if close focus issues, CA, and such with the Zeiss M Lenses might end up being caused in some manner by the inherent challenges of the Short M Mount Lens to Sensor/Film Plane Specification, by the inherent challenges of close focusing with rangefinders, and the ZM Lenses not being part of the 'firmware' of the M8/M9 'lens correction' programing?

 

R. in Mi.

 

 

I also use Zeiss glass on my D3, so I am on board here I just find that from what I have seen, and there is a lot of information in the ZF/ZE and M8/M9/X1 threads over on FM to support this, that the ZM glass isn't up to the standards of the ZF glass. More aberrations, less sharpness up close, some CA, funky boke on occasion...

[WestMichigan]

"I think with each work I do try to make a sucinct and memorable image of it - far more than blandly documenting it."

 

Kudo's to you for making the observations you've made about the 'state' of the 'Photography' in your specific industry and delving into the 'palette' of tools available to us photographers for creating images with different signatures to them.

Sincerely speaking, I think you have hit upon a unique editorial perspective to lean upon to differentiate your Sculptures from the 'competition' and to also take control over the images yourself rather than relying on a collaboration with an outside party or 'handing off' the responsibility to someone else and hoping for the best.

R in Mi.

[MikeD700]

I value MikeD700's views and one of the things that I find very engaging about LUF is that just about everybody isn't exclusively Leica - which contributes to far less biased general discussion than on other forums.

 

I think both MikeD and Richard in M have made a concerted effort to "understand" what I try to achieve, that's not to say other comments have not been extremely helpful.I think I tend to look at lenses as if they were different type bristle paint brushes, or one could be a pencil another could be a stick of charcoal, each to be used according to their natural characteristics.

 

When over 90% of all photos of sculpture are taken with either Nikon or Canon these days, both which have their own look, I think it was a very wise decision to start using Leica not only because its very good but its images often state that their makers have an independant point of view.

 

The relationship between photography and sculpture is a very interesting one, because in reality most people make up thier minds about a sculptor's work from the pictures they see of it. The general convention for sculpture pictures has always been to just show the sculpture in complete isolation but my view is that as sculpture is always seen in some relation to its environment I should attempt to at least try to give the impression that it would be possible to place these sculptures in just about any environment.

 

I think with each work I do try to make a sucinct and memorable image of it - far more than blandly documenting it.

 

Thanks Clive; indeed I tried to envisage what you would like to achieve. Not being a "Leica fanboy"; I just got stuck with Nikon ages ago. I still find the discussions here interesting, particularly when the image one wants to achieve is concerned, as in your case.

[Clive Murray-White]

Thanks Richard, I think it has as much to do with "neccessity being the mother of......." as anything.

 

Its been a fairly organic process, I started taking pictures of the sculptures in progress, then playing around in Photoshop to see what it would look like if I cut one bit off etc - its also a very good way to "stand back" from the work and see it a fresh.

 

There is one really strange "photographic" thing about high quality marble, the best way I can describe it is that it appears to absorb light so much so that it screws around with every metering system I've ever tried, reigning back blown highlights has been a constant. Don't even bother trying to expose to the right.

[WestMichigan]

Clive,

might I inquire as to how you are Measuring the amount of Available Light, of Flash Photons Flying Around, and How much all of that light is actually being reflected into the lens of your camera?

 

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, none of the camera systems you've mentioned as part of your organic process of learning to Photograph you Sculptures has in their feature sets 'easy' Off Camera TTL Flash Control. Further, some cameras just plain don't cope well when 'non-native' Manual Focus Lenses are mounted on them and unreliable metering is just one of the many side benefits of Adapted Lens Usage. (He Says With Tongue in Cheek!).

 

It sounds like you've learned to cope with a metering issue AND a manual flash operations process via the Braille Method. Essentially groping around til it feels right.

 

Might I suggest a nice light meter capable of Reflected, Indirect, and Flash Metering, be something worth investigating on your part?

 

I can flatly state that learning to properly use, understand, and creatively apply, the information available from a good light meter did more for my growth as a photographer than any bit o' kit I owned before that point.

 

R in Mi.

 

Thanks Richard, I think it has as much to do with "neccessity being the mother of......." as anything.

 

Its been a fairly organic process, I started taking pictures of the sculptures in progress, then playing around in Photoshop to see what it would look like if I cut one bit off etc - its also a very good way to "stand back" from the work and see it a fresh.

 

There is one really strange "photographic" thing about high quality marble, the best way I can describe it is that it appears to absorb light so much so that it screws around with every metering system I've ever tried, reigning back blown highlights has been a constant. Don't even bother trying to expose to the right.

[MikeD700]

I second that. A lightmeter measuring the light falling on the subject (instead of what the camera's lightmeter sees) might be very useful. Weston, Sekonic...

 

+ Learning what it is the lightmeter actually sees (in terms of black & white; I'm not talking 3d colour matrix Nikon lightmetering here).

[Clive Murray-White]

My oldish Gossen Variosix F seems to be quite a help, though incident metering is pretty much a waste of time on marble. The most reliable way seems to be, meter off the brightest highlight, call that white and go minus 4 from there, theoretically taking you to Zone 5 or 18 grey. Well its a start. The Informed Braille method works pretty well too!!! Always shoot Raw and bracket.

[Clive Murray-White]

Slightly of topic - but thanks for your help.

 

Marble self portrait with stereotypical December attachments

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[MikeD700]

My oldish Gossen Variosix F seems to be quite a help, though incident metering is pretty much a waste of time on marble. The most reliable way seems to be, meter off the brightest highlight, call that white and go minus 4 from there, theoretically taking you to Zone 5 or 18 grey. Well its a start. The Informed Braille method works pretty well too!!! Always shoot Raw and bracket.

 

I retract all I've said on this subject (how could I forget Gossen???). You're well up to scratch here Clive!

[WestMichigan]

Hmmm...

While I give lots of 'points' for his Gossen Meter and Using One! I don't know if I'd go quite as far as you in praising Clive's Metering Ability, Mike.

Recall that he's spoken of taking Incident Measurements of the light falling on his 'Subjects' and not the 'true' amount of light the Marble is Reflecting back to his camera. The tried and true formula's about metering people, for 'Portrait Lighting', and achieving 'Lighting Ratios' are based around the Reflective Properties Of Human Beings - Not the specularity of assorted Rocks. Mix in my suspicion that he's also mixed in some Manual Flash Illumination as a Fill or maybe 'Auto' Flash via an 'Always Deadly Accurate' in flash metering cell and the range of variables he's coping with via the 'grope method' is a bit daunting.

 

I think he might investigate getting a multi-function meter that can swing Reflected, Incident, and Flash Metering, all in one - maybe even one of those 'sweet' sekonic's which do all that & sport a nifty Spot Meter, too. I have an 'old' Sekonic 328 with an auxiliary 5 degree attachment along with incident and reflective heads to cover all my bases. Served me well for quite some time, but it needs a 'servicing' to fix an intermittent power switch issue. I may or may not have been a little rough on it clambering around with it hanging perpetually around my neck. I'd prefer not to directly incriminate myself in the matter.

 

The 'value' in getting a versatile light meter would probably be best measured by how easy or hard it is for Clive to come up with Lighting Setups and Camera Settings which give high quality image files. Investing a few hundred in a meter might not be worth it if he get's himself into the ball park of 'right' in a fairly straight forward manner, but if he's spending hours and hours putzing with 'stuff', I'd judge the time savings alone might make the Cost to Benefit Ratio quite appealing.

 

Anyway... It's past Midnight here in the American Midwest and I'm to tired to think on complex things any more!

Peace Folks

R. in Mi.

 

Edit: Uhm Does the F in his Meter's Name indicate Flash? If so then it might be that his Metering Methodologies are flawed not the Meter he's using.

I retract all I've said on this subject (how could I forget Gossen???). You're well up to scratch here Clive!

[WestMichigan]

Hmmm.... is it my imagination or does Mr Clive belong to the 'High Forehead Club'?

If so, I'm a Shiny Dome Member myself, welcome to the Club, Dues are paid annually and meetings are Third Tuesdays of every month.

Hee Hee Hee Hee

 

R. in Mi.

 

Slightly of topic - but thanks for your help.

 

Marble self portrait with stereotypical December attachments

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[WestMichigan]

Hello Clive -

- I was reading a different thread in 'our' M8 Forum and ended up following a link to member "AncientCityPhoto" and a review he did of the Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Pancake lens. I'd say you might want to give it a gander. He gives the Lens a positive review and from his posted images, I'd have no problem owning one either. BONUS! - The lens is like $400 (U.S.) and apparently was exceptionally well reviewed by Sean Reid, as well. Besides - it's tiny and cute as hell mounted on the camera and we all know how much that improves photos!

- I also must say I feel quite remiss in NOT having suggested Reid Reviews to you earlier. Jeesh. I haven't cobbled together the $$$ for the reasonable membership fee he charges - til my Disability situation is settled, I genuinely am quite poor my friends - but will be definitely joining his site.

 

Anyway the links are:

Review: Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar Pan II | Band Photography > Music Photographer > Tony Ventouris > MD DC VA > Panoramic > Portraits

Welcome to ReidReviews

 

Richard in Michigan

[Clive Murray-White]

Hi again Richard in M, High Forehead maybe but not the Shiny Dome Club more the Silver Fox.

 

During RichardX1's (now RichardM8.2) monster thread about getting an M9 Sean Reid came up quite often so I subscribed and find his reviews very helpful and feel that he is generally very even handed. Although I like his pictures they rarely do much to make you think "wow I'd better get that lens".

 

Your observations about my photographic technique are pretty much on the ball, as for investing in lighting equipment - I'm more inclined to modify the workshop's natural lighting as it would benefit both my photographic efforts and working. The translucent roofing panels are getting old and should be replaced, they could also be more advantageously located. I purposely built the workshop facing North (towards the sun here) simply because the light would be changing all the time throughout the year and this, I argued, would mean that I would compensate for this and make sculptures that handle changing light conditions very well.

 

Re: other Voigtlander 35s I think the lens that attracted me as much as the 1.2 was an Ultron 1.7 that's been discontinued. Also re: camera porn the incongruity of a obscene lump of glass on an M8 has some appeal too :-). Now I'm off to look at your links - thanks Clive