Bausch & Lomb 506mm 5.6 / lens coverage for 16x20

[maxi0909]

Dear kind members,

I´m new into ULF and want to build my own camera. i owned a Bausch & Lomb 506mm 5.6 20 inch lens.

Can you please help me to find out if i can use it on a 16x20 camera?

[Greg]

Can you post an image of the lens and an image of the lettering on the front of the lens?

[Dan Fromm]

Probably not.

My USAF lens data sheets are incomplete. They show one 20"/5.6 B&L lens, a very conventional telephoto lens that is around 13.5 inches long and weighs 10 pounds . It covers 35 mm (24 x 36 mm).

This may well not be the lens you're thinking about, so more information on it would be very helpful.

They also mention but give no data on other 20"/5.6 lenses including one that covers 5" x 5" and none that cover more.

The largest format that USAF regularly used was 9" x 18". Their lenses for that format were quite heavy, and 9x18 is considerably smaller than 16x20.

People have often asked about lenses for ULF here. The short answer is that there are few normal lenses for 16x20. Process lenses that cover the format are all longer than normal.

For access to my USAF datasheets and to other information about lenses that might, perhaps, do follow the link in the first post in https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses

[maxi0909]

Can you post an image of the lens and an image of the lettering on the front of the lens?

189052

[Dan Fromm]

A telephoto lens and not a USAF lens. Telephotos are all narrow angle lenses, it won't do what you want.

[maxi0909]

A telephoto lens and not a USAF lens. Telephotos are all narrow angle lenses, it won't do what you want.

thanks a lot... now i need to sell it...

Will those do their job?

Zeiss Apochromat Tessar 10/640mm

Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 600mm 24in. f/9

[maxi0909]

And then i have another small question :D

maybe it sounds dumb...

Do i really need a 5.6 lens?

i think f10 on a 16x20 could generate a DOF of a 1.4 on fullframe?

Am i right?

[Dan Fromm]

thanks a lot... now i need to sell it...

Will those do their job?

Zeiss Apochromat Tessar 10/640mm

Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 600mm 24in. f/9

No and no. I gave you directions to a link that will get you nearly all of the lens catalogs etc. available on line. Use it. Its time to stop dreaming and do your own legwork.

[maxi0909]

But why? I read that both of those lenses where used by some people for 16x20

The Zeiss was also used on a 20x25 format camera

So why do you think it will don't work?

[goamules]

Why did you ask here, if you read it would work? Simply trust what you "read", and buy one and see.

[Mark Crabtree]

I wonder if the 24" f6 B&L Aero Tessar would do it. I use mine on 11x14, but for portraits. I don't see anything about the design of the lens cells that would indicate it is constricted in coverage. Mine is just in a tube I made, so I don't know about any impact the original mount might have. These are also big heavy things. The cells alone are about 10 lbs. It is actually a Gundlach Radar type design with 3 cemented elements in the rear according to Kingslake. The front cell design makes for easily varying the element spacing if you want to mess up the correction. Even has a set screw to lock that down.

These still often go for cheap because they really are pretty impractical, but a heck of a lens for not much money. Often just the cells, so some creativity required. If I get a chance I'll try to see if I can rig mine up out the window camera obscura style to see what the image circle looks like.

[Corran]

A telephoto lens and not a USAF lens. Telephotos are all narrow angle lenses, it won't do what you want.

Dan,

I have the Telephoto lens in question. Mine came on a weird Leica threadmount mirror-box thing. Was a freebie with a Leica III I bought through an estate.

It illuminates 8x10 easily. I haven't shot it on 8x10...no shutter, and no reason to do such a crazy thing. But, I wouldn't hesitate to do so. And as we both know, focused close it would cover more. If the OP wants to shoot 16x20 portraits at 1:1 it would be reasonable to think the B&L could do what he wants, especially if a little vignetting and/or poor corner resolution is okay. He hasn't told us his objective.

Whatever it was rated for via the USAF is indicative of just one use-case.

[Bernice Loui]

Fairchild K17 shutter would be the one.


Bernice

[maxi0909]

Why did you ask here, if you read it would work? Simply trust what you "read", and buy one and see.

Because I´m a student with a limited amount of money... i don´t have the money and time to be unsure... :D

that´s why I want to ask professionals

[maxi0909]

No and no. I gave you directions to a link that will get you nearly all of the lens catalogs etc. available on line. Use it. Its time to stop dreaming and do your own legwork.189065

This is what i found... I think this would be the Zeiss lens i talked about

So I think it will work, what do you say about these numbers? :)

to everybody... i just want to make portraits, nothing else... the lens only have to helo me at this point

[Corran]

Simple question for you. It says "sharply covered size of plate" and then the column says "1:1." Do you know what that means?

[maxi0909]

no.. maybe you can explain it to me in a simple way?

[maxi0909]

Simple question for you. It says "sharply covered size of plate" and then the column says "1:1." Do you know what that means?

Maybe it means that i can use it for 16x20 portraiture?

[Corran]

no.. maybe you can explain it to me in a simple way?

It's the magnification. 1:1 means the image projected is the same size as the actual person/thing in the photograph. Thank you for mentioning your intended photographic subject. Now, consider how exactly you want to photograph them (full-body, environmental, headshot, etc.) and then see how that compares to the magnification of the lens you are considering. 1:2 would be half life-size, btw.

[Corran]

Also, IMO consider if you really need 16x20, and then perhaps research what others are doing in that format. Maybe talk to some of the actual users. Most here do not shoot such large film/plates. I don't.

[maxi0909]

It's the magnification. 1:1 means the image projected is the same size as the actual person/thing in the photograph. Thank you for mentioning your intended photographic subject. Now, consider how exactly you want to photograph them (full-body, environmental, headshot, etc.) and then see how that compares to the magnification of the lens you are considering. 1:2 would be half life-size, btw.

I want to make headshots... i saw a dude who did that and the picture on the plate was life size... maybe this is what i want? 1:1 ?

so i can buy this lens for that type of use?

It´s very hard, because those other people tend to use highly expensive lenses

[Dan Fromm]

Dan,

I have the Telephoto lens in question. Mine came on a weird Leica threadmount mirror-box thing. Was a freebie with a Leica III I bought through an estate.

It illuminates 8x10 easily. I haven't shot it on 8x10...no shutter, and no reason to do such a crazy thing. But, I wouldn't hesitate to do so. And as we both know, focused close it would cover more. If the OP wants to shoot 16x20 portraits at 1:1 it would be reasonable to think the B&L could do what he wants, especially if a little vignetting and/or poor corner resolution is okay. He hasn't told us his objective.

Whatever it was rated for via the USAF is indicative of just one use-case.

Bryan, I thought I hedged.

The OP asked about 16x20, didn't say anything about application. 8x10 is large, 16x20 is, alas, larger.

[Dan Fromm]

Fairchild K17 shutter would be the one.


Bernice

Interesting. I ask because I don't know. Can those monsters be operated manually when the lens isn't mounted on the camera it is intended for?

[Dan Fromm]

I want to make headshots... i saw a dude who did that and the picture on the plate was life size... maybe this is what i want? 1:1 ?

so i can buy this lens for that type of use?

It´s very hard, because those other people tend to use highly expensive lenses

Measure heads. Will 8x10 do for the shots you have in mind? Will 16x20?

You said plate. Did you mean glass plate, wet or dry, or are you thinking film?

Early in this discussion you mentioned small digital and a fast 50 mm lens. Do you want to make portraits with tiny depth-of-field?

I directed you to the list and lens catalogs so that you can find lenses' rated coverages. Makers usually use the coverage concept "puts acceptable quality image in the corners." Some people here use the concept "puts light in the corners." If the shots you have in mind will have little or no fine detail in the corners then the second concept is better for you.

The list has short reviews of books on close-up work and of books on LF photography. You'll learn more, and more quickly, from books than from short posts on a bulletin board. Buy some books.

Long lenses with high coverage tend to be very expensive. One way to get coverage is to use a relatively narrow angle lens that's longer than normal and stand back a bit from the subject. That's what the guys who do full body portraits on huge negatives do. Look for Richard Learoyd for examples and, perhaps, inspiration.

[Corran]

Listen to what Dan says. Before you can shoot 16x20 well, I think it would be good to understand how to shoot 8x10 well (the largest format that is relatively "easy" to find usable cameras and lenses for, and relatively inexpensively. Notice my liberal use of "relatively!").

Don't jump into the deep-end headfirst and blind, basically. Perhaps find someone near you who can get you hands-on with ULF.

[Bernice Loui]

Correction, that would be a Fairchild K38 shutter. It is HUGE and the shutter blades can slice off a finger. Yes, the K38 shutter can be operated stand alone. There is a wind up shaft then a shutter release spigot, think it has three shutter speeds. At one time there was a YouTube video of a K38 shutter's operation. Have one of these in the pile with a 12" f2.5 "hot" Aero Ektar. Might dig it up then re-do that video showing it's operation.


Bernice



Interesting. I ask because I don't know. Can those monsters be operated manually when the lens isn't mounted on the camera it is intended for?

[maxi0909]

Listen to what Dan says. Before you can shoot 16x20 well, I think it would be good to understand how to shoot 8x10 well (the largest format that is relatively "easy" to find usable cameras and lenses for, and relatively inexpensively. Notice my liberal use of "relatively!").

Don't jump into the deep-end headfirst and blind, basically. Perhaps find someone near you who can get you hands-on with ULF.

Guys please, we can talk about jesus and the world later.. :D

I already shot 4x5... i need to shoot 16x20 because it is a project for the university... large portraits on glass with wet plates (i did this on 4x5)

Can you please answer me this small question because the offer someone did to me will run out soon /:

Will the Zeiss apo tessar 640 f10 24" work for only close portrait shots or not? Nothing more

Please HELP me :D

[Corran]

Dan and I have already given you the answer. At 1:1, the spec sheet says it will cover 25 x 21 inches sharply. So at 1:1 magnification, a.k.a. life-size, it will do what you want. At less-than, it might not.

I trust you can handle the rest.

Caveat: I don't own the lens or shoot 16x20, so my opinion is based on the posted spec sheet and nothing more.

[fuegocito]

Since you have the said lens already, you can stick it through a black out window, and make a 1620 white cardboard and line up the projected image till sharp focus is achieved to see if it covers the whole board. I have the exact lens and I have mounted to my 11x14 and it certainly illuminates the entire field sharply at infinity.

[Mark Crabtree]

Guys please, we can talk about jesus and the world later.. :D

I already shot 4x5... i need to shoot 16x20 because it is a project for the university... large portraits on glass with wet plates (i did this on 4x5)

Can you please answer me this small question because the offer someone did to me will run out soon /:

Will the Zeiss apo tessar 640 f10 24" work for only close portrait shots or not? Nothing more

Please HELP me :D

Of course. Go for it, and have fun. You won't find a lot of 20" or longer, normal design (non-tele), lenses that won't cover at 1:1.

There are a few other things to keep in mind when choosing your lens, though, that you might already know, or might have been mentioned here even, but worth a reminder - For head and shoulders portraits on this format you will be at 1:1 or higher magnification (closer). That is a handy reference point to use.

At 1:1 you will need to extend the lens about double its focal length, so 48" for a 24" lens. Depending on the lens design and mounting, that will generally require just a bit less than that amount of bellows. Your subject will also be about 48" from the lens. So about 8 feet from the focus point of the subject to the ground glass. Add in some distance for the depth of the subject, to the background, and room to step back to view on a 16x20 ground glass. I can do it on 11x14" in my 15 foot shooting space, but more would sure be nice. This is one aspect where higher magnification is handy since you need less shooting space. Also, obviously, longer lenses need more space. I can't shoot all that much looser than 1:1 with 24" fl in my space.

At 1:1 your lens is effectively 2 stops slower, so an f11 aperture is working like f22. I use window light and find that way too slow for me. F6 is as slow as I like. Outdoors, or with enough light your options are greater.

Good luck with your project. I hope you'll post your progress.

[maxi0909]

Of course. Go for it, and have fun. You won't find a lot of 20" or longer, normal design (non-tele), lenses that won't cover at 1:1.

There are a few other things to keep in mind when choosing your lens, though, that you might already know, or might have been mentioned here even, but worth a reminder - For head and shoulders portraits on this format you will be at 1:1 or higher magnification (closer). That is a handy reference point to use.

At 1:1 you will need to extend the lens about double its focal length, so 48" for a 24" lens. Depending on the lens design and mounting, that will generally require just a bit less than that amount of bellows. Your subject will also be about 48" from the lens. So about 8 feet from the focus point of the subject to the ground glass. Add in some distance for the depth of the subject, to the background, and room to step back to view on a 16x20 ground glass. I can do it on 11x14" in my 15 foot shooting space, but more would sure be nice. This is one aspect where higher magnification is handy since you need less shooting space. Also, obviously, longer lenses need more space. I can't shoot all that much looser than 1:1 with 24" fl in my space.

At 1:1 your lens is effectively 2 stops slower, so an f11 aperture is working like f22. I use window light and find that way too slow for me. F6 is as slow as I like. Outdoors, or with enough light your options are greater.

Good luck with your project. I hope you'll post your progress.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIC4-xrR0fE

This dude inspired me to built my own version :)

he exposed his image with a flash in a dark room... i think this will be also my way to do it, because the exposure is then just a second or less i think.... so the aperture shouldn´t be a problem?

of course i will share my work, but this will last some months... you can give me your personal email if you want :)

[maxi0909]

I need to say thank you to everybody :)

you helped me a lot!

Now i need to make some plans how big the camera must be... maybe there are some mathmatical formulars out there

[Mark Crabtree]

Good luck. It will be quite an adventure. I do think a slow lens will be limiting, but can work. You'll need quite a lot of flash power, and still have the very dim image for focusing. F22 does not make for easy focusing.

There are some very cheap faster lenses out there. Of course you can always add something like that later. In addition the the very heavy Aero Tessar 24" f6, I picked up an even cheaper, and much lighter, 22" f5 Beseler projection triplet. I'm sure there are others.

Here's a video someone here mentioned before that shows the cheap Beseler projection triplet in use for wet plate. You see the lens of and on starting just after 3'40". His is 18" and the same diameter as the 22", so even faster. He has it marked as f3.75 I think. Those are often very cheap; the 22" is a bit harder to find, but still often cheap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSPUcQ9eOlw

[Tin Can]

Great video!

I have the same type camera as Kurt Moser, same hardware.

Back to the drawing board.

Good luck OP!

[maxi0909]

Good luck. It will be quite an adventure. I do think a slow lens will be limiting, but can work. You'll need quite a lot of flash power, and still have the very dim image for focusing. F22 does not make for easy focusing.

There are some very cheap faster lenses out there. Of course you can always add something like that later. In addition the the very heavy Aero Tessar 24" f6, I picked up an even cheaper, and much lighter, 22" f5 Beseler projection triplet. I'm sure there are others.

Here's a video someone here mentioned before that shows the cheap Beseler projection triplet in use for wet plate. You see the lens of and on starting just after 3'40". His is 18" and the same diameter as the 22", so even faster. He has it marked as f3.75 I think. Those are often very cheap; the 22" is a bit harder to find, but still often cheap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSPUcQ9eOlw

But am I right that i can't use such small apertures? For example isn't at f10 just the nose in focus and nothing else?

So i just need this small aperture for brightness at focussing? And then i will raise it up to which one?
Maybe you know it, so I didn't have to make a lot of failed exposures :D

I want that blurry look, but the whole face in focus... the ears can be out of focus if necessary

[maxi0909]

Great video!

I have the same type camera as Kurt Moser, same hardware.

Back to the drawing board.

Which name has this camera?

Maybe it's not affordable for a student like me, but I find that interesting :)

Good luck OP!

[Tin Can]

max, my camera has similar hardware, but Moser has modified most of his gear. I doubt the lizard is OE!

His camera has two bellows, mine one.

I like his head rest, maybe from a dentist office.

Mine is The Levy Process Camera, which everybody here on this forum told me to throw away! I was new here then, but certainly did not throw it away. It will be converted to 11X17 X-Ray film one of these days...The previous owner was going to make a coffee table out it. I talked him out if it. He gave me the monster.

It is very heavy, but it has the best heavy duty leather bellows i have seen anywhere and I have a few old monster cameras. :)

I converted mine to 8X10 Calumet C1 back for testing. The big lens on front is Cooke Series 9 635mm f10 process lens. Very good lens.

It has only front rise and fall movement. Good enough. I converted the lens board to 4X5 Horseman so I can use a Sinar shutter.

It came with rather odd plate holders that are just odd, the GG distance is adjustable with that lever. I don't use it now. The bottom rear crank does front focus. The black right side hand wheel moves the back standard for rear focus.

Moser has his on a movie camera tripod, very heavy duty. I can do the same.

I have three 14X17 plastic medical film holders I will use one day, as I also have that size X-Ray film.

Notice how much focus light Moser has, that's very necessary unless out in the Sun. I also use strobes.

Pics in a second post coming right up.

[Tin Can]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7814/47425723022_e840455798_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ffReaG)IMG-2208 (https://flic.kr/p/2ffReaG) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7863/46755329414_07e0fd8b04_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2eeBhvd)IMG-2209 (https://flic.kr/p/2eeBhvd) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7913/47425722932_d9da62c80a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ffRe99)IMG-2210 (https://flic.kr/p/2ffRe99) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7882/46755329364_1d34eecc13_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2eeBhum)IMG-2211 (https://flic.kr/p/2eeBhum) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Mark Crabtree]

But am I right that i can't use such small apertures? For example isn't at f10 just the nose in focus and nothing else?

So i just need this small aperture for brightness at focussing? And then i will raise it up to which one?
Maybe you know it, so I didn't have to make a lot of failed exposures :D

I want that blurry look, but the whole face in focus... the ears can be out of focus if necessary


Those are actually large apertures you mean I think, but small numbers of course. Anyway, I shoot wide open which still gives me exposures from about 1/2 to 10 seconds in my available light settings. That is usually f4, f5, or f6 since those are the full apertures of my lenses, but these are effectively effectively f8- f12 because of the bellows extention. And that is shooting film. Shooting paper in the camera, which is getting closer to wet plate speed, I was getting 12 to 45 second exposures. It would need longer sometimes, but I just didn't bother trying past that time. Depth of field is very shallow, but everything seems different in large scale. I like the look, but do prefer a smooth/sharp lens that doesn't exaggerate what is in and out of focus.

I guess I should have mentioned that the two lenses I talked about earlier (Aero Tessar and Beseler projection) do not have usually stops, so always wide open anyway. That is one thing that makes them so cheap, but perfect for big portraits to me. The shot in the video I linked will be wide open. Also, I imagine the one in the video you linked.

[maxi0909]

max, my camera has similar hardware, but Moser has modified most of his gear. I doubt the lizard is OE!

His camera has two bellows, mine one.

I like his head rest, maybe from a dentist office.

Mine is The Levy Process Camera, which everybody here on this forum told me to throw away! I was new here then, but certainly did not throw it away. It will be converted to 11X17 X-Ray film one of these days...The previous owner was going to make a coffee table out it. I talked him out if it. He gave me the monster.

It is very heavy, but it has the best heavy duty leather bellows i have seen anywhere and I have a few old monster cameras. :)

I converted mine to 8X10 Calumet C1 back for testing. The big lens on front is Cooke Series 9 635mm f10 process lens. Very good lens.

It has only front rise and fall movement. Good enough. I converted the lens board to 4X5 Horseman so I can use a Sinar shutter.

It came with rather odd plate holders that are just odd, the GG distance is adjustable with that lever. I don't use it now. The bottom rear crank does front focus. The black right side hand wheel moves the back standard for rear focus.

Moser has his on a movie camera tripod, very heavy duty. I can do the same.

I have three 14X17 plastic medical film holders I will use one day, as I also have that size X-Ray film.

Notice how much focus light Moser has, that's very necessary unless out in the Sun. I also use strobes.

Pics in a second post coming right up.


Unbelievable to throw such a beauty away :D

Do you have a 16x20 one?

Maybe you can answer my last question from above? :)

[Tin Can]

No I don't have a 16X20, but mine could be expanded to that with a DIY extension back.

Like this, a wedge shaped box. https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?96789-11x14-Extension-Back-for-8x10-V8-Deardorff-Field-Camera&p=953322&viewfull=1#post953322

What is the question you want answered?


Unbelievable to throw such a beauty away :D

Do you have a 16x20 one?

Maybe you can answer my last question from above? :)

[Bob Salomon]

Unbelievable to throw such a beauty away :D

Do you have a 16x20 one?

Maybe you can answer my last question from above? :)

You don’t need a camera to determine the coverage. All you need is a widow, a dark room and a white surface. Hold the lens pointing out the widow at a distant object and see how large a circle it throws onto the white surface. If possible, draw a 20” circle on the surface to make visualizing coverage better.

[maxi0909]

No I don't have a 16X20, but mine could be expanded to that with a DIY extension back.

Like this, a wedge shaped box. https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?96789-11x14-Extension-Back-for-8x10-V8-Deardorff-Field-Camera&p=953322&viewfull=1#post953322

What is the question you want answered?


I wanna know why i should get a lens with an aperture of for example 4.5 instead of my lens, which has f10

Because i think it will be impossible to photograph someones face with 4.5 at a 16x20 camera

Or is it just for focussing, so the focussing plate is bright enough - and the i will bring down the aperture?

Am I right?

But there are some dudes out there which photograph which projection lenses who have a fixed f stop like 4.5

[Corran]

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Calculate using 8x10 film (0.2 CoC), 24" lens at 1:1 magnification, f/10, the DOF is approximately 9mm.

DOF is complicated but this is a rough estimate. If you want the whole face in focus you are going to have problems, even at f/64 (50mm DOF).

There's no free lunch unfortunately.

[Tin Can]

You need to study a bit.

f 4.5 is not the deciding factor in image circle.

Click below.


Depth of Field (DoF), Angle of View, and Equivalent Lens Calculator (https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{%22c%22:[{%22f%22:13,%22av%22:%228%22,%22fl%22:50,%22d%22:3048,%22cm%22:%220%22}],%22m%22:0})

[Dan Fromm]

maxi, aperture affects image circle in two ways.

First, with some lenses the mechanical design is such that with the lens wide open the rear of the barrel blocks the outer part of the cone of rays that the lens projects. Stopping down makes the exit pupil smaller and reduces this problem. What's affected here is the circle illuminated, not the circle of good definition. Once the exit pupil is small enough to eliminate mechanical vignetting stopping down farther doesn't increase the size of the circle illuminated.

Second, some off-axis aberrations are sensitive to aperture. See https://web.archive.org/web/20141229200841/http://toothwalker.org/optics.html for a list. They are better controlled when the lens is stopped down; this improves definition. But and however, stopping down increases diffraction's effects, reducing definition. The effects of residual aberrations and diffraction have a minimum and the circle of good definition has a maximum at some aperture. Which aperture depends on the lens. At all other apertures the circle of good definition is smaller.

Please understand that resolution needed on film depends on how much the negative is to be enlarged. Negs to be contact printed don't have to be as sharp as negs to be enlarged, and the more a neg is to be enlarged the sharper it has to be.

[Tin Can]

Point taken Dan.

Let’s see if OP returns.

[maxi0909]

But I don´t talk about image circle anymore, I just wanna talk about DOF :)

I wrote to Kurt Moser, who´s a german too and he told me that he takes portraits with projection lenses that have apertures like f4

unbelievable, but he says it works well

[Tin Can]

DOF is variable, you need to plug numbers into the calculatores we linked to.

Tell us more about you, the project and why you are doing this.

A good story always helps.

[blue4130]

Just test it like everyone is saying. Use a cardboard box, and a translucent bag as a DIY focus screen. Find a friend to sit at the distance you think you will likely shoot from. You can see exactly what the lens will do instead of guessing. It's really simple and in 5 minutes you will have definitive proof of if it works for your application or not.

[Tin Can]

Best answer!


Just test it like everyone is saying. Use a cardboard box, and a translucent bag as a DIY focus screen. Find a friend to sit at the distance you think you will likely shoot from. You can see exactly what the lens will do instead of guessing. It's really simple and in 5 minutes you will have definitive proof of if it works for your application or not.

[Corran]

But I don´t talk about image circle anymore, I just wanna talk about DOF :)

I wrote to Kurt Moser, who´s a german too and he told me that he takes portraits with projection lenses that have apertures like f4

unbelievable, but he says it works well

It's good that you have reached out to a practitioner to get practical real-life information.

I'm not a fan of his portraits. I like short DOF, but his are so extreme that I find they become grotesque caricatures. Just my opinion of the effect of DOF on the image. You mentioned earlier you wanted the full face in focus, so you might refer again to my post #45 regarding that.

[maxi0909]

It's good that you have reached out to a practitioner to get practical real-life information.

I'm not a fan of his portraits. I like short DOF, but his are so extreme that I find they become grotesque caricatures. Just my opinion of the effect of DOF on the image. You mentioned earlier you wanted the full face in focus, so you might refer again to my post #45 regarding that.

Giles Clement, a guy who also built a 16x20 camera uses a 500mm f/4.5 1913 Goerz Dogmar for 1:1 portraits. He said to me that he uses f6.3 and i really like his kind of DOF (not that extreme even though it´s 6.3). I really love the look that lens produces