Why? If you use the correct lighting they are easy to use.Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
Why? If you use the correct lighting they are easy to use.
They are hard to focus, and, yes, I've read and tried all of the suggestions here over the years. The lens is also less versatile than, say, a Xenar. LF is hard enough for a beginner....
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Thank you again for the responses, everyone.
If it changes the discussion at all, my Color Kardan came with a 210mm Prinz f6.3. I know this isn't the most stellar lens (Bob, I have seen your strong thoughts on this lens in a former thread when I first searched around trying to dig up any info on it); however it is nonetheless a 210mm Tessar-type. This is what I've been shooting with so far - I actually just pulled my first 4x5 negatives from the tank. I am very excited to try some enlargements in the coming weeks.
Anyway, being that I don't have a ton of spare funds, I probably won't go for a second 210 at the moment.
I know 180 is very similar to 210, but I really have a strong gut feeling that 180 is going to be the all-purpose focal length for me. So at least for a while, I'm going to keep the search to 180. Again, this thread is making me think that a Xenar is the move. So far I have yet to find one that seems like it's in relatively good condition and could be easily used on my Linhof. I searched for several of the other recommended Tessar-type 180s as well, but no dice just yet. If I wait long enough and I still can't find one, then I'll consider opening up the search to include a 210 Xenar.
It sounds like you have a good basis to start with.
Shoot a few boxes of film to get comfortable with it, make some prints, then re-evaluate to see what needs changing in order to improve your "vision", workflow, or results.
Most of all, have fun!
How are you going to make your prints, in a darkroom ? or scanning and adjusting things using PS? there are ways to make even something made with a sharpish lens less sharp when enlarging ( or contact printing ) ( you use cellophane ) or after it's been scanned . so in the end all you really need is a lens. still you can't go wrong with a tessar ..
are you planning on available light ? color? b/w? Have you made similar photographs with other formats ? what lens did you use for that ?
Last edited by jnantz; 19-Jun-2022 at 18:16.
There’s a 180/4.5 Fujinar on eBay right now for a good price. It’s in an older Copal 3 shutter, which is going to be easier to mount and service than an older shutter. I have four single-coated Tessar design lenses, a 165/3.5 Zeiss Tessar, the 180/4.5 Xenar, a 210/4.5 Fujinar and a 250/4.7 Fujinar. They all give similar results.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/
If you end up buying an older lens in an older Compur shutter, I can recommend Custom Photo Tools (based in Portugal, Google them) for professionally machined adaptor rings that will fit Compur rear threads to lens boards with standard Copal holes. I purchased a brass adaptor ring to mount my Xenar 15cm f/3.5 in Compur II / 5 Tube shutter and it worked a treat. Cost was about USD 50 inclusive of international shipping.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I don't know if if is the same sort of thing at all, but have you thought about getting a couple of the more subtle tiffen pro mist filters? There are digital photographers who use the just to take the edge off the sharpness of digital files so they might be a workable solution. You get the benefit of using a new modern lens and shutter with the ability to add or remove sharpness gradually. Link for sample images https://tiffen.com/pages/black-pro-mist-edu
I have a little bit of experience with diffusion filters....getting the right one is hard! Different systems, different lighting, and, especially, different enlargement factors will have a huge impact on the results. I use a 1/4 strength Tiffen black mist filter for my college videos, as it cuts down on moire without making the image too soft.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Not a lot wrong with that 210mm f6.3 Prinz lens. It is a re-branded Commercial Congo made by Yamasaki, Japan. Commercial Congo lenses happened after Kodak got out of producing their Commercial Ektar view camera lens business decades ago. It is a Tessar design good performance at full aperture of f6.3, idea about f8 to f16, with the optical performance dropping off past f22. Think these were in a Copal shutter making it an absolutely worthy normal 4x5 lens, if the lens is in good condition and is performing as it should, there would be little reasons to move to a different 210mm lens for now.
This 210mm f6.3 Prinz lens could be better than initially perceived, judge this lens by it's images produced instead of by brand name only.
Difference between 180mm -vs- 210mm is not that significant, moving the camera could achieve similar results for relative objects size rendered on 4x5 sheet film. IMO, better to step down to a 150mm/6" then crop if needed. 210mm focal length works for head/shoulder portraits on 4x5 and more, much a matter of camera position relative to the portrait sitter(s)..
Schneider Xenar has been made for many decades. It is a classic Tessar formula lens. Early ones are non-coated, mid production are single coated, near the end of it's production multi-coated. They render contrast differently depending on coating or non-coating and vintage. Don't be fooled by higher contrast being "sharper" when the image results are not actually "sharper"
Tessar design view camera lenses were very common due to their overall performance and into out of focus rendition appeal. Tessar design lenses were also common in small film format camera for much the same reasons. After making piles of portraits over the decades, soft or soften focus images are not always ideal, at times critically sharp in a portrait is desirable, other times, soft focus images are desirable.. it all depends on the portrait image goals. Ponder what areas of the portrait needs to be in focus, this relates to lens aperture needed at specific lens to subject distances. Knowing this as a image goal will go a long ways to decide lens type and lens aperture needed.
As for the Fujinon SF, used three versions, 180mm for GX680, 180mm in shutter, 250mm in shutter. They can be used with or without the strainer (yellow or red dot) inside the lens. With or without the internal strainer the transition from into out of focus and out of focus areas is not pleasing. Not recommended unless this lens is tried/used lots knowing this lens personality meets your image goals.
As for soft focus filters/add ons in front of the lens, they can work. They do not produce the same soft focus results as a soft focus lens.
The more important aspect of portrait images is lighting with expression of the portrait sitter being the. most important aspect of portrait images. All that "gear" related stuff is much secondary.
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks