What lens to get for most shallow depth of field on 4x5?

[dubiduck]

Because 4x5 is the largest format I am willing to carry around with me on a tripod and also because I really like the shallow DoF large format produces if shot wide open I was wondering, which lens has the biggest aperture and covers 4x5?

[Arne Croell]

Without any other considerations, such as shutter compatibility, age, coated or uncoated, focal length, etc., the following lenses come to mind:
Aero-Ektar 7” f/2.5
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar 150mm f/2.8
Dallmeyer Pentac 8” f/2.9
....

[klw]

Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 covers 4x5 has really shallow depth of field

[B.S.Kumar]

Some projection lenses will also work - Heidosmat 150mm f/2.5, Buhl 200mm f/2.5. You'll have to figure out a shutter mechanism, though.

Kumar

[Charles S]

Focal length beats max aperture. Use a DOF app to do the calculations for several distances for the lens options that people will suggest here.
Went through this exercise a couple of weeks ago for my speed graphic
looked at the aero ektar and choose a teie-raptar 10"/250mm f/5.6 instead(the shutter version). The tele design of the lens reduces the bellows extension needed.
Another option would have been a tele-xenar 360, but it was a lot more rxpensive

[Greg]

Consider some lesser known brands that are out there and come up for auction every now and then. How they look physically is not all that important, as long as the glass is clean. Saw one go for little money cause the front rim had a huge dent in it, but the glass looked intact:
150mm f/3.5 Dalllmeyer Dalmac
150mm f/3.5 Hugo Meyer Triopln
150mm f/3.5 Rodenstock Anastigmat
150mm f/3.5 Steinheil Cassar
150mm f/3.5 Voigtlander Color Skopar
160mm f/3.5 Taylor Hobson Cooke
165mm f/2.5 Cooke Anastigmat
165mm f/2.9 Ross Xpress
165mm f/2.7 Carl Zeiss Tessar
165mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Buiteaasr
175mm f/3.4 Aldas-Butcher Anastigmat
175mm f/3.5 Ilex Seminat
180mm f/3.1 Busch Glaukar
180mm f/3.5 Carl Meyer
180mm f/2.7 Ernemann Ernostar
180mm f/3.5 Laack Double Anastigmat
180mm f/3.5 Meyer Primotar
180mm f/3.5 Carl Zeiss Triotar
200mm f/3.5 Berthiot Stellor
200mm f/2.9 Dallmeyer Pentac
210mm f/3.5 Hugo Meyer Trioplan
230mm f/3.5 Steinheil Cassar
240mm f/3.5 Leitmeyer Sytar
They all cover 4x5. Some even in a Betax No 5 or a studio shutter. Regrettably once passed up on acquiring a 200mm f/2.9 Noco which was British Military, had an iris, and was claimed to cover 5x7.

[dubiduck]

I am currently using a "fullframe" digital camera in combination with the fastest lens in consumer market, the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95. So for me to call a lens "super fast" it has to have a 35mm equivalent aperture below f/0.95.
If we compare the diameter of the 4x5 format (153.7mm) to the one of 35mm film (43.3mm), 4x5 has a crop factor of 0.28. So the lens should have at least a maximum aperture of f/3.4 and focal length of 178mm to produce as shallow DoF as the Mitakon does on fullframe.
I like to shoot wider than 50mm (to be honest, I don't really like the look of a 50mm lens on 35mm), so the focal length should be around ~140mm to ~100mm. To get most shallow DoF I will probably only consider lenses with a maximum aperture larger than f/3.2.

Initially I only looked at 8x10 because this format has a really crazy crop factor of 0.14 with the potential of crazy shallow DoF. But cameras and film just get so much more expensive, and cameras become quite heavy.

Thanks for all your lens recommendations, I will check which one fits onto my 4x5 camera of choice (Chamonix C45F-2).

[Bob Salomon]

I am currently using a "fullframe" digital camera in combination with the fastest lens in consumer market, the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95. So for me to call a lens "super fast" it has to have a 35mm equivalent aperture below f/0.95.
If we compare the diameter of the 4x5 format (153.7mm) to the one of 35mm film (43.3mm), 4x5 has a crop factor of 0.28. So the lens should have at least a maximum aperture of f/3.4 and focal length of 178mm to produce as shallow DoF as the Mitakon does on fullframe.
I like to shoot wider than 50mm (to be honest, I don't really like the look of a 50mm lens on 35mm), so the focal length should be around ~140mm to ~100mm. To get most shallow DoF I will probably only consider lenses with a maximum aperture larger than f/3.2.

Initially I only looked at 8x10 because this format has a really crazy crop factor of 0.14 with the potential of crazy shallow DoF. But cameras and film just get so much more expensive, and cameras become quite heavy.

Thanks for all your lens recommendations, I will check which one fits onto my 4x5 camera of choice (Chamonix C45F-2).

Are you taking into consideration that 35mm produces a long, skinny image and 45 produces a short, squat image? 57 would produce an image cropping more like 35mm.

[dubiduck]

Are you taking into consideration that 35mm produces a long, skinny image and 45 produces a short, squat image? 57 would produce an image cropping more like 35mm.

You are absolutely right - I am not! Thanks

[Greg]

I will check which one fits onto my 4x5 camera of choice (Chamonix C45F-2).

Large fast lenses take large shutters. Betax No 5 and Ilex No 5 shutters are too large for your C45F-2. Holding a Copal 3 shutter next to a Chamonix lensboard from my 4x5 Chamonix and it should fit. A friend picked up a lens in an Ilex No 5 for his 4x5 Chamonix and ended up acquiring a used Sinar f in order to use the optic. Fast Buhl projection lenses can be had for little money. I have a 8.5” f/3.4 BUHL and a 229mm f/2.5 BUHL which easily cover 4x5. Unfortunately their Bokeh for the subject matter I shoot (which does not include portraits) just not my taste but may be fine for others. I have seen portraits made with Buhl projection lenses that looked stunning.
Good luck

[Oslolens]

I have a 150mm Xenar D f3.5 If you need shorter focal length, it is possible to add a close-up filter. The Nikon and Canon are best

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Bob Salomon]

You are absolutely right - I am not! Thanks

You can also manipulate DOF by your image placement, pulling the subject away from the background or from the foreground, or both.
Applying some tilt and/or swing can play with DOF and, of course, using a longer lens to minimize DOF.

Are you doing people or things? If people the foreshortening of short lenses like your 50 could present more of a problem then your DOF.

[Arne Croell]

I am currently using a "fullframe" digital camera in combination with the fastest lens in consumer market, the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95. So for me to call a lens "super fast" it has to have a 35mm equivalent aperture below f/0.95.
If we compare the diameter of the 4x5 format (153.7mm) to the one of 35mm film (43.3mm), 4x5 has a crop factor of 0.28. So the lens should have at least a maximum aperture of f/3.4 and focal length of 178mm to produce as shallow DoF as the Mitakon does on fullframe.
I like to shoot wider than 50mm (to be honest, I don't really like the look of a 50mm lens on 35mm), so the focal length should be around ~140mm to ~100mm. To get most shallow DoF I will probably only consider lenses with a maximum aperture larger than f/3.2.

Initially I only looked at 8x10 because this format has a really crazy crop factor of 0.14 with the potential of crazy shallow DoF. But cameras and film just get so much more expensive, and cameras become quite heavy.

Thanks for all your lens recommendations, I will check which one fits onto my 4x5 camera of choice (Chamonix C45F-2).

In the 100-140mm range, you likely won’t find 4x5” lenses with openings larger than F/3.5. Essentially, 135mm f/3.5 is the only combination I can think of, either as Schneider Xenotar, Zeiss Planar, or Zeiss Jena Biometar.

[Corran]

I am currently using a "fullframe" digital camera in combination with the fastest lens in consumer market, the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95. So for me to call a lens "super fast" it has to have a 35mm equivalent aperture below f/0.95.
If we compare the diameter of the 4x5 format (153.7mm) to the one of 35mm film (43.3mm), 4x5 has a crop factor of 0.28. So the lens should have at least a maximum aperture of f/3.4 and focal length of 178mm to produce as shallow DoF as the Mitakon does on fullframe.
I like to shoot wider than 50mm (to be honest, I don't really like the look of a 50mm lens on 35mm), so the focal length should be around ~140mm to ~100mm. To get most shallow DoF I will probably only consider lenses with a maximum aperture larger than f/3.2.

Initially I only looked at 8x10 because this format has a really crazy crop factor of 0.14 with the potential of crazy shallow DoF. But cameras and film just get so much more expensive, and cameras become quite heavy.

Thanks for all your lens recommendations, I will check which one fits onto my 4x5 camera of choice (Chamonix C45F-2).


Firstly, many options (especially affordable ones) have no shutter, which means you won't be able to use them on that camera, unless you are shooting longer exposures. But with a fast lens, I'm guessing you need fast exposures, if you are shooting in any kind of daylight. Secondly, the options in shutter, often have limited fast shutter speeds, so that also becomes an issue. The 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar, when I had it freshly CLA'd, only could shoot 1/125 at it's fastest setting (marked 1/200, but LF shutters generally don't get to their marked fast speed).

Also, 150mm is pretty much the shortest lens you are going to get with those kind of apertures, at least with full film coverage. As Arne mentioned, the 135mm f/3.5 lenses available are about as fast as those focal lengths get.

I recommend you first consider buying a Speed Graphic with working FP shutter, and then consider what you want to spend. By the way, the very popular Aero-Ektar lens comes in a 6" or 152mm length, which will be a bit "wider" than the more common 7".

And if you don't mind a little bit of vignetting, a really interesting option will be the Schneider Gottingen 12.5cm f/2 Xenon. This lens is pretty rare and covers a bit more than a 3x4 inch sheet of film, so certainly has nice wider field of view on 4x5 if you don't mind some black corners.

Regarding your 35mm "equivalents:" Along with the different aspect ratio, LF depth of field simply looks a little different, and in my opinion shooting even at f/4 or f/5.6 can give a very pleasing amount of focus with a stark difference from in focus to out of focus, so don't get tunnel vision looking for the fastest aperture ever and only shoot there.

[scheinfluger_77]

All else being equal, you can generally assume that longer lenses and shorter focusing distances will also give a shallow d-o-f. This is a rule-of-thumb practice. Each lens has its own characteristics, and personal experimentations are the only way to put this subjective phenomenon into practice. Strict focus on lens physical characteristics is only part of the story.

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. 6"/1.9, also sold as 150mm/1.9, Dallmeyer Super Six. Unobtanium, unshutterable. I had a 6 incher, sold it on because it was valuable and unusable with any camera I was likely to have.

8"/2.0 Super Six. 200/2.0 S.F.O.M., some were engraved Kinoptic as well. I had one, a real dog (poor condition) not engraved Kinoptic. Highly superior desk weight. Unshutterable.

But remember that depth of field is controlled entirely by magnification and aperture. If high magnification doesn't make sense for the image, all that's left to get narrow DoF is a fast lens shot wide open.

The OP might do well to use a format smaller than 4x5, and for several reasons. High aperture lenses for 35mm still are abundant, not too heavy and not too expensive. High aperture lenses for larger formats, even 6x6 (that's most of the 6"/2.8 Elcans on the market, their serial numbers start with 138; 6"/2.8 Elcans that cover 4x5 have serial numbers starting with180 and are very scarce), are larger, heavier, less common and hard to put to use.

[dubiduck]

So I guess for very shallow depth of field nothing compares to 8x10 (or even larger)?

[Bob Salomon]

So I guess for very shallow depth of field nothing compares to 8x10 (or even larger)?

No, it depends on your lens, your aperture and the magnification. Not with film size.

[dubiduck]

Sure, but given the fact that a larger film size will show you more of the scene (e.g. imitates a wider focal length) you have to get closer to the subject leading to a greater magnification leading to shallower DoF. And because some lenses, which cover 4x5, also cover 8x10, you get that f/5.6 @ 8x10.

[Dan Fromm]

So I guess for very shallow depth of field nothing compares to 8x10 (or even larger)?

For the same image (subject and framing) shot at the same aperture, the larger the format the shallower DoF will be. This because filling the larger frame requires more magnification.

So, OP, decide how large you want to print from 4x5. This will give you the Circle of Confusion needed to calculate DoF given magnification and aperture. Decide how large the subject you want to image on 4x5 is. This will give you magnification. Then crank up your DoF calculator and play around to get the aperture that will give you the DoF you want.

Tedious, and you'll have to do the exercise every time you change the subject's size. But that's what you'll have to do. No simple rule of thumb will guide you well, you have to do the arithmetic.

Don't be a piker. Go to 16x20.

[Bernice Loui]

Long focal length lens with large aperture for a given format. Large aperture alone is part of what results in shallow depth of field, depth of focus. Keep in mind the physical size and difficulty in achieving good optical corrections for each incremental increase in full aperture results in much greater difficult to correct the optical aberrations. In the case of 4x5 trying using a 480mm f4.5 Xenar at full aperture..

The lens is only a beginning, achieving accurate point of focus demands serious precision from the camera and equally serious film flatness with the entire system very precisely set up. Trying this on a flimsy camera with wavy film in the film holder is not gonna work.... at all.

Notable was the 50mm f0.7 Zeiss Planar used by Stanley Kubrick. The camera and technical challenges in using this lens for creative image-making were far more difficult and involved than most would ever know. Today there are a number of sub f1.0 lenses available for video and digital and small film formats. Their capability is aided by the inherent flatness of a solid state image sensor which does not have the same image plane flatness problems of film. Regardless, the same problems and advantages of very limited depth of field-depth of focus applies.

Keep in mind lens focuses light aka image to a single point, all else is sort-of-focus.


Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, don't forget magnification.

[jnantz]

If you can find an Ilex Seminat its a fast lens ( around 3.5? ), and its OOF area is really sweet. I've shot a lot of
old tessars and funky stuff (fast) from the 18to early/mid 1900s and haven't found anything like it.

[Bernice Loui]

Absolutely, at 1 to 1 or "life size" what is in focus at the point of focus is quite different than at true infinity.

Consider why f0.7 or larger lenses can be used effectively for cosmos images while trying to achieve some degree of depth of focus-depth of view in an image with magnifications greater 1 to 1 or life size without making layered images is not gonna happen.


Bernice



Bernice, don't forget magnification.

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, you missed my point completely. You wrote:


Long focal length lens with large aperture for a given format.

For the same magnification, long and short lenses shot at the same magnification and aperture will give the same DoF. Your suggestion, like earlier suggestions to use a telephoto lens, is misguided.

[dubiduck]

But do you guys at least get the point?
These images
https://www.flickr.com/photos/artwedd/22228624023/in/pool-8by10/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/artwedd/22714799180/in/pool-8by10/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bluemooncamera/21456066821/in/pool-8by10/

show what I mean. This beautiful subject isolation

[William Whitaker]

Factors that affect depth of field are focal length (as you know), aperture, and lens-to-subject distance. The first photo below was taken on 4x5 using a 210 f/5.6 Nikkor-W lens. I don't recall the f/stop used, but it was close to wide open, possibly stopped down as far as f/8. I wish I could tell you exactly, but I'm not a good note-taker. Camera position was chosen not only for composition, but to achieve the loss of focus on the background figures which, although still key elements of the composition, don't need explicit detail. Only their suggestion is required in order to tell the story. As you can tell, the camera was almost in the face of the foreground figure. But it wasn't so close as to cause distortion. f/5.6 is not f/3.2, but the combination of focal length and camera position did the job in this case.

193980
Sculpture Detail,
Student Body by Julia Balk,
photo: 1993

Also consider a soft-focus lens. While the soft-focus effect applies equally to the entire image, the out-of-focus areas seem to "dissolve" a bit more quickly as they fade into the background. Again, while the whole image is affected by the soft-focus quality of the lens, at moderate apertures the "in-focus" image appears relatively quite sharp compared to the image beyond the focus plane. YMMV, of course. In the following image, note how the vase (which is not far behind the plane of focus) is almost a mere suggestion of an actual vase. The stems of the sunflowers are also defocused a bit and they're even part of the subject itself. Note that even the bloom on the left has begun to show the effect of defocusing and it would be considered to be in the same plane as the main subject. This is why (to my eye) that the soft focus lens (in this example an 8 3/4" Verito) seems to lose focus very quickly as the subject moves away from the plane of best focus. But again, please let me stress that this is my perception. As noted before, YMMV. This image was shot at an effective f/stop of approximately f/6 which, to me, is where the Verito sings. :)

193981
Three Vanities, 2004

Good luck in your search. I'm sure you will find a way to express your photographic ideas if you keep searching and keep an open mind.
BTW, 8x10 won't necessarily give you a shallower depth of field due only to the format. It's because that the standard lenses for 8x10 have a longer focal length than for smaller formats that the depth of field seems shallower.
A 14" lens will give you the same depth of field on 4x5 as on 8x10, all other variables (f/stop, camera distance) being equal.

Cheers

[Corran]

But do you guys at least get the point?
These images
https://www.flickr.com/photos/artwedd/22228624023/in/pool-8by10/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/artwedd/22714799180/in/pool-8by10/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bluemooncamera/21456066821/in/pool-8by10/

show what I mean. This beautiful subject isolation

Note that the first two have a "3D" look, while the third has less of that "look."

The reason is, the first two have a soft but recognizable background that is out of focus with a very sharp delineation to what is in focus. I would not be surprised if those were shot at f/8 or f/11 for better sharpness that encompasses the entire subject(s). Meanwhile, the third shows only a sliver of his beard and hands in focus, with his face/body out of focus and the rest of the background just a wash of grey. To me this image is very flat looking.

The point is that shallow depth of field is only one component of the "look" to many images, and a cheap 150mm f/4.5 Tessar-type lens might work perfectly fine if you use it in the right situation. Note that the focal length is ~300mm, so not as wide as you seem to want.

[Bernice Loui]

Large aperture telephoto at significant magnification Dan.
193982
200mm @ f4 APS-C sensor.

Or, high magnification with very short focal length aka 100x on a microscope.
193983
200X Leica Ergolux, APS-C sensor


We are not connecting on this.


Bernice


Bernice, you missed my point completely. You wrote:



For the same magnification, long and short lenses shot at the same magnification and aperture will give the same DoF. Your suggestion, like earlier suggestions to use a telephoto lens, is misguided.

[Bob Salomon]

Factors that affect depth of field are focal length (as you know), aperture, and lens-to-subject distance. The first photo below was taken on 4x5 using a 210 f/5.6 Nikkor-W lens. I don't recall the f/stop used, but it was close to wide open, possibly stopped down as far as f/8. I wish I could tell you exactly, but I'm not a good note-taker. Camera position was chosen not only for composition, but to achieve the loss of focus on the background figures which, although still key elements of the composition, don't need explicit detail. Only their suggestion is required in order to tell the story. As you can tell, the camera was almost in the face of the foreground figure. But it wasn't so close as to cause distortion. f/5.6 is not f/3.2, but the combination of focal length and camera position did the job in this case.

193980
Sculpture Detail,
Student Body by Julia Balk,
photo: 1993

Also consider a soft-focus lens. While the soft-focus effect applies equally to the entire image, the out-of-focus areas seem to "dissolve" a bit more quickly as they fade into the background. Again, while the whole image is affected by the soft-focus quality of the lens, at moderate apertures the "in-focus" image appears relatively quite sharp compared to the image beyond the focus plane. YMMV, of course. In the following image, note how the vase (which is not far behind the plane of focus) is almost a mere suggestion of an actual vase. The stems of the sunflowers are also defocused a bit and they're even part of the subject itself. Note that even the bloom on the left has begun to show the effect of defocusing and it would be considered to be in the same plane as the main subject. This is why (to my eye) that the soft focus lens (in this example an 8 3/4" Verito) seems to lose focus very quickly as the subject moves away from the plane of best focus. But again, please let me stress that this is my perception. As noted before, YMMV. This image was shot at an effective f/stop of approximately f/6 which, to me, is where the Verito sings. :)

193981
Three Vanities, 2004

Good luck in your search. I'm sure you will find a way to express your photographic ideas if you keep searching and keep an open mind.
BTW, 8x10 won't necessarily give you a shallower depth of field due only to the format. It's because that the standard lenses for 8x10 have a longer focal length than for smaller formats that the depth of field seems shallower.
A 14" lens will give you the same depth of field on 4x5 as on 8x10, all other variables (f/stop, camera distance) being equal.

Cheers

Depth of field is also dependent on the size of the final print and the distance that that image will be viewed from.

[Bernice Loui]

Lighting has a significant on the visual perception of "3D" in a 2D image..


Bernice


Note that the first two have a "3D" look, while the third has less of that "look."

The reason is, the first two have a soft but recognizable background that is out of focus with a very sharp delineation to what is in focus. I would not be surprised if those were shot at f/8 or f/11 for better sharpness that encompasses the entire subject(s). Meanwhile, the third shows only a sliver of his beard and hands in focus, with his face/body out of focus and the rest of the background just a wash of grey. To me this image is very flat looking.

The point is that shallow depth of field is only one component of the "look" to many images, and a cheap 150mm f/4.5 Tessar-type lens might work perfectly fine if you use it in the right situation. Note that the focal length is ~300mm, so not as wide as you seem to want.

[Corran]

Right, which is why I'm saying there are more factors, rather than just the "fastest lens possible."

And it's not a property of larger film exclusively.

[William Whitaker]

Depth of field is also dependent on the size of the final print and the distance that that image will be viewed from.

...and whether or not I have my glasses on.;)
It's a very subjective quantity at best.

[Peter De Smidt]

A guy on Facebook, Daniel Venter, does some great shallow depth-of-field portraits. He uses a 200 f/2 on digital. Even with that lens, though, it's clear that he separates his subjects substantially from the background. So just as Bryan says, there's more involved than just a fast lens. Even stopped down a 300mm lens, at standard portrait distance, will have very little depth of field.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Part of the appearance of shallow DOF separation is emphasized by good contrast and edges, neither of which you will get from an Aero-Ektar lens wide open. It's built for infinity focus on flat subjects. IMO, it really sucks for land-based work.

[LabRat]

I agree with what Peter said, that is much easer to get very shallow DOF with a longer lens... I just mounted two 12" lenses (f4.5 B&L Tessar & 12" Kodak Aerostigmat + Packard shutter) on my Noba studio camera (with a 4X5 back) and they produce a lovely focus falloff... The BIG problem is I need the 24" bellows fully extended to get 1:1, so a camera has to be long...

Before you spend a lot of money, try using a magnifying lens... They are cheap (some less than a few bucks) and rig it so it stays on front of a large shutter and take a look at the gg... You will see the focus areas are sharp, but fall off quickly... You will see focus falloff in the outer IC, but you are only using the central area... Then it's easy to calculate the f-stop you will be shooting at... You might have to try some different types to find the effect you like, but with a pile of scrap optics in front of you, you will find something that works... (Tip/ find a junk 35mm zoom lens at a yard sale etc and take apart the optics... Just the front or group might work well...)

Cheap, easy, and FUN!!! And can produce overall sharpish images suited to your subject...

Steve K

[Greg]

Before you spend a lot of money, try using a magnifying lens... They are cheap (some less than a few bucks) and rig it so it stays on front of a large shutter and take a look at the gg...

About 10 years ago was contracted to produce a series of images that were turned into 24" x 36" and 48" x 48" color prints to decorate the walls of a business. Shot chromes with a MF camera, high end scans made, colors enhanced, and finally display prints made and framed. Attached are two of the images used. Another Pro contacted me and asked if I would tell him which lens I used to make the images. He honestly didn't believe me when I told him that they were taken using a simple magnifying lens hot glued to the front of a shutter. Told me the Bokeh of the images "was too complex and sophisticated" to be had from a one element lens.

[Peter De Smidt]

Greg, those are very cool.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]Told me the Bokeh of the images "was too complex and sophisticated" to be had from a one element lens.

Silly him. Your bokeh is elegant, gracefully simple. This is complex bokeh.

194003

[Greg]

Silly him. Your bokeh is elegant, gracefully simple. This is complex bokeh.

194003

Very interested in the complex Bokeh of your image. To me looks to be purposeful PS artifacts... that being said, I personally have absolutely no objection for someone going into this creative direction. We all talk a lot about the Bokeh of a lens, but why not enhance it in PS? I find this a totally valid direction to take one's imagery into.
My most successful LF and ULF pinhole prints were made from pinhole negatives scanned and a little proprietary sharpening added to them. Final output digital negatives printed on FB silver or Platinum/Palladium.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Very interested in the complex Bokeh of your image. To me looks to be purposeful PS artifacts...

Nope. Straight image. Imagon, wide open, no discs. A lot of extension :)

Edit: Thanks for the comment. It is a lousy scan.

[Tin Can]

What is OP really after?

Earlier today I was looking at Macro Soft Focus. As I plan to try it.

One point in focus the rest not.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/macro+with+soft+focus

[dubiduck]

I honestly don't know why you are all talking about macro shots? The pictures I shared from flickr are not macro shots but environmental portraits! And that is the use-case where those fast lenses shine - the background is melted away nicely and you get nice subject isolation (full body portrait range and further).
The faster the aperture the more environment you can include in your shot without loosing the nice shallow DoF.
Like this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/anasbenj/6414433027/

( I finally found the flickr page for the kodak aero-ektar 178mm 2.5 :) )

Edit: Or this shot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kiddokiddo/20709538908/
That's just unbelievable beautiful. Seems like all the people are using the Aero Ektar on a Speed Graphic?

So basically the Aero Ektar on 4x5 will give you the same "look" in terms of focal length and amount of DoF as the famous kubrik 50mm f/0.7 on 35mm does. Pretty amazing.

[Peter De Smidt]

Aero Ektar + Speed Graphic? Sure, as a fast shutter is useful with a fast lens. A press lens wide open will also be very fast, as well as have a shallow depth of field, but of course the look will not be the same. A 300 plasmat at f/5.6 will have very little in focus, maybe an inch. Not including enough? Back up.

https://fstoppers.com/profile/17454

[Tin Can]

If OP is still with us.

My Aero 178mm in a very lightweight Speed lens board weighs 4lbs 14 oz and is 5.5" long with OE filter.

This guy sells parts to mount it. https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/aero/

My mount is circa 1951 and was matched to my Speed.

[Corran]

I honestly don't know why you are all talking about macro shots? The pictures I shared from flickr are not macro shots but environmental portraits! And that is the use-case where those fast lenses shine - the background is melted away nicely and you get nice subject isolation (full body portrait range and further).
The faster the aperture the more environment you can include in your shot without loosing the nice shallow DoF.
Like this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/anasbenj/6414433027/

( I finally found the flickr page for the kodak aero-ektar 178mm 2.5 :) )

Edit: Or this shot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kiddokiddo/20709538908/
That's just unbelievable beautiful. Seems like all the people are using the Aero Ektar on a Speed Graphic?

So basically the Aero Ektar on 4x5 will give you the same "look" in terms of focal length and amount of DoF as the famous kubrik 50mm f/0.7 on 35mm does. Pretty amazing.

Most of the best options for 4x5 were mentioned on Page 1 and as I mentioned earlier you'll need a Speed Graphic for the AE lenses or any of the fast projector/aerial lenses. Be careful about lenses that have no iris and therefore shoot at max aperture at all times, and also speaking of that, the Aero-Ektar is often yellowed over the years from the radioactive glass so you can read up about UV treatment. And really, do try some of these lenses, or more typical lenses, at sensible apertures (f/8) and see how they perform before turning it up to 11. You might be surprised.

[Peter De Smidt]

One more option: modify a Fuji GX180 f/3.2 lens for use on 4x5. Yes, it covers. There's also a 115 f/3.2. (Or just use them on the Fuji 6x8 system.)

[Jim Galli]

These threads come and go. Someone trying to force onto 4X5 what happens on 8X10 without even trying. And ultimately all of the gazillion dollar lenses mentioned so far have lousy bokeh. An 8X10 with the most ordinary of petzvals in the f3.8 to f4 range produces the paper thin depth of field with the most luxurious bokeh in the oof areas.

Spend a lot of money chasing the dream or dedicate an old 8X10 to this type of photography and enjoy the brute force of 80 square inches of real estate for f4 to land on. Old Kodak 2D's and old Agfa/Ansco 8X10's are NOT expensive. And relatively speaking old petzvals are not either compared to all the forced special use lenses that begin to approach what 8X10 can do by accident with almost any old lens.

By the time you get done chasing silver bullets you could have bought an 8X10 and a whole bunch of film. The images on my web pages are done with the most painfully ordinary bottom feeder 8X10 imaginable. An old Kodak 8X10 that I'd have trouble getting over 500 bucks for.

I always say the same thing. Nobody ever listens. Oh, and the old Kodak only weighs 8 1/2 pounds for goodness sake. But it's strong enough to hold up a 5 pound lens. And the shutter lives inside the camera waiting for whatever I find to hand out in front of it. I just bought two lenses last month to play with - as we speak. A Kodak 12" f4.8 Portrait lens and a Voigtlaender 8 3/4" Portrait Euryscop f4.5 Both have magnificent bokeh on the 6.5X8.5 film reducing back. Untouchable by anything in the lists of 4X5 f3.5 and less stuff.

Oh, and I need to add one final thought. The Kodak 7 1/2" Aero Ektar has the very definition of terrible bokeh. Awful. Horrible. It makes your eyes hurt and your stomach queezy.

[Peter De Smidt]

Some of us listen, Jim. :)

[Corran]

There's plenty of folks who make wonderful images from the Aero Ektar, many on this forum. I am reminded of Luke79 who had one and some other similar lenses and made wonderful portraits.

Personally I got interested in the AE lenses like many others, from David Burnett's images.

8x10 and run-of-the-mill lenses is certainly a valid approach. Sometimes it's not what one wants. The OP needs to pick something and start shooting and move from there, in whichever direction his images take him.

EDIT: example from Luke79:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?94444-September-2012-portraits&p=934705&viewfull=1#post934705

[blue4130]

I honestly don't know why you are all talking about macro shots? The pictures I shared from flickr are not macro shots but environmental portraits! And that is the use-case where those fast lenses shine - the background is melted away nicely and you get nice subject isolation (full body portrait range and further).
The faster the aperture the more environment you can include in your shot without loosing the nice shallow DoF.
Like this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/anasbenj/6414433027/

( I finally found the flickr page for the kodak aero-ektar 178mm 2.5 :) )

Edit: Or this shot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kiddokiddo/20709538908/
That's just unbelievable beautiful. Seems like all the people are using the Aero Ektar on a Speed Graphic?

So basically the Aero Ektar on 4x5 will give you the same "look" in terms of focal length and amount of DoF as the famous kubrik 50mm f/0.7 on 35mm does. Pretty amazing.


To get that look, you need sufficient DOF to have the person sharp from front to back and nothing else. So about 12 " of "sharpness" at whatever distance will get you full body using the focal length of your choice. It really isn't about having the largest aperture, its about understanding how to get the amount of DOF that you need for the shot. If you like the aero ektar look, then just get an aero ektar. But LEARN how to use it effectively. Otherwise, you won't get shots like that.

[Kerosene Hat]

No, it depends on your lens, your aperture and the magnification. Not with film size.

Also, subject to lens distance (hand in hand with magnification). OP isn't seeing the whole picture about longer lenses with larger fields of view, and the ability to get closer with the longer lens.

Also, gong for razor thin DoF out of the gate is entering the learning curve from the side and further up...the first trick is actually learning to use the view camer, then working with more advanced topics, like DoF, movements, etc. Recommend to OP to learn view camera fundamentals as he works toward razor thin DoF. Chances are very high he doesn't need such a fast aperture, but that depends on the variables Bob S mentions, as well as subject matte. This was shot at f8... https://flic.kr/p/2gPdZaU