A 254mm Tessar that illuminates 8x10?

[Will Frostmill]

Hi!

I'm curious if someone can recommend a 254mm (10-inch) f/9 Tessar type lens that will illuminate 8x10 at about 6 feet. Barrel lenses are fine, a little vignetting is fine too. This is for half-length portraits, so I want to avoid jangly bokeh. Maybe I should be looking at enlarger lenses?

Thanks,
Will

[8x10 user]

My 5x7 improved senecca came with an older Cooke Series II 7" lens, marked "5x7"... A 10" should cover if you can find one without a lens hood.

[Will Frostmill]

Thanks 8x10 user, that gives me something to look for.
I also found this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?76126-Image-Circle&p=727783&viewfull=1#post727783), where Kerry Thallman lists a bunch of Tessar design lenses, including a Kodak Commercial Ektar (10 inch), with an image circle of 317mm when stopped down, about 8mm shy of the nominal 325mm diagonal needed for 8x10. I think that will work, but I have to check what the actual working diagonal of the film is, and it's not clear if I can get the f-stop I want at that circle size. Maybe someone will chime in?

[Taija71A]

... This is for half-length portraits, so I want to avoid jangly bokeh. Maybe I should be looking at enlarger lenses?

____

Not usually 'Recommended'...

Although inexpensive to purchase, Enlarging Lenses (*When used as 'Taking' Lenses)... Are the last thing to consider -- If you are at all concerned about good 'Bokeh'.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[DrTang]

I have an Ilex Paragon - 240, but it's a f4.5


it covers 8x10 w/o a problem

[jcoldslabs]

If you can move away from a Tessar, Dagor types have very pleasing bokeh and in focal lengths of 240mm and up will cover 8x10 just fine.

Jonathan

[Mat5121]

Here's the link to a database that will give you lots of ideas and is fun to browse:

http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/DBIntro-1.html

I would think that almost any 250-ish Tessar would cover 8x10 focussed at that distance but for f/9 you might look at a Zeiss Apo Tessar.

[Dan Fromm]

Why do you want an f/9 tessar type? These all narrow angle process lenses.

The likely tessar type for you is an f/6.3 (these have more coverage than faster tessar types) such as the 10" Commercial Ektar already mentioned.

Why must the lens be a 10 incher? There are many slightly longer f/6.3 tessar types that will easily cover 12" (8x10"s diagonal) and most folks use lenses that are normal or somewhat longer for the format (12", 305 mm) for portraiture.

[Will Frostmill]

Thanks guys!
I'm not looking for a lens that's exactly f/9, just one that is at least f/9. So, yes, the Ilex Paragon sounds interesting - thanks for the data point Dr Tang.

Tim, I had heard that macro lenses make for decent moderate length portrait lenses on small formats because they are well corrected, but not over corrected for astigmatism, leading to unremarkable, completely innofensive bokeh. I had just assumed that enlarger lenses would be designed similarly. Plus, cheap, you know?

Jonathan, I'm now really curious abount Dagors. I'd just assumed they were too expensive. Turns out I'd been skimming too fast, and only noticed things about the Gold Dot Dagors. Oops!

Mat5121, that's pretty comprehensive, and I'd never seen that site before. Fascinating.

Dan Fromm, why 10 inches? It matches the angle of view I 'see' in, in other formats. I see portraits slightly wide. I prefer a little wide angle distortion with waist height, or chest height portraits, because that's how close I stand to people I talk to. I know few others do that sort of thing.

[Michael E]

The east German LF cameras usually used barrel lenses. Carl Zeiss Jena made a wide range of 4.5 Tessars, among them a 250mm. It won't cover 8x10" at infinity, but should work at portrait distance. These lenses were made until about 1990, the recent ones are coated and pretty cheap today.

[Bernice Loui]

If this lens needs to be in a shutter, the choices will be limited.

My suggestion would be to get a f6.3, 10" Commercial Ektar or a f4.5, 250mm Schneider Xenar. Both these lenses can be had in shutter or barrel. Both are easy enough to get and not too expensive and will produce fine images given the specific lens is in proper condition.

IMO, there appear to be bias against both these fine lenses for various reasons which may not be real or apply to the type of images that meet your needs.

Both will cover 8x10 at head-shoulder distances no problem, they will cover 8x10 at infinity.

The Dagor will have a different look compared to a Tessar and a Dagor of similar focal length will easy cover 8x10. Know Dagors have been made for a very long time. Don't be sucked in by considering only gold rim, gold dot versions as non-gold versions can be equally good.

The only way to really know what your lens preferences might be, some testing must be done.



Bernice




Thanks guys!
I'm not looking for a lens that's exactly f/9, just one that is at least f/9. So, yes, the Ilex Paragon sounds interesting - thanks for the data point Dr Tang.

Tim, I had heard that macro lenses make for decent moderate length portrait lenses on small formats because they are well corrected, but not over corrected for astigmatism, leading to unremarkable, completely innofensive bokeh. I had just assumed that enlarger lenses would be designed similarly. Plus, cheap, you know?

Jonathan, I'm now really curious abount Dagors. I'd just assumed they were too expensive. Turns out I'd been skimming too fast, and only noticed things about the Gold Dot Dagors. Oops!

Mat5121, that's pretty comprehensive, and I'd never seen that site before. Fascinating.

Dan Fromm, why 10 inches? It matches the angle of view I 'see' in, in other formats. I see portraits slightly wide. I prefer a little wide angle distortion with waist height, or chest height portraits, because that's how close I stand to people I talk to. I know few others do that sort of thing.