Erwin Puts' three-lens choice

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What a great comic vision! Spot on, too.

 

T/F - the effect emanating from the pepper came about because the film moved (popped) during the long exposure.

 

Regarding Puts' three lens - remember, he is not a photographer. Take his opinion as pandering to Leica.

 

I wonder what the definition of a photographer is in your opinion. I have seen lots of photo's of Erwin Puts so that makes him a photographer. I believe that he is making a living of taking photo's and writing about them. He has done so for decades. In fact the photo's he makes are IMHO sometimes better than mine. I call myself a photographer. Does that make me a photographer? Are you only a photographer if you have proven to be a very good one? I once read a book of Roger Scruton about the importance of Culture in which the writer tried to explain what Art was. He compares it with a joke. A joke is a joke. It still is a joke if the joke is a bad joke.

[Paulus]

I cannot believe that a non-photographer or one who does not thoroughly use a lens really knows whether it is suitable or not. We can go through MTF metrics, military targets, flare tests, you name it - but it doesn't mean one knows anything relevant about the lens. All Puts has done is highlight recent Leica lenses. Newer does not equate with better, and the sharpest lens might be the worst for some subjects.

 

Mr. Puts has gone over the edge on this one. Nonetheless, I do read his work because he is something of an institution and often has some stunning insights into the technology.

.

 

How do you know , that he doesn't thoroughly uses a lens? A lot of lenses and camera's , I do not know if all, he describes, Puts has owned ( that means he bought them ) for longer times and still uses them. Maybe in this time he became fascinated by them and studied hard to understand not only their effect, but also the way this effect was produced. That makes him a non- photographer?

[wizard]

I do own two of the three lenses that Puts recommends (I have no use for the 75mm length) but the very thinking is faulty.

...

 

Experienced photogs can see in several different focal lengths – people with SLR cameras and zooms see in none – ...

 

Lars, I fully concur with what you say except for your comment on SLR cameras and zooms. That comment actually contradicts what you said before. If you are an experienced photographer, you can see in several different focal lengths no matter what camera you are using. I use my M kit as well as my R kit, although almost never in combination, and my ability to see or think in different focal lengths is not impaired by using my R9 (or my SL2). On the R9, my most used lens is the 28 - 90, as is it such a fantastic lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[algrove]

I have the 18 and 25 ZMs, but I'm moving to Leica glass these days, so we'll see...

 

Me too. Frankly after getting the 35 FLE, I am ready for more Leica glass.

[lars_bergquist]

Lars, I fully concur with what you say except for your comment on SLR cameras and zooms. That comment actually contradicts what you said before. If you are an experienced photographer, you can see in several different focal lengths no matter what camera you are using [ ... ]

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

 

In theory, yes. But what I actually see is people raising the camera to the eye, pointing it in the general direction, and then working the zoom to see if they can find a picture somewhere out there. And it is mostly gone before they find it, if it can move at all.

 

You can learn, of course. But the above procedure does not really teach the user anything of that kind. So most of them don't learn. Most of us have no inner drive to learn, we need some kind of prodding. Me, I'm stark mad of course – after three quarters of a century, I still want to learn new things!

 

The old man from the Cretaceous Age (the Chalk and Talk Era)

[sblitz]

. . . and still wanting to learn is what keeps one young, regardless if you are from the era of flash powder (which i still have my doubts about )

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

. . . and still wanting to learn is what keeps one young, regardless if you are from the era of flash powder (which i still have my doubts about )

 

Glamour Photography ?

[asmith]

I had bought my first camera before Lars was born, but I assure you he gets his historical references right.

Alwyn

[bocaburger]

How do you know , that he doesn't thoroughly uses a lens? A lot of lenses and camera's , I do not know if all, he describes, Puts has owned ( that means he bought them ) for longer times and still uses them. Maybe in this time he became fascinated by them and studied hard to understand not only their effect, but also the way this effect was produced. That makes him a non- photographer?

 

I don't believe anybody can accuse Mr. Puts of being a "non-photographer". Anyone who picks up a camera and takes a picture is by definition a photographer, even if those pictures are of a cat and with the primary purpose to test the sharpness of a lens. The question, I think, is whether his expertise as a photographer qualifies him to make declarations as to which focal lengths best serve "Leica photography". I'm not really sure anyone has the authority to do that.

[jeverettfine]

 

Edward Weston could make a picture of a pepper so that the police came storming in, taking the print into custody...Has anybody ever asked what lens he did that with?

 

The old man from the Age of Tri-X

 

Weston used an 8 1/2 in. Zeiss lens for all his extreme close-up work on his 8x10. He found that he actually needed more DOF than the smallest f stop his 8 inch lens shutter would provide..so he cut from a black piece of tin a smaller hole,similar to a Waterhouse Stop,to give him even more Depth of field,which he in turn placed in the shutter. If there's a will there's a way!

 

Here is Edward Weston's description of making the photograph:

"It was a bright idea, a perfect relief for the pepper and adding reflecting light to important contours. I still had the pepper which caused me a week's work, I had decided I could go no further with it, yet something kept me from taking it to the kitchen, the end of all good peppers. I placed it in the funnel, focused with the Zeiss, and knowing just the viewpoint, recognizing a perfect light, made an exposure of six minutes, with but a few moments' preliminary work, the real preliminary was on in hours passed. I have a great negative, ‒ by far the best! It is a classic, completely satisfying, ‒ a pepper ‒ but more than a pepper; abstract, in that it is completely outside subject matter. It has no psychological attributes, no human emotions are aroused: this new pepper takes one beyond the world we know in the conscious mind. To be sure, much of my work has this quality...but this one, and in fact all of the new ones, take one into an inner reality, ‒ the absolute, ‒ with a clear understanding, a mystic revealment. This is the "significant presentation" that I mean, the presentation through one's intuitive self, seeing "through one's eyes, not with them": the visionary."

[ohnri]

50 Noct f/1

 

21 'lux

 

That is my usual cover everything kit on my M9.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[Guest]

Didn't some of the best "Leica photographers" use only one lens anyways ?

Didn't some of the best have a little P&S with a zoom on the side?

[pico]

I wonder what the definition of a photographer is in your opinion.

 

You may revert to a dictionary of your choice, or look at my work. I can make more available if you need it. So that little wonder of yours is satisfied or not - all opinion and as they say, everyone has one. Make my day.

 

I have seen lots of photo's of Erwin Puts so that makes him a photographer.

 

I have seen many more photographs by clueless Flickr picture takers. So what?

 

I believe that he is making a living of taking photo's and writing about them.

 

 

 

I cannot recall any series of photographs he has made to differentiate one lens from another in a meaningful way. I suspect he makes a minimal effort, making no consideration whatsoever for making a lens' rendition suit a subject. He's a target shooter.

 

He has done so for decades. In fact the photo's he makes are IMHO sometimes better than mine.

 

How marvelous! He makes better photos than you do. So who are you?

 

I call myself a photographer. Does that make me a photographer?

 

I could call myself handsome. Does that make me handsome? Methinks not. (enlarge image using whatever keystroke works on your computer. On my Mac is is command +

Do it a few times to get the groddy reality.

 

http://www.digoliardi.net/moi_jb.jpg

 

Those profound crows' feet about my eye comes about from fifty years of squinting while I say, "So you think that's a good photo?" (actually it is a Native American gene that makes it so.)

[Double Negative]

Honestly, I don't care who shoots what or why. But I do know what *I* shoot. And I'm very happy with my lil' collection of lenses.

[Paulus]

You may revert to a dictionary of your choice, or look at my work. I can make more available if you need it. So that little wonder of yours is satisfied or not - all opinion and as they say, everyone has one. Make my day.

 

 

 

I have seen many more photographs by clueless Flickr picture takers. So what?

 

 

 

 

I cannot recall any series of photographs he has made to differentiate one lens from another in a meaningful way. I suspect he makes a minimal effort, making no consideration whatsoever for making a lens' rendition suit a subject. He's a target shooter.

 

 

 

How marvelous! He makes better photos than you do. So who are you?

 

 

 

I could call myself handsome. Does that make me handsome? Methinks not. (enlarge image using whatever keystroke works on your computer. On my Mac is is command +

Do it a few times to get the groddy reality.

 

http://www.digoliardi.net/moi_jb.jpg

 

Those profound crows' feet about my eye comes about from fifty years of squinting while I say, "So you think that's a good photo?" (actually it is a Native American gene that makes it so.)

 

I think this it's a wonderful picture of you. I think lots of people would say you have an attractive countenance. Those profound crows' feet just make it more attractive.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello pico,

 

Nice photo.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[pgk]

To degenerate this thread and add in the customary car comparison;):

 

Someone might own several Ferraris, polish them every day, test their oil for metal particulates, check their exhaust emissions, and lots more - in fact be an expert oo their mechanics and tuning. The same person might drive them too - on the road - and carefully.

 

But in comparison to a professional racing driver such a person would not know which of them handles best for the particular racing style that the driver finds most effective. The driver needs a mechanically superb car but its not the be all and end all of the decision about which car to drive. Lenses are the same. Its only by extensively using them that someone finds which are his/her preferences, not by testing.

[IWC Doppel]

To degenerate this thread and add in the customary car comparison;):

 

Someone might own several Ferraris, polish them every day, test their oil for metal particulates, check their exhaust emissions, and lots more - in fact be an expert oo their mechanics and tuning. The same person might drive them too - on the road - and carefully.

 

But in comparison to a professional racing driver such a person would not know which of them handles best for the particular racing style that the driver finds most effective. The driver needs a mechanically superb car but its not the be all and end all of the decision about which car to drive. Lenses are the same. Its only by extensively using them that someone finds which are his/her preferences, not by testing.

 

Thats why I like Chris Harris, Steve Huff and I used to respect Alvin Gold Regarding my hobbies

[enboe]

I see wisdom in choosing one lens (my choice would be the new 35/FLE) or three lenses (Erwin's selections are great). At the other end of the scale, I decided to enumerate every lens I would like to shoot and/or own someday, resulting in my ideal 37 lens kit.

 

16/18/21, 18, 21/1.4, 21/2.8 asph, 21/3.4 asph, 24/1.4, 24/2.8, 28/2.0, 28/2.8 asph, 28/2.8, 28/35/50/4.0, 35/1.4 aspherical, 35/1.4 asph, 35/1.4 asph/fle, 35/2.0 v4, 35/2.0 asph, 35/2.5, 50/0.95, 50/1.0, 50/1.2, 50/1.4 asph, 50/2.0 v4, 50/2.0 v1, 50/2.5, 50/2.8, 50/3.5, 75/1.4, 75/2.0, 75/2.5, 90/2.0, 90/2.5, 90/2.8, 90/4 macro, 135/2.8, 135/3.4, 135/4.0 + a pinhole bodycap, made from a Leica body cap, of course.

 

Ah, the madness...

 

Eric

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

Jean-Loup Sieff, 21mm F2.8

Depardon, M6 + 50mm

Winogrand 28mm, lens was a Canon on a Leica.

Robert Frank, 50mm

Elliott Erwitt, 50mm

...

 

I am sure they used and experimented other lenses.

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Check out Sieff's site at: Jeanloup Sieff - Site officiel

 

and notice how many of his pictures are NOT made with a 21mm f/3.4 lens (or even with Leicas - a lot of Hassy 6x6 work as well). Sieff was certainly an expert at using the 21 (along with other lenses) but anyone who thinks it was his ONLY lens, or even a major part of his work, is ignorant of his total oeuvre.

 

You might also want to look into Erwitt's career as depicted in: Amazon.com: The private experience, Elliott Erwitt (Masters of contemporary photography) (9780500540251): Sean Callahan: Books

 

Of the pix on the cover, one (mother and child) is made with a Leica and probably a 50 - the other three are with:

 

• Boy and old man on bike: posed advertising picture for the French Tourism Office with Canon 200mm lens

• Jackie Kennedy at JFK's funeral: 600mm lens on unknown SLR

• Building facade: 6x9 view camera

 

In the technical section of that book, a picture shows Erwitt's pro Canon gear - a 15-kg suitcase-size Halliburton containing three F-1s and every focal length Canon made in 1975, from 17mm to 300mm. It also mentions that Erwitt used 35 and 90 lenses on his "personal" work with the Leica - and the 90mm "perspective" or reach is obvious in a great many of his comic Leica singles and series.

 

(BTW - I will put in a plug for the 35-year-old series that includes that Erwitt book - "Masters of Contemporary Photography." Even today it is still the best exploration of how great photographers work in the real world. Includes Leica photographers Mary Ellen Mark, Paul Fusco, and Will McBride).

 

Like H-CB (perhaps even more so) Depardon and Frank were film-makers as well as still photographers. I doubt they stuck to "50mm" in their movies.

 

I don't see a lot of "50mm" pictures through these links, and I'd sure hate to risk Beirut bullets on an "experiment."

 

http://roland.helie.free.fr/Images/Depardon.jpg

 

Raymond Depardon, Manhattan Out | We Heart; Lifestyle & Design Magazine

 

The myth of "one lens" is comforting to hobbyists, who like to putter around on their day off, put little serious effort into photography, yet can pride themselves that "such-and-such a great photographer only used one lens, so I need do no more."

 

The reality is that great photographers (Leica or otherwise) are great because they use any equipment (read: "lens") needed, bust (and often risk) their behinds on every job, haggle with editors and art directors, and generally practice photography 24/7. It is the skill and vision (not to mention income) developed through living photography to the fullest that allows them, when they choose, to go out with a single lens and still get great pictures. Not the other way around.

 

But I am sure also they did not procrastinate on which lens to use before every shot.

 

Here I agree. Which is why I like the spacing of 21-35-75. They are so clearly distinct in what they do that I am never confused about which lens to use. Not that other groupings wouldn't do equally well (18-28-50-90, 24-35-90, etc.)