Yay.

I have a penchant for asides, but given the writeups ahead of me, I have to get this out now.  I may have even written a line or two about it before.Don’t care.  It bears repeating. 

Analog photography.  Analogue Photography.  Analog/ue Film Photography.  Spare me.  First of all, cameras are pretty much the same.  Yeah, there are sciencey differences at the image plane which actually have ramifications in the act of photography, but spare me.  Light doesn’t come in digital or analog.  I mean, analog film photography – I get it, analog corresponds to the “photo-” while “film” is obviously the -graphy, so analog film photography treats light as a wave only; it must be that photons are for digital pixel geeks only.  Right.

I suppose if you were doing “analog” photography where you used both film and glass plate, you’d have a point.  And I’d shut up.  And I’d apologize.  And I’d tell you to keep on rockin’ in the free world.

You’re not doing glass plate work.

A friend once described them as the same but different – digital is dry and film is wet photography.  I assure you, this man is well aware of wet plate photography and was making a poiginant historical reference.  If you do wet plate, please don’t be offended.  We love you and your tintypes.  No one is trying to steal your name.  I still haven’t had the chance, but I promise, as soon as budget and space allows.

But please, if you don’t know what a dark slide is, what ortho film is, what shoulder and toe has to do with any of this – I’m glad you’re interested.  Please keep learning.  I hope your interest can keep the remaining film stocks alive (Astia, please don’t go).  But know that it’s nothing special to shoot film, especially roll film.  Enjoy it, learn it.  But analogue film photography sounds like you’re trying to hammer home how different you are.  If you can buy film at Urban Outfitters (i.e. 120 and 35mm) you aren’t.

And finally, stop protesting technology changes and refinements in photography.  Stop for a minute and think how stupid that is, especially in comparison to visual arts which go back millenia.  Digital doesn’t have soul.  It’s not supposed to have it.  You are. (Maybe.)

Film photography. 
Better yet, Medium Format.  Or Large Format.  Or 35mm. 
Best, “I like 6×9.  645 feels like half frame.”  Or “4×5 is great for versatility, but you need to be at 5×7 or better to make a decent contact print.”

The first tells me what you don’t do.  The second tells me what you do. The third tells me you might actually know what you’re doing.
Analogue Film Photography tells me that you don’t.

The rest, however, are not so lucky.  I have a bit of an upload going on; “retrospeculum” (formerly, “Start Here”) will be changing a bit.  Too much overlap with other sections.  “Destilled” will be getting, well, destilled, as soon as I figure out what belongs there.  I know there are things that don’t belong there right now, and they will go.

Oh, the bio, which was boring and stupid was rewritten.  A lot fewer details and a lot more informative.  I did remove my ICQ account listing.  It kills me.  It was six digits, and I had the thing since (cringe) high school.

Moving along, that stuff will sort itself out.  More important is what is coming to this section.  Since my trip to Miami this past March, I’ve been shooting a fair amount of film, mostly MF (6×7 and 6×9 in particular), but also a little 4×5 and 35mm.  I just took possession of – god help me – an 8×10, but nothing is happening there until I build, buy, or steal a new bellows.

The upshot of all this is that I have a significant range of film cameras, many of which are system cameras, and have developed approaches to using and specific purposes to each.  I mean everything from a Mamiya C330S to a Graflex 4×5 R.B. (with factory Graflok!) sporting a 8″/2.9 slapped in front with gaffer tape, epoxy, and a steel lensboard from an unknown system.  All of these systems have reviews online: none of these are new cameras and lots of people have things to say.  I do not intend to duplicate that.  I just want to give my notes on these tools, especially since I have a pretty good cross section of MF offerings (thought LF and 35mm will get some notes).  Systems include Mamiya TLR, Mamiya RB67 and RZ67, Mamiya Universal, Koni Omega, Pentax 67, Horseman 970, Kiev 60, Hasselblad 500 series, and more.  I think the first up will be the Koni, representing one of the best price/performance ratios in film cameras, which is remarkable given the current prices of systems like the RZ67 and the Fuji GX680.

But for now, I sleep.

I was a speed addict, but I didn’t know any better with no one to teach me. While I would use the 50/1.4 Nikkor-S from time to time, I figured that the 55/3.5 – my third lens option until the until my AF era – was pretty much the same… plus MACRO.  It made no sense to use the 50/1.4.  And I didn’t.

To be fair, I wasn’t alone : Bjorn Rorslett laments the change in optical formula on the non compensating 55/3.5 (K type, single coated, if you must know).  So (the) hoi polloi had been doing what I thought was a brilliant idea since the late 60s; I have some pity on my 16 year old self.  Furthermore, the deep recessed element was easier to protect sans filter… and looked cooler.  But f/3.5 is f/3.5, and even at EI3200, it was not good.

As I fell in and out of photography, my minimum fast aperture dropped… when I stopped shooting in my early 20s, it was 2.8.  When I picked it up again in 2004-5, it had widened to f/2.  In the last year – and with good cause, I (obviously) think, an f/stop that doesn’t begin with a “1.” is a luxury, a shamefully deep DOF to cover hip shooting, and the beginning of marginally useful when encountering situations where f/1.2 at 3200 nets me exposures 1/10-1/40th long, even with my usual -1 exposure compensation.  Which is a nice segue to the point of all this:  after years and years of lust, I have succumbed: in September, direct from Hong Kong, a Noct – a Noct Nikkor – with all its hype and handpolishedness entered my life.  

Now mind you, I have a number – and that number would be significant – of 1.2/1.4 lenses in full 35mm format and some example of every Nikon normal focal/aperture combination (I returned my Nikkor AI-P copy – for being too slow):

5.8cm/1.4S (Several)
50/1.4 S (Several)
55/1.2 S 
55/1.2 SC (AI converted, but the flange tabs were damaged so it went back)
58/1.2 Noct (Chosen over two tested AIS copies for the better build and long throw)
50/2 AI
50/1.2 AIS 
50/1.8 AF-D (China)

Technically, I also own Nikon’s other 1.2; the Nikkor-O 55/1.2 CRT/Oscilloscope lens.  Being in an extended M39 mount with a rangefinder type flange focal distance, it is reserved for use on my GH1 and not relevant to this use.  Additionally, and far more relevant, I own a 58/1.4 Cosina Voigtlaender Nokton in Nikon AIS mount, the CV 40/2 Ultron in both Nikon and Canon mount (it is that useful), a recently acquired Sigma 50/1.4, plus the C/Y Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar and several Pentax M42 offerings, along with some others.

If the point of this post were to list my lenses, I would just point you to the Google docs list.  The point is that not only do I have some very considered and clear opinions on the *use* of the above lenses (there are no good lenses, just overpriced ones) of which several are in common rotation in the middle position of my typical three lens kit (and the Ultron can also play wide angle if I take a 58mm lens) but I am in a unique position to offer some feedback on the Noct, especially relative to the other 1.2 Nikon offerings.  The other 1.4 options must be considered, and I own many of them; notably absent is a 50/1.4 AIS and any AF version of the same.  In any case, my feelings are a little different than conventional wisdom on these lenses – but there is nothing wrong with the conventional wisdom for conventional (read: most) shooters.  

I will write a full comparison, but there is no reason to keep you waiting: if you’ve ever been squeamish about stopping down from f/1.2 to f/1.4, or if f/2 has begun to feel like f/8 – and espeically if you have forgotten that f/8 exists, if your lighting situation is often one where no method – CDAF, PAF, manual by prism, or manual by live view is a crap shoot, do not pass go, do not buy the Canon 50/1.2L (not owned, but I did try several), get a Noct.  Practice your focusing skills.  I shoot my Noct wide open from the hip. I shoot it in venues where hip focusing might be more accurate than using a visual method. There is no reason that reliable focus cannot be had for all but the darkest situations or fastest subjects – and no, people are not that fast.  Stop making excuses and look at the viewfinder – watch how things come into focus.  I’ll save that for another post… or a book.

Now, if you want to shoot at f/1.4 get a 50-58/1.4 of whatever rendition style meets your fancy. Neither 1.2 is particularly “better” than its contemporary or subsequent offerings at 1.4, with even the “modern” 50/1.2 AIS suffering notable SA in daylight situations until f/2.  The 50/1.2 AIS is just a disappointing lens – for me.  It has better “technical” characteristics than a 55/1.2, but is pictorially inferior at any aperture that matters with these lenses. I do not think the more controlled SA and higher contrast were worth the cost in bokeh quality.  The 55/1.2 is charming and very bright.  If you are shooting f/4 and smaller the 50/1.2 is the better option.   If you are doing that, you probably want to look at the sturdier and cheaper 50/2 or again, a 1.4 for an extra stop if needed.  

The later, multicoated 55/1.2s are better than the earlier models – and I never say any lens is “better,” but in this case, its just a matter of it being brighter (I would prefer to test t/stop values but this is my rough experience in having reviewed my 55mm samples today) while being otherwise identical in character.  I have read others’ preferences for the earlier S version, preferring lower contrast.  I may feel that way about the 50/1.4 S against later lenses, but I’m not seeing a material difference – especially if you shoot for the dark/Lightroom as I always have – that would merti forgoing the benefits of MC elements.

The 5.8cm 1.4 is wonderful, just wonderful – if you know how to use single coated lenses – and is second only to the Noct in terms of frequency of use, not just in this class of lenses, but my shooting overall.  I own several copies and will probably collect more samples as stock of 48 year old lenses can only decrease.  I really have found the 58mm FL to be perfect for my eye.  It’s sad that there is only one readily available option here: the CV Nokton 58/1.4.

More to come.

Also, I plan on actually shooting off comparisons of these lenses (I’ve done this before, but never with a plan, just a tripod and a lamp (as a subject)) to confirm my opinions, and I have no problem in correcting myself.  But the broad strokes are on –  you probably dont need a 1.2 lens and for you the Noct is just so much hype – unless it isn’t.  The 50/1.2 is boring and functionally dubious when choosing what to carry.  The 55/1.2 is undervalued and has a distinct charm, with later versions offering the most flexibility.  The 50/1.4 Non AI have charm as well, albeit different, and the 5.8/14 perhaps the most charm of all – and entirely different in its optical formula when compared to all the offering (excluding the very modern designs).  The 50/2 is the best technical option.   I’ll cover the non-Nikkors another time – and the Sigma and Zeiss (C/Y Planar, I do not know anything about the modern ZF/ZE version other than some poor feedback, displeasure at the Cosina reality, and my general skepticism of the branding, fueled by owning and comparing both a C/Y and ZF 25/2.8 Distagon) are of particular note.

Moreover, despite my fairly long list of lenses, my shooting kits are light, typically 1-3 lenses. Only recently did I carry five for a short trip – and of course ended up using one only of them over three days. I’ve already started a write up on my primary bag (based on my 5DII) and will extend it to the other loadouts, including my GH1 setups.

No promises that I’ll ever get this done.