Characteristic "looks" of different BRANDS?

[Alan Gales]

I dunno, Alan, I just took a quick look at Commercial Ektars offered on eBay. Today's highest asking price is $775 for a 14 incher in barrel. The vendor is gokevincameras, whose asking prices are usually absurd. Asking unfortunately isn't getting. Sales prices are typically lower.

A lens coveted by members of the HK Old Lens Club, viz., a 60/2.8 Boyer Saphir in a barrel that looks like it goes into a projector brought $860 in November. Closer to home, two TTH Cooke soft focus Ser II brought at least $6k each. Closer to my home, as in I have one that cost much less, a 4"/2.0 TTH for Vinten F95 aerial camera brought $1,998. That's pretty cultish.

Cheers,

Dan

I paid $600 for my 14" Commercial EKtar in an Ilex shutter. Mine is real nice and the shutter had a recent CLA before I bought it. I thought I paid too much after hearing what a lot of guys on LFPF paid for theirs. Ebay Sellers want $400 for nice late model Crowns. I heard they used to sell for a whole lot less.

I know they are not cultish but for some reason the price has gone up. Hopefully it's because of popularity and people are buying more film.

 

[Ian Grant]

I paid $600 for my 14" Commercial EKtar in an Ilex shutter. Mine is real nice and the shutter had a recent CLA before I bought it. I thought I paid too much after hearing what a lot of guys on LFPF paid for theirs. Ebay Sellers want $400 for nice late model Crowns. I heard they used to sell for a whole lot less.

I know they are not cultish but for some reason the price has gone up. Hopefully it's because of popularity and people are buying more film.

There's a couple of threads about prices lenses and cameras fetch rising, with LF this is definitely happening and also with more desirable MF & 35mm lenses and cameras. What's happening is with desirable items demand has started to exceed availability. Speed & Crown Graphics have been over-hyped though thats an anomaly.

Ian

 

[twoeyeandy]

Great thread. The original question ( remember that?) is basically the old ' Anyone can take a good photo but it takes a good photographer to create a photographic style' chestnut.
Lens choice is a creative decision, as, indeed, is every choice in photography but thats the great thing, your work is either remarkable or just average by the choices you make...which is almost a metaphor for life !
My choice is square format, Rolleiflex lenses and b/w film.

 

[john_s]

The major difference in my opinion. It does make a difference in how I use a camera and hence results.

 

[250swb]

For instance, in the 35mm world, Leica is known for super-high resolution and strong micro-contrast, which gives shots taken with their lenses a characteristic look (assuming competence by the photographer), which some people hate and others worship. Nikon lenses generally are sharper than Canon, Zeiss tend to be sharper still, with a distinctive color rendering and bokeh, and so on. A lot of this is lost on those who have only known digital photography, but I assume it must also exist among medium format makers. So, is there a similar body of "common knowledge" regarding MF lenses?

I can't really see how with all the choices available in film photography any characteristic 'look' is possible, unless of course you are only defining photograph as a technical exercise, and not the art of making the image your own.

Possibly the only medium format camera that has a distinctive look is a Holga, and they can be used very creatively because lets face it the technical side is redundant, so creativity is all you've got left. But a Leica with it's go-to film of choice, Tri-X, doesn't exhibit any of the traits you say it has, where is your super-high resolution gone for instance? Yet Leica and Tri-X are what defines the traditional style of that camera and any 'look' has more to do with the situations the camera is used in than the characteristics of a lens. So stop dreaming, all the ideas about a 'look' are dreamt up by people who define photography as a purely technical exercise, in the field any film camera is already a compromise so cannot get near the nth degree of perfection needed to show which camera took the picture, and even a perfectionist like Adams knew that.

Steve

 

[RattyMouse]

I would buy a Dogmar lens just for the name alone.

 

[MattKrull]

I would buy a Dogmar lens just for the name alone.

I want a Dog Schidt Optiks lens for exactly the same reason. also, their logo is friggin' hilarious.
https://www.facebook.com/DogSchidtOptiks/
Dead Link Removed