Which 210mm F5.6 for portraits?

[arthur berger]

Hoffy,

In the march/April 2015 issue of Viewcamera magazine there is an article about a wonderful portrait photographer named Judy Dater. She states that she uses a type S 210mm Calumet lens ( Caltar?) and a Caltar-S 135mm Calumet lens. I hope that helps.

[Pere Casals]

Also there is this test, not last model lenses, but it's interesting 6 glasses side to side:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

[Bernice Loui]

On 5x4, 210mm f5.6 preference could be due to commonality rather than preference as the 210mm f5.6 has become one of the most common and generic offering used on 5x4 for most image making.

Generally speaking 210mm f5.6 Plasmats share a common image result. While there are some differences, they are not as great as perceived. These differences are often a different set of trade offs rather than inherent design in image result differences. Know the modern f5.6 Plasmat is often optimized for images to be made at f22, the f5.6 is intended to be used for focusing. More often than not, the modern Plasmat at f5.6 produces harsh out of focus rendition, this coupled with a limited umber of aperture blades of the modern Copal shutter adds to the out of focus harshness. Once stopped down to f22, these issues often goes away. The design intent of these modern Plasmats are to render "everything in focus" as a result and not really intended render out of focus area with smooth roundness. Then again, this could be the out of focus effect the image maker is seeking.


Better question would be what the resulting portrait image wants to be? Answer this, then seek the optic to meet this goal.


Bernice

Hi Folks,

I've been trawling the Portrait threads and have noticed that in regards to more modern lenses, there seems to be a preference to 210mm F5.6 lenses for general portrait work on 4x5.

As I'd like to upgrade from the Caltar II E 210 F6.8 that I own, I was wondering whether there were preferred lenses for portrait work in this length?

I'm not looking at spending mega $$'s (preferably < $500 S/H), so is there anything that is recommended?

Cheers

[Pere Casals]

Know the modern f5.6 Plasmat is often optimized for images to be made at f22, the f5.6 is intended to be used for focusing.

Bernice,

Modern 4x5 plasmats are diffraction limited by f/22, best aperture usually at f/11 or f/16, one can stop more for greater DOF, right. This has been told by Bob a number of times...

Diffraction limit at f/22 is 71 Lp/mm, being this value of similar than modern 4x5 plasmat potential the combination erodes the final performance.

Any modern plasmat works pretty well at f/11, and even at f/5.6 in some cases.

[M Harvey]

I'm going to agree with Bernice, by and large-- you're likely to get similar results from most modern plasmat designs, and other factors are likely to be a bigger influence on your final image. Since you're investigating studio lighting right now, you have a lot of control in particular over the contrast range of your images, which is one of the major things that lenses handle differently.

If you'd like to mix it up a bit with the optics, before switching lenses, I might recommend trying some filters. You can combine one with your existing lens to get a "vintage" look, or just to soften contrast while keeping a clean, sharp look. For the latter, there is a newer generation of diffusion filters designed to "take the edge off" digital sensors for portraiture or video work. I haven't used them on large format (I use the Fuji 210 f5.6 and 250 f.6.7, btw) but, on a digital camera, I like the effect of the weaker grade Black Satin or Hollywood Black Magic filters--softens skin texture a bit without imparting an old-fashioned "vaseline on the lens" look. Even a Black Pro-Mist 1/4 filter has a little too much of that quality for me, but it's a classic that you might like to try. Other filters of this type will give you glowy highlights (think 1930s-40s Hollywood glamour). Because they're often used for video work, you can find a lot of videos comparing the effects of different filters. (Here are a couple:
vimeo.com/162283600 & vimeo.com/92660033) Some of these may be available to try at photo or film rental houses.

And all that said, if you like the look of a tessar but need a modern shutter for your flash system, you can find information here about modern tessars produced by the big manufacturers, usually as part of a lower cost line to parallel their flagship plasmat designs.

[BradS]

Ironically, the Rodenstock 210mm f/6.8 Geronar (aka Caltar II-E) that the OP already has is my very most favorite lens for people portraits on 4x5. The 210mm f/6.1 Schneider Xenar is another favorite. The 210mm f/5.6 Plamats (Sironar and Symmar in all their various iterations) are fantastic optics...I have a couple but for portraits, my favorite of these is the slightly older 210mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar convertible.

[Drew Wiley]

I really prefer the rendering of the good ole Symmar S for portraiture versus the hard-sharp more contrasty later plasmats, which I prefer for landscape work. They're common and cheap, but were once a standard lens for commercial photography.

[Pere Casals]

I really prefer the rendering of the good ole Symmar S for portraiture versus the hard-sharp more contrasty later plasmats, which I prefer for landscape work. They're common and cheap, but were once a standard lens for commercial photography.

Drew, anyway a Symmar S can be single or multicoated, in the first case contrast may be close to the Symmar convertibles, in the second case it may be like an APO Symmar...

[DrTang]

for portraits? no 5.6 lens.. instead get a 210 f4.5 Heliar in shutter and don't look back

[Bob Salomon]

250 Imagon and lots of practice to master it!