"People" lens for 8x10

[Alan Gales]

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.

Of course not. You have me confused. I'm not talking about color images.

The OP is interested in shooting people with a 240-250mm lens on an 8x10 camera and using b&w film. He was asking for lens choices. The link I gave him is to Jock Sturges' early b&w work using a Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 lens.

[Pere Casals]

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.

Pfor, there is no reason to be as agressive as IMHO you show yourself. At the end we talk about technical facts that can be enlightened or about aesthetical opinions that are subjective.

That's IMHO.

Regards.

[Pfsor]

Pere, the two questions of technical interest are devoid of any aggressiveness. I'm all in wonder over the statements I read. Be so kind and don't push into my mind your not so humble judgements. Cheers.

[Randy]

... a Fuji 250mm f/6.7 single coated...in a Copal 1 shutter. I own one and I paid $300 for my very clean example. They even go for less nowadays.

What Alan said...I got mine a year or so ago for about $170 shipped from Japan, in near mint condition. The f/6.7 version covers 8X10. Hard to beat if on a budget...which is the story of my life.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, the two questions of technical interest are devoid of any aggressiveness. I'm all in wonder over the statements I read. Be so kind and don't push into my mind your not so humble judgements. Cheers.

Yes it's my judgement... you are free to do what you want, but a polite behaviour helps proactive technical discussion. It is not a question about who knows more, but about sharing knowledge. Even the most skilled can learn even from beguinners. Sometimes when discussing one can see other interesting points of view.

[Pfsor]

Sometimes when discussing one can see other interesting points of view.

Indeed. And sometimes one can see a lot of BS too.
Nevertheless, do you know how one can judge the colour rendition of a lens (and compare it with other lenses) from B&W prints or screen pictures of the prints? I, for my part, would love to know. How do you know when you see the print, what comes from the lens and what comes from other causes?

[Pere Casals]

Indeed. And sometimes one can see a lot of BS too.
Nevertheless, do you know how one can judge the colour rendition of a lens (and compare it with other lenses) from B&W prints or screen pictures of the prints? I, for my part, would love to know. How do you know when you see the print, what comes from the lens and what comes from other causes?

You are right... the spectral transmission of common lenses say that, see my post #5 where I post the spectral footprint of a symmar-s.

But even when one is right and the other is wrong one can show own arguments without despective language or personal attack. This is the way...

[Pfsor]

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?

No, you cannot rely on your eyes only if you want to know the colour rendition of a lens from prints. You cannot know what comes from which cause at the final print. The characteristics of the lens you're mentioning is a question of a scientific laboratory test of the spectral transmission of the given lens. What you see on a print is a result of many other causes that make up for the printed colour you see. In other words - you cannot make a valid correlation between a print and a lens colour rendition based on looking at the print.

[Pfsor]

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.

docw, black and white are also colours, don't forget that. From the spectral transmission of a lens view b&w are still colours. Now what you talk about - skin looking a little nicer than others has not so much to do with the spectral transmission of a lens but rather with other stuff. Nicer is nicer, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the micro contrast on the print, film characteristics, enlarging lens characteristics, film processing etc. etc. all this translates in the quality of a print. Impossible to decide what comes from what. As others said.
From your original question one can see that you give a lens the main reason of the skin tone. That would be preposterous from the technical point of view.
But as I said elsewhere, the internet is made for urban myths and this forum is a good example of it. Have a good time!

[Alan Gales]

docw, black and white are also colours, don't forget that. From the spectral transmission of a lens view b&w are still colours. Now what you talk about - skin looking a little nicer than others has not so much to do with the spectral transmission of a lens but rather with other stuff. Nicer is nicer, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the micro contrast on the print, film characteristics, enlarging lens characteristics, film processing etc. etc. all this translates in the quality of a print. Impossible to decide what comes from what. As others said.
From your original question one can see that you give a lens the main reason of the skin tone. That would be preposterous from the technical point of view.
But as I said elsewhere, the internet is made for urban myths and this forum is a good example of it. Have a good time!

Ok. I now understand what you are talking about. You do have very valid points. All that you mention does affect how skin looks in a photograph whether in color or b&w.

The problem is that the OP wants a lens that meets his criteria. How does he go about searching for the right lens? The best way I know is by asking other photographer's opinions and looking at examples. I don't know what filter Jock Sturges used or if he used a light modifier or which enlarger lens he used or whatever. I just know that he got nice results from the Fujinon lens. Could Mr. Sturges have gotten the same results from other brand lenses? I'm sure he could have. I'm just saying that the Fujinon is a good place for the OP to start especially since it is such a bargain. Ultimately the OP needs to use a lens himself to see if he likes it. I'm just trying to get him in the ballpark.