Which 210mm F5.6 for portraits?

[hoffy]

Hi Folks,

I've been trawling the Portrait threads and have noticed that in regards to more modern lenses, there seems to be a preference to 210mm F5.6 lenses for general portrait work on 4x5.

As I'd like to upgrade from the Caltar II E 210 F6.8 that I own, I was wondering whether there were preferred lenses for portrait work in this length?

I'm not looking at spending mega $$'s (preferably < $500 S/H), so is there anything that is recommended?

Cheers

[Pere Casals]

The II E is a Geronar, does not ? this was a budget lens compared to the Sironar pro standard. Still the Geronar is a very good lens...

A Sironar N MC would be perfect, also a Symmar-S or the Nikon W. Sironar N and Symmar S are more than perfect for portrature, pick a multicoated (MC) version if you want that.

I don't find an "APO" version or top Sironar S may offer much more for portraiture than the non APO or the Sironar N MC.

Anyway I don't think you will find a very noticeable difference for portraits, from IIE, beyond bokeh nature. I'd search image samples with the different lenses at flickr (etc) to see the Out Of Focus nature of Geronar vs other, I guess the OOF mood is more important than ultimate optical performance for portraits, as in portraits little is in the perfect plane of focus, and corners are usually irrelevant.


.. then if you want lenses with more personality and (perhaps) less optical performance then there are a lot of classic choices...

[Andrew Plume]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a+210mm+f5.6+lens+for+portrait+work&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifteW7m_PaAhUBBcAKHd21BFkQsAQIZg&biw=1422&bih=1036#imgrc=x_22NeRYAImUGM:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/341800@N25/discuss/72157626005839655/


are just a few of the many links that I've found

good luck with your search

Andrew

[Pere Casals]

[url]http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/



Andrew, this is a really good article, well worth to read it.

A very interesting side by side is the APO Lanthar vs Sironar S. Anyway it can be pointed that in the post-process (or in the taking, front hud) a photographer can also control the result by substracting flare and adjusting contrast, toe, shoulder, etc. Of course an APO Lanthar is a very different animal than a Sironar S, but the (flare/contrast) difference can be zeroed or shortened by the photographer.

177996

[hoffy]

The II E is a Geronar, does not ? this was a budget lens compared to the Sironar pro standard. Still the Geronar is a very good lens...

A Sironar N MC would be perfect, also a Symmar-S or the Nikon W. Sironar N and Symmar S are more than perfect for portrature, pick a multicoated (MC) version if you want that.

I don't find an "APO" version or top Sironar S may offer much more for portraiture than the non APO or the Sironar N MC.

Anyway I don't think you will find a very noticeable difference for portraits, from IIE, beyond bokeh nature. I'd search image samples with the different lenses at flickr (etc) to see the Out Of Focus nature of Geronar vs other, I guess the OOF mood is more important than ultimate optical performance for portraits, as in portraits little is in the perfect plane of focus, and corners are usually irrelevant.


.. then if you want lenses with more personality and (perhaps) less optical performance then there are a lot of classic choices...
TIL! (Today I learnt). I never knew the Caltar design, so thanks for filling me in.

As for it being a capable lens, yes it is. I have been relatively happy with what I have done thus far, but I have hardly pushed the boundaries. A couple of quick samples:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4372/37191522652_6315d372b1_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/YEugXb)Dave (https://flic.kr/p/YEugXb) by Ashley Hoff (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashhoff/), on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4363/36580018926_c6826a5db2_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/XJsacu)Sophie (https://flic.kr/p/XJsacu) by Ashley Hoff (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashhoff/), on Flickr

As for your suggestions, they are designs that I have seen mentioned numerous times and were on my "I wonder if" list. I know that there are different manufacturers for each design. Is there a preference of one over the other?

And using lenses with personality, well, yes, of course! Isn't that what we always strive for? ;) I actually have a 150mm Cooke Triplet Barrel and a 150mm Tessar compur mounted, unfortunately without flash sync. I suppose what I want to do at the moment is learn how to shoot portraits with flash - I am having fun enough without having to worry about trickery to co-ordinate dimming the lights, tripping the shutter and firing a flash manually! Lets just say, I want to get more experience using modern lenses (relative speak) with modern shutters!


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a+210mm+f5.6+lens+for+portrait+work&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifteW7m_PaAhUBBcAKHd21BFkQsAQIZg&biw=1422&bih=1036#imgrc=x_22NeRYAImUGM:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/341800@N25/discuss/72157626005839655/


are just a few of the many links that I've found

good luck with your search

Andrew

Thanks for that! I forgot about the portrait lens article on here.

BTW, I have to admit I've been having a lot of fun trawling through Flickr as well. If I have added anyone's images to one of my galleries over the last few days, I whole wholeheartedly thank you for continuing to have your images hosted there! Flickr is an awesome resource and I regularly use it for inspiration!

Cheers

[Andrew Plume]

Pere and Ashley

many thx

regards

Andrew

[Luis-F-S]

Just get one either a Symmar or a Sironar. You won’t be able to see much difference. Or better keep the Caltar and get an Imagon 250.

[Pere Casals]

I know that there are different manufacturers for each design. Is there a preference of one over the other?


Well, sometimes there is a single manufacturer and different commercial channels. A lens manufactured by Schneider or can also be stamped with Technika (Linhof), a Rodenstock can have the SINAR lettering, or sold as Caltar.

Lens manufacturing had a variability, not all samples are exactly equal, in theory Linhof (Technika) and SINAR performed an additional QC to ensure the lens fulfilled their standards, because that lenses stamped SINAR and Technika are a bit more priced, while Caltars perhaps are a bit cheaper, speaking in general. Probably in practice it would be difficult to notice a general performance difference.

[Luis-F-S]

The II E is a Geronar? this was a budget lens compared to the Sironar pro standard. Still the Geronar is a very good lens...


I doubt you'd see any difference between your Caltar and a more expensive lens for portrait work. But since it appears you have the itch to get something else, do so and then let us know if you see any difference.

[William Whitaker]

Hi Folks,

I've been trawling the Portrait threads and have noticed that in regards to more modern lenses, there seems to be a preference to 210mm F5.6 lenses for general portrait work on 4x5.


Hoffy,

What specifically do you mean by "more modern"? Are you looking for a plasmat? There are any number of lenses in the 210mm neighborhood which would be wonderful for portraiture on 4x5, but they tend to be a bit older.

[arthur berger]

Hoffy,

In the march/April 2015 issue of Viewcamera magazine there is an article about a wonderful portrait photographer named Judy Dater. She states that she uses a type S 210mm Calumet lens ( Caltar?) and a Caltar-S 135mm Calumet lens. I hope that helps.

[Pere Casals]

Also there is this test, not last model lenses, but it's interesting 6 glasses side to side:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

[Bernice Loui]

On 5x4, 210mm f5.6 preference could be due to commonality rather than preference as the 210mm f5.6 has become one of the most common and generic offering used on 5x4 for most image making.

Generally speaking 210mm f5.6 Plasmats share a common image result. While there are some differences, they are not as great as perceived. These differences are often a different set of trade offs rather than inherent design in image result differences. Know the modern f5.6 Plasmat is often optimized for images to be made at f22, the f5.6 is intended to be used for focusing. More often than not, the modern Plasmat at f5.6 produces harsh out of focus rendition, this coupled with a limited umber of aperture blades of the modern Copal shutter adds to the out of focus harshness. Once stopped down to f22, these issues often goes away. The design intent of these modern Plasmats are to render "everything in focus" as a result and not really intended render out of focus area with smooth roundness. Then again, this could be the out of focus effect the image maker is seeking.


Better question would be what the resulting portrait image wants to be? Answer this, then seek the optic to meet this goal.


Bernice



Hi Folks,

I've been trawling the Portrait threads and have noticed that in regards to more modern lenses, there seems to be a preference to 210mm F5.6 lenses for general portrait work on 4x5.

As I'd like to upgrade from the Caltar II E 210 F6.8 that I own, I was wondering whether there were preferred lenses for portrait work in this length?

I'm not looking at spending mega $$'s (preferably < $500 S/H), so is there anything that is recommended?

Cheers

[Pere Casals]

Know the modern f5.6 Plasmat is often optimized for images to be made at f22, the f5.6 is intended to be used for focusing.


Bernice,

Modern 4x5 plasmats are diffraction limited by f/22, best aperture usually at f/11 or f/16, one can stop more for greater DOF, right. This has been told by Bob a number of times...

Diffraction limit at f/22 is 71 Lp/mm, being this value of similar than modern 4x5 plasmat potential the combination erodes the final performance.

Any modern plasmat works pretty well at f/11, and even at f/5.6 in some cases.

[M Harvey]

I'm going to agree with Bernice, by and large-- you're likely to get similar results from most modern plasmat designs, and other factors are likely to be a bigger influence on your final image. Since you're investigating studio lighting right now, you have a lot of control in particular over the contrast range of your images, which is one of the major things that lenses handle differently.

If you'd like to mix it up a bit with the optics, before switching lenses, I might recommend trying some filters. You can combine one with your existing lens to get a "vintage" look, or just to soften contrast while keeping a clean, sharp look. For the latter, there is a newer generation of diffusion filters designed to "take the edge off" digital sensors for portraiture or video work. I haven't used them on large format (I use the Fuji 210 f5.6 and 250 f.6.7, btw) but, on a digital camera, I like the effect of the weaker grade Black Satin or Hollywood Black Magic filters--softens skin texture a bit without imparting an old-fashioned "vaseline on the lens" look. Even a Black Pro-Mist 1/4 filter has a little too much of that quality for me, but it's a classic that you might like to try. Other filters of this type will give you glowy highlights (think 1930s-40s Hollywood glamour). Because they're often used for video work, you can find a lot of videos comparing the effects of different filters. (Here are a couple:
vimeo.com/162283600 & vimeo.com/92660033) Some of these may be available to try at photo or film rental houses.

And all that said, if you like the look of a tessar but need a modern shutter for your flash system, you can find information here about modern tessars produced by the big manufacturers, usually as part of a lower cost line to parallel their flagship plasmat designs.

[BradS]

Ironically, the Rodenstock 210mm f/6.8 Geronar (aka Caltar II-E) that the OP already has is my very most favorite lens for people portraits on 4x5. The 210mm f/6.1 Schneider Xenar is another favorite. The 210mm f/5.6 Plamats (Sironar and Symmar in all their various iterations) are fantastic optics...I have a couple but for portraits, my favorite of these is the slightly older 210mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar convertible.

[Drew Wiley]

I really prefer the rendering of the good ole Symmar S for portraiture versus the hard-sharp more contrasty later plasmats, which I prefer for landscape work. They're common and cheap, but were once a standard lens for commercial photography.

[Pere Casals]

I really prefer the rendering of the good ole Symmar S for portraiture versus the hard-sharp more contrasty later plasmats, which I prefer for landscape work. They're common and cheap, but were once a standard lens for commercial photography.

Drew, anyway a Symmar S can be single or multicoated, in the first case contrast may be close to the Symmar convertibles, in the second case it may be like an APO Symmar...

[DrTang]

for portraits? no 5.6 lens.. instead get a 210 f4.5 Heliar in shutter and don't look back

[Bob Salomon]

250 Imagon and lots of practice to master it!

[Vaughn]

Another country heard from...lol!

How about the Computar Symmetrigon 210/6.3?

"The Computar Symmetrigons were made by Kowa and are a Gauss design,
...They have low-dispersion glass and are in Copal-1 shutters."

My first lens for the 4x5, later used on the 5x7. I never did portraits with it, just landscapes with everything in focus and sharp. A different kind of beasty, 4 air-spaced cells...I have no idea how it would act as a heads and shoulders type of image. Closest thing I've done is something like these (lens on 5x7).

[Drew Wiley]

Did anyone point out that Caltar lenses were simply one of the usual suspects private-labeled for Calumet? - Most often Sironar N or Symmar S, but they
also had Commercial Ektars private label too, and a few other things early on.

[hoffy]

WOW! I go to bed and get two pages of replies. Thanks folks!


Hoffy,

What specifically do you mean by "more modern"? Are you looking for a plasmat? There are any number of lenses in the 210mm neighborhood which would be wonderful for portraiture on 4x5, but they tend to be a bit older.
OK, by more modern, I basically want to exclude "character" lenses for now. I also want the ability to use more modern shutters, with electronic flash sync and so-on. As you can see by my kit in the cupboard, there is a couple of character lenses in my arsenal, but I what to start with the basics. I feel that this would be best achieved with a lens that does most things well and is not limited by a small level of sharpness in the centre!

I have to admit, I am a bit clueless when it comes to design. There are certainly a lot of different designs thrown around, but I am unsure what is useful for which purpose! The other thing - I am not a landscape photographer. I do take a lot of pictures of cars and occasional pictures of buildings and ruins, but landscapes fall low on my list.


On 5x4, 210mm f5.6 preference could be due to commonality rather than preference as the 210mm f5.6 has become one of the most common and generic offering used on 5x4 for most image making.

Generally speaking 210mm f5.6 Plasmats share a common image result. While there are some differences, they are not as great as perceived. These differences are often a different set of trade offs rather than inherent design in image result differences. Know the modern f5.6 Plasmat is often optimized for images to be made at f22, the f5.6 is intended to be used for focusing. More often than not, the modern Plasmat at f5.6 produces harsh out of focus rendition, this coupled with a limited umber of aperture blades of the modern Copal shutter adds to the out of focus harshness. Once stopped down to f22, these issues often goes away. The design intent of these modern Plasmats are to render "everything in focus" as a result and not really intended render out of focus area with smooth roundness. Then again, this could be the out of focus effect the image maker is seeking.


Better question would be what the resulting portrait image wants to be? Answer this, then seek the optic to meet this goal.


Bernice

OK, good response. My personal brief is to take "honest and respectful portraits of normal people". Pretty broad and wide, hey! I have this idea that I want to shoot adults of all age ranges, male and female, but not necessarily hiding all their imperfections.

As per my examples on page one, thus far any work has been pretty bog standard - camera in front, non nondescript background, sharpness from eye to ear. I'd like to start exploring different angles and so on, shooting near wide open, so having pleasing Out of Focus areas and smooth focus transitions is where I would like to head.


Ironically, the Rodenstock 210mm f/6.8 Geronar (aka Caltar II-E) that the OP already has is my very most favorite lens for people portraits on 4x5. The 210mm f/6.1 Schneider Xenar is another favorite. The 210mm f/5.6 Plamats (Sironar and Symmar in all their various iterations) are fantastic optics...I have a couple but for portraits, my favorite of these is the slightly older 210mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar convertible.

Good to know! I have to be honest, I haven't explored the lenses full capabilities. The lens only came part of a kit, so it was (& still is) my starter lens.


for portraits? no 5.6 lens.. instead get a 210 f4.5 Heliar in shutter and don't look back

I'll add it to the list! Not sure how expensive this will be & how hard it will be to find!


I'm going to agree with Bernice, by and large-- you're likely to get similar results from most modern plasmat designs, and other factors are likely to be a bigger influence on your final image. Since you're investigating studio lighting right now, you have a lot of control in particular over the contrast range of your images, which is one of the major things that lenses handle differently.

If you'd like to mix it up a bit with the optics, before switching lenses, I might recommend trying some filters. You can combine one with your existing lens to get a "vintage" look, or just to soften contrast while keeping a clean, sharp look. For the latter, there is a newer generation of diffusion filters designed to "take the edge off" digital sensors for portraiture or video work. I haven't used them on large format (I use the Fuji 210 f5.6 and 250 f.6.7, btw) but, on a digital camera, I like the effect of the weaker grade Black Satin or Hollywood Black Magic filters--softens skin texture a bit without imparting an old-fashioned "vaseline on the lens" look. Even a Black Pro-Mist 1/4 filter has a little too much of that quality for me, but it's a classic that you might like to try. Other filters of this type will give you glowy highlights (think 1930s-40s Hollywood glamour). Because they're often used for video work, you can find a lot of videos comparing the effects of different filters. (Here are a couple:
vimeo.com/162283600 & vimeo.com/92660033) Some of these may be available to try at photo or film rental houses.

And all that said, if you like the look of a tessar but need a modern shutter for your flash system, you can find information here about modern tessars produced by the big manufacturers, usually as part of a lower cost line to parallel their flagship plasmat designs.

I'll keep filters in mind! I have played around with Green and red filters thus far - green worked well ("Dave" on page one was shot with a green filter), but red overdid the image of the lady I was photographing......

I think someone did suggest a modern tessar (fujinon? See, totally clueless) to me once.

Thank you all for your replies. I am learning something! I just hope, like a lot of my film projects, that I don't get sidetracked and this gets forgotten about. I have to admit, I have some big issues with motivation from time to time and its too easy to say "meh, couldn't be bothered" (yes, I do have a personal problem, but I am trying my best to overcome it).

Cheers

[jp]

For something in a shutter with X-sync, I'd look for a Fujinar-S 210mm/4.5 tessar.

[hoffy]

For something in a shutter with X-sync, I'd look for a Fujinar-S 210mm/4.5 tessar.

That's the one!

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji also has a 210/5.6 L-series tessar. Not quite as big an image circle as a plasmat, but these had a great reputation with the portrait trade.

[hoffy]

Fuji also has a 210/5.6 L-series tessar. Not quite as big an image circle as a plasmat, but these had a great reputation with the portrait trade.

OK, thanks for the suggestion.

Re, the image circle, would you suggest it would be OK for 4x5 with some movements?

[Bernice Loui]

There are quite a few tessar designs in shutter that have X sync. Just about every shutter made post WW-II has "X" sync.

Fujinar-S..
~~~~~~~~~~


Some others. Never discount a Tessar based on age. Even non coated Tessar design lenses can be excellent.

*Zeiss Tessar.

*Schneider Xenar.

*Kodak Ektar.

*Boyer Saphir

*Docter Optic f4.5

*Caltar, f6.3

*B&J Acutar 6.3

*Komura Commercial f6.3

-Others,
http://apenasimagens.com/en/tessar-carl-zeiss-jena-en/


Nothing special about Lanthium optical glass post WW-II. Lanthium optical glass is a US invention during WW-II with other Nations picking up
this optical glass type post WW-II. Know APO Lanthar was a marketing label similar to Gold Dot, Golden Dagor. By the time the APO Lanthar was introduced, Kodak Ektar has been making production lenses with Lanthium optical glass for over a decade. Kodak never used "Lanthium Glass" as a marketing label hype.



Bernice

[Mark Sampson]

I've used (extensively) both a Kodak 8-1/2"/6.3 Commercial Ektar and a Fujinon-L 210/5.6. Both are fine lenses. I'd happily use either again if I was shooting LF portraits. Of course the Kodaks are all between 50-70 years old, and often have been used hard, so watch their physical condition.

[Pere Casals]

I've used (extensively) both a Kodak 8-1/2"/6.3 Commercial Ektar and a Fujinon-L 210/5.6. Both are fine lenses. I'd happily use either again if I was shooting LF portraits. Of course the Kodaks are all between 50-70 years old, and often have been used hard, so watch their physical condition.

The commercial 14" was a favorite of YK for 8x10...

I'd ask what difference you see in Ektar vs L for portraits, regarding contrast and OOF nature for example.

[Tobias Key]

I have a 210mm APO Symmar, which is a fantastic lens. That is very, very sharp with excellent contrast. It can render very much like medium format digital with modern colour or t-grain black and white films. So be sure this is what you want before going for later lenses. A lot of LF portrait photographers are deliberately trying to create the opposite effect.

[Bernice Loui]

APO Symmar or similar modern lens, really "sharper" or just perceived sharper due to higher contrast with less contrast range delineation or micro contrast?

Regardless, assessing overall lens image rendering is far more than just "sharp" with "contrast". Not convinced Tessars are lesser than Plasmat or Gauss or Dagor or.. they each have specific offerings and deficiencies.


Bernice



I have a 210mm APO Symmar, which is a fantastic lens. That is very, very sharp with excellent contrast. It can render very much like medium format digital with modern colour or t-grain black and white films. So be sure this is what you want before going for later lenses. A lot of LF portrait photographers are deliberately trying to create the opposite effect.

[DrTang]

(re: Heliar 210 f4.5)

I'll add it to the list! Not sure how expensive this will be & how hard it will be to find!


Cheers


It will be expensive and you'll have to look a bit.. but I shoot a 240 and 300 for 5x7.. and that is one lens that is always spot on

great creamy transitions....not tack sharp.. but plenty sharp for portraits

it's my can't miss lens....if the photos don't come out..it's my fault and not the lens's

[Pere Casals]

It will be expensive and you'll have to look a bit.. but I shoot a 240 and 300 for 5x7.. and that is one lens that is always spot on

great creamy transitions....not tack sharp.. but plenty sharp for portraits

it's my can't miss lens....if the photos don't come out..it's my fault and not the lens's

Well, we also have the Universal Heliar series... also expensive, sadly...

[Bob Salomon]

Why not Google and try to find portraits from famous photographers like Frank Cricchio, Schmactenburg, Monte Zucker, Al Gilbert, Tibor Horvath and see if there results are similar to your desired portrait needs?

[Bob Salomon]

Why not Google and try to find portraits from famous photographers like Frank Cricchio, Schmactenburg, Monte Zucker, Al Gilbert, Tibor Horvath and see if there results are similar to your desired portrait needs?

Just checked, it is easy to find examples of Cricchio and Zucker’s work online but Gilbert, Schmactenburg and Tibor are difficult to find quickly. Too bad!

[Bernice Loui]

Heilars have become expensive. During the early 90's and before. Heilars were easily available for $200 or under $100 in barrel. Lost track of the number of 360mm Heilars in barrel purchased for $50 back in the day. Universal Heilars were less common, but still not as costly as they are today. Kept a 210mm f3.5 Heilar in barrel, cleaned-coated by Burke & James Lens Bank purchased for less than $50 in the early 90's. Do not used it much as the Kodak Ektar or Schneider Xenar is my preference for portraits and general image making where taking apertures of larger than f16-f22is used, for f16-f32 choice becomes Dagor or Artar.

"About 1925, Voigtlander decided to tweak the Dynar design and created an f/3.5 lens with 50 degrees of coverage. This time, Voigtlander decided to go back to calling it a Heliar rather than continuing with the less popular "Dynar" name. Again, this made good commercial sense as the Heliar brand name had garnered a reputation of "prestige and mystique," according to the Lens Collectors Vade Mecum.

Aside from its actual optical qualities, part of the Heliar's lore is related to Japanese Emperor Hirohito, who is claimed to have so admired the Heliar lens, that he would only allow his picture to be taken with a Heliar. "

http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html




Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji L has plenty of image circle on 4X5 unless you need extreme rise for architecture. It's also going to be sharp with good color rendering, but not quite as harshly sharp or contrasty in portraiture as the Nikon 200M, another modern tessar, wonderful for landscape work but a bit over the top for portraiture in my opinion, and a stop dimmer.

[Jody_S]

I'd like to start exploring different angles and so on, shooting near wide open, so having pleasing Out of Focus areas and smooth focus transitions is where I would like to head.

I have to say Tessar is the way to go then. Bernice gave a list, but there are many others. The Congo Tessars come to mind if you want a relatively modern coated lens. The old Bausch & Lomb Tessars are still an excellent choice for an uncoated Tessar.



Some others. Never discount a Tessar based on age. Even non coated Tessar design lenses can be excellent.

*Zeiss Tessar.

*Schneider Xenar.

*Kodak Ektar.

*Boyer Saphir

*Docter Optic f4.5

*Caltar, f6.3

*B&J Acutar 6.3

*Komura Commercial f6.3

[BradS]

Oh, almost forgot.... the Ilex-Calumet 8 1/2 inch (215mm), f/4.8 Caltar is a pretty interesting lens.

[DrTang]

Oh, almost forgot.... the Ilex-Calumet 8 1/2 inch (215mm), f/4.8 Caltar is a pretty interesting lens.

I have one of those on my Keith twin lens 4x5


maybe I'll shoot that this friday! see how it goes

[Peter De Smidt]

My Keith twin lens had 254mm Ilex Paragons. It was a great performer. My recommendation is just to start taking pictures with whatever you have. Sure, lenses have different characters, especially at wide apertures, but subject, personal interaction, styling, composition, lighting, film, processing....are going to have a bigger impact in most cases.

[hoffy]

Thanks again for the replies folks! These are great.

So, from what I can gather:

I shouldn't discount the Caltar II that I already own. As a matter of fact, I think I might get out and use it some more
APO Symmar would be probably too sharp and contrasty for portraits
There are plenty of "different" lenses out there that would make awesome portrait lenses, but their availability and price is a bit questionable
But apart from that, there is plenty out there that would work


I had a quick look at second hand on KEH (not much) and B&H. Based on what B&H have currently listed for 210mm and 240mm:

Schneider 210mm f/5.6 Symmar-S Lens with Copal #1 Shutter
Caltar 210mm f/5.6 Caltar II-N with Copal 1 Shutter
Rodenstock 210mm f/5.6 Sironar-N Lens
Schneider 210mm f/5.6 Apo-Symmar Lens with Copal #1 Shutter
Caltar 240mm f/5.6 Caltar II-N Large Format Lens in Copal 3 Shutter


Any of the above would be suitable, except for possibly the APO Schneider?

(BTW, I am not thinking of buying from B&H at this stage, just using this as an example).

Cheers

[Peter De Smidt]

It's easy to make a lens less sharp and contrasty: Add a filter, whether glass or fabric, use a lower detail printing process, use softer light..... I wouldn't say that an APO Symmar is bad for portraits.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm not a soft focus or diffuse focus type at all. But I still like a certain look for specific subjects. Although this is a 4x5 thread, double the focal length for 8x10, and I happened to prefer a 14" Dagor over a plasmat for portraits. It's damn sharp and even more contrasty, but renders a gentler look hard to put in words. Of course I exploit the enhanced micotonality by how I print of neg. But some photographers have always sought intangibles.

[Bernice Loui]

Now going off on a tangent...

Soft focus is just another expressive image making tool. Challenge of soft focus is much about lighting and using form, shapes and composition.

Monochrome:
178046


Color:
178047

Soft focus lenses produces images very different than adding diffusion to a non-soft focus lens. Soft focus add ons made by Tiffen, Harrison & Harrison, Zeiss, Nikon and many others have varied diffusion and often used by film and video folks. Mostly works for film and video, but never the same or equal to GOOD soft focus lenses on sheet film formats 5x7 and larger. Ideally soft focus lenses used in 8x10 sheet film then contact printed often yields remarkable results of done with the required skill, creativity, craft and mastery.


Bernice

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm only speaking to the claim that sharp, low flare optics aren't good for portraiture. I've seen some really good work with those kind of lenses, exactly the type of lenses I prefer for most of my photography.
Is this a bad portrait because it was taken with a sharp and contrasty lens?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0o4bojx8wvlshez/Log_Cabin-0161.jpg?raw=1

If, for some reason, there's too much sharpness or contrast, it's not hard to lessen both of those things, whether through lighting or filters. For example, https://tiffen.com/contrast-filters/ . Or just using a non-coated filter.....

Of course this isn't the same as using an Imagon, Verito, Pinkham-Smith..... but let's get back to battling straw men....

[hoffy]

I'm only speaking to the claim that sharp, low flare optics aren't good for portraiture. I've seen some really good work with those kind of lenses, exactly the type of lenses I prefer for most of my photography.
Is this a bad portrait because it was taken with a sharp and contrasty lens?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0o4bojx8wvlshez/Log_Cabin-0161.jpg?raw=1

If, for some reason, there's too much sharpness or contrast, it's not hard to lessen both of those things, whether through lighting or filters. For example, https://tiffen.com/contrast-filters/ . Or just using a non-coated filter.....

Of course this isn't the same as using an Imagon, Verito, Pinkham-Smith..... but let's get back to battling straw men....

Beautiful portrait!

[Pere Casals]

I'm only speaking to the claim that sharp, low flare optics aren't good for portraiture. I've seen some really good work with those kind of lenses, exactly the type of lenses I prefer for most of my photography...

I agree completely.

I'd add that a number of post-process techniques are also available, beyond photoshop miracles in the darkroom, for example, we can defocus a bit the enlarger in the final part of the paper exposure, then controling the defocus amount and the exposure share, or we can generate flare or halation there...

I also agree this is really great protrait.

[Bob Salomon]

Now going off on a tangent...

Soft focus is just another expressive image making tool. Challenge of soft focus is much about lighting and using form, shapes and composition.

Monochrome:
178046


Color:
178047

Soft focus lenses produces images very different than adding diffusion to a non-soft focus lens. Soft focus add ons made by Tiffen, Harrison & Harrison, Zeiss, Nikon and many others have varied diffusion and often used by film and video folks. Mostly works for film and video, but never the same or equal to GOOD soft focus lenses on sheet film formats 5x7 and larger. Ideally soft focus lenses used in 8x10 sheet film then contact printed often yields remarkable results of done with the required skill, creativity, craft and mastery.


Bernice
A true soft focus lens, like the Imagon is firstly variable in its effect running from very soft and diffuse to very sharp, depending on the aperture used. Secondly it has greater depth of field due to the way the effect of its soft focus works. Thirdly a soft focus lens diffuses the scenes highlights into the shadows, an add on soft focus filter be it amSoftar, Duto, have, stocking or anything else diffuses the shadows into the highlights resulting in a very different effect.
Lastly the lens like the Imagon demands a much stronger lighting ratio, about 5:1 compared to the 3:1 used normally and it doesn’t perform well from light from an umbrella. It performs best from strong direct light. Like an elliptical reflector.

[William Whitaker]

...Secondly it has greater depth of field due to the way the effect of its soft focus works....

Lastly the lens like the Imagon demands a much stronger lighting ratio, about 5:1 compared to the 3:1 used normally and it doesn’t perform well from light from an umbrella. It performs best from strong direct light. Like an elliptical reflector.

Interesting points. I've long contended that coverage and relatedly depth of field, being defined by an arbitrarily chosen value for circle of confusion are not defined (or at least, not well-defined terms) if applied to soft-focus lenses. If a lens never achieve critical focus, how can it be claimed that it has any coverage at all (or, similarly, any depth of field)?

It became evident to me fairly early on while working with soft focus lenses (mostly the Verito in my case), that effective use of the lens' qualities seemed very dependent on light quality, a quite hard light seeming to display the lens' qualities best. Which is to say, a higher ratio as you pointed out.

I realize this jumps the bounds of the OP's original request, but it does fit within the general interest of this group.

[Bernice Loui]

Indeed,

IMO, Too often image makers focus excessively on lens performance, film-developer, print making and ....

-Then forget Lighting makes ALL the difference.

Much of photography is about light, shapes, form, contrast-tonal range. Soft focus lenses are a very good example if how light ratios have a drastic effect on how they render. This applies to non-soft focus lenses.

Photographs are two dimensional renderings of a three dimensional world. Lighting is just one of the tools that can be used to give the impression of depth within a two dimensional images.

Oil painters have used texturing by height of the oil painted structures to increase lighting effects, A, Rodin used texturing of his sculptures to increase the effects of lighting. Consider how these artist have used their tools available to enhance the behavior of light used for viewing their creations of expression.



Bernice





Interesting points. I've long contended that coverage and relatedly depth of field, being defined by an arbitrarily chosen value for circle of confusion are not defined (or at least, not well-defined terms) if applied to soft-focus lenses. If a lens never achieve critical focus, how can it be claimed that it has any coverage at all (or, similarly, any depth of field)?

It became evident to me fairly early on while working with soft focus lenses (mostly the Verito in my case), that effective use of the lens' qualities seemed very dependent on light quality, a quite hard light seeming to display the lens' qualities best. Which is to say, a higher ratio as you pointed out.

I realize this jumps the bounds of the OP's original request, but it does fit within the general interest of this group.

[Oren Grad]

Interesting points. I've long contended that coverage and relatedly depth of field, being defined by an arbitrarily chosen value for circle of confusion are not defined (or at least, not well-defined terms) if applied to soft-focus lenses. If a lens never achieve critical focus, how can it be claimed that it has any coverage at all (or, similarly, any depth of field)?

I'd put it just slightly differently. Depth of field is a subjective attribute, the perception of which depends in part on how focus transitions are rendered by an optical design. One important consequence is that even for lenses that are not soft-focus designs, standard calculations based on a specified circle of confusion, which assume that all lenses share the same, idealized optical properties, will not necessarily yield perceptually accurate results for actual lenses in the real world. Another is that one lens with a given specification - say, a 210mm f/5.6 plasmat - might differ from another of nominally identical specification in this respect.

Now how's that for a can of worms? ;)

[Pere Casals]

Lastly the lens like the Imagon demands a much stronger lighting ratio, about 5:1 compared to the 3:1 used normally and it doesn’t perform well from light from an umbrella. It performs best from strong direct light. Like an elliptical reflector.

This interesting information, time ago I saved this link: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?58032-Using-a-Rodenstock-Imagon&p=549170&viewfull=1#post549170

[Andy Eads]

I'm with the folks who are recommending longer focal lengths than 210 mm. When taking a head and shoulders photo or a tight head shot the longer focal length means a longer lens to subject distance. That affects perspective and your freedom to move lights around if needed. It was a size beast but I used a 240 mm Caltar S II and made wonderful portraits with it. The 210 mm Symmar in my kit found use for full length and group portraits. I also had a 203 mm Ektar that was wonderful for its light weight and sharpness.

[Bob Salomon]

This interesting information, time ago I saved this link: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?58032-Using-a-Rodenstock-Imagon&p=549170&viewfull=1#post549170

Glad it caught your interest!

[Bernice Loui]

Regarding lens focus transitions, Fast forward to about 3:30 in this video and watch how this Cooke S4 transitions from in to out of focus at the center and edges..

This is related to out of focus rendition of a given lens. The film and video folks are very aware of stuff like this. For view camera folks who are interested in everything in focus, or always stopped down to the smallest possible aperture to achieve depth of view-depth of focus, transitions from in to out of focus may not be a lens performance consideration in their image making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM09x8Zk3_k

Everything in focus orthodoxy in view camera images appears to have it's roots in Group f64, it is one image making methodology, but there are many others including Pictorialism and related soft focus image making. It appears the everything in focus orthodoxy has influenced the modern view camera optics designs resulting in stuff like optimization for f22, the common Plasmat design, multi coating and more along these same goals.


Bernice

[Oren Grad]

For view camera folks who are interested in everything in focus...

One of the things that sank in as I gained experience with large format, and especially with 8x10 and larger, is that even accepting standard DOF calculations based on idealized optics, standard CoC assumptions are always way optimistic relative to my viewing habits, and there are many, many situations where it's not possible to achieve universal apparent focus even by stopping down all the way. From there, it was impossible not to start noticing how stuff that was almost-but-not-quite in focus was rendered. I actually don't care much about focus transitions of large format lenses at or near full aperture, as I almost never use LF lenses that way. Rather, I'm interested in how transitions are rendered at smaller stops - f/22 and beyond - with subjects that have a great deal of depth - say, outdoor scenes focused at middling distances.

Oh, yes: my advice to the OP is to continue using his Caltar II-E/Geronar and get to know it better.

[Pere Casals]

is that even accepting standard DOF calculations based on idealized optics, standard CoC assumptions are always way optimistic relative to my viewing habits...

In the movie industry beyond the DOF calculations based on idealized optics, also they have "through-focus MTF" graphs. IMHO just this is interesting to realize that theoric DOF may not explain perfectly OOF lens roll-off.

This is an article showing "through-focus MTF" for a B&L Super Baltar... http://cinematechnic.com/optics/super-baltar

[Bernice Loui]

A lens has essentially a point or plane of focus, once moved away from the point or plane of focus it becomes "apparent" focus to varying degrees. How these transitions and renditions for out of focus areas can have a LOT of variations and nuances.

*Lighting has a strong effect on these aspects of lens personality.

This is one of the many aspects of lens personality that typical resolution chart testing and similar will not reveal, much like crafting a great musical instrument science, skill of craft, materials alone is not enough there is very artistic and humanistic aspect to these creations.


Bernice

[hoffy]

One of the things that sank in as I gained experience with large format, and especially with 8x10 and larger, is that even accepting standard DOF calculations based on idealized optics, standard CoC assumptions are always way optimistic relative to my viewing habits, and there are many, many situations where it's not possible to achieve universal apparent focus even by stopping down all the way. From there, it was impossible not to start noticing how stuff that was almost-but-not-quite in focus was rendered. I actually don't care much about focus transitions of large format lenses at or near full aperture, as I almost never use LF lenses that way. Rather, I'm interested in how transitions are rendered at smaller stops - f/22 and beyond - with subjects that have a great deal of depth - say, outdoor scenes focused at middling distances.

Valid point. Large format is many different things to many people, but as I read above, either people shoot them wide open in a portrait setting or fully stopped down in a landscape setting.



Oh, yes: my advice to the OP is to continue using his Caltar II-E/Geronar and get to know it better.
The more I am reading, the more I need to understand how things behave, so yes, I will continue using the lens for now. But when I see something come up for sale here, I don't want to be sitting around trying to work out whether it will work for me, only to see it sell.



A lens has essentially a point or plane of focus, once moved away from the point or plane of focus it becomes "apparent" focus to varying degrees. How these transitions and renditions for out of focus areas can have a LOT of variations and nuances.

*Lighting has a strong effect on these aspects of lens personality.

This is one of the many aspects of lens personality that typical resolution chart testing and similar will not reveal, much like crafting a great musical instrument science, skill of craft, materials alone is not enough there is very artistic and humanistic aspect to these creations.


Bernice

That was always my understanding - there will always only be one focus point.

The more I look, the more I understand that I am not opposed to super sharp portraits. The biggest issue with that is how does the sitter actually feel about all their crevices and blemishes being on display in a nice 16x20 print?? :D

If I go back to my statement of goal "honest and respectful portraits of normal people", there can be a bit of a separation between "honest" and "respectful". I know that if I put my 67 year old MIL in front of the lens, I personally will want to capture her age and her life experience. But I also know that if she looked at the image I envisage, her immediate response will be "Gee I look old"!

Anyhow, this has become quite a useful thread - a little sideways drift here or there, but still a good resource. I now need to start getting of my butt, getting the garage studio setup and actually burn some film. Give me a few weeks to a month, but if you are ever in the Adelaide area and don't mind sitting........ ;) I'll even chuck some snags on the barbie

[Oren Grad]

But when I see something come up for sale here, I don't want to be sitting around trying to work out whether it will work for me, only to see it sell.

You've been asking good questions! FWIW, every lens mentioned by specific name in this thread can be used to make excellent portraits. You've already said that at the moment you're not looking for "character lenses", so pretty much any more-or-less modern lens and many older ones too are fair game. Among modern general-purpose lenses, there's no useful distinction to draw between lenses that are "good for portraits" and those that are "good for landscapes", other than that sometimes the latter may require a larger image circle for movements.

So have at it, good luck, and enjoy!

[Bernice Loui]

Another way to decide on image making tools and techniques would be to have a goal for the portraits to be created, then decide on the tools (camera, lens, film, developer, printing, mounting and ...) to achieve these goals. Start some where, if there is ANY lens, camera, film and other image making tools available, used them, understand what they can and cannot do, what their limitations are. Once there has been some experience gained, then comes the time when more focuses image making tool needs can be "focused" on.

Always keep in mind image goals even if this journey and learning process takes many twist-turns-detours.


Enjoy this journey :)
Bernice

[Mark Sampson]

And when you get some results you like, post 'em here!

[Bob Salomon]

“.....That was always my understanding - there will always only be one focus point....”

That depends on the design of the lens. For example, the Imagon shifts focus with each aperture, even though you have two apertures with the same speed and different effects, depending on the disk used. As there is no point of critical sharp focus Linhof was ever able to rangefinder couple these lenses!
There are other lenses for large format that also shift focus with aperture setting. Usually you can identify those lenses as you are instructed to focus them at taking aperture rather then shooting aperture.

[Bernice Loui]

Portrait image maker and portrait sitter is very much a mutual relationship.

Portrait maker can use the portrait sitter as a means for the portrait maker's intent and expression. Essentially the portrait sitter becomes a tool and means to achieve the portrait maker's vision-ego and image expression.

Alternatively, portrait maker can be sensitive to the personality and what the portrait sitter has to say in their portrait image to be created. Essentially a symbiotic relationship between portrait sitter and portrait maker.

How a given portrait sitter feels about images down to the pores of their skin and more is very individual. Some sitters are absolutely good with this, others will never accept any of this.


Bernice

[andrewch59]

I had that very problem with a friends wife who sat for me. I took a portrait using a wolly velostigmat, which I find has a vey smooth transition to OOF, however I focussed wide open but without any soft. I really liked the result but she hated it, women do not like being smacked in the face with the reality of age.
Tried another shot with lots of soft on my wife, and she found it acceptable, love the flexibility of the velostigmat.
I also have the cooke series IIA F3.5 which gives an even smoother transition to OOF and very good contrast, neither of these need a shutter in a studio, just soft lighting and a lens cap.