Lens for color

[Pedro_fiz]

Which lens would you recommend for 4x5 color pictures?
I am thinking in a 150 or 135 for general purposes
Thanks for posting

[Two23]

Which lens would you recommend for 4x5 color pictures?
I am thinking in a 150 or 135 for general purposes
Thanks for posting

Both are pretty close on a 4x5. I use 90-135-180mm. For color I suggest a newer lens with multicoating.


Kent in SD

[Pedro_fiz]

Do you think APO is needed?

[Two23]

Do you think APO is needed?

Probably not, but I most shoot negative film for color.


Kent in SD

[Corran]

Any lens you want. I've used 100-year-old lenses on color positive film before. Nothing wrong with it, just a different look. Unless you are doing scientific or catalog work that needs exacting color reproduction standards, there are no hard and fast rules.

Here's a photograph on E100VS shot with a very old Verito lens:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--5LJBqS5dEc/Xh8TNK6duKI/AAAAAAAAM1k/hZ6bNvKZAt4n3iDBp4mGntlQOOXKO-_ZwCLcBGAsYHQ/s700/27628631_10102735586175633_6700173509906378932_o.jpg

[Pedro_fiz]

The main use in my case will be for portraits and I am not sure if an APO treatment would be needed or MC could be enough.
Your photo is beautiful but effectively the colors artificial.
Many thanks

[Corran]

Please explain what you mean by "the colors artificial?"

E100VS is a saturated and high-contrast color positive film. For portraits I assume you will be shooting color neg, which will have a very different look. Your choice of lens can/should also pair with your choice of film. I like the look of older, lower-contrast lenses on positive film. On negative, it might be too much.

Multicoating and APO are two different things with two different purposes. If you want high performance, you should get an APO lens.

For color (or b&w) portrait work I personally have used a Voigtlander 15cm f/4.5 APO Lanthar and enjoy that lens a lot. It has the APO performance with a classic look and contrast profile. YMMV. Perhaps find images appealing to you in the monthly "portrait" thread and see what lenses they are using.

[John Layton]

Bryan that is wonderful! As for color values...looks to me to have just a tad too much magenta - but then again this could be my screen, and/or this might be your choice. Would be interesting to see how this would be rendered with color negative film - although I suspect that with lens choice and subject conditions you could have some trouble pulling enough color contrast. Dangerous ground for me here...as color is currently not my forte!

[Corran]

Thanks John. Foreground is definitely magenta-ish, I think in real life (decaying red leaves) but I do sometimes struggle with magenta balance. The condition was very low in contrast generally but high contrast between the ice and surroundings. There is a lot of interesting interactions between old lenses and high-contrast color positive film. I disagree with the general idea that one should only use newer APO lenses for color.

I like shooting slides but I probably will retire from that now that I can print RA-4 so I can actually make [darkroom] printable images. Nothing beats a good chrome to look at though.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Do you think APO is needed ?

Hi!
In the good old days, non-apo and non-coated lenses delivered superb color images!

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/prok/

and more recently ...
https://www.pinterest.fr/barberella1964/kodachrome-4x5/

Sure, you need at least a good color process, be it tricolor from 3x B&W negatives or a direct color film ;)

[Pedro_fiz]

Please explain what you mean by "the colors artificial?"

E100VS is a saturated and high-contrast color positive film. For portraits I assume you will be shooting color neg, which will have a very different look. Your choice of lens can/should also pair with your choice of film. I like the look of older, lower-contrast lenses on positive film. On negative, it might be too much.

Multicoating and APO are two different things with two different purposes. If you want high performance, you should get an APO lens.

For color (or b&w) portrait work I personally have used a Voigtlander 15cm f/4.5 APO Lanthar and enjoy that lens a lot. It has the APO performance with a classic look and contrast profile. YMMV. Perhaps find images appealing to you in the monthly "portrait" thread and see what lenses they are using.

Thanks for your comments.
I will look for a 150 APO. The Voigtlander for sure is one of the best but I will consider cheaper options.

[Bernice Loui]

View camera lenses have been color corrected for over a century. Chester Hill came up with achromatic color correction about 1729, since about the time, color correction for quality photographic lenses was a standard design and production requirement. Beginnings of achromatic color correction was used often in microscope optics:
https://www.leica-microsystems.com/science-lab/the-history-of-stereo-microscopy-part-ii/

Difficulty with the APO designation, it's definition can vary among brand and standards of what APO means. Know the APO designator alone does not define absolute color correction, color fidelity and all those expectations imposed on the APO designator. Late 1800's came Apochromatic microscope objectives using natural Fluroite crystals.

"After designing, testing and selling many different apochromatic lenses I can state this: There is no "definite" line where a lens becomes "apochromatic" in the world of commercial apochromatic lenses."

~Read this informative article before getting caught in the marketing of APO designated lenses.~
http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/tmb/definition.html


IMO, save your $, APO designation alone is not an assurance of excellent color fidelity and color reproduction.
Bernice






I will look for a 150 APO.

[BrianShaw]

What Bryan and Bernice said...

But buy an apo lens if you really think that will improve your images.

[Tin Can]

I read here on the forum, (must be true) that any sharp LF lens even before color had to resolve color well just to be sharp at the useful wavelengths

[Bernice Loui]

Question is... how can any "APO" lens improve your images?

~Consider the expectation projection factor.~
Bernice



But buy an apo lens if you really think that will improve your images.

[BrianShaw]

Question is... how can any "APO" lens improve your images?

~Consider the expectation projection factor.~
Bernice
I don’t think it can or will... nor did I say or imply that it would/could... but sometimes there’s a psychology of belief that is in play....

I’ve quite successfully shot color with a B&L Rapid Rectilinear that I think dates from 1910 or 1920.

[Corran]

I read here on the forum, (must be true) that any sharp LF lens even before color had to resolve color well just to be sharp at the useful wavelengths

I think chromatic aberrations can make images look less sharp in b&w.

Color filter helps the problem I think - hence the recommendation for using them over single elements of the Symmar convertible.

[Bernice Loui]

Precisely, based on an awful lot of color transparencies burned/processed and dialing in the entire color transparency process, APO is more marketing than actual substance. Add to this the real world of optical design folks as mentioned in post#12 tell pretty much what and how APO is used as a marketing ploy.

No surprise that a rapid rectilinear from the early 1900's does good on color as it is color corrected well enough. Keep in mind one of the classic LF lenses the Dagor dates back to before 1900 and it's color rendition on film is more than good enough.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7YMXAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=dagor+designer&source=bl&ots=fIv1c190JL&sig=ACfU3U1L9oqzO1-PEUAyTq9w_bQKKghWFg&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimiOXwrYbnAhXJB50JHfGZAIkQ6AEwAnoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=dagor%20designer&f=false


Bernice



I don’t think it can or will... nor did I say or imply that it would/could... but sometimes there’s a psychology of belief that is in play....

I’ve quite successfully shot color with a B&L Rapid Rectilinear that I think dates from 1910 or 1920.

[Pedro_fiz]

Thanks for your comments.
Finally I will use my current lenses and I will see the results. There will be time to decide later.

Enviado desde mi ANE-LX1 mediante Tapatalk

[Drew Wiley]

MC is not necessarily related to color rendering; sometimes it has been used to fine-tune that kind of property; but many single-coated lenses are just as good in terms of hue reproduction. Nearly all modern post-60's view camera lenses are very well color-corrected. Apo is related to something else - precise alignment of different wavelengths of color for sake of high reproduction standards, or a high degree of enlargement. Since you're starting out with large format film, it probably won't need a lot of magnification in print. "Apo" seems to be a term partially abused for marketing purposes. Again, basically a non-issue for general photography with any relatively modern lens. Focal length is yet another topic, related to what kind of perspective you like: wide, slightly wide, normal, somewhat longer, long narrow perspective? It can be hard to decide until you experiment some. What kind of images do you mostly have in mind?

[Greg]

In the 1980s (could be wrong on that date, but was around that time), I accepted a job to photograph petrie dishes and enlarge the images to 16x20 inches. My client insisted on the best quality final Cibachrome prints. Initially I planned on using my Nikon Multiphot with its proprietary 120mm Macro Nikkor lens. But I was also able to rent a 120mm f/5.6 Apo-Symmar and borrow a 120mm Macro-Symmar HM to compare to my Nikkor. Also used a 150mm G-Claron which I had owned at the time. Shot a series of Chromes with each of the lenses at the same aperture (f/11 but memory could be wrong on that) and compared the resulting 4x5 transparencies. From some notes that I have saved after all these years... When I compared the 4x5 chromes, the 150mm G-Claron distinctly came in last. The images shot with the Apo-Symmar and the Macro-Symmar HM lenses were superb, but the image shot with the 120mm Macro Nikkor lens was indeed the best of the lot, but not by so far as to delegate it the absolutely the "best" of the lot. I'm sure that any of the final 16x20 Cibachrome prints made with the 120mm f/5.6 Apo-Symmar, the 120mm Macro-Symmar HM. or the 120mm Macro Nikkor lens would have been completely acceptable to the client. Point here is that "Apo" lenses are not always the best to be used for shooting color film.

[Luis-F-S]

The main use in my case will be for portraits and I am not sure if an APO treatment would be needed or MC could be enough.
Many thanks

So you want the sharpest lens on the planet to shoot portraits? Really?

[BrianShaw]

So you want the sharpest lens on the planet to shoot portraits? Really?

That and a softar... perfect combo!

[LabRat]

The only time I have SEEN a difference using an apo lens was when shooting micro/macro while focusing wide open, and setting up enlargers for critical alignment...

Wide open, most lenses might show a very slight color fringe on an edge of grain under high magnification, but turning a precision focusing stage, you can just see the fringe turn blue, to green, and to yellow/red... Stopped down to working aperture, fringe vanishes... Stop down more, edge becomes diffuse due to diffraction...

Note, this is at high magnification, WAY beyond normal shooting conditions...

Too sharp of a lens for portraits is a no-no, as invisible facial features can come up like usually invisible ultra fine hair on women, rough skin can look like sandpaper, make-up can look rough etc... And all things can start looking "dirty" as micro details become excessively revealed... Brutal!!!

Sit close to a large screen 4K tv, and watch a HD broadcast with too many close-ups with skin tone, and you will see what I mean...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

16X20 is nothing for a 4x5 lens to keep up with. I often made very precise 30X40 inch Cibachromes from 4x5 transparencies taken with a rather garden-variety 210 Symmar S. I later did it even better using 8x10 film and a number of more modern lenses. And unless you've got some old G-Claron which isn't a modern plasmat, I seriously question if the fault lies with the lens itself. For instance, I often use a 240 G-Claron for wide-angle 8x10 usage, and it's quite competent for the task. 20x24 prints exhibit extreme detail and microtonality. No, it's not the ultimate lens for 8x10 format, but if you dial it down a notch for 4x5 usage, it really does shine, despite the single coating. I get awfully skeptical of quite a bit of the blame game over brand name modern lenses based upon unspecified parameters. There could be any number of alternative explanations, all the way from trouble focusing dimmer smaller-aperture lenses in a particular system to darkroom printing issues. Yes, I know the distinction between true apo lenses and ordinary shooting lenses, which seem to have a much less strict definition of apo for sake of marketing purposes, i.e., keeping up with the Jones'. I have all kinds of lenses and know the relevant differences. But often just too much fuss is made over relatively minor issues, and generally by beginners without much if any actual large format experience, which is certainly understandable, but still an unnecessary waste of anxiety.

[Pedro_fiz]

So you want the sharpest lens on the planet to shoot portraits? Really?

I am looking for a good color rendition. Sharp is not my goal for portraits.
After reading the last posts I have a good information to take a decision.
Thanks for your comment

[Dan Fromm]

Pedro, in my experience color rendition problems with color reversal film are due to exposure problems and to variations in the light's color, not to lenses' transmission. Over-exposure desaturates and can shift color, under-exposure saturates and can shift color. Out-of-doors, roses may be red but shadows are blue.

If I were you, I'd put my money into shutter CLA(s) and calibration(s), not in to the latest most best lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Far more complex than "lens color". The entire image system has an effect on the color rendition on color transparency film image result.

Read post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses/page2&highlight=elinchrome


Bernice




I am looking for a good color rendition. Sharp is not my goal for portraits.
After reading the last posts I have a good information to take a decision.
Thanks for your comment

[Pedro_fiz]

I have tested (portra 160) using one of my lens (Rodenstock Imagon 200) and I am satisfied with the colors. See especially the green of the grass and its tonal range, something imposible for digital.
Definitely I don’t need a new lens.
Thank you again
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200118/4c4c17a574af0c5eb0fa8d2cbed202da.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

Nikkor M's were specifically engineered for very accurate hue rendition. Being the apogee of tessar design and multicoated, having used them, I can concur that the only thing better was the MC Kern 14" Dagor, with even less air/glass interfaces. The M's are also extremely sharp. But I don't regard either variety as ideal for portraiture unless you're dealing with very smooth complexions to begin with. The bigger problem is that there's no color film or printing method equal to the lens itself. You're only as good as your weakest link. Inkjet is especially poor at distinguishing subtle hues. But where there's a will there's a way. I even made excellent color portraits on Cibachrome, an infamously stubborn medium to tame when it came to color accuracy. Dye Transfer was still the standard back then, but prohibitively expensive for most. So what I'm implying is that it's a waste of time to obsess about this topic. Find a lens with a perspective and rendering pleasing to you. Almost all modern lenses are going to do a good job with color itself. It's afterwards the real problems begin.

[Alan Gales]

The main use in my case will be for portraits and I am not sure if an APO treatment would be needed or MC could be enough.

Why not a 210 if mainly for portraits? Later multicoated 210 lenses in modern shutters are dirt cheap. You could add a 135 for environmental portraits if you wish or just step back with the 210 if you have the room. A 210 and 135 combo works great for portraits and general photography.

[Drew Wiley]

Ironically, I liked my old Symmar S 210 for color portraits quite a bit better than my newer plasmats, which are noticeably sharper and more contrasty, wonderful for landscape work, but a bit harsh for portrait applications.

[BrianShaw]

Those focal lengths work okay as stated bit often too sharp for effective (or sometimes even “acceptable”) portraits. Gentlemen might not always mind that kind of rendition but women almost never do. :)

[Alan Gales]

Ironically, I liked my old Symmar S 210 for color portraits quite a bit better than my newer plasmats, which are noticeably sharper and more contrasty, wonderful for landscape work, but a bit harsh for portrait applications.

Drew, I already told you that I'd send you some nose oil if you need it. ;)

For the OP, a little nose oil or petroleum jelly on a filter or soft filters can soften that portrait when you need it.

[Alan Gales]

Those focal lengths work okay as stated bit often too sharp for effective (or sometimes even “acceptable”) portraits. Gentlemen might not always mind that kind of rendition but women almost never do. :)

Brian, I can send you some nose oil too. I've got way more than I need and I still keep making more of the stuff!

[Tin Can]

I gave up trying to please women sitters long ago

For one very difficult close friend, I set up a 40" vertical monitor, DSLR tethered and gave her the remote shutter...so she could see each shot full size...immediately!

I have other lady friends who like their X-Ray prints, which do look odd





Those focal lengths work okay as stated bit often too sharp for effective (or sometimes even “acceptable”) portraits. Gentlemen might not always mind that kind of rendition but women almost never do. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Don't get me going. Reminds me of the discount wedding and "model photographers" who smeared vaseline over their TLR lenses.

[Bob Salomon]

Don't get me going. Reminds me of the discount wedding and "model photographers" who smeared vaseline over their TLR lenses.

Panty hose, black.

[Alan Gales]

Panty hose, black.

Bob, you better explain to Drew that you stretch the pantyhose over the lens. We don't want him wearing them. That would be an image that you can't get out of your head! ;)

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, you better explain to Drew that you stretch the pantyhose over the lens. We don't want him wearing them. That would be an image that you can't get out of your head! ;)

But it could make him softer!

[Drew Wiley]

Hey, I did one use a bit of black hose over an enlarger lens to "correct" someone's complexion. Too small to fit me!

[CreationBear]

I did one use a bit of black hose

Nobody sells Brynje in your neck of the woods? I'm a tough fit, but they'd definitely make it into my rotation even here in the South.:)