Compared with? I find f/4.5 plenty fast and very bright on the groundglass. But with depth of field a serious challenge at that aperture when doing portraits.
Certainly, for soft soft images, something like a Imagon or Fuji SF or one of the Galli Specials would do the trick.
Regarding Heliar "softness", my 21cm Heliar shows a very clear lack of contrast (perceived softness) when shot head to head against a modern multicoated 210mm plasmat, or even my ultra-sharp single coated 210mm Xenar f/6.1. In fact, the Heliar has visibly less contrast than the modern optics from f/4.5 through f/11 and maybe even f/16.
Alternatively, thinking of 210mm's as a portrait focal length could lead a person to an inexpensive Schneider Symmar Convertible f/5.6. The reason I bring this up is that ultimately it is final print quality that will win the day.
Some people find it easy to start with something nice and contrasty and then find a pleasing way to mute the tones. Other folks like starting with a less contrasty portrait. I think you can end up with what you are looking for by taking either approach. You'd just need to "work at it" a bit.
One last monkey wrench in your portrait plans: A friend doesn't like 210mm for portraits. He say's it's too flat. He likes 180mm instead. He says it's a nice tradeoff between the "roundness" of 150mm and the "flatness" of 210mm. YMMWV.
Originally Posted by Thomas Vaehrmann
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks