PDA

View Full Version : Recommendations: Small 135mm with good coverage for 4x5 portraits?



Ulophot
3-Jul-2019, 12:16
I use just one lens on my 4x5 Tachihara field camera at present, a 210mm Komura, but am thinking about a slightly wide lens for certain images. 135mm appeals to me as about the widest I would want, though there may be more choice in 120s. I don't know if there are any between 135 and 150, which latter would be a bit long. My work is essentially natural light portraiture on location, B&W, interior and exterior. I find the Komura fine for my work; I don't need or desire greater sharpness or contrast, and the lens is fairly compact in its Copal 1. The f/6.3 max aperture is workable; faster would naturally be a boon. I'd like a multicoated lens if possible; a working shutter is necessary.

Images for which I would use the wider lens would tend to situate the figure smaller in the frame, rarely, if ever, closer than 6-7 feet/2 meters. (I prefer my subjects' bodies to retain natural proportions as much as possible (and please, let's save the debate about minimum distances for another thread).

I have looked through the lens guides on the home page and elsewhere, from which I infer that most available 135mm lenses tend to have just-adequate coverage for 4x5 -- at least, without investing more than I can manage. I frequently have my front standard dropped 1-1 1/2 inches (24-38mm), with the 210; probably less would be needed for a 135, but I would like some leeway, so I'm leery of what I infer about Xenars.

Perhaps someone can suggest a few lenses that might fit my needs, if any there be, so that I can keep an eye out for any that might come along in the coming year or so.

Thank you!

Drew Wiley
3-Jul-2019, 12:34
Fuji W 135/5.6. Superb lens, sufficient coverage, and can often be obtained used in clean condition quite affordably - NOT the newest CMW version, which will be costly and needs a bigger filter.

MAubrey
3-Jul-2019, 12:42
A Nikkor W 135mm f/5.6 would also serve you well.

Ken Lee
3-Jul-2019, 12:44
Coverage is generally stated for infinity distance. Even lenses with modest coverage provide abundant coverage when shooting at closer distances.

Bob Salomon
3-Jul-2019, 12:48
Apo Sironar S

jp
3-Jul-2019, 13:08
Tessars/Xenars are very small with 4.5-4.7 aperture but have less coverage than the suggestions above which are plasmats.

Peter De Smidt
3-Jul-2019, 14:58
A Wide Field Ektar would also work.

Jim Noel
3-Jul-2019, 15:22
Your 210 is a far better FL for portraits on4x5, than is a 135.

Emmanuel BIGLER
3-Jul-2019, 15:23
Hello from good ol' Europe!

Now that three 3 out of 4 brands of the legendary "Gang of Four LF lens manufacturers" have been recommended, it is time to recommend the 4-th : 135/5.6 Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Symmar.
This was my first LF lens purchased, new, 19 years ago, and I never regretted my choice.

Not kidding, looking for a 135, you can't go wrong with any LF lens recently manufactured (i.e. after year 1980) by (by alphabetical order) the Gang of Four : Fuji, Nikon, Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock.
Sure, you can be tempted by a 3.5/135 Zeiss Planar, but those lenses are now collectors' items and command such high prices, that is is not reasonable to think about them.

Now regarding Tessar-type lenses (a Xenar from Schneider-Kreuznach is a Tessar formula, first Tessar patent by Paul Rudolph was issued in 1902, as early as the twenties of the last century ALL lens manufacturers could legally fabricate and sell tessar-type lenses).

Technically, the only limitation of Tessar-type lenses (4 lens elements, 3 groups) used for LF photography is that they are limited to a field angle of about 60 degrees @f/22.
Looking back in time, there were many LF tessar-type lenses with a full aperture of 4.5, i.e. with about one f-stop more than a modern 5.6 LF "plasmat" lens.
Modern "plasmat"-type lenses (6/4) as manufactured by the Gang of Four since 1980 will easily outperform any Tessar formula. At least in terms of coverage.
I would not say the same for older plasmats, for example I certainly would prefer a 1960's tessar formula to a 1950's (6/4) "plasmat' formula, but this is another controversial story.

Hence if an angle of 60° is sufficient for your project, a tessar-type lens is a good choice. Cheap as a used item, reliable, compact ... the only limitation of those beloved (4/3) lenses if their damn' 60° of coverage.

Summary for 135 lenses: any recent "plasmat" formula will be a good choice, but you won't be disappointed by a tessar-type if 60° of coverage is enough for your project. 135 mm was the standard focal length for many European 9x12 cm cameras, those LF lenses are very easy to find.

Now about 120 mm lenses.
Schneider-Kreuznach had on catalogue a (6/4) 120 mm plasmat lens, the Apo Symmar. Covering 72°. Small, compact, efficient but may be somewhat limited in coverage for 4"x5" aficionados who demand large capabilities for tilt & shift. Not so easy to find on the used market.

In another league, the wide-angle lens league (WA in short), you had several 115-120 mm lenses, used as wide-angle lenses for the 5x7" format. Covering more than 100° (102° for the Grandagon-N).
Those lenses are easy to find on the used market. Again from the Gang of Four.
Schneider-Kreuznach maintained for many years on catalogue a 121 mm, then a 120 mm, Super Angulon lens, that you can easily find for a good price.
And the direct European competitor, Rodenstock, offered a superb 115 mm Grandagon-N (I have one, this lens is actually superb)
Of course Japanese manufacturers offered 120 mm WA lenses for the 5x7 format, but a 120 is a 120, whichever format you are using ;)

Those modern WA lenses are so sharp that you should not be ashamed of working only with a tiny fraction of their generous image circle.
But if you do not need 100° of image circle, a 135 mm or a 120 mm (6/4 ) 5.6 "plasmat" type is so small and compact compared to a 120 Super Angulon or a 115 Grandagon-N, that is is really better to use WA lenses for what they have been designed : WA photography ;)
And if 60° of field angle is good for you, numerous 135 mm tessar-type lenses are also easy to find and will faithfully serve you for years!

Dan Fromm
3-Jul-2019, 15:36
To add a little to Emmanuel's comments about tessar types, f/6.3ers have more coverage than f/4.5ers. Probably the best of the slow tessar lot are also the most recently designed, Schneider's 150/5.6 and 210/6.1 Xenars.

Drew Wiley
3-Jul-2019, 16:37
The 125/5.6 W is revered among landscape photographers for its small size and very high image quality. The 135/5.6 has a little bigger image circle. These are modern plasmats. Not ideal for architectural work where a lot of rise might be involved, but generous enough image circles for lots of things. I can't imagine any tessar that focal length adequately covering 4x5. I have a 100 Nikkor M tessar that is adequate for 6x9 roll film, but useless for 4X5; and it's from the very latest series of tessars engineered for view camera use, which logically jumps clear up to 200mm for 4x5 recommendation. I can't imagine using a 150 Xenar for 4x5 except on a press camera where movements are often minimal anyway. 120 Super Angulons are nice if you want a solid rock to sit on when fiddling with your other camera gear.

Ulophot
3-Jul-2019, 17:27
Coverage is generally stated for infinity distance. Even lenses with modest coverage provide abundant coverage when shooting at closer distances.

Ken, yes. One more thing I had forgotten. Thanks!

Ulophot
3-Jul-2019, 17:39
Your 210 is a far better FL for portraits on4x5, than is a 135.

Jim, thanks for your comment. As I tried to indicate, perhaps inadequately, the 135 would be for portraits in which a smaller figure would occupy much less of a more "environmental" composition. In interior settings, one doesn't always have the room, for such compositions, to back up sufficiently with the 210; outdoors, the perspective and depth-of-field of the shorter lens may suit some ideas better than the 210 would. I have tried for decades to abide by the advice of Walter Rosenblum, who once told me that the key to using a wide-angle lens (back in my early 35mm days in the late '60s) was to avoid the appearance that a wide-angle lens had been used.

Bob Salomon
3-Jul-2019, 17:44
Jim, thanks for your comment. As I tried to indicate, perhaps inadequately, the 135 would be for portraits in which a smaller figure would occupy much less of a more "environmental" composition. In interior settings, one doesn't always have the room, for such compositions, to back up sufficiently with the 210; outdoors, the perspective and depth-of-field of the shorter lens may suit some ideas better than the 210 would. I have tried for decades to abide by the advice of Walter Rosenblum, who once told me that the key to using a wide-angle lens (back in my early 35mm days in the late '60s) was to avoid the appearance that a wide-angle lens had been used.

Using a shorter, or longer, lens can not change perspective. Only changing the angle of the camera to the subject can change the perspective.
You probably are confusing foreshortening with perspective.

As you noted, the shorter lens will give you a smaller subject size as the 210 at the same distance and more DOF at the same aperture.

Ulophot
3-Jul-2019, 17:52
Emmanuel, thank you for your very informative run-down. Much appreciated!

Ulophot
3-Jul-2019, 18:06
Using a shorter, or longer, lens can not change perspective. Only changing the angle of the camera to the subject can change the perspective.
You probably are confusing foreshortening with perspective.

As you noted, the shorter lens will give you a smaller subject size as the 210 at the same distance and more DOF at the same aperture.

Hi, Bob. Thanks for your comment. The principle you cite is an important one, clearly illustrated in Ansel Adams's book series and many of the others in my photographic library, and was an important lesson to learn on the road to a professional career long ago. The context for Walter's remark was the increasing use of wide-angle lenses, such as, especially, 28 to fisheye in parallel with the psychedelic counter-culture. The "xtreme" use of wide-angle lenses is, in my view, more prevalent than ever now in the media; a quick an easy way to get an effect, at the expense of other factors I consider more important. I had said something about my newly purchased 28mm for my Nikkormat which prompted his remark.

Mark Sampson
3-Jul-2019, 20:41
i'll agree with Mr. De Smidt; the Kodak 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar is an excellent lens, well-suited to your requirements.
My own example has been a favorite for thirty years now.
The WFE will not have the contrast of a modern multicoated optic, but it is very sharp, renders subjects beautifully, and has more coverage than most of the plasmats mentioned here.

Jimi
4-Jul-2019, 00:15
I can't imagine any tessar that focal length adequately covering 4x5. I have a 100 Nikkor M tessar that is adequate for 6x9 roll film, but useless for 4X5; and it's from the very latest series of tessars engineered for view camera use, which logically jumps clear up to 200mm for 4x5 recommendation.

Are you sure you mean Nikkor M? The Nikkor M series, weren't these designed to be Macro lenses?

And what is "adequate coverage" for a given lens? It depends on a lot of factors. And thus it is a bit of a stretch taking the axe to all Tessars ever made, in all focal lengths, for 4x5. But as has been said, a more recent Plasmat (Nikkor-W 135 comes to mind) would be a good bet.

Per Madsen
4-Jul-2019, 00:27
The Nikkor M lenses was intended as compact lenses. The macro lenses are the AM lenses.

Jimi
4-Jul-2019, 00:42
Thanks, Per - good to know. Always learning something new. :) I've never seen a Nikkor M 100, but I knew of the 100/105 W.

esearing
4-Jul-2019, 07:53
The schneider Xenar 135 has a nice rendering for out of focus areas and may be a bit soft in the corners if shooting f8 and below. At f22 the corners are sharp and the flare is minimal. The Nikon 135 is a bit sharper overall and has increased local contrast due to multi-coating. The newer the lens the more reliable the shutter is likely to be.

I never liked the 150mm for unknown reasons. Probably for the same reason I prefer the Minolta 45mm vs 50mm on most 135 cameras. Or the 40mm voightlander lens on my M3.

jnantz
4-Jul-2019, 08:08
You might look for an olde Wollensak 135 Raptar, or an olde 135 symmar convertible ( chrome barrel). I don't have either of those lenses in those specific FL but I have a 6" and 15" Raptars ( and wish I never sold the 90mm I had! ) and they are beautiful ( and if you gooooogle 135 rapter you see nice reports of people's favorite lenses ) and a 210/370 symmar that has never done anything but make great photographs. I can't imagine the 135 being much different. Just be aware if you convert the symmar, it will take a bit more bellows to focus at infinity than the focal length of the lens implies ( for example the 370 takes about 440mm instead of 370 ).

Have fun!
John

Doremus Scudder
4-Jul-2019, 09:42
i'll agree with Mr. De Smidt; the Kodak 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar is an excellent lens, well-suited to your requirements.
My own example has been a favorite for thirty years now.
The WFE will not have the contrast of a modern multicoated optic, but it is very sharp, renders subjects beautifully, and has more coverage than most of the plasmats mentioned here.

A third vote for the WF Ektar in the 135mm focal length. They are old, but a great design with better coverage than the plasmats. Make sure you look for one in good condition. Many have damaged coatings (the coatings were softer then). I use mine whenever I'm out shooting architectural stuff. If you need extra coverage and fairly lightweight in this focal length, this is really the only option.

As for contrast... I find the two I have to be just fine in this regard, but I shoot B&W and have the advantage of adjusting contrast at the printing stage. For color work, especially if you shoot transparency film, I would think a bit less contrast would be an advantage.

Best,

Doremus

Drew Wiley
4-Jul-2019, 19:03
Nikkor M's are very highly corrected tessars, but unlike many tessars are relatively thin and lightweight. They were made in 100, 200, 300, and 450 focal lengths. The image circles are decent but not equal to plasmats. For example, the 300 will cover 8x10 film, but not with much room to spare. Due to only six multicoated air/glass interfaces, these particular lenses have exceptionally good hue reproduction and high contrast - contrast exceeded only by late Dagors. The 100M is f/3.5, a wonderful lens for 6x9, but useless for 4x5, whereas some 105 plasmats will just barely cover 4x5. As an aging backpacker, I'm particularly appreciative of small exceptionally precise lenses like Nikkor M's and Fuji A's; but the A's, being "Super Plasmats", have much larger image circles relative to their focal length. Relative to the previous post by Doremus, if you want an excellent single-coated 80 deg coverage plasmat lens of similar design but less contrast than Fui A's, G-Clarons are the ticket. No 135's in either, but there is a 150 G-Claron. As most people on this forum already know, the official brochure specs for G-Clarons are relative to copy repro standards, so the rated image circle is given very very conservatively. For our purposes, these are true 80 degree lenses. BUT all these lenses I've just mentioned are very very crisp or hard-sharp too; so if you want soft dreamy background blur in portraiture, none of these is an ideal choice.

Ulophot
4-Jul-2019, 19:35
Thanks to all for continued additions. I'll look into the WFE; it sounds very good but seems harder to come by, and those I have seen come in shutters that might present repair problems.

Tobias Key
5-Jul-2019, 02:27
The 125/5.6 W is revered among landscape photographers for its small size and very high image quality. The 135/5.6 has a little bigger image circle. These are modern plasmats. Not ideal for architectural work where a lot of rise might be involved, but generous enough image circles for lots of things. I can't imagine any tessar that focal length adequately covering 4x5. I have a 100 Nikkor M tessar that is adequate for 6x9 roll film, but useless for 4X5; and it's from the very latest series of tessars engineered for view camera use, which logically jumps clear up to 200mm for 4x5 recommendation. I can't imagine using a 150 Xenar for 4x5 except on a press camera where movements are often minimal anyway. 120 Super Angulons are nice if you want a solid rock to sit on when fiddling with your other camera gear.

I have a Fuji 125 5.6NW and it really is an excellent lens. A really super focal length for environmental portraits, small, light and pretty inexpensive for what you can do with it. I have attached a couple of examples shot at f11 for reference.

193052193053

Pere Casals
5-Jul-2019, 02:41
essentially natural light portraiture on location, B&W, interior and exterior.

There is always a debate, but given the usage you plan... I'd consider bokeh as a main factor in the decision, of course bokeh is a "YMMV", but if you prefer an smooth background to isolate subject and to not have distracting edges around people then you may think more in the aesthetics than in the nominal glass performance.

Here you have a nice article about some kind of portraiture glass, some opinions in the article are perhaps debatable but it's a very good article: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/


"Chacun à son goût", but plasmat vs tessar debate has some subtleties that IMHO are worth to consider.

Ulophot
5-Jul-2019, 06:23
Thanks, Tobias. Very nice work; I especially like the first image. The focal length, however, strays toward the too-short for my intentions, though the differences are small and cropping is an option.

Ulophot
5-Jul-2019, 06:25
Thanks, Pere; I have read the article (and most of those on the home page) previously. My 210 has a 7-blade Copal by which I have done well so far. Perhaps, with today's advanced precision manufacturing technologies, someone will get back to making circular irises again.

Bernice Loui
5-Jul-2019, 07:48
Reality of this happening is about .... zero.

Market demand for new view camera lenses is about nil due the vast number of good "used" view camera lenses on the market today. The non-round lens aperture shape is a product of a generation of view camera users that commonly use taking apertures of f16 and smaller with the goal of everything in the image in "sharp" perceived focus. Flip end of this was the interest in historic-vintage view camera soft focus lenses which is very much a topic all to it's own.

Before this became the orthodoxy, there was a generation of view camera and camera photographers that understood and valued out of focus rendition. This group included film makers, and related moving pictures folks who often used out of focus rendition to great effect in their works. They demanded details like round iris that is conducive to good out of focus rendition. It is why many older shutters have a round iris. It is nothing to do with ability to be manufactured, it is everything about production-cost-profit and what the market is interested in and will accept.

Know to get the best out of using larger taken apertures with a view camera, it demands proper (parallel and more) precision and accurate alignment of both front and rear standards with absolutely flat film at the imaging end of the camera.

IMO, the only way you're going to know for sure what lens and it's rendition on film then print can only be determined by test and using any given lens over time. While suggestions and recommendations can be a good thing, there is no good alternative to testing and using a given lens to see if it really does work for you.


Bernice





[QUOTE=Ulophot;1507686
My 210 has a 7-blade Copal by which I have done well so far. Perhaps, with today's advanced precision manufacturing technologies, someone will get back to making circular irises again.
[/QUOTE]

jp
5-Jul-2019, 08:38
Irises became fewer bladed in the 1950's for some brands. It's interesting to see cameras like expensive 1960's collectible Rolleiflexes have fewer aperture blades than older automat versions but I don't think they make as nice a photo all other things being equal. I think it was a subjective thing that costs happened to favor. If you look for LF lenses and want a smooth round iris and lens coating, look for a generation post-WWII. Not too new.... Later Copal-3 and 3s seem to have a pretty close to round iris but don't meet the small requirements. It's a small subset of available lenses. 35mm camera companies are fully onboard with making super round irises now. Sigma art lenses are this way and the newer Nikon high end lenses all brag about the blade quantities and smoothness. Until recently you could tell if a photo was Nikon or Canon from counting the sides in a bokeh hotspot or sunburst. There is no real overwhelming need for new LF shutters until used ones are no longer operable. It would be a tough sell.

Bernice Loui
5-Jul-2019, 09:07
One of the prime reasons why the preference for lenses in barrel to be used with Sinar shutter.

Lenses from Kodak, Goerz, Schneider, Zeiss Jena, Boyer and many others have lens barrels with nice round iris which becomes significant if the larger apertures some of these lenses offer are used at near full aperture (about f5.6_f11).

Process lenses with aperture stop inserts allows for aperture cards of various aperture shaped from round to a variety of polygons.

Sinar shutter provides consistent and accurate shutter speeds regardless of lens being used with the Sinar shutter.

The above might not meet the small lens needs of field camera folks. It is all part of view camera trade-offs with no single solution meeting all requirements for all view camera users and needs.

Not just the current crop of digital camera lenses have gone full in on round iris, the film making aka Cine folks have been doing this for a long time. Then again, these folks commonly spend many thousands in monetary funds on their lenses and are willing to spend what is required to service and maintain their optics.

Consider what happened to the round iris view camera lens as a by product of the everything in focus, stop down to f22 and smaller orthodoxy and priesthood doctrine of group f64.


Bernice

Drew Wiley
5-Jul-2019, 13:31
It's a complicated subject. I have lenses with over 20 aperture blades that have horrible bokeh, and some with only 6 with lovely bokeh. I suspect that one of the reasons apertures were simplified was not only due to cost but for sake of better robustness. Being able to select from barrel as well as shuttered lenses can be an advantage; but there are plenty of other ways to strategize portraiture. Often in "environmental portraiture" we might want everything in relatively good focus anyway, without worrying about blur rendition. I've done it all kinds of ways, even lenscap exposure.

Sal Santamaura
5-Jul-2019, 15:47
Reality of this happening is about .... zero...

That's too optimistic. Less than zero. :)

Bernice Loui
5-Jul-2019, 20:12
Curious which lens with the 20 blade iris with horrible bokeh?

Which lens with 6 iris blades with lovely bokeh?

Yes it is FAR more complex than just iris shape for bokeh, there is also how specular highlight and flare shape is rendered with any given lens and iris shape.


Bernice




It's a complicated subject. I have lenses with over 20 aperture blades that have horrible bokeh, and some with only 6 with lovely bokeh.