Lenses that inspire you to take photos

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, ianman said:

don't you think that the seeing and using the light and composition are a tad more important than the choice of lens? So when you are walking and see an incredible scene with rays of sunlight shining through the clouds, illuminating the far away mountain top and sweeping majestically across the hills you think.... nah, my lens is too big.

Of course the choice of lens is important depending on the subject you are going to photograph, it's experience and knowledge that then guide that choice.

Agree. It's pretty basic. Context, composition, light are the three main ingredients of a photo, between others. Give me any 35mm, and I will still inspire to take pictures. Cause the exciting light, composition, and story. Now, give me my favorite lens but none of the three above, bye-bye inspiration. 😆 
Lenses are just beautiful tools, and we all know that the differences between lenses of the same FL are huge. You can't have the same effects with a 35 FLE or a 35AA. But I believe the photographer's vision is the key. 
But as always, that's me. Many will disagree, and this is a beautiful thing. De gustibus, you know.
Good vibes and happy June to everyone.

[pippy]

28 minutes ago, ianman said:

...but seriously don't you think that the seeing and using the light and composition are a tad more important than the choice of lens? So when you are walking and see an incredible scene with rays of sunlight shining through the clouds, illuminating the far away mountain top and sweeping majestically across the hills you think...

"Damme! Wish I'd brought the Thambar instead of the 90 Summicron!"???.....

Yes. Yes I do. Apart from the fact I don't have a Thambar...

Philip.

Edited June 1, 2021 by pippy

[ianman]

ha! Nothing a bit of smeared vaseline won't fix!

edit: that should also help with all the terrible loca, laca, coca cola issues of the APO

Edited June 1, 2021 by ianman

[pippy]

12 minutes ago, ianman said:

ha! Nothing a bit of smeared vaseline won't fix!...

Black(*) nylon stockings are always worth a try as well. Assuming you can persuade the 'other half' to whip them off for a bit...

Philip.

* EDIT : White nylons would tend to spread the highlights too much.

Edited June 1, 2021 by pippy

[Capuccino-Muffin]

49 minutes ago, pippy said:

Both images were snapped by the same 'Artist'. Both images snapped within a few seconds of each other on the same body with the same settings.

Do these images look the same to you? Do you think they were both shot using the same lens? Does the rendering look identical?

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!

Just rattled these snaps off a short time ago and hardly 'Great Art' but creating 'Great Art' wasn't the point of the exercise.

Philip.

I see. So, first is summilux and second is a chinese equivalent?

Or vice-versa?

I’m not sure which I am supposed to prefer. Or am I even supposed to prefer one over the other?

Could we see a difference between nikon 50mm f1.8 and summicron? Would the nikon be mistaken for the summicron by connoisseurs in a blind test? We’ve already seen this happen...

 

[pippy]

Just now, Capuccino-Muffin said:

I see. So, first is summilux and second is a chinese equivalent?...Or vice-versa?...I’m not sure which I am supposed to prefer. Or am I even supposed to prefer one over the other?...

Both are Leica lenses. Both images were shot at f2. Neither image is intrinsically 'better' than the other; the lenses simply render differently. And the different rendering might be fundamentally important to how an Artist might wish co capture / portray an image / idea.

This is the only point that the exercise was intended to illustrate.

Philip.

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

50 minutes ago, pippy said:

And the different rendering might be fundamentally important to how an Artist might wish co capture / portray an image / idea.

Absolutely! Super agree. I may choose shooting with 58 at f/2.8, instead of having a 24-70/2.8 at 58, right?😜 For many reason. As your samples. Picture #1 is nice. Picture #2 same, but better. I prefer it because the unique OOF rendering. And because this lens special character, you may be inspire to take photos, I get it. The lens is very important. But I believe we think about what we want to photograph first, then we choose the lens. The why, the what, then the how. Please help me to understand this, it's an important topic 🙂

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Dennis
typos

[Stef63]

In this same subforum about lenses there is a sticky thread named “the view through older glass”.  Almost 7500 posts.  Probably these photographers were only inspired by the subject, the light, the composition?  Or were they not?  I don’t know but this thread is running since 2012 and brings me since then joy following it. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Stef63

[Capuccino-Muffin]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Capuccino-Muffin
Double post

[ianman]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Black(*) nylon stockings are always worth a try as well. Assuming you can persuade the 'other half' to whip them off for a bit...

oooh, now you're talking!! That is inspiring!! 😇

I think that next time I'm over I should drop off my Thambar for a holiday with Uncle Pippy.

Edited June 1, 2021 by ianman

[a.noctilux]

Philip,

this one has strong Summarit 1.5/50 caracteristic

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!

 

If I'm wrong, so what 🤷‍♂️

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Steven said:

Anyway, we should stop arguing about this and just agree to disagree. Some people are more impacted than other by the choice of lens. Some people put the accent somewhere else, such as light, composition and story. No one is wrong, no one is right. 

The OP asked which lens inspired us to take photos. I think this is not only about the look that the lens produces, but also about ergonomic, for example. Some people are inspired to take pictures with the 28 summaron because it's so compact. These same people would not feel like going out on walk with their camera if they had the 28mm Summilux. I think that those inspired by lenses should contribute, and those who think that we are totally stupid for caring about lenses should go read other threads instead of coming to insult those who care and tell them they are immature newbies. 

I have read many many times on this forum the testimonies of some people saying that they stick with the M cameras not because of the image quality they produce, nor for their features obvisouly, but just because they enjoy the experience of shooting an M. Because shooting an M is inspiring. More than shooting an A7RIV or a Canon R5, for most of us here. So if a camera body can inspire you to shoot, why couldn't a lens inspire you as well ? 

Agreed Steven. I happen to prefer using lenses on a M that are small, lightweight and don't obscure the viewfinder, or at least do so minimally, hence I use the 28 Summaron, the 28 Elmarit, 35 summicron etc etc, all by choice rather than the larger faster lenses some of which I own but now rarely use on my digital M's. How they "render" isn't as important to me as it may be for others. Nowadays most lenses that are available for the M's are more than good enough, it's the image and whatever emotion it portrays that's the "thing". At times I do appreciate wide aperture shallow depth of field for sure, but more so in cinematography where movement, gesture and sound comes into play for the whole mix rather than photography where it does not..... and you're right Steven, DP's are extremely picky when it comes to choosing lenses for film-work and so they should be, but as I said, it's a different world with different parameters to bear in mind. So here I disagree with Nowhereman some, ( a rare occasion! ),  and say that there is for me quite a difference in approach between cinematography and still photography at least from my experience in earning my living behind the lens in both fields for a long time.

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by petermullett
spelling

[pippy]

35 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Philip,...this one has strong Summarit 1.5/50 caracteristic....

If I'm wrong, so what 🤷‍♂️

But you are not wrong, Arnaud, so Life is Sweet!

Yes; I should have filled-in a bit earlier but, well, I was having dinner and Dinner (as you will appreciate!) is a serious business!

Both snaps were taken using M-mount lenses. First image was taken with V4 Summicron; second with (as you correctly discerned and identified) a Summarit dating to 1953.

Had I used the Summarit at f1.5 the background would have been even more 'characterful' but to do so would have been cheating (and I hate people who cheat).

I hope no-one - and especially Cappucino-Muffin - thinks I was having a side-swipe at them in posting these images because such was not my intent but I think that it's clear that the choice of lens selected for the job in hand can make a big difference. Going back a bit to the exchange I shared with Ian (ianman) in post #185 is, perhaps, the perfect example of this.

One of the absolute stand-out photographs I've ever seen posted in the forum was one of Ian's photographs which does, indeed, portray;

"an incredible scene with rays of sunlight shining through the clouds, illuminating the far away mountain top and sweeping majestically across the hills..."

...and it so happens that Ian took the photo using a 90mm Thambar. Not a 90mm Summicron APO. A Thambar. Would it have 'worked' as well / fulfilled his artistic 'vision' in quite the same way had it been taken using the other optical-formula lens?...

Discuss!......

Philip.

Edited June 1, 2021 by pippy

[Dennis]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

second with (as you correctly discerned and identified) a Summarit dating to 1953.

Is this lens, right? 

 

I'm seeing that the lens character inspires you to take photos. And it totally makes sense. For me the story, the context always comes first. But why not be inspired by both? Am I diplomatic enough?

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Dennis
added a sentence

[Ernstk]

3 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

 The rest of the movie was shot on Red Monstro with Leica M 0.8 lenses. Interesting Leica/Canon combo.

What is a Leica M 0.8 lens? It's not one that I've come across.

Ernst

[Ernstk]

3 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

https://www.leitz-cine.com/product/m-08

Thanks.That's very interesting. Are they the same optical formula as the M lenses that we know?

Ernst

[pippy]

28 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Is this lens, right?...

I'm seeing that the lens character inspires you to take photos. And it totally makes sense. For me the story, the context always comes first. But why not be inspired by both? Am I diplomatic enough?...

Dennis! You are not merely diplomatic; you are correct in terms of the lens used; you completely understand that 'context' and 'story' are not mutually exclusive concepts where taking photographs is concerned and you have brought the thread back On Topic with regards to 'Which Lenses Inspire You?".

The Summarit is an intriguing, fascinating lens. Had I taken both snaps at f8 the chances are that the rendering of both lenses would have been similar enough not to have excited any interest / comments whatsoever. I've used the Summarit as a 'normal' everyday 50mm lens and, though lacking a bit in some technical pixel-peeping areas in a back-to-back with the Summicron, is a very capable performer indeed.

But - and as we've discussed in the earlier thread - it is really only when used wide-open (or thereabouts) that the Summarit's individualism can be fully appreciated.

To that end - and germaine to the OP - when I decide to take the Summarit for an outing that choice will have, to a certain extent, already framed my mindset and 'vision' for the day ahead. It can still operate 'normally' but 'crazy' is always going to be there as an option if called-on.

Philip.

Edited June 1, 2021 by pippy

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Dennis, back to you... I just received from Amazon my copy of Suffering of the light... Still slowly getting through it. What a piece of art. Thank you.  

Awesome! Glad you like it. Welcome to the "dark" side 😇 

 

[Dennis]

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Indeed.
Just FYI, the new Netflix movie Army of the dead by Zack Snyder was shot almost 50% with Canon's "dream lens" 50/0.95 from the sixties WIDE OPEN. Only 25,000 units of this 50mm f/0.95 were produced. Zack even took the DoP role, he said "he did not want to put any DoP through this". But he mainly did it just because he could. The rest of the movie was shot on Red Monstro with Leica M 0.8 lenses. Interesting Leica/Canon combo.

Yes, and the movie it's just average! I like a few Zack Snyder's movies, with Watchmen be my favorite. But IMHO, his last movie is bad. IMDB scores it at 5.9/10.

The wide open "all movie" effect, didn't work very well in my opinion. It was just a way to put a WOW factor and a strong visual impact to compensate all other weaknesses: poor story, overrated zombie movie, average actors. I'm a Marvel and DC kind of fan, I had Snyder expectations 🙂  but I watched half movie. The bokeh 0.95 effect for all movie, too much. A little annoying.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Indeed.
Just FYI, the new Netflix movie Army of the dead by Zack Snyder was shot almost 50% with Canon's "dream lens" 50/0.95 from the sixties WIDE OPEN. Only 25,000 units of this 50mm f/0.95 were produced. Zack even took the DoP role, he said "he did not want to put any DoP through this". But he mainly did it just because he could. The rest of the movie was shot on Red Monstro with Leica M 0.8 lenses. Interesting Leica/Canon combo.

"he did not want to put any DoP through this" Perhaps so for the DoP, but it had to be a hellish shoot for the AC/focus-puller.........A good focus puller on such a shoot is worth their weight in gold.