Check out this roundup of crazy sh*t, including the Sigma APO 200-500mm f/2.8 and Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f/4 lenses and a 6×17 inch camera:
There are several categories of camera gear available: there’s the sensible, the desirable and then there’s the stuff that you’d never even imagined. Here’s a selection of equipment that most definitely belongs in the latter category…
Continue reading at Crestock
About a week ago, I took a walk in a local park with a Hasselblad 501C/M and a 350mm lens to see if I could get down with long lenses, which I generally don’t like very much (see previous post).
I didn’t feel like I’d done very well at the time, and the film I got back from it yesterday confirms that I was right. As I’m not used to shooting with long lenses, I’m not surprised that I didn’t really feel like I was shooting as myself. At times I felt like I was trying to look through Vicky Slater‘s eyes, but doing a crap job of it.
I should also note that I have a really hard time connecting with landscapes through "normal" (sharp, even coverage) lenses in general.
As promised, here are some of the results, shot on the new Kodak Portra 400NC-2.
Close to something, maybe, but no cigar.
These are the lab’s proof scans. I think this shot has the most potential, if I can pull more detail out of the trees when I re-scan it. I’ll reserve judgment until I see it.
It feels kind of pretty, in a really classically conservative way. Which I think may be my problem with long lenses and "clean" landscapes in general: when I like them, they usually feel very reserved and forced into a box. I may find something aesthetically pretty in what I’ve shot after the fact, but it’s not how I generally see, especially not landscapes.
This isn’t great, but I suppose it’s passable as geometric masturbation, which is a type of photo I love to make but don’t think necessarily makes for compelling viewing unless it’s done extremely well. Kind of like playing a 20 minute jam with a band: really fun for the people playing, but not something you’d inflict on anybody else.
Depth of field test with a long view/burn frame at the end of the roll. Safe crap.
Yesterday started out beautifully. It was almost 80°F in the sun, which was a welcome change from the cold New York winter, and I went to Peach Hill Park, which is an old apple orchard. I haven’t fixed the light leak in my one particular copy of a Spartus that’s my favorite landscape camera (it’s not the cool kind of leak, it washes out the whole frame), and I didn’t have time to load film holders, so 4×5 was out, too. Instead, I reached for my Hasselblad 501C/M and noticed the 350mm lens that I’d only ever shot maybe 3 frames with. (For the record, I inherited both from my father; I’m not in the habit of buying Hasselblad lenses only to leave them in the closet for years.)
I’m not a big fan of long lenses. Not that I hate them or anything, but they don’t do much for me unless I physically can’t get close enough to what I want to shoot, like at a show or a wedding. I tend to go for normal to moderately wide, even finding the standard "normal" 50mm on 35mm film to be a touch long. 350mm is generally outside of my visual consciousness. I figured I’d give myself a challenge and took only the one camera and lens to see what I could learn.
I walked around and shot for about an hour and half and packed it in when it started raining. I took my time, shooting only 24 exposures, framing probably five shots for every one I took, really trying to get a feel for what this thing lends itself to. I think I failed. Other than being unweidly—the camera, lens, and hood together are longer than my forearm—I had no grand epiphanies. I don’t feel like I even got my foot in the door, but I’ll keep at it for a bit longer. For better or worse, it sure is different.
UPDATE: photos are here.