Wide Angle Lenses and Architecture Photography in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am writing a book and one of the characters is an architect and amateur architecture photographer in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. I am trying to figure out what was the equipment used for architecture photography back then. I am thinking about medium format cameras, but I don´t know which were the brands and models available back then. I was also wondering if my character could carry a smaller camera with a wide angle lens for situations when he would not be able to set up a tripod and mess around with camera movements, for situations where he would just snap a picture of a façade and come back later, maybe a Leica M, maybe Nikon, maybe another brand and what were the most extreme wide angle lenses available for this camera in these decades. Could anyone help me?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Antonio</p>

[Tony Parsons]

<p>To really get a feel for this kind of photography, and the equipment in use, see what your local library has to offer in the way of photographic yearbooks from those eras. IMMIC, Rollei certainly did some, and I suspect some of the photographic magazines may have done some too.</p>

<p>Tony</p>

[SCL]

<p>The Leica Super Angulon (21mm) wasn't produced until the late 1950s, prior to that the widest was the Leica Hektor (28mm, f/6.3) produced from 1935-1953.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>An English made medium format camera from the 1950's called the Envoy Wide Angle might be a possible candidate. It had a Taylor Hobson lens with a 35mm equivalent focal length of 24mm, if I remember correctly.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00QnJB</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>In the 1940s, the small camera that he would likely be using would be either a single lens reflex Exakta 9 (introduced 1936), or a rangefinder Contax II or III or a III series Leica (all present in the 1930s and 1940s).</p>

<p>As Stephen says, Leica had a 28mm Hektor for the III series RF camera that would have required a separate add on viewfinder. Zeiss made a 21mm f4,5 Biogon lens in 1954 for the Contax RF camera, but in the 1940s also had a 35mm 2.8 Biogon lens, both usable with separate viewfinder.</p>

<p>As an amateur architecture photographer, his ability to see his subjects more accurately through the canera lens may mean that he would be using the Kine Exakta I camera and a 1938 40mm f4 Tessar semi wide angle lens, that he might upgrade to an Angenieux 35mm f2.5 lens around 1950, a 25 mm or a Carl Zeiss 20 mm or 25 mm f4 Flektogon in the mid 1960s.</p>

<p>Shift and tilt lenses for 35 mm cameras, good for architectural work, apparently did not arrive early enough for your photographer, so he would have to live with tilting tall buildings unless he could use a large camera negative and crop. He might have had a 6 x 6 cm or 6 x 9 cm camera that he could apply only part of the negative area and avoid the keystoning effect, but they would have had normal focal length lenses (For example, the Rolleiflex Wide version with a roughly 30mm equivalent lens, did not arrive until 1961).</p>

<p>The medium format Envoy camera mentioned by John (25 mm equivalent lens) and apparently made for Ilford might be a unique model your character might have used, as its 6 x 9 cm negative would also be useful for tilting the camera to avoid keystoning and then cropping the image. From the looks of it its introduction may well have preceded the 1950s (something to check).</p>

<p>I enjoy reading upon early cameras and hopefully my curiosity may be useful to you. There were larger cameras suitable for architecture, but it appears that as an amateur photographer he would likely not use that equipment unless he was very committed.</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>Thank you very much for your answers.</p>

<p>@Tony Parsons<br>

Photographic equipment was very expensive and hard to find in Brazil during the 40s, 50s, 60s and even today. Back then, import laws were very strict and made it very difficult to import equipment here. Leica and Rolleiflex were present, Rolleiflex is even mentioned in one of the most famous songs of the Bossa Nova, Desafinado by Tom Jobim (the verse is "fotografei você na minha Rolleiflex / revelou-se sua enorme ingratidão" - I took a picture of you with my Rolleiflex / the picture shows your huge ingratitude), but I don´t know which wide angle lenses would be availble.</p>

<p>@Stephen Lewis<br>

Thank you. The character might buy a Super Angulon in the late 1950s.</p>

<p>@John Seaman<br>

Thank you. That could be interesting.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Rollei: They did not make interchangeable lenses for their TLR but different tele- and wide versions of it (rare and usually really expensive). I think I handled a pre-WWII tech level one once at a local shop but couldn't raise the funds as a teen, although the asked price in the late 80s wasn't high. Lens built into the last Weitwinkel Rolleiflex: 55mm f4 Zeiss.<br>

I'm hard pressed to see much sense in a 35mm solution of the 40s. - Please keep in mind that earlier folks most likely shopped less rabidly than us for the latest and greatest and T-Max films weren't around back then. - Simply trying to say: A Leica with 28mm f6.3 needs probably more than Agfapan 25 or Adox KB 14 to offer a safe shutter speed for hand holding, especially if you add a filter for nice sky rendering. On the other hand an otherwise serious amateur likes his "sloppy day"-camera to at least somehow match the quality of the more serious ones.<br>

I'd look at medium format, especially 6.5x 9 cameras. - I entered the world of movements with a late 1920s Voigtländer Bergheil. It is a remarkably portable little folder / field camera with a simply made bayonet mount for its lens. - I could imagine another wider lens getting used in such a camera but don't know what was around, besides maybe a Schneider Angulon 65mm f6.8, introduced in 1930. A track to follow would be the baby Speed Graphics and lenses for those. I can also see a serious amateur of those days getting into Linhof Technika. <br>

Higher portability would most likely be gained by packing a less serious tripod. If it has to be 35mm: I'd expect a 35mm lens like the f2.8 Biogon / Jupiter or LTM alternatives to end in his bag. - I might be rangefinder biased, but honestly, considering the time line you give: SLRs take off pretty late in it and the wave of journalistic Leica ditching happened after it, I think? - (Common) SLR lenses seemed limited to 35mm for a long time and never were real fun to handle, especially with the dim focusing screens of the very early SLRs. <br>

Sorry, I haven't been around at that time.</p>

[AJG]

<p>Serious professional architectural photography in that period would have been done with a large format view camera and a tripod. For small format, Zeiss made a 28 mm f/8 Tessar from 1933-1940 or so, along with the previously mentioned 35 mm Biogon, both lenses for their Contax 35 mm rangefinder cameras. These would have required separate viewfinders. Speed Graphics would have been another possibility. None of this would have been cheap anywhere in the world in the 1940's, 50's or 60's.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Look up ESTO : Ezra Stoller was the leading architectural photographer in that era, at least for USA based architects.

[colin carron]

<p>As Andrew says the usual choice for architectural photography at this time would have been a large format view camera. In UK Practice a well-known architectural photographer in the UK at this time was Edwin Smith. He used a wooden half-plate camera up to the 1940's when glass plates became scarce. At this point he switched to a metal 5x4 Linhof camera using sheet film. Lenses would have been good quality Schneider Kreuznach large format lenses or similar though cheaper UK lenses were available. This gear was bulky and heavy, I always found my LF bag weighed about 10kg. In addition a tripod would always have been used as film was slower than today and apertures for LF lenses were small. The Schneider Super Angulon was a very common design for Architecture and was introduced in Photokina in 1956. Before tha the Angulon or Biogon designs would have been available.<br /> Stretching reality a bit a medium format camera might have been used, maybe a Rollei (used a lot by press photographers in the 1950's) or a Nikon F SLR in the 1960's when the small 35mm format became acceptable in magazine publication.<br /> The UK fashion photographer David Bailey, working in the 1960's in London and New York took fashion shots for Vogue magazine with models like Jean Shrimpton and Twiggy. He was supposed to use large format but instead used a 35mm Nikon SLR. The immediacy of these handheld shots made the static large format fashion plates look old-fashioned and soon 35mm was the norm.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yeah, even up to not that long ago, and still used would be view cameras with adjustable movements. </p>

[Bill C]

A couple of other photographers you might want to look at are Arnold Newman and O. Winston Link. They worked in the

time frame you are looking at, and although not strictly architectural photographers, they did some pertinent work.

Newman is known for his "environmental portraits," which often have architectural elements included, requiring

perspective correction, etc., which is most conveniently done with a "view camera." Link is known for his railway photos,

and when trestles and buildings are involved, view camera movements can be important. I've seen it said that Link used a

Graphic View camera.

 

In the US, a couple of cameras that were (I presume) readily available were the Graphic View(s) and the Burke & James

"Grover" cameras. See http://www.graflex.org/articles/graphic-view/index.html and

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Burke_%26_James.

 

I personally didn't have a view camera during that time frame, but about 1970 I bought a Calumet 4x5 (CC 4xx series),

which is said to have started life as the Kodak Master View prior to 1955, when Calumet obtained the manufacturing

rights. So it was presumably available. I'm sure there were plenty other capable cameras; these are just a couple I'm a

little bit familiar with. As a note, it would have probably been cheaper for a hobbyist to have tried using a standard 4x5

press camera (Speed Graphic, etc.); these had pretty limited movements, but could do a lot of the less extreme work.

 

I can't imagine anyone serious about the architectural photography using something as small as a 35mm camera during

that time frame, aside for detail shots. But I could be wrong.

[warren_williams]

<p>I'm intrigued by the idea of your book since I am an architect and serious amateur photographer. Most architects love taking photos of buildings when traveling and frankly don't want to be bothered by tripods and even lighter field view cameras. The purpose of the photos is for visual note taking rather than publishing so shifts and tilts can be sacrificed. Even so, extreme keystoning by pointing the camera off horizontal is a huge distraction so very wide lenses are loved (also handy for interiors). Also, architects are often techno gadget freaks so they will save to afford high quality tools and appreciate them for their craftsmanship (this is easily taken to unhealthy extremes). I would have your architect use a Contax (often cited as the "professioinal" 35mm camera) with the 28mm or 21 mm lenses mentioined above until about 1956 when he lands a fat commission and treats himself to a brand new Hasselblad SWC. I hope you let the forum know when you finish the book, Good Luck</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Warren, good point. I was thinking of the character being an architectural photographer perhaps for books or magazine articles on buildings. However if the character is primarily an architect who also takes photos then he would tend to use a smaller more handy camera. </p>

[Two23]

<p>An architectural photographer would be using a view camera, to make use of lens movements. I suggest an Ansco 4x5 or 8x10, Crown View, or Kodak 2D. In England it probably would have been a Thornton & Pickard whole plate camera (aka full plate.) I see no way an architectural photographer would be using a small camera such as a Leica etc. For starters, there are no lens movements. I shoot a fair amount of architecture and my camera of choice is my 1925 Gundlach Korona 5x7 (plus 4x5 back) and a 5 in. (125mm) lens. I also use a 3 5/8 in. Dagor from 1922 quite a bit for this. I agree with the suggestion of an Angulon or Biogon lens, especially on a 4x5. Ross & Dallmeyer were English lens makers and no doubt had suitable lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>@ Arthur Plumpton<br>

Thank you very much for all this info. The character is not very fond of tall buildings, so I think that the cameras and lenses you suggested might serve him well. Your curiosity will certainly be useful to me. </p>

<p>@ Jochen Schrey<br>

Maybe the Linhof Technika could be used for more serious work and a RF or SLR for days when he would like to walk light. </p>

<p>@ Andrew Gillis<br>

A view camera would certainly be his tool for serious work, but I am also looking for something he could use when not on assignment or just walking around to see what would catch his eye.</p>

<p>@ Ellis Vener<br>

Thank you very much. My next question would be who where the architecture photographers in those days and you have just antecipated my question and answer. I will certainly study Ezra Stoller.</p>

<p>@ Barry Fisher<br>

View cameras are probably the best tool for the job. But he needs something to use on his spare time.</p>

[antonio_leandro_nascimento]

<p>@ Colin Carron<br>

I will also look for Edwin Smith. I need to study architecture photographers of the mid 20th century. Thank you for the input.</p>

<p>@ Bill C<br>

Thanks for the input on Arnold Newman and O. Winston Link. The character will certainly have a view camera, but he also needs something lighter.<br>

<br>

@ Warren Williams<br>

The character will be an architect who is interested in preserving images of buildings which where demolished during a frantic construction period in his city. He will use view cameras for the most important buildings, but he will have something ligher to carry with him all the time and probably, as you made a very good point, for interiors. As soon as I finish the book, I will let you all know about it.</p>

[warren_williams]

<p>Back in the day, people went to large format for adjustments and for image quality. "Documentation", with a capital D meant 4x5 at least to meet both requirements. If an architect wanted to document buildings pre 1947 he would be using a Kodak Eastman wooden view camera (or Deardorff) and after 1947, a Sinar if he could afford it. He could also use a Linhof and get portability while giving up a little corrective abkility. <br>

I still think for his own use a Contax and then a SWC would be about right but as soon as the 35mm perspective control lens became available for the Nikon F in 1962 any architect would want one. He could even fit a 21mm on the F body from 1959 to 1967 and a 20 mm starting in 1967 viewable through the lens.</p>

[erwin_schaefer]

<p>Antonio<br /> If I understand your request correctly and you need the information only to reference it as being used by the character in your book then the Rolleiflex is the safest way to go. By the way….in ’52 I went through USMC boot canp with a Nascimento. A distant relative, perhaps?<br /><br /></p>