Jump to content

Winogrand’s mystery lens


lefse

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Garry Winogrand shot colour as well as black & white which is why he often used two cameras with the same focal  length lenses....one loaded with B&W film and the other with transparency film. His archive contains around 45,000 colour transparencies according to the NYT

 

(https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/garry-winogrands-nonstop-and-unedited/)

 

I remember how it was mentioned somewhere what he lost many of his slides, because they there burned. It was no information provided in details, but I guess I know why from my (and many others) experience. He used those slides in classes and back then you can't keep slide projected for long time. 

 

Again, same as with his prints, on his slides I saw how lens was far from perfect. Many of GW slides I have seen in Arizona State archive have very heavy vignetting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember how it was mentioned somewhere what he lost many of his slides, because they there burned. It was no information provided in details, but I guess I know why from my (and many others) experience. He used those slides in classes and back then you can't keep slide projected for long time.

 

Again, same as with his prints, on his slides I saw how lens was far from perfect. Many of GW slides I have seen in Arizona State archive have very heavy vignetting.

At least 40 slides burned (the only exhibitited color work shown in his lifetime) during the 1967 New Documents show at MoMa.

Attached to this post is what MoMa believe are his own duplicates from that show. They can be viewed at his archives at the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson, AZ.

 

And you are of course right, the slides show significant vignetting. Though too be fair, I’ve used both Winogrand’s Leitz Super-Angulon 21mm f/4 and the current Super-Elmar 21mm f/3.4: the difference mostly lies in digital correction of corner brightness.

 

The slides obviously show more vignetting as they are in color, and have not gone through any darkroom manipulation.

 

I guess my opinion is that even though newer computer aided lens designs are inherently better (technically), the difference isn’t overwhelming. Even when printed on 11x14 paper, which was what photographers like Winogrand and Friedlander usually maxed out at back then.

400-speed film only gives you that much detail, so definition beyond a certain point doesn’t really matter.

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!

Edited by lefse
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

...could it possibly be a Canon 25mm f/3.5?

 

Another fine lens from Japan. As far as I can tell - a lot of professionals chose Leica cameras, with Canon (or even Nikkor) lenses attached.

 

I find it hard to believe that a professional wouldn't be able to afford the Leitz glass. Couldn't it be that the Japanese lenses were considered better? It's not like you saved a fortune on buying Canon glass back then...

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!

Edited by lefse
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Summaron 2.8/35 has same body as Summicron (8 element, first model), this may be the best candidate, here.

That’s what I thought, but I own a Summaron so I’m thinking more confirmative than exclusive

Link to post
Share on other sites

$189.14 in 2017's money. A great deal to some. Not to some others. Just like now.

 

I had it twice. Goggled and regular. For curiosity first time and because it was cheap second time. And not going to get another one. 

Then I asked ex-Midland Leica person and for many years shop owner, Leica service person, he told me - "this is cheap lens, Leica made plenty of them".

 

I think GW used 28mm Canon's because they seems to be made in greater numbers, less expensive and maybe better as it was mentioned here. At least they were small. I had Elmarit-M 28 2.8 similar to one late Winogrand has. Honestly, I think, Leica only started to make good street photography, travel 28 lens with small version of Elmarit-M ASPH. IMO.

Edited by Ko.Fe.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The photograph taken with the mystery lens has been found. It seems to be from a wide angle lens, judging by the buildings in the background (falling over).
If I were to guess, perhaps the Leitz 21mm f/4.

Also, it is seemingly taken a few moments before the more famous black & white shot (taken with a 35mm).

The color photo is part of the 'Garry Winogrand: Color' exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum.

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, farnz said:

The contrast in the colour picture looks to be too high to be a Super-Angulon.  Whites and blacks blown on film in the same picture seems unlikely for the SA.

Pete.

Pete, I wouldn't use the contrast of a color slide original (in 1967, Kodachrome II or X), that has clearly been duplicated onto another slide film at least once (note rounded slide-mount corners included in the "dupe") and then digitally "rephotographed" yet again (camera or scanner) so that we can see a digital copy here on the web - as being any useful indicator of the contrast of the original lens used.

Every one of those generations is going to degrade dynamic range by a stop or more. And that assumes the person doing the copy generations was technically proficient, and was using a professional duping setup (at a minimum: contrast masking or a Repronar with fill-flash unit, laser drum-scanner, etc.).

I agree this is not a 21mm picture, SA or otherwise. Anyone who has studied Winogrand' work knows that he had settled on the 28mm by 1967 and never used a 21 by that date. (He experimented with 21mm earlier in the 1960s - liked the FoV, didn't like the constant keystoning distortion, quit using one).

Edited by adan
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adan said:

Pete, I wouldn't use the contrast of a color slide original (in 1967, Kodachrome II or X), that has clearly been duplicated onto another slide film at least once (note rounded slide-mount corners included in the "dupe") and then digitally "rephotographed" yet again (camera or scanner) so that we can see a digital copy here on the web - as being any useful indicator of the contrast of the original lens used.

Good point, Andy, I'd missed that.

Pete.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a 21,  could be 28 but I don't think there is a 28 like the one that appears in the picture with Winograd… so 35 again, and the above pics could have been taken with the Canon on the camera that Winograd has in hand. The other lens to me has a typical Leitz style and judging by length is a 35 - Summicron or Summaron.

About carrying two 35s … well he probably liked the focal and had it on both cameras… one loaded with BW Film, the other with color dia Film

The chrome Canon 25 in post #23 is too compact.. and has a vertical DOF scale, while the Winograd chrome lens seems to me that has the  slanted DOF scale - typical of BM Summicron - Summaron 35 of the era.

Edited by luigi bertolotti
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Gary Winogrand as a teacher for a semester, Harry Callahan was on sabbatical. Anyway he would always come to class with 2 Leicas, and place them lens down on a table. Mostly he would say he had a 35 and a 28, but sometimes a 50 and others a 25. In 1973 he would have both loaded with b&w. At least that is what he told us.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

I had Gary Winogrand as a teacher for a semester, Harry Callahan was on sabbatical. Anyway he would always come to class with 2 Leicas, and place them lens down on a table. Mostly he would say he had a 35 and a 28, but sometimes a 50 and others a 25. In 1973 he would have both loaded with b&w. At least that is what he told us.

Amazing to have had Winogrand as a teacher. 
 

how was he as a teacher? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

I had Gary Winogrand as a teacher for a semester, Harry Callahan was on sabbatical. Anyway he would always come to class with 2 Leicas, and place them lens down on a table. Mostly he would say he had a 35 and a 28, but sometimes a 50 and others a 25. In 1973 he would have both loaded with b&w. At least that is what he told us.

Ah, that's very cool. I've read som essays from students of his. If you ever get the time, I'm sure many would like to read about that experience.

Mason Resnick wrote about a workshop with Winogrand here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Not a 21,  could be 28 but I don't think there is a 28 like the one that appears in the picture with Winograd… so 35 again, and the above pics could have been taken with the Canon on the camera that Winograd has in hand. The other lens to me has a typical Leitz style and judging by length is a 35 - Summicron or Summaron.

About carrying two 35s … well he probably liked the focal and had it on both cameras… one loaded with BW Film, the other with color dia Film

The chrome Canon 25 in post #23 is too compact.. and has a vertical DOF scale, while the Winograd chrome lens seems to me that has the  slanted DOF scale - typical of BM Summicron - Summaron 35 of the era.

I agree that it looks like a Leitz lens. And based on what farnz and adan says, probably not a 21mm.
But isn't it to wide-looking for 35mm? I have the 28mm 2.8 LTM from Canon that he used. A good lens, but shorter than the one pictured.

Here's a picture of him with the 21mm and a Nikon finder, from 1971 (Arnold Crane's book 'On The Other Side Of The Camera').

 

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!

Edited by lefse
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...