"People" lens for 8x10

[docw]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?

[John Kasaian]

A question like this will get you 100 different answers.
So rather than telling you mine, I suggest surfing on over to where the images are posted and see which 8x18 "people" lenses others have used which spark your creative Muse.

[Alan Gales]

John is correct. You can receive 100 different answers. Jock Sturges used a Fuji 250mm f/6.7 single coated lens for his early work. They came in a Copal 1 shutter.

https://onlinebrowsing.blogspot.com/2010/03/jock-sturges-danny-lyon-and-sturges-was.html

I own one and I paid $300 for my very clean example. They even go for less nowadays. I also own a Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar which I prefer for portraits. The Fuji is sharper.

[Willie]

My Uncle did a whole gallery show a decade or more ago with 8x10 using a Nikkor 300M lens. Just people and faces. Contact prints. None lacked for sharpness or tonal range.

[Pere Casals]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?


IMHO lens spectral transmitance has a very low impact on how skin tones are rendered with BW film. It is way much more important the filter you use and the spectral response of film.

What's about color photography a very,very slight cast may be seen from some brands, but again film selection, filtration and post-process will hide any trend from the glass.

Also illumination color temperature or CRI can play a major role.


IMHO there is a lot to do in order to ajust skin tones, but this is not much related to the glass.

A classic example was using green filter to separate well lips in BW. And now discontinued CHS 25 film had a green filter like effect...

But all of this is way beyond the slight spectral footprint a lens has.

From a portrait lens you should seek a certain out of focus character or a certain softness or harshness, for example...



PD:

166011


Here you have the spectral transmission of a Symmar-S 150mm, you see it pretty flat for all visible light, as with all lenses

Single concern it woud be in a High UV light environement, IMHO not much difference from one lens to another about UV cut off and nothing that cannot be compensated with filtration.

[DrTang]

250 is kinda short unless you are doing groups...12 or 14" is better for waist up or two button shoots

and man... sharper??? not my way to go.. but fuji lenses are dang sharp if you want that

[interneg]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?

Obvious choices would be Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar-S & Apo-Sironar-N 240/5.6. The rendering of skin tones & textures has much more to do with how you use light than any perceived 'magical' quality of a particular lens.

[docw]

I don't mind 100 different answers. I will pick through them. I am interested in peoples' experience with different lenses and I have already learned several things from this thread.

I need to qualify some points.

First, I am shooting almost exclusively b&w. I have a box of ten sheets of 8x10 Portra in the fridge but after that goes, I will probably never shoot colour 8x10 again.

Second, I also want to do toe to crown portraits, not just close shots. Sturges is good example of someone who uses a 240/250 lens for both head and shoulders and top to bottom portraits. He now uses a 240mm f/5.6 Rodenstock Apo Sironar but I don't know if it is an N or an S (I can afford an N, but an S ain't cheap!). Which is my third point - I am on a budget and 1K is really pushing the limit.

Finally, I am definitely not looking for a magic bullet lens which will instantly exalt my limited talent. I can afford a another lens at this point, but I can't afford to make a mistake so I am interested in hearing your recommendations based on your experiences with different lenses.

[John Berry]

Sharper is not always better when doing people. It could be a negative with female subjects. Women don't like showing the detail inside their pores. Like that bokeh? kiss it goodby withy at shiny new 5 blade copal. Unless it's a flash sync issue, better and cheaper to do a CLA. The argument for a 10" lens when doing headshots is you will be shooting closer and using a center section of the lens. A 10" lens will also prove a little more roundness to the face. Longer is flatter. A headshot with a 14" lens will have you wishing you had a basketball court for a studio. 10" focus on the eyes, 14" pick an eye. Some of my preferences are my 10" cooke series 11, or kodak 300 portrait. Neither are as sharp as what you have, but subjects will prefer their feel. Glass aside, recomendations for lighting and filtering will give the most return. It's a penny for you thoughts, so there's my 2 cents.

[docw]

Alan, I read somewhere that Sturges' Fuji was a f/6.5, but I think that was possibly a typo. I also read that it was f/6.3 which seems possible but I wonder it if it is likely.

[Luis-F-S]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?

If you want a modern shutter, you could remount your 14" KCE in a Copal 3. Sharper for portraits? Really? L

[docw]

Another qualification: I use only available light, sometimes with a large reflector.

[Alan Gales]

Alan, I read somewhere that Sturges' Fuji was a f/6.5, but I think that was possibly a typo. I also read that it was f/6.3 which seems possible but I wonder it if it is likely.

I've read over and over that he used the 6.7 lens but I don't think it really matters. I'm sure the 6.3 would give you the same look. The older 6.7 lenses were single coated but had quite a bit more coverage (398mm image circle) which is nice for 8x10. Lately, I've seen nice examples sell for less then $250. It would be a good place for you to start and if you decided to sell it then you wouldn't be hurt any. Modern lenses are sharp and contrasty and look a lot alike. I mentioned Sturges because he has a lot of examples of skin to look at and the Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 is a bargain lens.

[Pfsor]

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important.
Any suggestions?



I mentioned Sturges because he has a lot of examples of skin to look at and the Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 is a bargain lens.

I hope you don't want to say that you can judge a lens colour rendering from seeing pictures made by the lens. Wouldn't that be like thinking you can grab the full Moon by your hands if only you climb the high mountain in front of you?

[Pfsor]

IMHO lens spectral transmitance has a very low impact on how skin tones are rendered with BW film. It is way much more important the filter you use and the spectral response of film.

What's about color photography a very,very slight cast may be seen from some brands, but again film selection, filtration and post-process will hide any trend from the glass.

Also illumination color temperature or CRI can play a major role.


IMHO there is a lot to do in order to ajust skin tones, but this is not much related to the glass.

A classic example was using green filter to separate well lips in BW. And now discontinued CHS 25 film had a green filter like effect...

But all of this is way beyond the slight spectral footprint a lens has.


For once, Pere, I have to agree with you and say - you nailed it! :)

[Alan Gales]

I hope you don't want to say that you can judge a lens colour rendering from seeing pictures made by the lens. Wouldn't that be like thinking you can grab the full Moon by your hands if only you climb the high mountain in front of you?

The OP says he is going to shoot b&w and no longer color (post #8). I realize that looking at a computer screen isn't the same as looking at a print but it can give you some idea. In the end the OP is of course going to have to try a lens or several lenses to see what he likes.

[docw]

I hope you don't want to say that you can judge a lens colour rendering from seeing pictures made by the lens. Wouldn't that be like thinking you can grab the full Moon by your hands if only you climb the high mountain in front of you?

Pf, I don't quite understand this. One certainly can't make a decision about colour based on what you see on a computer screen unless all screens are calibrated (and we know they are not). So let's talk just about prints. Are you saying that one CANNOT judge a lens colour rendering from photographs taken with that lens? If one can't, then how does one judge the colour rendering of a particular lens?

[Pfsor]

The OP says he is going to shoot b&w and no longer color (post #8). I realize that looking at a computer screen isn't the same as looking at a print but it can give you some idea. In the end the OP is of course going to have to try a lens or several lenses to see what he likes.

So you really think one can judge a lens colour rendering from looking at BW prints?? And you can even judge the same thing for different lenses used??
I'm speechless.

[docw]

So you really think one can judge a lens colour rendering from looking at BW prints?? And you can even judge the same thing for different lenses used??
I'm speechless.

Well, I sure hope we can cure that speechlessness. That would indeed make one's life difficult!

I thought we were talking about skin tones in black and white, not colour. My understanding is that some lenses make skin look a little nicer than others and that some film does too (again, black and white only). Perhaps that is not true. I am happy to be enlightened on this.

[Pere Casals]

talking about skin tones in black and white.

Well... skin may look different with different glasses, an uncoated or single coated lens will deliver less microcontrast because more parasite light, softening skin. Some will prefer an (slightly) optically inferior Sironar-N than Sironar-S for portrait. But I guess this is not related to skin tones, but to a pleasant smooth look, rather than more crispy.

BTW Sironar N and Symmar S are good choices, also the Symmar convertible. The 240 5.6 can convert to 420mm f/12, not easy to use but (to me) an excellent portrait lens.

Anyway I'd take a 300mm for a 8x10, I feel the 240 is too wide for that, and the 300 would have lots of movements.

[Alan Gales]

So you really think one can judge a lens colour rendering from looking at BW prints?? And you can even judge the same thing for different lenses used??
I'm speechless.

Of course not. You have me confused. I'm not talking about color images.

The OP is interested in shooting people with a 240-250mm lens on an 8x10 camera and using b&w film. He was asking for lens choices. The link I gave him is to Jock Sturges' early b&w work using a Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 lens.

[Pere Casals]

So you really think one can judge a lens colour rendering from looking at BW prints?? And you can even judge the same thing for different lenses used??
I'm speechless.

Pfor, there is no reason to be as agressive as IMHO you show yourself. At the end we talk about technical facts that can be enlightened or about aesthetical opinions that are subjective.

That's IMHO.

Regards.

[Pfsor]

Pere, the two questions of technical interest are devoid of any aggressiveness. I'm all in wonder over the statements I read. Be so kind and don't push into my mind your not so humble judgements. Cheers.

[Randy]

... a Fuji 250mm f/6.7 single coated...in a Copal 1 shutter. I own one and I paid $300 for my very clean example. They even go for less nowadays.What Alan said...I got mine a year or so ago for about $170 shipped from Japan, in near mint condition. The f/6.7 version covers 8X10. Hard to beat if on a budget...which is the story of my life.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, the two questions of technical interest are devoid of any aggressiveness. I'm all in wonder over the statements I read. Be so kind and don't push into my mind your not so humble judgements. Cheers.

Yes it's my judgement... you are free to do what you want, but a polite behaviour helps proactive technical discussion. It is not a question about who knows more, but about sharing knowledge. Even the most skilled can learn even from beguinners. Sometimes when discussing one can see other interesting points of view.

[Pfsor]

Sometimes when discussing one can see other interesting points of view.

Indeed. And sometimes one can see a lot of BS too.
Nevertheless, do you know how one can judge the colour rendition of a lens (and compare it with other lenses) from B&W prints or screen pictures of the prints? I, for my part, would love to know. How do you know when you see the print, what comes from the lens and what comes from other causes?

[Pere Casals]

Indeed. And sometimes one can see a lot of BS too.
Nevertheless, do you know how one can judge the colour rendition of a lens (and compare it with other lenses) from B&W prints or screen pictures of the prints? I, for my part, would love to know. How do you know when you see the print, what comes from the lens and what comes from other causes?

You are right... the spectral transmission of common lenses say that, see my post #5 where I post the spectral footprint of a symmar-s.

But even when one is right and the other is wrong one can show own arguments without despective language or personal attack. This is the way...

[Pfsor]

Pf, I don't quite understand this. One certainly can't make a decision about colour based on what you see on a computer screen unless all screens are calibrated (and we know they are not). So let's talk just about prints. Are you saying that one CANNOT judge a lens colour rendering from photographs taken with that lens? If one can't, then how does one judge the colour rendering of a particular lens?

No, you cannot rely on your eyes only if you want to know the colour rendition of a lens from prints. You cannot know what comes from which cause at the final print. The characteristics of the lens you're mentioning is a question of a scientific laboratory test of the spectral transmission of the given lens. What you see on a print is a result of many other causes that make up for the printed colour you see. In other words - you cannot make a valid correlation between a print and a lens colour rendition based on looking at the print.

[Pfsor]

Well, I sure hope we can cure that speechlessness. That would indeed make one's life difficult!

I thought we were talking about skin tones in black and white, not colour. My understanding is that some lenses make skin look a little nicer than others and that some film does too (again, black and white only). Perhaps that is not true. I am happy to be enlightened on this.

docw, black and white are also colours, don't forget that. From the spectral transmission of a lens view b&w are still colours. Now what you talk about - skin looking a little nicer than others has not so much to do with the spectral transmission of a lens but rather with other stuff. Nicer is nicer, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the micro contrast on the print, film characteristics, enlarging lens characteristics, film processing etc. etc. all this translates in the quality of a print. Impossible to decide what comes from what. As others said.
From your original question one can see that you give a lens the main reason of the skin tone. That would be preposterous from the technical point of view.
But as I said elsewhere, the internet is made for urban myths and this forum is a good example of it. Have a good time!

[Alan Gales]

docw, black and white are also colours, don't forget that. From the spectral transmission of a lens view b&w are still colours. Now what you talk about - skin looking a little nicer than others has not so much to do with the spectral transmission of a lens but rather with other stuff. Nicer is nicer, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the micro contrast on the print, film characteristics, enlarging lens characteristics, film processing etc. etc. all this translates in the quality of a print. Impossible to decide what comes from what. As others said.
From your original question one can see that you give a lens the main reason of the skin tone. That would be preposterous from the technical point of view.
But as I said elsewhere, the internet is made for urban myths and this forum is a good example of it. Have a good time!

Ok. I now understand what you are talking about. You do have very valid points. All that you mention does affect how skin looks in a photograph whether in color or b&w.

The problem is that the OP wants a lens that meets his criteria. How does he go about searching for the right lens? The best way I know is by asking other photographer's opinions and looking at examples. I don't know what filter Jock Sturges used or if he used a light modifier or which enlarger lens he used or whatever. I just know that he got nice results from the Fujinon lens. Could Mr. Sturges have gotten the same results from other brand lenses? I'm sure he could have. I'm just saying that the Fujinon is a good place for the OP to start especially since it is such a bargain. Ultimately the OP needs to use a lens himself to see if he likes it. I'm just trying to get him in the ballpark.

[Pfsor]

Alan, honestly, I'm not against your Fuji lens recommendation at all. I think it's as good as any other 250 mm modern lens from the other big 4 manufacturers. Let him have one and take pictures and - hopefully - understand than skin tones can have a myriad reasons and his lens is as good or bad for it as he wants to believe. Cheers!

[docw]

No, you cannot rely on your eyes only if you want to know the colour rendition of a lens from prints. You cannot know what comes from which cause at the final print. The characteristics of the lens you're mentioning is a question of a scientific laboratory test of the spectral transmission of the given lens. What you see on a print is a result of many other causes that make up for the printed colour you see. In other words - you cannot make a valid correlation between a print and a lens colour rendition based on looking at the print.

I am glad your speech has returned. However, I really need to understand what you are saying, so let me try a concrete example. I take two identical colour photographs with two difference lenses, develop both exactly the same way, and print both on exactly the same paper. Are you saying that there will be no differences that I can see with the naked eye? I am not arguing with you. I just want to understand what it is that you are saying.

[docw]

Alan, honestly, I'm not against your Fuji lens recommendation at all. I think it's as good as any other 250 mm modern lens from the other big 4 manufacturers. Let him have one and take pictures and - hopefully - understand than skin tones can have a myriad reasons and his lens is as good or bad for it as he wants to believe. Cheers!

"... as he wants to believe"? Really? I posted, being open to suggestions and new ideas. I think you have an axe to grind.

[docw]

"Portrait" in terms of what I want is misleading, which is why I said "people" instead. I need to be more clear in my questions. I am not doing portraits that anyone would hang on their wall as a traditional portrait. I photograph mainly children and I am branching out into old people (primarily male) so sharpness is not only ok for what I want, it is good! It is an aesthetic choice.

With regard to skin tones, I am hearing from you folks that the choice of lens makes no difference, so I will pursue another line of inquiry (film, light, etc.) and perhaps start another thread.

Thanks for the input. It is, as usual, much appreciated.

[Pfsor]

"... as he wants to believe"? Really? I posted, being open to suggestions and new ideas. I think you have an axe to grind.

Good grief! If you cannot see on the print what comes from your lens and what comes from other sources then you're open to your own beliefs as much as to the impressions of the others when it comes to the lenses. Forget your axe and start to learn from the suggestions you get. I, for my part, believe it will be hot tomorrow (despite the fact I live high on mountains!) Cheers!

[Pfsor]

I am glad your speech has returned. However, I really need to understand what you are saying, so let me try a concrete example. I take two identical colour photographs with two difference lenses, develop both exactly the same way, and print both on exactly the same paper. Are you saying that there will be no differences that I can see with the naked eye? I am not arguing with you. I just want to understand what it is that you are saying.

docw, what you will see, you will see. But there will not be any way to say what is the cause of the result in terms of the skin colour. The light? It's angle? Differences in the processing, etc. etc. Don't be fooled by thinking all the other parameters are clinically the same. They are not.
What I suggest is you disregard the holy grail of a lens linked to this particular skin tone and work with your given lens and consider lighting above all for what you have in mind. As the classic says - IMHO. Cheers!

[docw]

docw, what you will see, you will see. But there will not be any way to say what is the cause of the result in terms of the skin colour. The light? It's angle? Differences in the processing, etc. etc. Don't be fooled by thinking all the other parameters are clinically the same. They are not.
What I suggest is you disregard the holy grail of a lens linked to this particular skin tone and work with your given lens and consider lighting above all for what you have in mind. As the classic says - IMHO. Cheers!

You avoided the question and, once again, you impute to me beliefs which I do not hold.

I will not be back to this thread, if anyone has anything to add, send me a PM.

[Pfsor]

Oh, one more thing, docw. Use a lens shade if you want to compare lenses. A good lens shade. The strayed light causes havoc with lenses. Also and paradoxically, a contrasty print usually gives to the eye an impression of not a good skin colour, so sharpness is not a good friend of the skin rendering in this regard. But there I repeat what others have already said. Cheers!

[Alan Gales]

Alan, honestly, I'm not against your Fuji lens recommendation at all. I think it's as good as any other 250 mm modern lens from the other big 4 manufacturers. Let him have one and take pictures and - hopefully - understand than skin tones can have a myriad reasons and his lens is as good or bad for it as he wants to believe. Cheers!

Oh, I realize that you are not against my lens choice. To me a modern lens is a modern lens. They are all sharp and contrasty. What you get out of it depends upon your skill as a photographer. I just recommended the Fuji because of it being a bargain and it has plenty of coverage for 8x10. I showed the Jock Sturges images so the OP would know what it is capable of in the right hands. I own a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar lens. I love the thing but my portraits are not as good as Yusuf Karsh's. Of course the lens isn't the only factor. ;)

[Pfsor]

What I realized long time ago was the fact that the film is more important for the quality of my pics than the lens itself. Colour-wise I mean. But I was taking pictures where sharpness was required, no soft dreamy pics.