lens recommendation (210)?

[dmeckert]

Hi am,i

I'm planning on creating a portrait series over the next few months, hoping to have the work showing right around the time the debates begin for the 2016 US election.

I've got some LF gear I've acquired and been meaning to sort through, but it was largely purchased over time on the prevailing wisdom that the modern lenses are all close enough to not worry at first (which led me to Nikkors).

For this project though, I've got it in my head that I want the equipment it's made with to be as "of the times" as possible, while still LF film (i think if I were to be truly modern it would be an iphone). Older work tends to look older, And I'd like this to look shiny and new, and for it to look "vintage 2015" when I'm old. Leaning toward Ektar, but also considering new portra (since everyone complains how unlike the previous version it is).

So against the wisdom of modern lenses being close enough...what are my options for a 210mm with the most modern rendering/aesthetic?

Thanks,

David :)

[jbenedict]

You know, I'm really not sure what you mean by "looking new".

Most all of the manufacturers such as Nikon, Fuji, Rodenstock and Schneider are pretty much out of the film lens business now. One particular lens made by these manufacturers in the last fifty years should look the same as any copies of the same lens if the lens is in good physical and operational condition.

Of all the films available, Ektar 100 is probably the newest formulation. In sheet film, Ektar is less than 10 years old, being introduced in 2010. EK says it has been reformulated to be "good for scanning" but I'm not sure what that means. I have a feeling that, eventually, the only Kodak film available in all sizes, shapes and kinds will be Ektar. I've been proven wrong, though. I used to think that Tri-X would only be gone if they closed the door on the whole place. Some Tri-X is gone and the rest appears to be on life support.

I'm not really sure what effect it is that you are trying to get. A black and white photograph, taken with a Speed Graphic, lit by a big #25 flash bulb is pretty noticeable. Comparing an image made by an old uncoated lens will have a different look from a modern multicoated lens but there are techniques to make the difference very slight- use of a lens hood for one. But, the visible difference between a 210/5.6 Symmar made 30 years ago and one made the last time Schneider made a 210/5.6 Symmar would either be very slight or imaginary.

[Ken Lee]

You might find this brief article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/#bokehTest)interesting: it compares a few lenses of different design, in the focal length you're interested in.

[jbenedict]

You might find this brief article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/#bokehTest)interesting: it compares a few lenses of different design, in the focal length you're interested in.

+1

[Bob Salomon]

You know, I'm really not sure what you mean by "looking new".

Most all of the manufacturers such as Nikon, Fuji, Rodenstock and Schneider are pretty much out of the film lens business now. One particular lens made by these manufacturers in the last fifty years should look the same as any copies of the same lens if the lens is in good physical and operational condition.

Of all the films available, Ektar 100 is probably the newest formulation. In sheet film, Ektar is less than 10 years old, being introduced in 2010. EK says it has been reformulated to be "good for scanning" but I'm not sure what that means. I have a feeling that, eventually, the only Kodak film available in all sizes, shapes and kinds will be Ektar. I've been proven wrong, though. I used to think that Tri-X would only be gone if they closed the door on the whole place. Some Tri-X is gone and the rest appears to be on life support.

I'm not really sure what effect it is that you are trying to get. A black and white photograph, taken with a Speed Graphic, lit by a big #25 flash bulb is pretty noticeable. Comparing an image made by an old uncoated lens will have a different look from a modern multicoated lens but there are techniques to make the difference very slight- use of a lens hood for one. But, the visible difference between a 210/5.6 Symmar made 30 years ago and one made the last time Schneider made a 210/5.6 Symmar would either be very slight or imaginary.

On the contrary. Rodenstock still makes the 135, 150 and 210mm Apo Sironar S lenses.

[IanG]

EK says it has been reformulated to be "good for scanning" but I'm not sure what that means.

Essentially it means improved hardening to eliminate surface effects on the gelatin top coat. This was known about back in the late 1920's when the first wet mounted (sandwiched against glass) enlargements were made to eliminate the surface effects of the gelatin super-coat. It's why wet scans are superior to dry.

Kodak had a major issue with the first digital minilabs their films gave far greater apparent graininess when scanned compared to their rivals films, part of the problem was the wash was at a much lower temperature to the rest of the process increasing the surface artifacts, a form of incipient reticulation.

Kodak have improved all there films in the last few years so that their films scan better,.

Ian

[dmeckert]

Thanks for the quick replies.

As far as looking new, I'm sort of getting at the difference between a nikon 50/1.4D and a zeiss otus. They look like they're from different eras of lens design. The former has aberrations and fall-off and has a distinct look of that era of Nikkors, while the otus is hell-bent on perfection and sacrifices a small amount of niceness. Same for the sigma ART lenses. They draw in a way that looks very contemporary, very realistic, unromantic, not ugly or harsh but straight forward.

As I'm not as familiar with the lenses for LF I'm open to learning that there really isn't a difference, and that a nikkor-w and an apo-sironar-s don't yield an appreciable aesthetic difference, but if there is I'd like to be able to make use of it.

Going back to film for a moment, I think new portra is similar in age to ektar? Not sure how reformulated it is compared to the nc/vc era though. Its also got a look, but I'm not sure it's present enough, it's a bit unreal.

[jbenedict]

Make sure you read Ken's article. Good examples and explainations.

[dmeckert]

That is a fantastic article. Going to have a closer look on a larger screen at home.

The zeiss tessars and the 150 sironar-s stand out to me...which is ridiculous given the difference in manufacture date.

[Tin Can]

Consider shutters

[jp]

We know plenty about making old looking photos but most of is unlikely to know ultra contemporary photography style and how it pertains to lf. A good tessar never goes out of style though.

[ic-racer]

As far as looking new, I'm sort of getting at the difference between a nikon 50/1.4D and a zeiss otus.

How about an example picture that shows this difference you want to see?

[dmeckert]

Good point on the shutter. I really don't have the will to hunt down pieces and parts to cobble something together, or the patience for archaic designs. I want to be able to focus on the work and not the process. A recent copal is really key to my sanity with LF. Lol

I'll go scrounge up a comparison to illustrate the difference I mean.

[Ken Lee]

That is a fantastic article. Going to have a closer look on a larger screen at home.

In case it wasn't clear, the upshot of the article is the following:


"After adjusting for minor variations in contrast, it is virtually impossible to see any difference whatsoever between the blur rendition of these lenses. Can you tell the difference ? At moderate degrees of enlargement, it's impossible to tell the difference between these lenses altogether. We're left with other, more practical issues like coverage, size, weight, filter size, price, availability, etc.".

[dmeckert]

That is the prevailing wisdom I was hoping to investigate. Thank you for putting it all together, it's a great resource.

For what I'll be shooting (studio portraits, probably 3/4 length, backdrop but no environment, no movements), coverage, size, weight, and filter aren't priorities. Price, within reason, isn't a concern either - a few grand on a more recent zeiss is out of the question, but I see a few apo-sironar-s options in the $700 range on the auction site, which is doable for the amount of time this project will take. Once I'm finished it would be back to the prevailing wisdom of any modern lens. Unless of course the prevailing wisdom prevails, in which case I can rest easy and just stick with my trusty Nikkors.

As for examples of what I mean, it's going to be a moment. My Lightroom catalog is in tatters after having to reimage my computer. I'll have to see if i can find examples on the internets.

[Noah A]

I used a current 210 Apo Sironar-S for a while, then I got a 210 Apo-Symmar as a backup. After using the Apo-Symmar a few times, I sold the Apo-Sironar-S. They both have an equally modern look in my opinion, and both are incredibly good lenses.

So if you have an unlimited budget, the Rodenstock is sweet. But so is the 210 Apo Symmar and you can find them for around $400.

[dmeckert]

interestingly, I happen to have acquired an apo-symmar as part of a kit i'm trying to flip. it's got a sticky shutter release, but i can always just switch the shutters with my nikkor and sell that instead. i suppose i'll have to give them both a go and see if one sticks out over the other. i've read people who think the japanese lenses have higher contrast, but i'm less concerned with overall contrast, and more concerned with the "micro-contrast" that seems to be a buzz word the last few years (the zf 100/2 i had for a minute had it in spades...haven't owned a lens with a more voluminous rendering).

my budget isn't unlimited...it's just fairly flexible for a time-limited project. i haven no business holding onto something that expensive for as seldom as i shoot LF. my accountant (me) simply won't allow it. heh.

[Noah A]

After shooting with lenses from Nikon and Canon (35mm), Leica M and R, Zeiss ZF, Hasselblad (zeiss), Mamiya 7 and RZ, and Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikkor LF, my general impression is that the Japanese lenses have more overall contrast but the German lenses have more microcontrast and may in some cases be sharper. Of course this is a gross generalization, but it's just my observation and opinion.

I'm not saying that there is no measurable difference between a Rodenstock Apo Sironar S and a Scheider Apo-Symmar, I have no idea about that. But in practice I actually preferred the rendering of the Apo-Symmar and any difference in sharpness, if it even exists, is so minor that you'd never see it. With portrait work differences in focus accuracy between photos will be a much larger variable.

If you swap the shutters, make sure that you don't lose the shims that may be between the lens cells and the shutter.

[DrTang]

if you want a 'modern' look ... I would worry less about the lens and more about lighting and digital post processing

[Mark Sampson]

It occurs to me that whether your portraits look 'modern' or not will depend mostly on your subjects' clothing and hairstyles. The tiny differences between any 210 lenses made after WW2 will be invisible to viewers, especially without an A-B comparison, except perhaps to members of this forum. And I hope your intended audience is larger than that...

[John Kasaian]

For the most modern, accurate rendition of any debater, I'd be tempted to mount the print with a 5 day old mackerel in verso.:rolleyes:

[dmeckert]

Great information and points of view.

I'll at least give the apo-symmar a go, see if I can see anything.

It seems like the prevailing wisdom is prevailing and I can save myself a few bucks. At least I have a German and Japanese lens to compare to satisfy myself. It also seems that I'm trying to pigeon hole "modern" into "now" when really it extends back a long way, in the assumption that because 35mm lenses have evolved significantly in my photographic lifetime that LF glass would have a vaguely similar improvement. I guess what I just want to avoid is any sort of flare or aberrations that can make LF photos look old.

That's a great point (made by a few people now) about how lighting, post, and subject are more important. Lighting and digital post are MUCH stronger skill sets for me than shooting the big cameras (they're fun, and I love the look, but 99.9% of my work is digital fashion and beauty, although some of my favorite shots came from 645 scans).

My audience is definitely wider than here, at least regarding this project. Lol. Talking to at least one gallery already, hoping to snag another local but higher profile location as well. I'd love it to be as widespread as possible and will need to put my social media hat on warp 9.

[dmeckert]

For the most modern, accurate rendition of any debater, I'd be tempted to mount the print with a 5 day old mackerel in verso.:rolleyes:

Lmao. I might have to steal that and add a smell-o-vision element to the show.

[Doremus Scudder]

interestingly, I happen to have acquired an apo-symmar as part of a kit i'm trying to flip. it's got a sticky shutter release, but i can always just switch the shutters with my nikkor and sell that instead. ...

If you're going to switch shutters, be sure that they are the same size and have the same aperture scale. It might be worth it to have the apo-symmar serviced. The return from selling the Nikkor would easily cover the cost.

Doremus

[dmeckert]

Good points. Specifics I hadn't even thought about.

They're the same copal shutter size, but I'll double check the rest.