Lens advice needed for 8x10 fully open in a tight space

[aopie]

I am struggling with lenses and hope for help identifying lenses that would solve my problem, chiefly a problem of fall-off with lens fully open.

I am shooting 8x10 wet plate portraits (full standing figure). Due to slow effective film speed and my lighting choices I need to shoot with the a lens full open, f6 or faster is better. The lighting and exposure time (10-30 seconds) are necessary to get the look I want so going with strobes and stopping down is not an option. I need even coverage into the corners including with movements (I tend to move the front lens standard up and down, mostly up). And, lastly, I need the camera pretty close to the subject (8' is ideal up to 10' is possible).

I'm thinking that the only way to get fully even coverage with an 8x10 fully open is to use a lens designed for 11x14 or larger in which case I believe I need a pretty wide angle for 11x14 to keep the camera fitting in the room (lens 8' from subject).

I have a few lenses but none are giving me even coverage to the corners. What I have:
Fujinon W f6.3 250mm (covers 4x5 beautifully but looses light in the corners for 8x10)
Ross Express 10" f4.5 (too long for my needs for 4x5, uneven coverage for 8x10 at corners)
Ross Rapid Symmetrical 5x7 (brass barrel lens) approximately f8 I believe. (came with an 1880s full plate camera works great for that)
Ilex Paragon Anastigmat 5 1/2" f4 (popped this one in last week and it looked terrible - uneven focus within a 4x5)

I prefer sharp over soft and I need even focus and even illumination to the edges.

Budget of up to $1500.

Thanks for any advice!
Alexandra

[Bob Salomon]

Except for your budget the Rodenstock 240mm 5.6 Apo Sironar-S should work. Fall off with this type of lens is about 1/3rd stop cnter to edge. The lens covers a 372mm circle at f22 at infinity (I know you want to shoot wide open but the lens specs are at f22). While the circle is smaller wide open it also grows larger at closer distances so 372 should be pretty good in your case. A 372mm circle on 810 gives you a little bit of rise.

You could also go to a wide angle design like a 200mm Grandagon-N but while that has a massive circle (495mm at f22 at infinity) it is also a wide with the typical fall off of a wide of about 1 1/3rd stops center to edge. It is also physically massive and very heavy and center filters no longer are made for it. It is also a 6.8 rather then a 5.6 lens.

Lastly there was the 210mm 5.6 Apo-Sironar W that covered a 352mm circle, has about 1/3rd stop fall off and would allow over an inch of rise on 810. It was also pretty large and heavy but may be the best choice, especially if you prefer sharp. This lens is probably the dictionary definition of sharp! It was also available briefly as the 210mm Apo Sironar.

[Steve Goldstein]

How about the 250mm f/6.7 Fujinon-W? This single-coated predecessor to the f/6.3 has a 398mm image circle (quoted at f/22, I'm not sure what it is wide open). It's in a Copal 1 and well within your budget.

[goamules]

It sounds like a quandry. You need something that will cover 8x10, be wide enough to get a full body portrait at 8 to 10 feets, and be F6 or faster, right? There might be something out there like that, but keep in mind your perspective may look pretty "wide" that close. As in bending edges and close parts of the sitter being larger than real life.

[aopie]

Thanks for this advice. Turns up one point I want to touch on. Size doesn't matter. I'm shooting in-studio on a Horseman 8x10 so I can deal with a huge lens and be fine.

Bob, does fall-off remain consistent from closed to open? You think I'd really get even coverage with the 210mm 5.6 Apo-Sironar W? Before buying my fujinon w 250 I thought it would do this, it doesn't.

I understand why the specs are all given for f22 or similarly closed-down lens but I wish they would give them for wide open as well. I guess that's what leads me to think that going with an 11x14 lens would be the safest bet but I have no experience with that format and so don't know what to look for.

I'll look at the lenses mentioned so far in addition to the 210mm 5.6 Apo-Sironar W.

[Mark Sawyer]

250mm Wide Field Ektar, f/6.3 and a listed image circle of 422mm. A 240mm Dagor might also be a consideration. If you could go to a 12" lens, there are many more options.

I'm surprised the Fujinon W 250mm isn't covering 8x10 at portrait distances; are you raising the front that much? Keeping the optical axis centered on the plate might take care of the issue...

[Jim Galli]

Cooke 222mm Series VIIb perhaps.

[Oren Grad]

I understand why the specs are all given for f22 or similarly closed-down lens but I wish they would give them for wide open as well.

The full versions of the technical data sheets for Rodenstock and Schneider lenses include charts showing falloff at a range of apertures.

[aopie]

Mark,
Thanks. I'm running a test plate to confirm that I still have drop-off with the lens centered.
I'll post a result in a bit.

[jb7]

Budget of up to $1500.

Thanks for any advice!
Alexandra

How about an older single coated Fujinon W 210mm f/5.6?
You could get about five or six of them on your budget-

I haven't had noticeable falloff issues at longer distances, at eight feet, coverage should be even better...

Nice and sharp too, and you're not even planning on enlarging-

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for this advice. Turns up one point I want to touch on. Size doesn't matter. I'm shooting in-studio on a Horseman 8x10 so I can deal with a huge lens and be fine.

Bob, does fall-off remain consistent from closed to open? You think I'd really get even coverage with the 210mm 5.6 Apo-Sironar W? Before buying my fujinon w 250 I thought it would do this, it doesn't.

I understand why the specs are all given for f22 or similarly closed-down lens but I wish they would give them for wide open as well. I guess that's what leads me to think that going with an 11x14 lens would be the safest bet but I have no experience with that format and so don't know what to look for.

I'll look at the lenses mentioned so far in addition to the 210mm 5.6 Apo-Sironar W.

The fall off will be pretty consistent. If you went with a wide angle and a center filter you need to stop down 2 stops from wide open for the filter to work.

[jb7]

Though, admittedly, I haven't used it wide open on 8x10- not yet, at any rate...

[aopie]

JB7,
How will I know if it is an older single-coated one? And are you recommending single-coating because of cost or other reason? There are quite a few on ebay and they are certainly affordable.

[jb7]

They've always been inexpensive, they must have made a lot of them-
Don't confuse cheapness with poor quality in this case, however. They might not be up there with the more expensive lenses, for absolute resolution, but for wet plate in camera, they could prove to be more than adequate.

Falloff can also be dealt with by lighting, if that is an option- it might be that wet plate is emphasizing the falloff due to the limitation of the dynamic range presented by the process.

The older ones are distinguished by the positioning of the engraving inside the bezel- and by having a much larger image circle than the multi coated newer ones.

You're right, there are a few available- Fujinon W, not W S ...

[aopie]

Well, running a quick test of something with wet plate always gets more complicated. I got pretty even light with but had the view closer in than I need, then did something wrong with the next exposure. So, I'll have to continue that tomorrow.

Thanks for the advice all. I'll keep looking into the lenses you've mentioned.

[Leonard Robertson]

A link to Fujinons with details on coatings:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm

Len

[goamules]

It's not much of an issue, but with wetplate and artificial light, a coated lens may act slower than it's listed. Usually UV (what wetplate is sensitive to) gets through coatings fine when I shoot outdoors, but I've noticed artificial lighting has to be VERY powerful for wetplate. I had one experience where a coated Aero lens didn't end up as fast as we thought. I'd want to do everything to limit the exposure time, both to help the sitter, and to get less motion blur.

[David A. Goldfarb]

250mm Wide Field Ektar, f/6.3 and a listed image circle of 422mm.

I'll second that recommendation. Coverage is huge, and since you're only 8 feet from the subject, you can even apply movements and you'll be miles from the edge of the image circle.

[jesse]

How about 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar, image circle is 444mm.

[Joshua Roberts]

Schneider made a Xenar 300mm f4.5. It is a tessar design, was single coated and came mounted in a huge Compound 5 shutter. According to Schneider it has an image circle of 364mm @ f16. No idea how much fall off there is wide open but at 8 to 10 feet it may not be too bad. The Schneider vintage lens catalog also lists a 360, 420 and a 480 all at f4.5. Here is the link. https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/xenar/

[Bernice Loui]

Wet plates with an exposure time of 10-30 seconds, a shutter is moot as a well fitting lens cap will do fine to turn the light to the wet plate on and off. This allows using barrel lenses with little problem.

Given this, skip over the majority of modern plasmats as they are typically f5.6 wide open.

The solution could be found in older vintage lenses of a Tessar, Heliar or similar design. Most Tessars are f4.5, few are f3.5. This is also true for the Heliar which is most common in f4.5 and the rare f3.5. There are a few f4.5 dialyte lenses like the Cooke Aviar and Goerz Dogmar.

That one stop might not appear to be much on paper, it is very significant in actual image making. Moving beyond these lens formulations, there are a number of aero recon lenses that might do. Lenses like the Kodak 12" aero Ektar has a whopping f2.5 and designed to cover 9x9 - 10x10 aero film at infinity.

The Petzval lens formula goes back to the wet plate era as it was one of the first successful large aperture lens designs that was used for wet plate image making. They do have a distinct look and might fit your needs.


Bernice

[jb7]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2796/4187645806_552a04626b_z.jpg?zz=1 (https://flic.kr/p/7o3McL)
Laura (https://flic.kr/p/7o3McL) by joseph - jb7 (https://www.flickr.com/people/15372619@N05/)

This is an 11" (270mm) f/3.3 (or 3.5) Petzval, at around 10 feet distance. I'm not sure, based on my reading of the original question, if this is what aople is looking for. In fact, I seriously doubt that it is. I know people claim great coverage for their Petzvals, especially when they're selling them, but none of my Petzvals seem to cover as much as theirs.

I also have a 250mm f/3.5 Tessar, it doesn't come close to covering 8x10 at this distance. A longer lens might, but wouldn't fit the space restrictions that are part of the problem.

[Mark Sawyer]

Just a note that the Aero Ektars make poor wet plate lenses, as the rare earth glass has a yellow cast that cuts the UV light significantly. Tessars, Heliars, and Petzvals all have pretty modest coverage.

The OP's Fujinon covers 8x10 at infinity, so at the 8-10 foot distance she is working at, it should cover her plates fine. I suspect any fall-off is either from taking the lens off-axis with movements, or from uneven lighting (which is pretty easy to have happen when the lights are close to the subject for studio wet plate portraiture).

[Bernice Loui]

No experience what so ever with wet plate image-making. Question is.. what is the spectral sensitivity of wet plates. Given this, would a light source with a spectrum centered to the greatest band of wet plate sensitivity help reduce exposure times?

Knowing the spectral requirements would also help in optics selection.

Aero Ektars are intended to cut UV sensitivity and enhance IR sensitivity as IR is often used in aero imaging to this day. This designed in aspect of aero Ektars would make them a poor choice for UV work.

There are lenses made using optical quartz specifically designed to transmit UV better than normal photographic lenses. Much like lenses made of optical germanium specifically designed to transmit IR better than normal photographic lenses.

Here is a lens coverage chart from the Linhof book published years ago. The 240mm f4.5 Xenar/Tessar has an image circle of 280mm at infinity, 8x10 requires about 312mm to just cover. The Heliar is also listed. Given the working distances involved, the image circle should be just enough. Depth of focus will be small at f4.5.


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-EYSdm_seY7I/VF0ItqikvZI/AAAAAAAAAws/uRE5dHfA0QI/s750/Image%2520Circle%2520Chart%2520Linhof%2520Book_sm.jpg


Bernice


Just a note that the Aero Ektars make poor wet plate lenses, as the rare earth glass has a yellow cast that cuts the UV light significantly. Tessars, Heliars, and Petzvals all have pretty modest coverage.

The OP's Fujinon covers 8x10 at infinity, so at the 8-10 foot distance she is working at, it should cover her plates fine. I suspect any fall-off is either from taking the lens off-axis with movements, or from uneven lighting (which is pretty easy to have happen when the lights are close to the subject for studio wet plate portraiture).

[goamules]

Wetplaters do use artificial lighting that is heavy on the UV and blue end of the scale. Some use black lights. Shooting portraits indoors with strobes or florescent lights for wetplate is just difficult. You ether give the subject a powerful, thermonuclear blast of flash, or make them sit basking in UV radiation for long exposures. Either way, artificial lights make the skin look pasty, and unnatural to me. That's why 1800s studios had huge skylights, sunlight is perfect for wetplate.

In open shade outdoors, I can get a 1-2 second exposure with a normally fast lens. Take the same lens indoors, with a bank or two of compact florescents, and you may need a 30 second exposure.

[aopie]

Thanks again for all the suggestions. In my case, the solution was in my hands (in my camera in fact). Mark was right:

"The OP's Fujinon covers 8x10 at infinity, so at the 8-10 foot distance she is working at, it should cover her plates fine. I suspect any fall-off is either from taking the lens off-axis with movements, or from uneven lighting (which is pretty easy to have happen when the lights are close to the subject for studio wet plate portraiture)."

My lighting was uneven and I was raising the front standard too much. Corrected those things and I'm getting even coverage on the whole 8x10 plate. An example: 124974

On wetplate lighting, since that has been mentioned a few times. I'm using at least 10 of these wonderful, massive fluorescent bulbs 250 watt I believe, as well as a bank of 4' fluorescent tubes and large, open softbox. So, I'm using a lot of light but it's cool and easy for subjects. I have another bank of 4' black light tubes I've used but I find that with some formulas (the spectral sensitivity changes for different formulas and with age) the highlights look terrible so I've shifted away from black light with my current formulas.

Back to lenses, for others searching in the future, I've made a list of the lenses suggested in this thread, hope I didn't miss any. Even though I find my needs are actually set with what I have, I'm going to look into getting the wide field Ektar and keep my eye out for others, can't have too many lens options!

Lenses suggested for fast, even coverage of 8x10 at 8’ to subject
250mm Fujinon W f6.3
240mm Rodenstock 5.6 Apo Sironar-S should work
200mm Grandagon-N
210mm Apo-Sironar W 5.6 (352mm circle)
250mm Fujinon-W f/6.7
210mm Fujinon W f/5.6?
250mm Wide Field Ektar f/6.3 (422mm image circle)
240mm Dagor
222mm Cooke Series VIIb

If you could go to a 12" lens, there are many more options, starting with:
300mm Schneider Xenar f4.5
12" Kodak aero Ektar f2.5
14" Kodak Commercial Ektar (444mm image circle)

Other fast lenses:
Cooke Aviar
Goerz Dogmar
Petzval

[Bob Salomon]

No experience what so ever with wet plate image-making. Question is.. what is the spectral sensitivity of wet plates. Given this, would a light source with a spectrum centered to the greatest band of wet plate sensitivity help reduce exposure times?

Knowing the spectral requirements would also help in optics selection.

Aero Ektars are intended to cut UV sensitivity and enhance IR sensitivity as IR is often used in aero imaging to this day. This designed in aspect of aero Ektars would make them a poor choice for UV work.

There are lenses made using optical quartz specifically designed to transmit UV better than normal photographic lenses. Much like lenses made of optical germanium specifically designed to transmit IR better than normal photographic lenses.

Here is a lens coverage chart from the Linhof book published years ago. The 240mm f4.5 Xenar/Tessar has an image circle of 280mm at infinity, 8x10 requires about 312mm to just cover. The Heliar is also listed. Given the working distances involved, the image circle should be just enough. Depth of focus will be small at f4.5.


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-EYSdm_seY7I/VF0ItqikvZI/AAAAAAAAAws/uRE5dHfA0QI/s750/Image%2520Circle%2520Chart%2520Linhof%2520Book_sm.jpg


Bernice

But these coverages are all at f22 not wide open. Wide open they will cover less. Closer then infinity they will cover more. So, at portrait distances the coverage will be something other then what is listed for f22.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks again for all the suggestions. In my case, the solution was in my hands (in my camera in fact). Mark was right...

I'm always right, and I never lie. :)