PDA

View Full Version : Achieving adequate DOF in 8x10



jesse1996
28-Mar-2017, 20:24
Hello all, pardon in advance if this has been posted before but for whatever reason I'm having difficulty pulling up search results on the forum. I live in NYC and have pretty muted tattooed on my brain that I'm getting an 8x10, most likely a Gibellini WAN810 since its pretty light and appears to have all the movements one could need. My concern is with the apparently disputed topic of depth of field.
Most of my photos I take currently are vast swaths of the city skyline here in the city from high up on top of building looking down at a slight angle and the correcting the distortion in photoshop. Now I'm pretty confident that 99% of LF cameras can easily correct for the slight perspective distortion of looking down at the city from 80 floors up. If I recall I've never had to adjust an image more that 20 degrees or so.
My question between my rambling is; how severe is the DOF on an 8x10? If the closest thing to the camera is well over 200 feet away will I even give a crap about DOF? or will I still need to heavily account for DOF and the aperture setting for such scenes? photos are some decent examples of my overall work.
If you guys/gals have any examples/images of how versatile or not the DOF of these cameras is its greatly appreciated. :)


Thanks in advance!!!

Luis-F-S
28-Mar-2017, 20:33
...Most of my photos I take currently are vast swaths of the city skyline here in the city from high up on top of building looking down at a slight angle and the correcting the distortion in photoshop. Now I'm pretty confident that 99% of LF cameras can easily correct for the slight perspective distortion of looking down at the city from 80 floors up. .............My question between my rambling is; how severe is the DOF on an 8x10? If the closest thing to the camera is well over 200 feet away will I even give a crap about DOF?

The answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second question is immaterial. Focus at infinity and use a Dagor at f/45 and the whole world from 80 floors up will be in focus!

jesse1996
28-Mar-2017, 20:43
Belissima!

stawastawa
28-Mar-2017, 22:30
And make sure you have enough bellows for those longer lenses! and a good tripod. =)

Cor
29-Mar-2017, 00:03
somewhat off topic (but not completely), and you did not ask for feedback on your images, but I find the not so horizontal lines at the bottom of your first 2 images quite distracting from otherwise nice photographs..something to keep an eye on once you have your LF camera I would suggest..

Good luck and enjoy,

Best,

Cor

Lachlan 717
29-Mar-2017, 01:00
Have you considered a4x5" with long bellows?

Looks like you could be using long lens compression in some of your shots.

Far easier to get a sharp image outside with a 600mm on a 4x5" than with a 1200mm on 8x10".

Plus, film is cheaper and easier to get in 4x5".

Pere Casals
29-Mar-2017, 01:33
Hello all, pardon in advance if this has been posted before but for whatever reason I'm having difficulty pulling up search results on the forum. I live in NYC and have pretty muted tattooed on my brain that I'm getting an 8x10, most likely a Gibellini WAN810 since its pretty light and appears to have all the movements one could need. My concern is with the apparently disputed topic of depth of field.
Most of my photos I take currently are vast swaths of the city skyline here in the city from high up on top of building looking down at a slight angle and the correcting the distortion in photoshop. Now I'm pretty confident that 99% of LF cameras can easily correct for the slight perspective distortion of looking down at the city from 80 floors up. If I recall I've never had to adjust an image more that 20 degrees or so.
My question between my rambling is; how severe is the DOF on an 8x10? If the closest thing to the camera is well over 200 feet away will I even give a crap about DOF? or will I still need to heavily account for DOF and the aperture setting for such scenes? photos are some decent examples of my overall work.
If you guys/gals have any examples/images of how versatile or not the DOF of these cameras is its greatly appreciated. :)


Thanks in advance!!!



Hello Jesse,

Here you can see yourself http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html, select 8x10 and see.

Also just download a DOF calculator App for your smartphone.

"The calculated" DOF also depends on the circle of confusion you are to allow on film to say something is in focus or not.

The circle you consider can be related to the lens/film performance or the print/display enlargement you are to show the image.




DOF is inherently severe for 8x10, imagine yo use a 360mm or 400mm with a DSLR, you have that, but with LF you can allow a larger "circle of confusion". LF photographers deal with that with aperture stopping and with movements.

With 8x10 it is common to stop the lens much more that with smaller formats, often lens is stopped beyond f/16. Beyond /22 or 32 the optical resolving power is lower because difraction, but as with 8x10 you have huge resolving power this can not be a concern. So at the end you can stop a lot the lens in exchange for larger DOF.

Then you use tilt/shift to inclinate your plane of focus to have your subject in focus, so you use the Scheimpflug principle to place an inclinated plane of focus to suit what you want and allowing incredible creative effects. Movements are not only for perspective correction...

If you go 8x10 instead 4x5 perhaps you'll notice no practical Image Quality enhacement because 4x5 may have more than you will ever need, but you obtain a different look from longer lenses, ...and a larger negative if you are to make contact prints.

This is the second 8x10 I shot in my life, notice /16 and that both the cathedral's clock and the near stairs (well, a region of it) are in perfect focus, it took me 30min to get things in focus because I was learning, with practice one can do it quickly:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/


So with 8x10 you will have narrow DOF, and this is what you exploit from 8x10 to get a sound shot, IMHO.


Here you have Yousuf Karsh 8x10 DOF portraiture samples, (he used a lot a Calumet C 8x10)

https://www.google.es/search?q=yousuf+karh&rlz=1C1AOHY_esES708ES708&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii1s28q_vSAhUMAcAKHQ-IBrkQ_AUICSgC&biw=1745&bih=903#tbm=isch&q=yousuf+karsh&*





Regards

Randy
29-Mar-2017, 03:38
I found this old image on the Shorpy website a few years ago and was intrigued by the depth of field - shot on 8X10 - glass plate from the late 1800's. I examined the large image file and it is pretty sharp from top to center to bottom. So with the right lens and aperture, it looks like extreme depth of field is possible on 8X10.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tzwqtj3aexytk59/parlorcar.jpg?dl=1

N Dhananjay
29-Mar-2017, 04:19
It is a myth that 8x10 suffers from problematic DOF. Yes, the DOF is smaller because of the longer equivalent focal lengths for the format. This means you stop down more for the same DOF. People coming from smaller formats immediately cringe thinking about diffraction losses but remember 8x10 is enlarged less - so the larger, diffracted image of a point on the negative is enlarged less. In other words, what you suffer in 8x10 is actually a loss of speed (due to the smaller f stop) rather than a loss of DOF.

In addition, for your purposes of shooting essentially at infinity setting, it is completely moot.

Cheers, DJ

BetterSense
29-Mar-2017, 04:39
If you use the same aperture diameter (d), DOF is the same on all formats. It's that simple although it is annoying that lenses are not marked in mm.

I use an aperture of about 5mm for most landscape work, and the pictures look the same whether I'm using my Pen or 8x10.

Pere Casals
29-Mar-2017, 05:26
If you use the same aperture diameter (d), DOF is the same on all formats.

This is only like this if you consider the same circle of confusion, but usually you can consider a circle of 0.2mm for 8x10 and a circle of 0.03mm for 35mm film. This ends in very different accepable DOF, depending on application.

For example f=360mm, f/16, Dist = 10m

DOF 0.2mm for 8x10 is 5m

DOF 0.03mm for 35mm is 0.71m

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

So in this case 8x10 DOF is x7 larger than with 35mm


The 0.2mm circle of confusion for 8x10 would be acceptable for Karsh style portraits I guess, for a large landscape print one may consider a smaller circle that's close to lens performance for the scene microcontrast and print size, perhaps 0.1mm or even 0.05.

Of course if same framing was to be done for 35mm film then perhaps a 40mm focal would be used, instead 360mm, with large DOF.


What I mean is that in general for 8x10 larger circles of confusion are allowed to say something is in focus, because still it does not demote resolving power. This is because perhaps we enlarge less, or because sometimes less local optical performance (per mm) is obtained.

Christopher Barrett
29-Mar-2017, 06:23
I like this DoF calculator because it also gives you comparable DoF's for many other formats. I often set up my floral still lifes on 35mm digital and use the calculator to choose my LF lens and aperture when I switch to LF.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#fmt=19&ap=32&fl=305&dst=3&u=us

Nodda Duma
29-Mar-2017, 07:36
I like this DoF calculator because it also gives you comparable DoF's for many other formats. I often set up my floral still lifes on 35mm digital and use the calculator to choose my LF lens and aperture when I switch to LF.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#fmt=19&ap=32&fl=305&dst=3&u=us

Thanks for the link and tip. I was going to begin experimenting with dry plate still lifes and this is helpful.

jesse1996
29-Mar-2017, 11:23
I Totally understand, I honestly just uploaded some exposure test shots with the first two images. I find it very ugly myself honestly but figured it got the overall point across.

jesse1996
29-Mar-2017, 11:26
that photo right there destroys just about nay doubts i had about 8x10, crisp all the way through!

MAubrey
29-Mar-2017, 12:20
This is only like this if you consider the same circle of confusion, but usually you can consider a circle of 0.2mm for 8x10 and a circle of 0.03mm for 35mm film. This ends in very different accepable DOF, depending on application.

For example f=360mm, f/16, Dist = 10m

DOF 0.2mm for 8x10 is 5m

DOF 0.03mm for 35mm is 0.71m

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

So in this case 8x10 DOF is x7 larger than with 35mm


The 0.2mm circle of confusion for 8x10 would be acceptable for Karsh style portraits I guess, for a large landscape print one may consider a smaller circle that's close to lens performance for the scene microcontrast and print size, perhaps 0.1mm or even 0.05.

Of course if same framing was to be done for 35mm film then perhaps a 40mm focal would be used, instead 360mm, with large DOF.


What I mean is that in general for 8x10 larger circles of confusion are allowed to say something is in focus, because still it does not demote resolving power. This is because perhaps we enlarge less, or because sometimes less local optical performance (per mm) is obtained.
Actually, since BetterSense is talking about physical aperture, rather than relative aperture, he's correct regardless of differing CoC's.

5mm aperture on a 300mm lens for 8x10 is ~f/64.
5mm aperture on a 43mm lens for 35mm is ~f/8.

Focused to 10ft, both will have a DOF of ~9.2ft.

From http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html:
163229
163230

Pere Casals
29-Mar-2017, 15:20
Actually, since BetterSense is talking about physical aperture, rather than relative aperture, he's correct regardless of differing CoC's.

5mm aperture on a 300mm lens for 8x10 is ~f/64.
5mm aperture on a 43mm lens for 35mm is ~f/8.

Focused to 10ft, both will have a DOF of ~9.2ft.

From http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html:
163229
163230

Sorry, I missed "aperture diameter". I was not used to the "aperture diameter" parameter, an interesting concept.

Just I'd like to add a side concern: a larger CoC may not demote sharpness of an small print, but most good LF lenses lose resolving power by /22 as difraction limited systems.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Mar-2017, 15:35
A rule of thumb: A frame including 6' to infinity @ F/22 with 6 to maximum of 12 top rear tilt does wonders for DOF.

Pere Casals
29-Mar-2017, 15:44
A rule of thumb: A frame including 6' to infinity @ F/22 with 6 to maximum of 12 top rear tilt does wonders for DOF.

I'll remember that rule

MAubrey
29-Mar-2017, 16:17
Sorry, I missed "aperture diameter". I was not used to the "aperture diameter" parameter, an interesting concept.
Agreed, "aperture diameter" was a bit of an unusual. It took me a couple reads before I realized it myself!

Ken Lee
29-Mar-2017, 17:35
If you use the same aperture diameter (d), DOF is the same on all formats. It's that simple although it is annoying that lenses are not marked in mm.

Yes: at the same aperture, a 300mm lens has the same depth of field on 8x10 as it does on a 35mm film: it's very shallow.

We don't mind it on a small camera because on 35mm the lens is acting as a telescope, but on 8x10 where we're using it as a normal lens, the modest depth of field can be troublesome.

As DJ pointed out, with 8x10 on a tripod, we can stop down the lens to get adequate depth of field, but our exposures will be commensurately longer. The sample photo taken inside a railroad car was an appropriate subject for f/128: the photographer probably used his hat for a shutter :rolleyes:

Michael R
29-Mar-2017, 18:09
Remember when comparing formats, DoF is also a function of the enlargement factor, since the required CoC for a negative is a function of how much it must be enlarged.

Pere Casals
30-Mar-2017, 01:01
Remember when comparing formats, DoF is also a function of the enlargement factor, since the required CoC for a negative is a function of how much it must be enlarged.

I realize that we have 2 interesting CoC values:

> one is what we need for the future enlargement factor, and if we want to see a big print at near reading distance or not.

> the second CoC is related to the practical film+lens performance, meaning that a better focusing won't improve resolving power. This has a particularity, as at same point if we stop more to get better focus it happens we lose resolving power because difraction.

LabRat
30-Mar-2017, 04:48
You can get an idea of the DOF Edward Weston would get at his normal f64, but he only contact printed his negs...

At wider apertures, even at great distances you can see/roll the focus "windows" of DOF with long lenses, even my telescope with 600mm/f6 requires slight refocusing if I view the moon, planets, or deep space objects...

It's the physics of optics...

Steve K

interneg
30-Mar-2017, 05:01
Remember when comparing formats, DoF is also a function of the enlargement factor, since the required CoC for a negative is a function of how much it must be enlarged.

And the third part of this compromise is how much Scheimpflug derived distortion you are willing to put up with to hold an adequate depth of focus at the smallest possible aperture that will not limit the resolution of the largest print you wish to make...

Pere Casals
30-Mar-2017, 07:36
You can get an idea of the DOF Edward Weston would get at his normal f64, but he only contact printed his negs...

At wider apertures, even at great distances you can see/roll the focus "windows" of DOF with long lenses, even my telescope with 600mm/f6 requires slight refocusing if I view the moon, planets, or deep space objects...

It's the physics of optics...

Steve K

Well, at f/64 no more than 25 Lp/mm can be resolved, and still a large format 8x10 sheet would be enlarged to 40" without any flaw visible at reading distance.

interneg
30-Mar-2017, 08:26
Well, at f/64 no more than 25 Lp/mm can be resolved, and still a large format 8x10 sheet would be enlarged to 40" without any flaw visible at reading distance.

That's making a heck of a lot of assumptions about the taking lens, the enlarging lens/ scanner optics, the film flatness at various stages etc, etc, etc.

cowanw
30-Mar-2017, 08:28
And has not much to do with Depth of Field issues in question.

interneg
30-Mar-2017, 08:45
And has not much to do with Depth of Field issues in question.

More than you'd think - if you're limited to using f22 owing to attempting to minimise diffraction, but want to make a 7x enlargement with no schiempflug derived distortion, how would you do it in 8x10 while holding OK depth of focus?

cowanw
30-Mar-2017, 10:33
subject magnification being constant, there is only one depth of field at f22; no more, no less.

jesse1996
30-Mar-2017, 11:12
It does appear I have a lot of research and googling to do in terms of definitions, maths, etc. Thanks for the source material guys!

Vaughn
30-Mar-2017, 11:15
WYSIWYG...but do the research...always good to know what is going on.

Pere Casals
30-Mar-2017, 11:19
That's making a heck of a lot of assumptions about the taking lens, the enlarging lens/ scanner optics, the film flatness at various stages etc, etc, etc.

It is not a bad guess, let me show my reasoning.

> At f/64 we should have 1600/64 = 25 LP/mm resolving power for a well focused subject, we can say lens is difraction limited by f/64. Lens quality is not important at f/64. The best lens also resolves 25.

> At f/64 film flatness is not a concern, we also have DOF on film.

> A 25 LP/mm on film image is not limited by film resolving power, because even ancient films resolve much more. Collodion resolves a lot.

> A good lens enlarger may have problems to project all film resolving power if image has 80LP/mm, but it will not degradate much a 25LP/mm with a 4x enlargement.

So a 4x enlargement should deliver 25/4 some 6LP/mm on a 40" paper (10x4). This is what an eye can see.


If today you take a modern Sironar-S 300 stopped to /64 you'll get same 25LP/mm on film, same like Weston could obtain, this has not changed because today's difraction limitation is the same than when Weston was active.

This is simplistic calculations because we don't consider contrast levels, but if today we can can obtain a 1m perfect print from 8x10 at f/64 Weston also could.

jesse1996
30-Mar-2017, 11:23
from what i can tell, I will definately have to heavily account for CoC, the prints I'm wanting to do are rather large...5x enlargements at the lower end of the spectrum, 10x at the most. So the CoC will definitely play a roll in the quality of the prints. But I seriously appreciate all the of the material and info guys! You dont know how much it helps me.

Pere Casals
30-Mar-2017, 11:28
It does appear I have a lot of research and googling to do in terms of definitions, maths, etc. Thanks for the source material guys!

If you like learning you'll enjoy a lot, for sure !!!!

Resolution is important in some cases, when you want to depict fine powerful textures with big enlargements, but a "sharp look" is not about pure resolution.

jesse1996
30-Mar-2017, 19:55
I just dont want it to look like a cheap blown up photo is all, as long as its sharp enough to make the eye explore the entire photo I'm quite happy.

Peter De Smidt
30-Mar-2017, 21:08
Some lenses do much better than others at small f/stops than others. This has been discussed here before.

Pere Casals
31-Mar-2017, 05:02
Some lenses do much better than others at small f/stops than others. This has been discussed here before.

Yes, but by f/32 most 8x10 lenses perform near the same, contrast and flare can be different... by f/64 difraction limit could be 25LP/mm so even a pre WII glass will resolve like an optically excellent new glass.

jesse1996
2-Apr-2017, 15:19
sounds like i dont need to drop toyota corolla cash for lenses!

Jac@stafford.net
2-Apr-2017, 15:54
from what i can tell, I will definately have to heavily account for CoC, the prints I'm wanting to do are rather large...5x enlargements at the lower end of the spectrum, 10x at the most. So the CoC will definitely play a roll in the quality of the prints. But I seriously appreciate all the of the material and info guys! You dont know how much it helps me.

Stop with the metrics! I understand how one might be desk-bound or otherwise unfamiliar with practice. We can assemble all the cool metrics to design the best optical mechanics and end up being profoundly disappointed in real life photography because subject matter & light contributes to acutance which makes an impression. Sometimes none of those elements occur and we end with a dead image with technically perfect optics.

I can continue but most care not.
.

Pere Casals
2-Apr-2017, 16:06
sounds like i dont need to drop toyota corolla cash for lenses!

Not at all... a good lens is a good lens. One just has to know when a better glass makes a difference or not.

Of course you can get incredible results with cheap lenses, at the end artistic results are not much related to resources, but to the push an artist has.

Anyway a 60 years old glass can be very, very sharp. Modern lenses may have less flare, less parasite light, more contrast, more image circle and more resolving power (when diafragm is open). But often an artist will use a 60 years old lens becasue he likes that footprint to express something.

Bruce Barlow
3-Apr-2017, 03:48
Didn't Edward Weston pay something like $5 for his lens? He did OK.

Pere Casals
3-Apr-2017, 06:03
Didn't Edward Weston pay something like $5 for his lens? He did OK.


Yes, "a Rapid Rectilinear that he got for a bargain price of $5 1924 dollars = about $250 now".

( http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?6379-Edward-Weston-s-Rapid-Rectilinear )


By 1939 he was using Triple convertible Turner Reich, 12", 21", 28"

I think it would be a pleasure using those glasses today !!!!!

Jim Noel
3-Apr-2017, 06:55
Yes, "a Rapid Rectilinear that he got for a bargain price of $5 1924 dollars = about $250 now".

( http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?6379-Edward-Weston-s-Rapid-Rectilinear )


By 1939 he was using Triple convertible Turner Reich, 12", 21", 28"

I think it would be a pleasure using those glasses today !!!!!

TR triple convertibles are readily available inexpensively now. Some are very good, and some are very bad. They were hand assembled thus proper alignment was a common problem.

Pere Casals
3-Apr-2017, 07:34
TR triple convertibles are readily available inexpensively now. Some are very good, and some are very bad. They were hand assembled thus proper alignment was a common problem.

There is a nice 12"-21"-28" one at ebay now, sadly a bit expensive for me right now... perhaps in the future...

Perhaps this model is expensive because Weston used it and is very collectible. Other models are inexpensive...

Vaughn
3-Apr-2017, 17:30
According to Catlabs, it will cover 11x14 with movements. Might make a big difference in price! http://www.catlabs.info/product/turner-reich-triple-convertible-lens-anastigmat-12-21-28-305mm-535mm-710mm

I have one somewhere around here. I used it on an 8x10 (w/ 5x7 back) Kodak 2D that had enough bellows for the 28" element to photograph some of a lunar eclipse (multiple exposure). After the 4th exposure, the shutter stuck open since I had it exposed to the cold night air...but the moon(s) were sharp.

Used the same lens/camera for this 8x10...but I put a yellowish filter on the lens...suppose to help with sharpness when using a single element. Some waterfall in the Sierras, I think.

jesse1996
4-Apr-2017, 23:25
That Turner Reich looks like a steal to me, I dont have $500 lying around sadly. I've fantasized about the Cooke convertible lens that they have out now, though $4500 is steep and I hear the image circle isnt wonderful.

Pere Casals
5-Apr-2017, 01:54
According to Catlabs, it will cover 11x14 with movements. Might make a big difference in price! http://www.catlabs.info/product/turner-reich-triple-convertible-lens-anastigmat-12-21-28-305mm-535mm-710mm

I have one somewhere around here. I used it on an 8x10 (w/ 5x7 back) Kodak 2D that had enough bellows for the 28" element to photograph some of a lunar eclipse (multiple exposure). After the 4th exposure, the shutter stuck open since I had it exposed to the cold night air...but the moon(s) were sharp.

Used the same lens/camera for this 8x10...but I put a yellowish filter on the lens...suppose to help with sharpness when using a single element. Some waterfall in the Sierras, I think.

I've some insane envy about that TR. I'll try to improve myself in order to deserve owning one...


That Turner Reich looks like a steal to me, I dont have $500 lying around sadly. I've fantasized about the Cooke convertible lens that they have out now, though $4500 is steep and I hear the image circle isnt wonderful.


Yes... these glasses are erotic...

Most last modern lenses are "technically perfect", and this is great ! Those classic glasses have an special feel. First I find is that one is in front of an scene with same lens than Weston, this is very motivating because one is pushed to improve own skills, I guess it's not easy to say in what way, but it's a pleasure.

In the other hand older optics have technical defects that photographers can use as an aesthetical advantage. A giant imaging culture is there about that. Photography masters invented impressive aesthetics around technical defects. Just (a bit off) consider how Karsh used film toe in his portraiture. Today we talk about High ISO with Low Noise... Same happens with lenses, yes... a lot of DXO charts to get some 16 or 30 "perceptual" Mp. But what about lens temperament?

IMHO great artists take advantage of everything,it doesn't matter if it's a technical strength or a technical defect, all can equally be artistic resources for those who have the artistic push.

cowanw
5-Apr-2017, 07:07
Just (a bit off) consider how Karsh used film toe in his portraiture. Today we talk about High ISO with Low Noise...
I would be interested in what you have to say here.

Luis-F-S
5-Apr-2017, 08:28
Didn't Edward Weston pay something like $5 for his lens? He did OK.

And his Friends thought he paid too much for it

Jody_S
5-Apr-2017, 17:03
TR triple convertibles are readily available inexpensively now. Some are very good, and some are very bad. They were hand assembled thus proper alignment was a common problem.


I suspect the issue is more that all of them suffered from balsam separation and those with clear glass have been re-cemented. Usually by some joker like myself who doesn't have the proper equipment to ensure the alignment is as good as new, which can be an issue re-cementing a 5-glass block like mine (my pics are quite sharp so I guess I didn't mess up too badly).

It might be a safer bet to go with a Protar VII if you want a vintage triple-convertible.

jesse1996
5-Apr-2017, 20:42
Would anyone recommend certain convertible lenses over buying 3 or 4 individual lenses?

Pere Casals
6-Apr-2017, 02:15
Would anyone recommend certain convertible lenses over buying 3 or 4 individual lenses?

Of course... let me comment on next lens (I've one):

163512

> From Japan, serious people, normally. 100% Positive feedback seller, free shipping. You can make offer... $100 to $125 perhaps.

> It covers 4x5 with movements. https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/data/5,6-150mm.html

> "Technika Selected". Linhof made an additional QC to their requirements, so perhaps the lower crop of the sample to sample variation is not stamped by them, this is subject to some debate, but I've a Symmar/technika 360 that's razor sharp to my eyes, (I picked it because the 620mm conversion for 8x10).



You wil have a damn sharp 150mm f/5.6. Ken Rockwell says this is "the sharpest lens he owns" http://www.kenrockwell.com/schneider/150.htm. I don't think he is jocking a lot.

Also you have other focals https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/ See what schneider says about the conversion.


Drawback:

> It's single coated (not multi coated), so in some situations (framing with sun inside) you will have a bit lower contrast, so a POL filter would be useful.

> Perfect for BW, some would say that they need multicoating for color, I think it's also good for color in most situations.


What happens when using the Conversion?

If you remove the front cell you get the lens converted to 265mm f/12

See again what schneider says about the conversion: https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar/



But you can have very decent images by stopping to f/22, perhaps a bit softer in the corners.

When converted it has focus shift, this is you frame and focus all open (f/12 in this case), then you stop to f/22 to get a sharper image, and then you need to correct the focus again with lens stopped because when you stop the lens the focus setting varies a bit. So you need a bright point to focus on or a very tight cloth to focus a dim f/22 image on the GG.

(People that don't knew that was saying conversion was very bad, but it's not that bad.)

Note that aperture has two scales, the green one is for the conversion.


With this lens you can shot a lot, learn about its limitations and what you have to learn, and when your LF photography has a flavor then you can pick more expensive lenses that would satisfy the specific needs you will have.

In the future you may want a portrait lens, a lighter lens for landscape/hiking or a heavy glass with large circle/movements for architecture.


So having recently made same path, I'd recommend don't falling in G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome), just pick a single lens like that and shot, shot and shot. And learn all in the way, like LF processing.

Later you will have a criterion to acquire the right glassware for you. Then you would sell that lens for mostly the same, or not at all.

An alternative would be picking a Sironar-N, Symmar-S, Ninkon-W, or Fujinon.

At the beginning you don't need a lot of lenses, think that with LF you can shot wider and later you can crop without Image Quality issues, this is not an small format at all.


Caution:

Mechanical shutters have a precission specification of +/- 30%, and old shutters can have big difference about real to marked speed.

So check all speeds. A shutter tester is a good investment, from $15 (PC souncard type) to $100.

Read this: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm


Regards,
Pere

interneg
6-Apr-2017, 02:50
Would anyone recommend certain convertible lenses over buying 3 or 4 individual lenses?

I'd recommend giving some extremely serious thought as to what focal length feels most natural to you in terms of the spatial relationships between objects. You can test this out to a reasonable extent in smaller formats. Buy the lens that matches that. For me, that's a lens in the 210-250mm range on 8x10 (with possible excursions into the 270-305mm range, but generally no longer).

Convertibles are potentially useful if you see yourself needing long focal lengths (with some compromises) at a more reasonable price. They're not a good idea on colour film - most are not fully colour corrected when split, thus the recommendation of a yellow filter.

Try not to repeat the #1 LF newbie mistake & buy lots of extraneous lenses. Buy a good lens in the focal length you want & spend the rest on film. Ignore the fluff about needing multiple lenses. Given the scale of prints you want to make, you'll need every penny you can save.

LabRat
6-Apr-2017, 02:56
Convertible lenses seem like a good idea, but in practice are a PIA...

The jump in FL using the single groups tends to be quite a jump (requiring a lot more bellows extension that you might not have), and require stopping down at least 2 or 3 stops more to get decent definition and correction, so one has the problem of a slow lens and the camera (more extended) mounting more prone to vibration, atmosphere, etc, so can be difficult to find the sweet spot where a single FL (or tele) would do fine...

I have a TR 15/24/36 that my biggest camera can only use the 15" (as my bellows extend about 23"), so the two groups always stay on the lens... And flipping around different cells while shooting seems to be asking for handling trouble... (Crossthreading, dropping!?!!! What could possibly go wrong!?!!!)

Steve K

Tobias Key
6-Apr-2017, 04:36
There's a lot of good advice on this thread, but one thing no one seems to have mentioned is the effect of the wind on your camera. Large bellows cameras are very susceptible to being shaken by the wind and I imagine it can be pretty breezy at the top of the skyscraper! Of course you can do what you can to shelter the camera, but you might find that you have a minimum shutter speed you cant go below before vibration becomes evident in the final print. So talk of f64 might be academic if you can't get a shutter speed fast enough to keep out any camera shake.

Pere Casals
6-Apr-2017, 05:13
Convertible lenses seem like a good idea, but in practice are a PIA...

Steve K

The non converted focal is very good and /5.6 (with Symmars), no PIA. Just a regular lens.


"Ansel used the 19" (480 mm) component (Cooke TC) for "Aspens, Northern New Mexico," 1958; both components to get 12" (300 mm) for "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park," 1940; and the 23" (580 mm) component for "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico," 1941."


The converted option is something that comes as a bonus and can be more or less useful. If one usually shots /5.6 to /8 the conversion is a limitation. If anyway one shots beyond /11 the conversion is no limitation. The additional bellows extension is not very significative compared with 265 focal and extension one needs for near, but this depends on the camera capability if some 2 inches make a difference.

Here Mr Perez shows that he found the 265 conversion of the 150 a bit soft in the corners at f/16:

f/16 48 48 23
f/22 48 48 33
f/32 42 42 38

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html.

From those numbers we can conclude that with conversion configuration at f/22 we need a really big print seen at reading distance to really notice a resolving power flaw vs a modern multicoated lens, but only in some situations: Perfect focus, no DOF problem, great scene microcontrast, sharp film, no shake, large aperture (difraction limitation).


Single PIA of the conversion is that you need to focus with a dim image (because some focus shift), this can be solved with a well light tight cloth to the groung glass. Note that the non converted configuration has no focus shift.

Anyway with a non converted lens and for portrait I think important to focus with lens stopped to the shot setting becasue one may want to know how defocus is to work.

Of the convertible Symmar series I've the 150, 2x 210 (for an stereo project) and the 360. I've tested the 150 with CMS 20: it's like a razor. Yes... single coated... this may be a defect (mostly) or even an advantage for a situation.

Pere Casals
6-Apr-2017, 05:54
I'd recommend giving some extremely serious thought as to what focal length feels most natural to you in terms of the spatial relationships between objects. You can test this out to a reasonable extent in smaller formats. Buy the lens that matches that. For me, that's a lens in the 210-250mm range on 8x10

Try not to repeat the #1 LF newbie mistake & buy lots of extraneous lenses. Buy a good lens in the focal length you want & spend the rest on film. Ignore the fluff about needing multiple lenses. Given the scale of prints you want to make, you'll need every penny you can save.

I agree, but for 4x5 this would be 105-125 range. Having a wider focal one can always make crop: Relative size of objects won't change. Anyway IMHO a 150 is better to engage 4x5 because (in general) one has a larger circle that allows a good deal of movements, IMHO, so one can practice that important resource.




Convertibles are potentially useful if you see yourself needing long focal lengths (with some compromises) at a more reasonable price.


Compromises when with the conversion configuration, the non converted configuration is mostly a regular lens of the era.



They're not a good idea on colour film - most are not fully colour corrected when split, thus the recommendation of a yellow filter.

I saw no color fringes with converted version in the GG, given what resolves the converted version in LP/mm terms this is of the film color cloud range so no difference.


My own informal tests are consistent with what it was measured in the Perez Test: No sharpness advantage with yellow filter:


150mm
single element
at 265mm

f/16 48 48 23
f/22 48 48 33
f/32 42 42 38


150mm
single element
at 265mm
with #15 yellow
filter

f/16 48 48 21
f/22 48 48 32
f/32 30 38 33

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html


My Velvia tests are done with Sironar-N, still I've not tried with the Symmar Conv. My personal guess is that a difference may be there in case sun is in the framming because flare and parasite light direct sun may deliver, this is something I'll test when I've the chance. Also I thing a POL will conmpensate that, as direct sunlight comes polarized the filter will remove more sun direct rays than the stray light proportion is additionally spreaded by the single coating vs mc.


IMHO in the times of Symmar Convertible it happened marketing poison aganist convertibles.

Pere Casals
6-Apr-2017, 06:20
There's a lot of good advice on this thread, but one thing no one seems to have mentioned is the effect of the wind on your camera. Large bellows cameras are very susceptible to being shaken by the wind and I imagine it can be pretty breezy at the top of the skyscraper! Of course you can do what you can to shelter the camera, but you might find that you have a minimum shutter speed you cant go below before vibration becomes evident in the final print. So talk of f64 might be academic if you can't get a shutter speed fast enough to keep out any camera shake.


IMHO shutter speed is not important to Freeze shake of an LF camera, in most field situations. A perfect shot is done with 1/30000s flash, true.

Tripod does it. You can attach a toy laser pointer to front standard to see vibration projected 20m away. In regular conditions you have no shake, with some wind you use your car or a rock to protect camera from wind. The laser pointer is very, very interesting because it shows the real vibration on the scence itself, so you know very what not will be shaked. After inserting the holder (or removing the slide) it is important to wait some seconds to allow vibrations to stop.

This is a 25" exposure: no shake and there was some wind: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/in/dateposted-public/

Jody_S
6-Apr-2017, 19:46
Convertible lenses seem like a good idea, but in practice are a PIA...


Steve K

I have a few convertible lenses by T-R and Schneider, many more if you include Dagors and the like. I have never used one in the longer configuration.

Fr. Mark
6-Apr-2017, 21:37
I'm a relative newbie but I do have a 300mm f5.6 which converts to 500 f?8?11? Don't remember right now. I've used it converted a couple times. Makes me nervous. Why? Shutter is open to whatever blows in. Tiny fine threads to possibly mess up. Huge piece of glass to put where while I take the picture? And while I have a front lens cap I don't have one for the usually not exposed back surface. Possibility of dropping. It is also a pain to set up enough bellows on the Sinar 4x5/5x7and even more of a pain to put it on my home built 8x10. I thought convertibles would be the greatest, but in practice so far I'm not liking them in converted mode. Love it as a 300 f5.6. Especially close to the car... I've started restoring an 8x10 field camera. I am considering converting lens approach for that based on simple meniscus lenses better known as close up lenses used at small apertures. But I already know from some tests on 5x7 they don't give as much sharp as I think I want long term. Maybe it will grow on me. Sure is a light weight way to get a 500 mm lens. And a 333mm and a 250 and 1000mm (not that the field camera has enough bellows for 1000mm---the home built does...) in a tiny package that if I play it right may fold with the camera. No way it'd be sharp enough for most of you guys.

Pere Casals
7-Apr-2017, 02:54
I'm a relative newbie but I do have a 300mm f5.6 which converts to 500 f?8?11? Don't remember right now. I've used it converted a couple times. Makes me nervous. Why? Shutter is open to whatever blows in. Tiny fine threads to possibly mess up. Huge piece of glass to put where while I take the picture? And while I have a front lens cap I don't have one for the usually not exposed back surface. Possibility of dropping. It is also a pain to set up enough bellows on the Sinar 4x5/5x7and even more of a pain to put it on my home built 8x10. I thought convertibles would be the greatest, but in practice so far I'm not liking them in converted mode. Love it as a 300 f5.6. Especially close to the car... I've started restoring an 8x10 field camera. I am considering converting lens approach for that based on simple meniscus lenses better known as close up lenses used at small apertures. But I already know from some tests on 5x7 they don't give as much sharp as I think I want long term. Maybe it will grow on me. Sure is a light weight way to get a 500 mm lens. And a 333mm and a 250 and 1000mm (not that the field camera has enough bellows for 1000mm---the home built does...) in a tiny package that if I play it right may fold with the camera. No way it'd be sharp enough for most of you guys.

I felt no pain when used the 265 conversion. I place the removed front cell in a plastic bag with slider, and then I place that in the pocket. Also I blow all before assembling, straight. If you have a problem with bellows then you can unscrew the rear cell instead: then you will have a lower than normal bellows extension ! (Older Symmars had also that focal stamped in the front).


For 5x7 you may notice softness in the far corners, in the center it works perfectly, even better than with 4x5 because enlargement is to be lower. This is a 4x5 lens, not a 5x7 because movements.

Another source of softness is focuss shift, one may have to correct focus if you stop the lens, so you have to focus stopped to /22. Birght points in the scene help a lot.

Of course the conversion is not as operative as the nominal focal, but let me mention some photographs taken with a convertible lens:

Ansel used the 19" (480 mm) component for "Aspens, Northern New Mexico," 1958; both components to get 12" (300 mm) for "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park," 1940; and the 23" (580 mm) component for "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico,"


(article by Gordon Hutchings in View Camera magazine, July/August 2004.)

Randy
7-Apr-2017, 05:04
Would anyone recommend certain convertible lenses over buying 3 or 4 individual lenses?I had one convertible for 4X5 but didn't use it much - sold it. I have probably 5-6 lenses to use on my 8X10. The most expensive lens I have is a Fuji W 250mm f/6.7, and it is the only lens I have in shutter. I think I paid about $150 or so. All my other lenses are barrel lenses that I didn't pay more than $100 each.
Learn from my mistakes - just get 1 or 2 lenses. Use the rest of your $ for film...lots and lots of film.

interneg
7-Apr-2017, 12:06
I agree, but for 4x5 this would be 105-125 range. Having a wider focal one can always make crop: Relative size of objects won't change. Anyway IMHO a 150 is better to engage 4x5 because (in general) one has a larger circle that allows a good deal of movements, IMHO, so one can practice that important resource.

120/121mm Super Angulon/ Fuji SW 120mm if you need extreme contortions (hint: you don't). Quite a few 120-135mm lenses cover 5x7 - plenty coverage for movements. 'Practising' camera movements is like practising playing piano by opening and closing the lid. Front rise, fall & shift are useful, but other than a little front tilt or swing, the rest is commentary.

If you've got a Sironar-N, start making images, stop wasting film on 'testing' E-6 films, you'll struggle to find a better balanced set of qualities in a lens - other than a Sironar-S.

Anyway, the single biggest criticism of almost all LF lens resolution tests is that all they're essentially testing is film flatness - unless they're using glass plates or vacuum platens - and you won't generally find those outside of a process camera.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Edward Weston never really envisaged his prints as anything larger than contact prints & that a great many of Ansel Adams' famous images again were envisaged as 8x10 contacts or quite small (max 2-2.5x) enlargements. This has major consequences in terms of taking lens choice, aperture used & effective depth of field. A 2x enlargment off 8x10 is not demanding in any of those areas. A 7-8x enlargement is.

Pere Casals
7-Apr-2017, 15:18
120/121mm Super Angulon/ Fuji SW 120mm if you need extreme contortions (hint: you don't). Quite a few 120-135mm lenses cover 5x7 - plenty coverage for movements.


There is also the Nikon SW 120, now more expensive... it covers 8x10 w/o movements...






If you've got a Sironar-N, start making images, stop wasting film on 'testing' E-6 films, you'll struggle to find a better balanced set of qualities in a lens - other than a Sironar-S.


But I've only the 300... it is impressive. Anyway for portraits I'd seek a some less perfect lens, with some temperament, perhaps I'd prefer a conversion, still I'm not sure. For 4x5 I've the Symmar 210, and the 150, so I'd need to know in what situations I can use that with E-6. I've no multicoated lens in the from the Symmar-S 135 to the Sironar-N 300...



Anyway, the single biggest criticism of almost all LF lens resolution tests is that all they're essentially testing is film flatness - unless they're using glass plates or vacuum platens - and you won't generally find those outside of a process camera.

Well, this is true, wide open we test film flatness and alignment, and as we close we have also good DOF on film plane but then we test difraction limit, at f/3s a Sironar-S is like a Symmar convertible, and at /64 the Sironar-S has same resolving power that a pre WWII glass. Still Weston did not need more to rock.





Ansel Adams' famous images again were envisaged as 8x10 contacts or quite small (max 2-2.5x) enlargements. This has major consequences in terms of taking lens choice, aperture used & effective depth of field. A 2x enlargment off 8x10 is not demanding in any of those areas. A 7-8x enlargement is.

Let's make a guess: Moorise negative resolved 25 LP/mm. A 5x enlargement would resolve some 5LP/mm. This is because a professional enlarging lens way outresolves both the negative 25LP/mm and the on paper 5LP/mm projection, so native resolution is not damaged.

This would be 1.3m high print that could be seen at reading distance without a flaw. Think that 5LP/mm are 0.1mm dots.

A 2m enlargement of the Moonrise would show slight flaw at reading distance and no flaw seen at some 70cm.

Same applies to Weston shots.

At the end with a Sironar-S we can stop or not, if one doesn't stop one gets blur because DOF, if one stops one get blur because difraction limit. In some situations a Sironar-S makes a difference, or not.

For example with a texture that has a 1:1.6 contrast it happens that resolving power is limited by film, TMX delivers 50LP/mm in that contrast. Is there a texture with 1:1000 contrast? If there is one then TMX can resolve 200LP/mm and is no limit in that (rare) situation.

So, IMHO, a sound photograph what needs is a sound photographer, or a large ammount of luck. Technical glass perfection may be irrelevant for a true artist, or the counter because he can use that to drive some aesthetics.

IMHO LF has an obscene ammount of resolving power, it is in excess for most situations. Other strengths are there: film beauty, process beauty, long lens look, DOF vs Movements...

interneg
7-Apr-2017, 17:03
But I've only the 300... it is impressive. Anyway for portraits I'd seek a some less perfect lens, with some temperament, perhaps I'd prefer a conversion, still I'm not sure. For 4x5 I've the Symmar 210, and the 150, so I'd need to know in what situations I can use that with E-6. I've no multicoated lens in the from the Symmar-S 135 to the Sironar-N 300...

I'd suggest starting with the Sironar wide open before trying anything else. Also try the 210 on the 8x10 close up. Try and avoid the 35mm-style long lens mugshot look in LF, it looks rubbish, gets extremely boring extremely fast. In fact, try and avoid translating as little as possible from 'conventional wisdom' 35mm to 8x10 - the more minimally you work, the better. And that approach will make your 35mm work better too.

Or else take the Avedon approach & go with 360mm for everything. Multicoating is much less of an issue than you seem to believe it to be. I'd ignore it.

Ektars and Dagors won't add much (main advantages are light weight (but bulky shutters) and coverage respectively), and Heliars get massive & expensive with freakish speed. An old uncoated tessar lens design shot wide open might be worthwhile.

I also think that 6 months with a Crown Graphic & a 127mm Ektar (or Optar etc) in 4x5 or a 300/360mm in 8x10 would do you a world of good. Pick a lens, sell the rest - force yourself to think around the format.

Pere Casals
8-Apr-2017, 03:08
I'd suggest starting with the Sironar wide open before trying anything else. Also try the 210 on the 8x10 close up. Try and avoid the 35mm-style long lens mugshot look in LF, it looks rubbish, gets extremely boring extremely fast. In fact, try and avoid translating as little as possible from 'conventional wisdom' 35mm to 8x10 - the more minimally you work, the better. And that approach will make your 35mm work better too.

Or else take the Avedon approach & go with 360mm for everything. Multicoating is much less of an issue than you seem to believe it to be. I'd ignore it.

Ektars and Dagors won't add much (main advantages are light weight (but bulky shutters) and coverage respectively), and Heliars get massive & expensive with freakish speed. An old uncoated tessar lens design shot wide open might be worthwhile.

I also think that 6 months with a Crown Graphic & a 127mm Ektar (or Optar etc) in 4x5 or a 300/360mm in 8x10 would do you a world of good. Pick a lens, sell the rest - force yourself to think around the format.

I think this is very good advice, there is a lot of wisdom in it. For the moment my approach to LF has been very technically focused, perhaps too much. Well, this is not completely bad because it allows me to understand (or guess) how masters's photographs were done, technically... But it's time I go in the way you say. Before that I'd need to complete the dry plate/emulsion making process learning/enhancing, mostly because I've it in course now...

jesse1996
8-Apr-2017, 13:26
this is a lot to take in!

John Kasaian
9-Apr-2017, 07:30
Would anyone recommend certain convertible lenses over buying 3 or 4 individual lenses?

Look for a Wollensak 1a. Excellent lens.
Sort of in between the TR and the Cooke, I'd guess.
Gives a lot of focal length bang for your LF buck!
Or try a double convertible, such as an old Symmar

interneg
9-Apr-2017, 12:12
this is a lot to take in!

It's really quite simple - you need to decide why you want to make that sort of image at the size you want to do so. The technique will follow. Consider too that the 28" part of a triple convertible might have been fine for Walker Evans making contact prints from 10x8, but is not likely to hold up to a 7x enlargement from 8x10 colour neg at a level that you might wish it did. What stuff looks like on the internet is often a poor indicator of how it'll look like in printed form. There are top quality lenses that cover 8x10 in the focal lengths you'll need to consider, but are you prepared to pay for them?

Willie
9-Apr-2017, 12:19
f/256 and contact print?

John Kasaian
10-Apr-2017, 12:35
f/256 and contact print?

For the win!:cool:

Michael Roberts
10-Apr-2017, 16:41
Jesse,
I made a night-time photo from the top of the GE building (aka 30 Rock) last year with a 300mm Nikkor M (a "normal" length lens for 8x10). Two exposures, one at f22 for 4min and one at f16 for 2min. Some front drop, but no other movements.

You can spend thousands on a new 8x10...or not. The camera I use cost me $125 plus another $180 for a new bellows.

For the type of photos and 8x10 format you are considering, I suggest you look for something like a 240 G-Claron, Nikkor 300M, and Nikkor 450M.

I also think you'll find a used, comparatively cheap Kodak 2D doesn't weigh much more than the Gibellini (10lbs w/o extension rail vs. 9+ lbs. and $1,500 or so difference in price. But, to each his own as far as equipment and prices. Personally, I prefer light-weight vintage wooden folding cameras (e.g., Rochester Optical Company).

http://michaellynnroberts.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v46/p2137701392-4.jpg

jesse1996
10-Apr-2017, 22:27
This is perfect! I will still need a few movements since I plan on doing light work outside of my normal boundaries. Amazing photo too!

Michael Roberts
11-Apr-2017, 05:26
Thanks. If it were me, I would buy the new Intrepid 8x10--super light weight (2.2k) and unbelievably affordable for a new 8x10--and look for a Nikkor f9 300M (~$550) to start. Once you've made a few photos, you can decide whether your next lens should be longer or shorter. You can pick up f9 240 Schneider G-Clarons fairly cheap in barrel form, and they screw directly into Copal no. 1 shutters (that's what I did). The f9 450 Nikkor Ms run around $650 used but in good condition. These are bigger lenses and need a Copal no. 3 shutter. The 240 and 300 are very compact and light weight.

The f16 version of the shot above is soft at the corners; the f22 is very sharp. I made the f22 exposure first, but felt the building swaying in the wind, so I decided to do a second exposure with half the time. Both were unaffected by the wind. No tripods are allowed at this location, so I had to set the camera on a concrete parapet. Come to think of it, I may not have even used front fall b/c there is a glass partition on the deck below that I knew I would have to crop out.

This shot was dead in the middle of peak tourist season in NYC (I happened to be there for a conference), and astronomical twilight wasn't until around 10:30-11:00PM, so it was very crowded, long wait for the elevators, hot, really humid, windy, it was late, and I was tired. All in all, pretty miserable. But, of course, the view is spectacular. So, being LF photographers, we deal with the conditions and carry on to get the shots we are after. Having done some of this kind of work, I assume you're familiar with how this goes. Just know that it gets harder with bigger, heavier equipment and backpacks.

I shot this same scene a couple of years earlier with 4x5 and liked the tranny so much I wanted to go back with the 8x10. The 8x10 tranny fucking rocks. Lady Liberty, up in the upper right, is dead-on sharp under an 8x loop. I haven't printed this yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Shot on Velvia 100.