Lenses that are sharp wide open (or only just stopped down)

[M Harvey]

Anyone want to share any experiences with lenses shot wide open, or only slightly stopped down? I shoot 4x5, and a lot of what I do involves isolating an individual in an environment-- usually full body, and often in relatively low light. Can't remember the last time I crossed f11. Any lenses (in 135-150-180-210) that provide noticeably superior resolution and contrast between f5.6 and 8?

Some of you may suggest-- and rightly-- that a different approach to my desired goal of subject isolation is to use longer focal lengths. In fact, this is why I often find myself using a 210 instead of a 150. (Others of you may suggest that I just shoot a Mamiya 7 with it's razor-sharp-at-f4 lenses. Good point. I don't know what to say except that I love the 4x5 working method. Others that it doesn't really matter, as you've got resolution to burn in 4x5 anyway. Fair enough. But I prefer to avoid a "dreamy" look, and I do anticipate printing large.)

To get the ball rolling, I've used the 150 f5.6 from the Schneider HM series for a low-light project. Really lovely wide open, and definitely stronger in resolution and contrast wide open than my Fuji and Nikon plasmats. What else do you guys like for this challenge?

[djdister]

Try the Schneider Xenar or Zeiss Planar lens at (or near) wide open...

[EdSawyer]

I use both Xenotars wide open or @ f4 and they are quite sharp. The 8" f/2.9 Pentac @ f/4 is also another good choice, not crazy $, etc. The Aero Ektar also comes to mind.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Zeiss F3.5/135 Planar for 4x5. Beware that I have seen many flogged on the auction site in the wrong shutters. For or 8x10 ... well, you didn't ask but a Caltar F/6.3 14 3/4" is impressive wide open if your 4x5 has enough extension.

Best,
Jac

[Kevin Crisp]

I only know this due to a mistake on my part, but the Fuji 450-C is very sharp wide open.

[Daniel Unkefer]

150mm F2.8 Schneider Xenotar, 180mm F2.8 CZJ Zeiss Sonnar

[Whir-Click]

Kodak Ektar 203mm 7.7

Excellent at any aperture, but brilliant wide open.

[LabRat]

Most fast lenses tend to be a little soft/mushy when used wide open, but the old astrophotography rule is to stop a lens down at least two stops from max opening for better correction... So if you had an f2.8 lens, you would be shooting about f5.6 or smaller (if better definition is preferred, but often a lens can have a pretty effect wide open, but not super tack brittle sharp there)...

I like old Tessars wide open, image has pretty, smooth gradations, not too much or too little sharpness, and a pretty focus fall-off/OOF areas... And cheap...

My APO/process lenses have the best wide open performance compared to my standard lenses , but can fall-off to OOF strangely... (And slow...)

Steve K

[Lightbender]

i dont have any of the longer fast lenses, but I have tried both the Xenotar and Planar in 80mm, and they are soft and have really bad CA wide open.
I dont think i would ever use them wide open.
Stopped down to about 5.6, they are pretty good. But I would not pay the extra $$$ for stops I would not use.

Other slower lenses.. G-claron (i have), apo-ronar, etc are good/great wide open, but they are of course slower to start with.

I also have a 210mm f5.6 Sironar N. At f5.6 it is acceptably sharp, though there is CA in the out of focus areas. It may not be noticeable in a portrait setting though (low contrast). At f8 it is fantastic, and most of the CA is gone. But this is probably comparable to the lenses you already own.
I have not tried any of the APO versions, maybe they are better at f5.6, maybe not.

Truth is I don't think any large-format lens will be as good above 5.6 . Especially not some vintage 'magic' lens. But it still may be acceptably good. So what really matters is would you be willing to sacrifice some critical acuity for better background separation?

Or you may want to rethink the placement of your subjects. if you are in the studio, place our subject a bit further away from the background.. or get closer by a few feet.

[goamules]

Anyone want to share any experiences with lenses shot wide open, or only slightly stopped down? I shoot 4x5, and a lot of what I do involves isolating an individual in an environment-- usually full body, and often in relatively low light. Can't remember the last time I crossed f11. Any lenses (in 135-150-180-210) that provide noticeably superior resolution and contrast between f5.6 and 8?

...

A Golden Dagor at F6.8, or a Commercial Ektar at 6.3 might be interesting to try wide open, they are sharp, and are good portrait lenses. The classic Petzval was the epitome of fast and sharp. But you have to be careful to ensure the size you want will fit on your lensboard, they're large, and you'd probably need a longer focal length than you want, just to cover. I shot this on 4x5 transparency Fuji, and know it was stopped down a couple times.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3897/14788801788_dfcde9a46c_h.jpg

[Ari]

The Cooke XVa; it's meant to be used wide open at f6.8, or at f8.
Here's an example of it used at f8:

http://www.aritapiero.com/uploads/5/7/9/8/5798107/4923982_orig.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

It's relative to format. A lens with big coverage might be sharp wide open on 4x5 because you're only using the center of the optic, yet disappointing with 8x10
because you need to use more of the image circle. Wide open with a fast lens might perform poorly because you get less forgiveness in terms of film uneveness
in the holder. Many dagors exhibited focus shift wide open, even the latest ones. You need to do a series of tests at different f-stops in a specific format. None of
this can be generalized.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Drew, with Dagors the plane of focus moves as the lens is stopped down. "Focus wide open, shoot wide open" will avoid it.

[djdister]

The Cooke XVa; it's meant to be used wide open at f6.8, or at f8.
Here's an example of it used at f8:


Ari, that's a beautiful lens and a great shot...

[Ari]

Thanks, Dan; the lens is really spectacular, and wide open/almost wide-open is where it shines.
I've never used it past f11.

[Drew Wiley]

Uh, Dan... but that Dagor is not very likely be ideally sharp either, fully wide open. With any I've owned, which were all 14" Kerns, either single or multi-coated, the focus shift existed only within the widest stop. By f/11 down, focus was consistent. But older lenses might behave differently. I did use them in this manner -
"nearly" fully wide - for lovely shallow-field formal portraiture.

[goamules]

I doubt ANY lens the OP uses that is F4.5 or slower, and not a soft focus lens, will be noticeably "not sharp" on 4x5. Not for portraits, maybe for scientific resolution tests. But I doubt he wants to do tests, he wants to shoot photos.

[John Kasaian]

300mm f9 Nikkor M

[M Harvey]

Appreciate all the thoughts that everyone has shared-- this has been an interesting thread for me.

I've so far only used the modern plasmat designs from the usual suspects, significantly because I had the impression that most of the older designs would be very dreamy unless stopped down a fair amount. I really like many of those lenses, but looks like it'd be worth looking at some tessars and tracking down some of the models you guys have recommended. (Just missed an Ektar 203 f7.7 in the classifieds-- dang!)

Thanks also much those who have shared images @goamules and @Ari. Ari, assuming your image is shot in the 311mm (front+back cell) configuration on 8x10? (FWIW, the scale of this shot is fairly close to the kind of stuff I'm interested in doing-- full body with a little environment. Clearly the 8x10 format-- and even more importantly, finding or designing the light you want-- also helps vis a vis subject separation.)

@Lightbender- you're right to point out that one solution is to use a longer focal length. I've often wound up switching from a 150mm to a 210mm and shooting between f8 and f11 to get the effect I want. Gets tougher for interior shots where I am limited in terms of space or length of exposure...

[Ari]

Ari, assuming your image is shot in the 311mm (front+back cell) configuration on 8x10? (FWIW, the scale of this shot is fairly close to the kind of stuff I'm interested in doing-- full body with a little environment. Clearly the 8x10 format-- and even more importantly, finding or designing the light you want-- also helps vis a vis subject separation.)


Correct on both counts, sir.
The Cooke was expensive at first, but it's turned out to be a big money-saver, since it replaced all my other 250-480mm lenses, and in effect, prevented me from needing or wanting another lens.
Except a good wide-angle. :)