"People" lens for 8x10

[docw]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?

[John Kasaian]

A question like this will get you 100 different answers.
So rather than telling you mine, I suggest surfing on over to where the images are posted and see which 8x18 "people" lenses others have used which spark your creative Muse.

[Alan Gales]

John is correct. You can receive 100 different answers. Jock Sturges used a Fuji 250mm f/6.7 single coated lens for his early work. They came in a Copal 1 shutter.

https://onlinebrowsing.blogspot.com/...urges-was.html

I own one and I paid $300 for my very clean example. They even go for less nowadays. I also own a Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar which I prefer for portraits. The Fuji is sharper.

[Willie]

My Uncle did a whole gallery show a decade or more ago with 8x10 using a Nikkor 300M lens. Just people and faces. Contact prints. None lacked for sharpness or tonal range.

[Pere Casals]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?

IMHO lens spectral transmitance has a very low impact on how skin tones are rendered with BW film. It is way much more important the filter you use and the spectral response of film.

What's about color photography a very,very slight cast may be seen from some brands, but again film selection, filtration and post-process will hide any trend from the glass.

Also illumination color temperature or CRI can play a major role.


IMHO there is a lot to do in order to ajust skin tones, but this is not much related to the glass.

A classic example was using green filter to separate well lips in BW. And now discontinued CHS 25 film had a green filter like effect...

But all of this is way beyond the slight spectral footprint a lens has.

From a portrait lens you should seek a certain out of focus character or a certain softness or harshness, for example...



PD:




Here you have the spectral transmission of a Symmar-S 150mm, you see it pretty flat for all visible light, as with all lenses

Single concern it woud be in a High UV light environement, IMHO not much difference from one lens to another about UV cut off and nothing that cannot be compensated with filtration.

[DrTang]

250 is kinda short unless you are doing groups...12 or 14" is better for waist up or two button shoots

and man... sharper??? not my way to go.. but fuji lenses are dang sharp if you want that

[interneg]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?

Obvious choices would be Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar-S & Apo-Sironar-N 240/5.6. The rendering of skin tones & textures has much more to do with how you use light than any perceived 'magical' quality of a particular lens.

[docw]

I don't mind 100 different answers. I will pick through them. I am interested in peoples' experience with different lenses and I have already learned several things from this thread.

I need to qualify some points.

First, I am shooting almost exclusively b&w. I have a box of ten sheets of 8x10 Portra in the fridge but after that goes, I will probably never shoot colour 8x10 again.

Second, I also want to do toe to crown portraits, not just close shots. Sturges is good example of someone who uses a 240/250 lens for both head and shoulders and top to bottom portraits. He now uses a 240mm f/5.6 Rodenstock Apo Sironar but I don't know if it is an N or an S (I can afford an N, but an S ain't cheap!). Which is my third point - I am on a budget and 1K is really pushing the limit.

Finally, I am definitely not looking for a magic bullet lens which will instantly exalt my limited talent. I can afford a another lens at this point, but I can't afford to make a mistake so I am interested in hearing your recommendations based on your experiences with different lenses.

[John Berry]

Sharper is not always better when doing people. It could be a negative with female subjects. Women don't like showing the detail inside their pores. Like that bokeh? kiss it goodby withy at shiny new 5 blade copal. Unless it's a flash sync issue, better and cheaper to do a CLA. The argument for a 10" lens when doing headshots is you will be shooting closer and using a center section of the lens. A 10" lens will also prove a little more roundness to the face. Longer is flatter. A headshot with a 14" lens will have you wishing you had a basketball court for a studio. 10" focus on the eyes, 14" pick an eye. Some of my preferences are my 10" cooke series 11, or kodak 300 portrait. Neither are as sharp as what you have, but subjects will prefer their feel. Glass aside, recomendations for lighting and filtering will give the most return. It's a penny for you thoughts, so there's my 2 cents.

[docw]

Alan, I read somewhere that Sturges' Fuji was a f/6.5, but I think that was possibly a typo. I also read that it was f/6.3 which seems possible but I wonder it if it is likely.