Lenses and Losses

John Loengard 1934–2020

Sorry I didn't get to the Print Crit this week. We'll resume on Monday (not Sunday), and I'll be talking about three prints next Monday rather than one.

TOP reader Joe Holmes was quoted in this article about leaving New York. I met Joe at the Javits Center a few years ago—he's a very talented photographer and a chronicler of his city. Thanks to JG for the tip and a nod of respect to Joe.

Here are my top takeaways from the Micro 4/3 lenses post—first, I had never heard of the Olympus 12–45mm ƒ/4 zoom before. It looks to be small and light yet of good quality, a combination of assets that gets my attention and has done from the days of the Leica M and Olympus OM Zuiko film-camera lenses. I wonder why there haven't been more utilitarian ƒ/4 digital lenses—what with high ISOs and mirrorless camera EVFs, there really is no argument against them. Another worthy-looking lens that had not penetrated my consciousness is the Panasonic 45–175mm ƒ/4–5.6 that Christopher Midyet, Andrew Johnston, and others praised. Next, I learned that Ctein has switched allegiances from the Olympus 45mm to its Panasonic 42.5mm competitor—interesting. Finally, essentially the same lens as the 45–175mm but at the other end of the "basic to deluxe" range, the Panasonic/Leica 50–200mm ƒ/2.8–4, drew the highest praise possible from Harold Glit—he called it the finest zoom lens he has used in his career as a photographer across all platforms.

Izzy from B&H Photo is sending me a Panasonic GX9 for review. Should be here next week. I wonder if that means I have to test the kit lens?

Elsa Dorfman selling prints in Harvard Square

"It's true. I sold my black and white archive pictures at Holyoke Center in Harvard Square from a shopping cart wagon I borrowed from the Beacon St. Somerville Star Market. It was 1972. The Star Market basket had the perfect configuration: A shallow top tray and a very deep bottom tray. Probably to take home big packages of baby diapers and toilet paper and Kleenex. Or six packs of beer.

"I charged $2.50 for an archive signed original print!!!! I stayed up all night for weeks printing, trying to guess what wd SELL.???? I put each image in a plastic bag to protect it. I only accepted cash. No checks. No credit cards. I had a ball. I saw all sorts of people: people who I knew well and people I knew in a vague sort of way. It was such fun."

—Elsa Dorfman, from her website

Elsa Dorfman and John Loengard have left us. Elsa, who was 83, was one of the few photographers of her era who got to be defined partly by her technique—she made distinctive portraits using one of the rare giant 20x24-inch Polaroid cameras. She had a studio in Cambridge, Massachusetts and you could walk in off the street and get your portrait taken for three grand. John Loengard, a onetime hero of mine, was a LIFE magazine photographer—I still miss LIFE, and it's been 48 years since it was a weekly—who became a LIFE editor. He was part of a generation in which being a photographer could open doors, and he photographed a long list of celebrated subjects over many years. Shhh, don't tell, but he was also a photo geek not unlike some of us. He was fastidious about his technique and picky about his lenses. Mostly he used a Micro-Nikkor 55mm, and he often used closeups to bring out a telling detail about a subject, like when he photographed Louis Armstrong's lips, scarred from years of his forceful trumpet playing. I treasure his book Pictures Under Discussion, which I have looked at more times than I can count. One of my favorites. John was 85.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

kevin willoughby: "I was wandering around Cambridge one day. I dropped into a building next to a classic movie theater. I met a lady hanging wonderful portraits of people and pets. Yes, it was Elsa Dorfman. We spent a few minutes talking. She's a lovely lady. The evening of her death, we watched a lovely, almost autobiographical, documentary of her work: The B-Side: Elsa Dorfman's Portrait Photography. It can be streamed from Netflix, Amazon, VUDU and other sources and is strongly recommended."

Mike adds: The filmmaker is Errol Morris.

Joe Holmes: "Thanks for the hat tip, Mike! I remember what fun it was to chat at the Javits back then with you and...could it have been Ken Tanaka? I forget. [Gordon Lewis —MJ] My wife Sara and I also tried to visit you in your upstate home a couple years ago when we were passing by on our way to Rochester, but our timing was off—you were out of town. (Sara is also a photographer.) We'll try again one day."

Steve C: "Joe, I'm not sure if I mentioned this before or not, but, 15 years ago, when I used to work on Lonely Planet's design team, I would start every day at my desk loading up your website to see if you'd made a new post. Your pictures were a real factor in me becoming more interested in photography, and especially street photography." 

Mike adds: Joe, I looked and read all the way through Sara's project "Women Serving Life Sentences." Thought-provoking and eloquent.

Dan Khong: "Saying the four-letter word 'LIFE' is like bringing back all manner of fond memories from when I was in my growing up years. For some reason, my father brought home a copy regularly. Many B&W photos still stick in my mind. Moon landing '69. 'Nam war pictures. John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline. Muhammmad Ali in and out of the ring. I think those pictures have inspired the way I photograph and put into place my passion for street photography. Maybe even B&W darkroom printing. Be very mindful that saying four-letter words can get your readers excited. Just sayin'."

Gordon R. Brown: "Please tell your readers about the viewfinder on Mr. Loengard’s camera."

Mike replies: I'm not an expert on all things Nikon, now or then—the best person to ask might be Stephen Gandy—but I believe it's a DW-4, without the rubber eyepiece, on a Nikon F3. The DW-4 was a 6X, whole-image magnifier with a high-range (–5 to +3) diopter adjustment, excellent for exact focusing. Its disadvantage was that it reversed the image laterally.

Rene Theberge: "I was living in Cambridge when Elsa was a prominent character in the cast of characters that lived/worked/hung out in Harvard Square in those days. A very different scene then as opposed to now. I passed by her so many times, stopped to look occasionally, never bought anything (stupid me!) because I had so little money at that time.

"Funny how these casual encounters in one part of your life reverberate back so many years later."

Harold GLIT: "To be thorough I called the P/L 50–200mm the finest zoom lens I have ever used in my career. For fixed lenses I have other great lenses in mind. I also want to say that, like Ctein, I did change from my Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8, which is a fine lens, especially considering the price and weight, to the Panasonic 42.5mm ƒ/1.7 which is better. First it is better in the corners at the two widest apertures. It has also a great minimum focusing distance, so, while we are all stuck at home, it became my macro lens when combined with an extension tube."

Mike replies: I made the change in the post. Sorry for my error.

Comments

[Richard Alan Fox]

Once we were young.

[Jeff1000]

Ctein is writing science fiction now 😂.

[John Krill]

One of my favorite and treasured issues of Like magazine is one featuring a photo essay by John Loengard of Georgia O'Keeffe. Enough said.

[Jeff]

The film on Elsa, 'The B-Side' (on Netflix), is worth watching. Here's a short trailer, assuming ok to post...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3trVUS65t2s&list=PL6fCCV9j6AlBWIEdyy2Ta97Cw5NBRYf-n&index=2

I wholeheartedly agree regarding the Loengard book. I also occasionally pull out his book,

As I See It

[Henning Wulff]

Panasonic has a very inexpensive 45-150/4-5.6 lens that is less than half the price of the 45-175 and is usually a bit better than the 45-175. The 45-150 is of similar quality to the VERY tiny 35-100/4-5.6, but is a lot less expensive and of course a bit more versatile. The 45-175 is the price it is because it is a PZ (power zoom) which is focussed on video use. So that45-150 tends to be the 'basic' telezoom. The 50-200 is indeed exceptional, and is in a completely different league to the other zooms. It is the best telezoom in the m43 field according to my experience and only a few primes are better. It also works very well with the 1.4x converter.

As far as primes are concerned, Ctein is correct. The Panasonic 42.5/1.7 is a better lens than the Olympus 45/1.8 if resolution, contrast, bokeh, etc. are important to you. Not by much, but it's better.

Thank you for mentioning John Loengard who was also one of my heroes. Thank you, John.

[Hélcio J. Tagliolatto]

I agree with Mr. Holmes.
If a person wants to move out of a city full of attractions like NY just because those attractions are temporarily affected, it is because that person ALREADY wanted to be somewhere else.

[John Camp]

Your comment about the lack of F4 lenses...I've just about given up on my Nikon Z6 because of the lack of a 70-200 lens in F4. I have an excellent f2.8 70-200 lens for my F system, that can be adapted to the Z, but it's the size of a bazooka. When Nikon first came out with its Z system, the first zoom was an f4 24-70 zoom, and I assumed that it would be quickly followed by the other lens in the usual set, a compact f4 70-200. Wrong. Nikon next produced an f2.8 70-200 bazooka for the Z, which completely defeats the idea of a small, full-frame camera system. I think perhaps I was wrong in assuming that's what Nikon had in mind with the small Z bodies. I now believe they didn't think of them as being small at all -- small is just the size that they happened to come out. Otherwise, no change in the thinking -- keep cranking out the bazookas, effectively no different than the big F lenses.

In any case, I'm tired of carrying the bazookas around with me, and I'm thinking of dumping the Z system (although it has a brilliant 85mm portrait lens.) I hardly use it anymore, having mostly gone back to my Panasonic GX8s. Panasonic, by the way, has a really very good Leica-branded 12-60 zoom, which does reasonably well almost everything I need for street and portrait, and it a great combo for hiking. It's expensive, at about $800 on Amazon. (Panasonic actually has two 12-60 lenses; the Lumix lens is slower, less sharp and cheaper.)

I just wish Panasonic would upgrade their m4/3 sensor, which is really getting long in the tooth. There are rumors of a GX10 out there...

[Crabby Umbo]

I think about LIFE magazine almost every month, it's hard to believe a magazine with that type of impact, and successful. I remember waiting for my high-school girlfriend to get ready and sitting in her families front room, and paging through their latest issue of LIFE!

Hard to believe the magazine published it's last weekly issue in 1972, when I was a senior in high-school. Financially, it went from successful to not-so-much, in a very short period of time. The power of television news on the rise (and the televised Viet Nam war. I'm afraid the country traded the reflective and compelling photo essay for getting instant news; regardless of quality.

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

One of my fave lenses in Panasonic 3.5-5.6 14-140mm II. The range is supremely useful, it's sharp, and it's really compact and light.

Eolake

[Mark Sampson]

In later years, per her website, Elsa Dorfman charged $15k for a 20x24 Polaroid portrait, (and worth it IMHO). Also I recall, probably from 'Pictures Under Discussion', that Mr. Loengard liked to use a 65/3.5 Elmar lens, with a Visoflex reflex housing on a Leica M. Then and now, I thought that a quirky choice of gear, but who could argue with his marvelous photographs? The world is a smaller place now, without the two of them.

[Crabby Umbo]

I never heard of the Oly 12-45 either until I read it here. When it comes to light, of course, f/4 is f/4, but when it comes to depth of field, if you use the "one f/stop per format" loosely inaccurate theory,(i.e f/4 on Micro 4/3rd's, is like f/5.6 on APS-C, and /8 on FF), you are basically walking around with a lens where the depth of field, wide open, would be like walking around with a FF 35mm that didn't open wider than f/8!

I'll be the first person to say I shot a fair amount of stuff on 35mm at f/8 back in the day (the old adage "f/8 and be there"), but I sure shot a lot of stuff wider than that too! I'm a big proponent of M4/3rds, for the multi-format settings, and it's ability to autofocus on faces anywhere in the field; but the depth thing is why I stick with the f/1.8 primes.

Still, the lens looks tight and well made, and if it meets a persons needs, it's getting good quality reviews!

[Nicholas Hartmann]

Please do test the Panasonic 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 with the GX-9 so I don’t have to rent it :-). Thank you.

[Dave Jenkins]

The Panasonic 3.5-5.6 14-140mm II pretty much stayed glued to my E-M5 when I was shooting m4/3s. Good lens, extremely useful range.

[jp41]

On 10-Apr-2017 you wrote "Twenty-five years ago I liked smaller format (35mm) and faster films (Tri-X and P3200) because I liked a little roughness. Pictures had a little bite and grain, a certain clarity. I see some of the same qualities in images from the IMX 269 sensor. They have that lovely "bite." I even love the quality of the noise, when you can see it." Please do let us know if the GX9 exhibits this "bite" quality.

[Joe Holmes]

That you Steve C. for the kind words!

And thank you Mike for digging into Sara's photo advocacy. As a former lawyer, she's been successfully working behind the scenes to get parole and clemency for several of the women in her photo projects.

[Steve Greenwood]

Mike (and Nicholas):

Mike, don't be knocking the Panasonic 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 with the GX-9. I did rent that combo before buying and the 'kit' lens is plenty good enough when used carefully (I shoot in aperture priority and generally stop 2 stops down from wide open at a given focal length). Excellent sharpness, at least in the copy I had. And perfect weight, size and balance on the GX-9 body. In the end I succumbed to gear greed and bought the Panasonic/Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4, which is very nice optically but not as nice in terms of weight and balance - get an add-on grip for that lens/body combo.

[xf mj]

Ok. I bought the Oly 12-45, thankyouverymuch. Was on the fence before and you just pushed me over. I needed the shove: I had run out of reviews, having read several of them at least twice each. Oh, and its 58mm thread means it accepts the filters I have for my Bronica RF645, another MJ-endorsed purchase from several years ago.

I guess you are, in today's parlance, an "influencer," dagnabbit.

[Hugh Lovell]

Many thanks for the link to The B-Side, the Errol Morris doc about Elsa Dorfman. I just saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Ian Goodrick]

For a short time in 1967 my parents had a subscription to LIFE magazine here in the UK.
The January 23rd issue was a double issue on Photography.
It was full of amazing images especially to a nine year old, and was one of the catalysts that set me on a career in photography.
I still have that copy in my collection.

[G Geradts]

I.
I enjoyed watching The B-side.
II.
I own the Panasonic 45-150 lens, the cheap, light version. It doesnt have a large fanbase, you’ll find next to nothing photos made with it, neither raving reviews. In my opinion it is a fine lens, light, cheap, easy to operate, no frills.

[John G.]

Mark Sampson is correct. John Loengard did, at least for a time, use the clunky Visoflex to convert a rangefinder Leica to through the lens viewing. Only a guess, but perhaps because the Visoflex could be used with a vertical viewfinder/magnifier, like the Nikon in your photograph of him. My memory is convinced he used the Visoflex to make the picture of the cowboys hand holding a rope, with a triangular chunk out of his thumbnail. Whether my memory is to be trusted is another matter.

[Bear.]

I picked up a new copy of Loengard's 'Life Photographers: What They Saw' when it was first published 20 odd years ago. I've now pulled it off the shelf and started re-reading his interviews - highly recommended for anyone interested in photojournalism, or Life magazine.