Antique lenses - what's all the fuss? 100+ year old brass lenses tested side by side
Those brass lenses always look enticing don't they? For large format, I often wonder what qualities they'll bring to my photography.
Firstly, here's the link to Mel's portfolio - purpleport.com/portfolio/melb
Ok, on to the lenses - I took out four lenses, and photographed with them side by side, to see what you get from them.
- Ross of London Teleros 9 inch f5.5 (c. 1924)
- Emil Busch Rapid Aplanat No 2, 8 inch f6 (c. 1905)
- Perken, Son and Rayment Rapid Rectilinear 9x7 Optimus (c. 1895)
- Oscar Simon Anastigmat Casket lens set (c. 1905)
I also did a couple of "control" shots with my Schneider Symmar S 210mm f5.6 (c. 1982)
And I learned two main things - lens designers and makers 120 years ago were pretty frikkin clever, and pretty darn good at making lenses!
And I also learned that there is a certain quality to some of these lenses, that's for sure. Sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what it is about the images that the lens produce that makes them different, or why some imperfections make a photograph more or less desirable.
But they definitely look a little different.
Actually I learned a third thing, and that is that in order to get a good idea of what the individual characteristics of a lens are, I really need to use them quite a few times.
After three or four shoots with the Emil Busch Rapid Aplanat lens, I'm starting to get a bit of a feel for it, and starting to understand what it's good at and what sort of effect it will cast on my images.
Long story short, as with almost every other aspect of my photography, medium format and large format, my inconclusive testing and inaccurate fumbling only barely scratches the surface of what there is to learn about all this.
But what I love about shooting film, and analogue photography, is that there is a limit to how much one can "learn", a limit to the specific details, that are transferrable, and a limit to one's ability to "know" everything about any sub-genre within analogue photography.
What I'm trying to say is that, especially with these old lenses, between their age, the manufacturing, the camera I'm using, the film i'm using, the processing of the film, the printing or scanning of the negatives, etc etc., every image is going to be unique.
And because there are so many variables, not least the variability that I introduce every time I pick up a camera, I feel like it's best for me to approach each shoot not only with a technical head, and a desire for technical quality, but also with a very personal approach, and a need to let the shoot, and each image, be what it will be, under the guidance of my hand, inexpert or otherwise.
Getting deep. I'll stop. Let me know what you think of the lenses!
(these were all shot on my Stenopeika Air Force 4x5, which you can find here: www.stenopeika.com/product/ai...
Пікірлер: 42
The Perken Son & Rayment shot just turned out wonderfully. Great work!
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
Thanks! Was that your favourite? I'm not sure that was my best shot of the afternoon. I shot two sheets with that lens, and the other one was a total disaster... so I need to get that lens out and try again with it!
Interesting, the images are great. Hope I can get my hands on some of the old lenses in the future.
That’s a great test/comparison. Personally I use 4x5 SLRs with focal plane shutters. But there are great behind-the-lens shutters which would help with consistency. Using glass plates or tintypes will also help, they’re something like ISO 2, long exposure times.
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
I have a handful of shutters here. I actually didn't think about trying to use them for this shoot. But I am inspired to dig them out and see what I can do! Having ISO 2 glass plates would definitely help with the speed at which I was having to move my hand... but I think I need to get hold of one of those posing stands that they used to use back int he day, to keep your subject stock still for longer exposures! Sitting the model down would be a big help as well of course!
@gertbehrmann4877
10 ай бұрын
I did some wet plate collodion plates a few years back, 4x5, bright sunlight, no shutter, portraits, sitting. Sitting down probably helped, but the main thing, at least in my opinion, was the relatively long exposure, much easier to handle (excuse the pun). I would definitely recommend a shutter though, repeatability and such. And you won’t butch the camera accidentally.@@the120ist
Great video and fascinating subject. I have only recently tried LF photography and my first lens is a 1900 Beck brass lens, also no shutter but my 1900s 1/2 plate camera came with a nice mahogany TP roller blind shutter which is amazing in itself and sits on the end of the lens. Love the look of these old lenses and dont see the need to use more modern versions just yet. Love the channel, one of the best out there :)
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
I actually started LF with a 1920s CZ Tessar taken from a 9x12 camera that I stumbled across. That came in a shutter, which was perfectly working. But then my thirst for gear got the better of me and god knows how many lenses I have now! That first lens was perfect though. Great that you have the roller blind shutter, is it a universal one? Could it go on any lens? I've got a sort of manual leaf shutter thing which was designed to go in front of the lens, just finished servicing it after doing this video, so I could take that out next time I'm out with one of these lenses. Whenever I'm watching an auction, I'm always seeing more and more fascinating little bits from yesteryear that i want to get my hands on and try! I envy your ability to be happy with what you've got and not keep looking!
@001smudge
10 ай бұрын
@@the120ist The Thornton Pickard shutter I have is for half-plate cameras but unlike the ones with a removable lens board, this was designed to have a rubber adapter for the size of lens required to fit on. The rubber ring in mine had gone solid over the years so I replaced it with a silicon version which works well. BTW, I am also constantly watching auctions for vintage gear as I have enough 35mm stuff now!! GS.
Very interesting how you just uncovered the lens and covered it lol. I am shocked they turned out so good :). Great photos
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
That's pretty standard practice with these barrel lenses with no shutters, unless you have a shutter you can attach to it, you don't have much choice! However, what people don't usually do is shoot portraits of people standing like that, and not wide open... because standing portrait subjects wobble a bit, and wide open apertures mean short 'shutter' times, which is not easy to achieve! I'm surprised so many of them turned out too! Although I didn't show you the ones that didn't ;)
I have the 4x5 (5x4 ;-) ) version of the Optimus, quite like it, particularly with dry plates. Yours seems to be a very good lens as well!
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
That was the first time I used that lens. I shot two sheets with it, one came out ok and the other one I messed up, so I only showed you one. I think I need to spend some time working with that lens to get a proper feel for it!
The stops are most likely US Stops rather than f stops - same ratio just different numbering.
@the120ist
13 күн бұрын
Did the US do it like that? The numbers on one of the lenses are simply 1-6. Would that be normal for a US lens?
great showing of such old barrel lenses ( as they are not in a shutter), and FYI for others out there a 'waterhouse stop' is a precisely drilled small hole in a plate, akin to a pinhole cameras' opening, which serves in these lenses as the iris, you don't have variable blades, but instead a series of fixed hole plates, which are inserted into the lens, come time to shoot.
@the120ist
8 ай бұрын
Thanks, I thought they performed well. Thanks for explaining waterhouse stops, I didn't go into that in the video, just threw the term out there like everyone knew what they were! So a useful explanation, thank you.
that was impressive: 1/10 of a second without a shutter! Nice video.
@the120ist
7 ай бұрын
Ha ha! I didn’t show you all the times I messed it up! I think I need to make a purpose-built lens cap, or lens cover, specifically for doing hand-exposures. When I use the lens caps for the lens, the fit is too narrow, too tight, and I keep banging the lens an causing motion blur. Maybe I’ll 3D print something. Add it to the list of jobs I need to do!
Nice test. You mention inch designations on some of your lens. Would you have any idea what this is for? I use a Turner-Reich F6.8 from around 1900 on a Century 8x10, the lens barrel is marked 18 inches any info would be helpful thanks.
@the120ist
9 ай бұрын
As I understand it, is it not just the imperial measurement of what we now measure using the metric system? So a 9 inch lens = 228mm, and 18 inch lens = 457mm.
This was a really nice comparison with a wonderful model. I'm sure this sent a bunch of people over to ebay for some searching.
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
Thanks Gregg! If there's one thing I took away from this, it's that trying to judge the character of a lens probably can't be done in three sheets! More to come from these lenses.
The photo at 11.37 is great even by modern standards
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
Some of these lenses really perform incredibly well! I was particularly impressed with the Oscar Simon lens at 15.07 - that's not a very well thought-of lens, you can pick them up pretty cheaply, but it's 120 years old and could easily be mistaken for a 20 year old lens. Just amazing what lens makers were achieving 120 years ago!
That was really interesting. The lenses really didn't show any particular character that made them particularly desirable to try to use, which I'm quite surprised about. The shots turned out really well as individual items but I think your shoot also illustrates equally well that old things aren't necessarily worth going to the effort to keep trying to use.
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
Don't say it!! I want to use the characterful antique lenses!! But you're right of course. The big message here is that 120 years ago, people we insanely good at making lenses! So much so that we've only really made incremental advances in the ensuing century, getting things a little sharper or a little more consistent. The mechanics of lenses have changed considerably of course, as well as coatings etc. But you're right, in terms of the actual glass, it would take a keen eye and a magnifying glass to see much difference between a lens made in 1895 and a lens made in 1985. Which is crazy!
@gertbehrmann4877
10 ай бұрын
There are in fact older lenses that are more characterful. I think the issue here, if one wants to call it that, is that the lenses used here are all later than 1900, and with a maximum aperture of f/5.5 are not that fast. Everything is more or less sharp at that kind of aperture. Lenses before 1890, or thereabouts, had a limited range of glass available, which limited what could be done with those glass types. Using lenses with wider apertures, and using them wide open would make a difference.@@the120ist
@melody3741
10 ай бұрын
@@the120istI thought the first one the teleros seemed particularly soft, but in a way I did not like.
@Autorange888
16 күн бұрын
@@the120ist It's not quite right to assume merely minor advances were made to lenses, an achromatic lens will lend a different character to a photograph than to a coated Schneider. Actually the anastigmat became the pinnacle of lens design, and even the latest digital lenses are anastigmats. One of the oldest interesting lenses is Petzval, the centre is pinsharp, all around it are indefinite, swirling effects. Coatings were only more widely used after WWII. Ross was one of the high quality British lens makers, they also made lenses in WWII for reconaissance by Spitfires, these lenses are medium wide angle and are uncoated so are best used with an appropiate filter. If you can't see any difference between a lens from 1895 and 1985 then you are not using the vintage lenses to optimum effect.
one question, what shutter are you planning to use for these lenses?, a packard, or a sinar auto shutter?, as that would allow you to use timed speeds, and not just rely on your hat!!
@the120ist
8 ай бұрын
Currently the only plans I have to use a shutter with these are sketches for a home made, crude shutter! For now I'm ok with using my hat though... it's limiting, for sure, but it's working for me right now. And when it stops working for me, I can actually make a start building one!
I like the Busch lens the best.
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
I agree, that's my fave too. Sharp enough to be good, but with a bit of character to it as well!
No link for her?
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
Oops!! My bad. Fixing now!
Most impressive are your handy shutter skills. Then the Ross of London Teleros 9 inch f5.5 follows as a close second.
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
Ha ha! I didn't show you all the ones I screwed up by banging the camera, or missing with the lens cap! Trying to be fast and accurate. I got better at it, it's all in the wrist! :) I'm big fan of the Teleros as well. But it is 20 years younger than the rest of them... that feels like cheating!
@danienelphoto
10 ай бұрын
@@the120ist Haha, I bet. It's inevitable. Whenever I do a timelapse or looong exposure, I always bump the camera or something.
Have u thought of jury rigging up a behind-lens universal shutter? Note I’m not using a brand name… surely not any harder than battery hacking ;-) Great vid as always
@the120ist
10 ай бұрын
Thank you! Back last year I was some way into designing a rubber band or gravity-driven plywood shutter, but got distracted... for a change. But my plan was always to make it super thin and mount on front of the lens. If I recall, that's about where I got, and was trying to figure out how to keep the weight of the shutter itself low enough that it didn't just snap off the lens every time it dropped. I actually have several shutters here, I have an Ilex 3, and this massive manual thing that I found somewhere. But the problem has always been attaching to the lenses. Again, haven't thought about it for a while, but between the last time I thought about it and now, I have started using a 3D printer. So perhaps it's time to dig out the old plans and see what I can come up with! Thanks for the nudge!
@bernardkealey6449
10 ай бұрын
@@the120ist awesome…. Crazy idea - if printing, can you sacrifice/modify a bellows to allow a 2nd front standard to hold the shutter? Utterly stupid idea; gravity/rubber band KindaTricky™ to calibrate for replicable results. But possibly achievable with…. Pyro charges. (If this made u laugh, or gave u the idea for an April Fools video it wasn’t a total waste of keystrokes)