"People" lens for 8x10

[Luis-F-S]

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?

If you want a modern shutter, you could remount your 14" KCE in a Copal 3. Sharper for portraits? Really? L

[docw]

Another qualification: I use only available light, sometimes with a large reflector.

[Alan Gales]

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.

I've read over and over that he used the 6.7 lens but I don't think it really matters. I'm sure the 6.3 would give you the same look. The older 6.7 lenses were single coated but had quite a bit more coverage (398mm image circle) which is nice for 8x10. Lately, I've seen nice examples sell for less then $250. It would be a good place for you to start and if you decided to sell it then you wouldn't be hurt any. Modern lenses are sharp and contrasty and look a lot alike. I mentioned Sturges because he has a lot of examples of skin to look at and the Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 is a bargain lens.

[Pfsor]

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.
Any suggestions?

I mentioned Sturges because he has a lot of examples of skin to look at and the Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 is a bargain lens.

I hope you don't want to say that you can judge a lens colour rendering from seeing pictures made by the lens. Wouldn't that be like thinking you can grab the full Moon by your hands if only you climb the high mountain in front of you?

[Pfsor]

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.

For once, Pere, I have to agree with you and say - you nailed it!

[Alan Gales]

I hope you don't want to say that you can judge a lens colour rendering from seeing pictures made by the lens. Wouldn't that be like thinking you can grab the full Moon by your hands if only you climb the high mountain in front of you?

The OP says he is going to shoot b&w and no longer color (post #8). I realize that looking at a computer screen isn't the same as looking at a print but it can give you some idea. In the end the OP is of course going to have to try a lens or several lenses to see what he likes.

[docw]

I hope you don't want to say that you can judge a lens colour rendering from seeing pictures made by the lens. Wouldn't that be like thinking you can grab the full Moon by your hands if only you climb the high mountain in front of you?

Pf, I don't quite understand this. One certainly can't make a decision about colour based on what you see on a computer screen unless all screens are calibrated (and we know they are not). So let's talk just about prints. Are you saying that one CANNOT judge a lens colour rendering from photographs taken with that lens? If one can't, then how does one judge the colour rendering of a particular lens?

[Pfsor]

The OP says he is going to shoot b&w and no longer color (post #8). I realize that looking at a computer screen isn't the same as looking at a print but it can give you some idea. In the end the OP is of course going to have to try a lens or several lenses to see what he likes.

So you really think one can judge a lens colour rendering from looking at BW prints?? And you can even judge the same thing for different lenses used??
I'm speechless.

[docw]

So you really think one can judge a lens colour rendering from looking at BW prints?? And you can even judge the same thing for different lenses used??
I'm speechless.

Well, I sure hope we can cure that speechlessness. That would indeed make one's life difficult!

I thought we were talking about skin tones in black and white, not colour. My understanding is that some lenses make skin look a little nicer than others and that some film does too (again, black and white only). Perhaps that is not true. I am happy to be enlightened on this.

[Pere Casals]

talking about skin tones in black and white.

Well... skin may look different with different glasses, an uncoated or single coated lens will deliver less microcontrast because more parasite light, softening skin. Some will prefer an (slightly) optically inferior Sironar-N than Sironar-S for portrait. But I guess this is not related to skin tones, but to a pleasant smooth look, rather than more crispy.

BTW Sironar N and Symmar S are good choices, also the Symmar convertible. The 240 5.6 can convert to 420mm f/12, not easy to use but (to me) an excellent portrait lens.

Anyway I'd take a 300mm for a 8x10, I feel the 240 is too wide for that, and the 300 would have lots of movements.