In praise of cheaper lenses

[paul_k]

Just for fun 

While my preferred lens for shooting fashion nowadays is the 1.4/58mm AFS, back in the 80's when I made my first steps into fashion photography, long lenses  were 'the vogue', eg the images of Hans Feurer with a wide open 2.8/300mm (I think) , and the ones of Eddie Kohli with a 500mm mirror reflex (sure of that one, due to the 'doughnut' rings in the background)

Loved the look of the 500mm, and of course looked around for what was on offer
Nikon had an excellent one, while the Russian MTO, despite being hardly available, also had something of a mythical reputation

The Nikon one in those days cost around Dutch Guilder 1,000 (to put that into perspective, my 1980 bought F2AS was Dutch Guilders 1,453, and my FE I bought together with it Dutch Guilders 739) while, with no internet and eBay round yet in those days, the MTO was basically as readily available as a unicorn

So being a poor photography student, my only options in those days were the lower quality lenses of at that time not fully matured third party lens manufacturers like Sigma (based upon my experiences from that period I, despite the raving reviews, still am very hesitant to touch one of those), Tamron and in this case Panagor
Ran into two versions of the Panagor, a 5.6/300mm (still regret not having bought that one) and the 8/500mm, which I got at 'only' somewhere around Dutch Guilders 250

Wasn't a perfect fit though
While it had an F mount, the filter holder as well as the  lens foot mounting ring were too big and got in the way of the prism of the FE (didn't even try mounting it on the F2AS until I got a DE1 prism as obviously the Photomic DP12 was way be too big)
But with the 'low' cost in mind and  youthful recklessness I took care of that cutting of part of the filter holder with an iron saw, and filing of a portion of the lens mount ring using a big file, even if that meant I was only able to mount the lens for shooting in portrait mode (which fortunately I virtually always did when shooting fashion)

Anyway, pictures looked like this
( Warning, not the nowadays mandatory Zeiss/Sigma 'sharp from corner to corned' 'high contrast' kind of image rendering  )

[atpaula]

For this kind of pictures I think sharpness and optical perfection are much less important than framing, background and light quality.
I don´t think Ansel Adams and HC Bresson used perfect lenses to produce perfect pics.
Nice pics btw.

[armando_m]

My personal preference is to avoid to much sharpness when shooting women, which I often obtain by keeping the lens wide open
(and why I like less and less every day shooting with studio flashes at F8)

I really like the second shot
It must be hard to direct the model with a 500 lens , or you need a megaphone

[Matthew Currie]

You had much better results than I did.  Most of the mirror lenses I looked at would not clear the prism on a Nikon Photomic finder at all, so I skipped them. Sometime around 1970, there started to be imported some pretty nice looking Russian lenses, brands forgotten, and you could get a 300 mm. one in a nice wooden box for cheap.  The pictures in magazines looked quite nice.  I went to New York and tried one.   But no fit, no buy.  Years later I finally found a 500/F8 (third party name forgotten) that looked pretty good, and fit, at a not too awful used price, which seemed pretty good in the store.  When I actually got around to trying it on wildlife and the like, it fell flat.  Maybe for fashion it would have worked, but for wildlife,  it was down in the vacation shapshot level at best. Oh look, I saw a swan.  It probably had feathers too.  I was so disappointed, after all those years. 

[gryphon1911]

Every lens has a purpose to someone, somewhere at some time.

Early on I craved sharpness.  The more sharp the better.  I'd dream of the high end Nikon and Zeiss primes.
Now, I crave a certain look and find that those looks come from vintage lenses.  Old pre AI, AIS, and first gen D type lenses for the times I want AF.  Sharp enough is fine now and rendering is more important.

To your images...I love them.  They tell a great story, the processing is very pleasing...just good stuff IMHO.  thanks for sharing.

[Frank Fremerey]

Wonderful shots, Paul. The quality of a shot has certainly to be distinguished from the quality of the lens. Sure the rendering of a lens can be utilised by able hands to take shots with a special look. In my experience other factors play a big role too:

My 1.4/105 is as good as it gets in IQ. Next to perfect and still magic. But it is very very bulky and heavy in the long hours of a real world event, where I sometimes start at 8 am and end at 1 am next day.

The "cheap" 1.8/85G is a lens I can use for days without tiring.

The Ai-S 1.4/35 is so light and small and has a magic rendering and is "cheap" and is manual focus only which shapes the process significantly.

All these aspects contribute strongly to the workflow.

A planned shooting, constructionist style is all about the concept. Equipment should not block the way for the concept to become reality ... And what Armando says.

[John Geerts]

Great story Paul and love especially the 2nd shot. 

[paul_k]

... Sometime around 1970, there started to be imported some pretty nice looking Russian lenses, brands forgotten, and you could get a 300 mm. one in a nice wooden box for cheap ....

Got one of those, a Russian made Tpir 2.8/300mm Tpir, in the late 80's, after I read a article about it in Popular Photography, comparing it with the then current Nikon 2.8/300 ED, in particular zooming in on the difference in IQ based upon the price difference, the Tpir around US $ 2,000 vs the Nikon at US 11,000

As a 'cheap' 80's lens it's manual focus, but the built quality is above discussion (although it didn't have a slide in filter holder as more modern, like the Nikon, lenses have, but rather screw in, inside the back of the lens, filters) and came with an impressive metal hood
Focusing was a pain with the razor thin DoF wide open, combined with not having discovered the advantages of using a monopod yet

The Nikon IQ obviously was far superior, sharper, more contrast, as was to be expected considering the huge price difference, but I like the image rendering of the Tpir nevertheless.

I haven't used it in earnest in years, but still keep in my lens closet (no use selling it as it no doubt will barely fetch enough to buy a Happy Meal at my local - not favorit- fastfood restaurant)

[JKoerner007]

Terrific images, paul_k

[MFloyd]

Beautiful images. Is there a link where we can admire your portfolio ?

[F2F3F6]

Hello paul_k,

As far as I know, Hans Feurer took a lot of his photographs with the 2/200 IF-ED (perhaps also with the 2,8/300 IF-ED ?).
I remember a Nikon News magazine of the 80's with a few of Feurers images taken on Lanzarote with this magical 2/200mm...
Your photos with the modest Panagor 8/500 or Russian Tair 2,8/300 are very nice !