PDA

View Full Version : Anyone have 8x10 300mm f5.6 environmental portrait examples?



formanproject
5-Oct-2017, 18:19
Hello everyone!

I was looking into getting an 8x10 setup with a 300mm f5.6 lens to mimic the look of a 40mm f.7 lens on 35mm. I'm having trouble finding full body / environmental portrait examples of that setup though (specifically shot at f5.6), so if you have any you'd like to share I would love to see!

Ken Lee
6-Oct-2017, 05:13
A 40mm lens on 35mm is equivalent to a 240mm lens on 8x10, in my humble opinion.

A 300mm lens at f/5.6 has the same depth of field as a 150mm lens at f/2.8, a 75mm lens at f/1.4 a 37.5mm lens at f/0.7

In other words, not much.

That being said, Paul Strand used a 300mm lens on 8x10. Here's an example portrait (the painter Georges Braque), but likely made stopped-down at bit. He may have used some front swing to align the plane of focus with the wall and thus easily keep everything in focus.

It's probably a scan taken from one of his books- so the image quality is not too high - but we get a sense of the perspective. Because 300mm is a "normal" focal length for 8x0, the perspective is... normal.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Braque.jpg

formanproject
6-Oct-2017, 05:31
A 40mm lens on 35mm is equivalent to a 240mm lens on 8x10, in my humble opinion.

A 300mm lens at f/5.6 has the same depth of field as a 150mm lens at f/2.8, a 75mm lens at f/1.4 a 37.5mm lens at f/0.7

In other words, not much.

That being said, Paul Strand used a 300mm lens on 8x10. Here's an example portrait (the painter Georges Braque), but likely made stopped-down at bit. He may have used some front swing to align the plane of focus with the wall and thus easily keep everything in focus.

It's probably a scan taken from one of his books, so the image quality is not too high, but you get a sense of the perspective. Because 300mm is a "normal" focal length for 8x0, the perspective is... normal.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Braque.jpg

Ah thank you for the comparisons! Alright, then maybe i'm looking for a tighter perspective than 300mm on 8x10.

Here's an example of the "look" i'm trying to achieve. This photograph was taken by Jonathan Canlas (http://jonathancanlasphotography.com). For reference, this was shot with a 110mm F2.0 on a pentax 67 (so equivalent of about 52mm, F.9 on a 35mm). The subject isolation at F2.0 on the pentax 67 mimics the classic 8x10 DOF (think Alvedon's portraits of Bob Dylan).

I tried googling F5.6 lenses at 400mm on 8x10, but can't seem to find any (which would give roughly the same depth of field). Any suggestions?
170568

mathieu Bauwens
6-Oct-2017, 06:21
Hello, you can have a look at my flickr's 8x10 gallery. Pretty all pictures where made with a 300mm Fuji lens ; https://flic.kr/s/aHskahaqZ5

mdarnton
6-Oct-2017, 07:04
It's unclear to me whether you are looking for perspective isolation or depth of field isolation. With such a plain background, the shot you show could be shot with a number of different focal lengths on 8x10 and come off equally well, though slightly different, as long as the lens was used close to wide open.

You'll find few or no lenses of 400mm and f/5.6 that are in shutters, probably. They never made conventional shutters that large, I don't think, and certainly not modern ones. The 15" tele-Raptar f/5.6 is close, at 380mm, but it doesn't quite cover 8x10. If you want that speed and size, it's almost certainly Packard territory.

Historically, in a general sort of way, early fast lenses were f4.5 and f.6.3. Something that's f5.6 is almost certainly going to be a more modern lens, and by the time you get beyond 300mm or so, they are limited to 6.3 or so because of available shutter sizes. The old 4.5 lenses in the length you want are gigantic!

Corran
6-Oct-2017, 08:09
12" (300mm) f/4.5 Gundlach Radar, shot at f/8 if I remember:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YB4DUnQmxas/UGaVzeq-w3I/AAAAAAAABKE/5JfQAnpkIK8/s700/810p001s.jpg

In comparison this was shot wide-open:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--B50_JyEltw/UfWfMBj_QuI/AAAAAAAADyI/JkT3xkLr_wQ/s700/test810-1147s.jpg

I would point out though that the 110mm f/2 you mention on 6x7 is more like a 360mm f/6.8 on 8x10. Which is available - look for a 360mm f/5.6 or f/6.8 Symmar (the f/6.8 is newer). And, here's a photo from said Symmar (the f/5.6 version), shot wide-open:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/garriswedding-4935-csss.jpg

BTW, look up images by SergeiR on this forum for many examples from the 300mm Radar and 360mm Symmar lenses - he does great portraits. I don't shoot a lot of portraits.

formanproject
6-Oct-2017, 08:18
12" (300mm) f/4.5 Gundlach Radar, shot at f/8 if I remember:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YB4DUnQmxas/UGaVzeq-w3I/AAAAAAAABKE/5JfQAnpkIK8/s700/810p001s.jpg

In comparison this was shot wide-open:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--B50_JyEltw/UfWfMBj_QuI/AAAAAAAADyI/JkT3xkLr_wQ/s700/test810-1147s.jpg

I would point out though that the 110mm f/2 you mention on 6x7 is more like a 360mm f/6.8 on 8x10. Which is available - look for a 360mm f/5.6 or f/6.8 Symmar (the f/6.8 is newer). And, here's a photo from said Symmar (the f/5.6 version), shot wide-open:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/garriswedding-4935-csss.jpg

BTW, look up images by SergeiR on this forum for many examples from the 300mm Radar and 360mm Symmar lenses - he does great portraits. I don't shoot a lot of portraits.

Awesome! Thanks so much for that! That was really helpful.

Yes, the look i'm going for is similar to what you got with the gundlach radar at f4.5. Basically that incredible shallow depth of field look with a very wide angle perspective, that's otherwise unachievable on any format other than 8x10 (Or shooting 50-60 digital photographs with a telephoto lens and stitching them together). And thank you, I will definitely check him out.

formanproject
6-Oct-2017, 08:19
Hello, you can have a look at my flickr's 8x10 gallery. Pretty all pictures where made with a 300mm Fuji lens ; https://flic.kr/s/aHskahaqZ5

Thank you, although the link you posted did not work.

Richard Wasserman
6-Oct-2017, 08:54
Look at Alec Soth's Sleeping on the Mississippi

MAubrey
6-Oct-2017, 10:34
A 40mm lens on 35mm is equivalent to a 240mm lens on 8x10, in my humble opinion.

Do you know what the precise "crop factor" is for 8x10 relative to 35mm? Wikipedia lists 0.143 as the ratio between the two formats, but of course, Wikipedia's accuracy isn't always consistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

Corran
6-Oct-2017, 11:14
There is no precise "crop factor" due to differences in aspect ratio. You can either compare long side to long side, short side to short side, or diagonal to diagonal.

Long side comparison - 36mm on 35mm film, roughly 250mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 6.94. If you crop the 8x10 to a 2:3 ratio, it matches.
Short side comparison - 24mm on 35mm film, roughly 200mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 8.33. If you crop the 35mm negative to a 4:5 ratio, it matches.
Diagonal side comparison - 43mm on 35mm film, about 320mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 7.44. Doesn't really match but it's a good middle of the road value.

You lose a bit on the 8x10 sheet from the film holders, which can vary, so these aren't immensely precise. The 200 x 250 mmm measurement of 8x10 is based off of the 7.875 x 9.875 nominal film size of 8x10.

So all that being said, that factor from Wikipedia is roughly 7x. Seems like they are comparing the long edge.

Ted R
6-Oct-2017, 12:02
The diagonal of "35mm" is 43mm. The diagonal of 8x10 is close to 12.5in which is about 317mm.

the ratio of sides for "35mm" is 36/24 = 1.5

the ratio of sides for 8x10 is 10/8 = 1.25

the ratio of 1.5 to 1.25 is 1.2

Ken Lee
6-Oct-2017, 12:26
"A 40mm lens on 35mm is equivalent to a 240mm lens on 8x10, in my humble opinion."


Do you know what the precise "crop factor" is for 8x10 relative to 35mm? Wikipedia lists 0.143 as the ratio between the two formats, but of course, Wikipedia's accuracy isn't always consistent.

As others have pointed out, the ratios differ. Hence my original caveat "in my humble opinion" :cool:

mdarnton
6-Oct-2017, 12:34
I suspect people who are more into 4x5 and 8x10 think of the problem as "How would I crop the ends of a 35mm frame to make an 8x10?", so their angle of view comes to what's contained in a 24x32 35mm frame. Coming at it from decades of 35mm, I think of it as "What am I doing to do to fill those two extra strips on the long edges?" so it's the opposite problem. However there's a tradition that predates all of us that angle of view is calculated on the diagonal, and that's how I usually try to think of it when I'm switching formats. In the average, going either direction, it usually sort of works.

MAubrey
6-Oct-2017, 13:20
There is no precise "crop factor" due to differences in aspect ratio. You can either compare long side to long side, short side to short side, or diagonal to diagonal.

Long side comparison - 36mm on 35mm film, roughly 250mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 6.94. If you crop the 8x10 to a 2:3 ratio, it matches.
Short side comparison - 24mm on 35mm film, roughly 200mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 8.33. If you crop the 35mm negative to a 4:5 ratio, it matches.
Diagonal side comparison - 43mm on 35mm film, about 320mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 7.44. Doesn't really match but it's a good middle of the road value.

You lose a bit on the 8x10 sheet from the film holders, which can vary, so these aren't immensely precise. The 200 x 250 mmm measurement of 8x10 is based off of the 7.875 x 9.875 nominal film size of 8x10.

So all that being said, that factor from Wikipedia is roughly 7x. Seems like they are comparing the long edge.
Yes indeed, I mainly asked simply because I was curious about Ken's caveat.

The footnote at the top of the chart says the diagonal. It looks though like they're just assuming a diagonal on the basis of the traditional normal lens: 300mm...which gives you exactly Wikipedia's .143 / 6.9768.

Vaughn
6-Oct-2017, 13:39
But eventually, it comes down to how the light hits your groundglass.

I used a FujiW 300/5.6 exclusively for many years. I just never used it wide open except to look at the GG.

After using a few different focal lengths of the same lens type (180mm, 250/f6.7 and 360/f6.3), the 300mm feels like a wide normal to me. I got use to hauling the 300mm, 250mm and perhaps a 19" RD Artar in a barrel in my pack. But even removing the Artar, the 360mm made it feel I was adding a ship anchor to my pack! Worth it and the winds couldn't push me around in Death Valley!**


Below are two images with the 300mm, but not wide open. Both are 8x10 platinum prints.


** a lie...I hid out safely in my van, high above the dust, and marveled at the view of dust clouds climbing 1500 feet above Stovepipe Wells.

mathieu Bauwens
7-Oct-2017, 02:31
170600

170601

170602

Fuji 300mm f5,6 @ 5,6 or 8

bobbotron
7-Oct-2017, 06:03
The first of these is really quite heartwarming!


170600

Fuji 300mm f5,6 @ 5,6 or 8

mathieu Bauwens
7-Oct-2017, 07:02
Thank you bobbotron !