lens recommendation (210)?

[dmeckert]

Hi am,i

I'm planning on creating a portrait series over the next few months, hoping to have the work showing right around the time the debates begin for the 2016 US election.

I've got some LF gear I've acquired and been meaning to sort through, but it was largely purchased over time on the prevailing wisdom that the modern lenses are all close enough to not worry at first (which led me to Nikkors).

For this project though, I've got it in my head that I want the equipment it's made with to be as "of the times" as possible, while still LF film (i think if I were to be truly modern it would be an iphone). Older work tends to look older, And I'd like this to look shiny and new, and for it to look "vintage 2015" when I'm old. Leaning toward Ektar, but also considering new portra (since everyone complains how unlike the previous version it is).

So against the wisdom of modern lenses being close enough...what are my options for a 210mm with the most modern rendering/aesthetic?

Thanks,

David

[jbenedict]

You know, I'm really not sure what you mean by "looking new".

Most all of the manufacturers such as Nikon, Fuji, Rodenstock and Schneider are pretty much out of the film lens business now. One particular lens made by these manufacturers in the last fifty years should look the same as any copies of the same lens if the lens is in good physical and operational condition.

Of all the films available, Ektar 100 is probably the newest formulation. In sheet film, Ektar is less than 10 years old, being introduced in 2010. EK says it has been reformulated to be "good for scanning" but I'm not sure what that means. I have a feeling that, eventually, the only Kodak film available in all sizes, shapes and kinds will be Ektar. I've been proven wrong, though. I used to think that Tri-X would only be gone if they closed the door on the whole place. Some Tri-X is gone and the rest appears to be on life support.

I'm not really sure what effect it is that you are trying to get. A black and white photograph, taken with a Speed Graphic, lit by a big #25 flash bulb is pretty noticeable. Comparing an image made by an old uncoated lens will have a different look from a modern multicoated lens but there are techniques to make the difference very slight- use of a lens hood for one. But, the visible difference between a 210/5.6 Symmar made 30 years ago and one made the last time Schneider made a 210/5.6 Symmar would either be very slight or imaginary.

[Ken Lee]

You might find this brief article interesting: it compares a few lenses of different design, in the focal length you're interested in.

[jbenedict]

You might find this brief article interesting: it compares a few lenses of different design, in the focal length you're interested in.

+1

[Bob Salomon]

You know, I'm really not sure what you mean by "looking new".

Most all of the manufacturers such as Nikon, Fuji, Rodenstock and Schneider are pretty much out of the film lens business now. One particular lens made by these manufacturers in the last fifty years should look the same as any copies of the same lens if the lens is in good physical and operational condition.

Of all the films available, Ektar 100 is probably the newest formulation. In sheet film, Ektar is less than 10 years old, being introduced in 2010. EK says it has been reformulated to be "good for scanning" but I'm not sure what that means. I have a feeling that, eventually, the only Kodak film available in all sizes, shapes and kinds will be Ektar. I've been proven wrong, though. I used to think that Tri-X would only be gone if they closed the door on the whole place. Some Tri-X is gone and the rest appears to be on life support.

I'm not really sure what effect it is that you are trying to get. A black and white photograph, taken with a Speed Graphic, lit by a big #25 flash bulb is pretty noticeable. Comparing an image made by an old uncoated lens will have a different look from a modern multicoated lens but there are techniques to make the difference very slight- use of a lens hood for one. But, the visible difference between a 210/5.6 Symmar made 30 years ago and one made the last time Schneider made a 210/5.6 Symmar would either be very slight or imaginary.

On the contrary. Rodenstock still makes the 135, 150 and 210mm Apo Sironar S lenses.

[IanG]

EK says it has been reformulated to be "good for scanning" but I'm not sure what that means.

Essentially it means improved hardening to eliminate surface effects on the gelatin top coat. This was known about back in the late 1920's when the first wet mounted (sandwiched against glass) enlargements were made to eliminate the surface effects of the gelatin super-coat. It's why wet scans are superior to dry.

Kodak had a major issue with the first digital minilabs their films gave far greater apparent graininess when scanned compared to their rivals films, part of the problem was the wash was at a much lower temperature to the rest of the process increasing the surface artifacts, a form of incipient reticulation.

Kodak have improved all there films in the last few years so that their films scan better,.

Ian

[dmeckert]

Thanks for the quick replies.

As far as looking new, I'm sort of getting at the difference between a nikon 50/1.4D and a zeiss otus. They look like they're from different eras of lens design. The former has aberrations and fall-off and has a distinct look of that era of Nikkors, while the otus is hell-bent on perfection and sacrifices a small amount of niceness. Same for the sigma ART lenses. They draw in a way that looks very contemporary, very realistic, unromantic, not ugly or harsh but straight forward.

As I'm not as familiar with the lenses for LF I'm open to learning that there really isn't a difference, and that a nikkor-w and an apo-sironar-s don't yield an appreciable aesthetic difference, but if there is I'd like to be able to make use of it.

Going back to film for a moment, I think new portra is similar in age to ektar? Not sure how reformulated it is compared to the nc/vc era though. Its also got a look, but I'm not sure it's present enough, it's a bit unreal.

[jbenedict]

Make sure you read Ken's article. Good examples and explainations.

[dmeckert]

That is a fantastic article. Going to have a closer look on a larger screen at home.

The zeiss tessars and the 150 sironar-s stand out to me...which is ridiculous given the difference in manufacture date.

[Tin Can]

Consider shutters