Suggest a 12" (300mm) lens for portrait work on 8x10?

[Ari]

Rather than bore you with another "210mm lens for 8x10" thread, I'll bore you with a "300mm lens for 8x10" thread.
Looking for some suggestions on an affordable 300mm lens to use for 8x10 portraits.
What's affordable? Nothing, really, but let's try under $800 for starters.

Here are the rules I'm playing by:

Not looking for 14" or longer, not my style.
not the very latest modern glass (no APO-Sironars, etc)
needs to be in a shutter
single/multi-coated
smooth and sharp look, medium contrast
not pictorialist/soft looking lenses
f/4.5 preferred

Been there: Radar, Commercial Ektar, Wolly Series II, Heliar

Considering a 300mm Xenar, one is f/4.5, other is f/5.6 and of more recent vintage
Also considering some older coated Fujis - 300 S or 300 L (both in Copal 3, both f/5.6).

I know there's a lot I don't know, so any suggestions would help, if they tick off one or more boxes.

Thanks in advance!

[Eric Woodbury]

Hi Ari

Kodak 12" f/4.8 Portrait. I had one, didn't really know what I had, and sold it. Big mistake.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have a 300 Fuji L. I like it, but it's not like I've done a bunch of comparisons.

Looking at your comments, I'd also check out an Ilex Paragon. I haven't had a 300, but I've had a couple 254mm versions, and they are great performers.

[BrianShaw]

Well, you’ve already tried the two I was going to suggest. I’m assuming that the ones you tried aren’t to your liking. Can’t wait to hear what’s next for you. Xenar... should be another good choice but not too sure it will be significantly different from the others. Can’t wait to hear what you do.

[Kiwi7475]

Could you explain what didn’t work with the ones you tried and maybe a bit more of the type of look that you’re after? It’s hard to suggest without knowing more about your preferences.

[Jim Noel]

Hi Ari

Kodak 12" f/4.8 Portrait. I had one, didn't really know what I had, and sold it. Big mistake.

I wish I had bought it. Hard to find good one at affordable price.
Jim

[Ari]

Eric, thank you for the suggestion. I had one and didn't like it, too soft for my taste.
Peter, thank you. Wondering what differences exist between S and L series Fuji lenses? I have an Ilex Paragon S with a soft focus/diffusion ring. I like it, and will look again for a non-diffused Paragon.
Brian, thank you. I had a Cooke XVa, sold it to finance some family stuff, and miss it terribly. It was a singular lens, nothing will come close except maybe a Cooke XV, but both are out of my budget. The older f/4.5 coated Xenars are appealing, or maybe I'll find another convertible lens that works for me.
Kiwi, understood. The lenses I didn't keep were mostly fine, but they were difficult to tame in contrasty situations, or they had too little contrast (usually uncoated), or I got tired of sending the Ilex shutters in for repair.
Jim, everything is selling at sky-high prices. Hard to find a deal anymore.

[Whir-Click]

If you found the uncoated Wollensak Velostigmat Series II lacking a bit of punch for your taste, consider the coated Raptar 4.5 successor. A little more contrast, but with the classic Tessar rendering. I understand being leery of older shutters, but an Alphax #5 just won’t quit, and is available with synch if that’s important.

I paid $300 for one in great condition within the last year, so the price is generally reasonable.

[William Whitaker]

11 3/4" Heliar.


Or NOT. Looks like you tried that one. Sorry.
Next time I must read the question!

[William Whitaker]

Looks like you've ruled out just about everything

And if you've ruled out the lenses, get a prettier model. :cool:

[Ari]

Bill and Will, thanks, I'll consider anything.
Will, I may have been at fault when I used the Heliar, or it may have been a dud. I'm open to it, but prices are no longer reasonable.
Bill, I'll research the Raptar, thanks for the suggestion.

[Greg]

If you found the uncoated Wollensak Velostigmat Series II lacking a bit of punch for your taste

Find one that the front element screws out. I think there were 6 marked (degrees of softness) settings. "Soft focus" effect I found to be quite pleasing for portraits when I was shooting with the lens in the late 1970s. Usually mounted in a Betax #5 shutter which I would compare to a classic VW Beetle... simple, reliable, and actually quite easy to fix if it breaks. Presently use one that doesn't have the softness setting feature. 8x10 Platinum/Palladium prints made from the negatives (all shot at f/64) just have that pre turn of the century (1900) look to them that I have found no other lens to give me... very subjective opinion being expressed here.

[William Whitaker]

When in doubt, a Dagor is always a good choice!

[Ari]

I forgot the Dagor, I did have one for a while, but found it too harsh-looking.
A friend later told me he thought it was luck of the draw with Dagors, some excellent examples mixed in with some less-than-stellar copies.
Anyway, they're out of my budget, not too many available.

Speaking of availability, the Fuji lenses seem to be the last ones left at closing time. I may have to spring for one soon.

[Ari]

Thanks for everyone's help, if you have any other suggestions, post 'em.
I know I'm picky and fussy and not making it very easy. I can only apologize for my difficult, contrarian nature.
For now I'll go for something kind of middle-of-the-road, something coated, maybe multi-coated, that doesn't cost too much.
Just want to get back to shooting some more portraits soon.

[Exploring Large Format]

Fujinar 30cm?

Tessar, single-coated, f/4.5. Covers 8x10. Within your budget, even allowing for shutter (assuming it can be mounted on one).

I'm too new to have much to compare to, but I dig it for portraits (4x5 for me). I'd describe it as having a softish presence, but not a soft focus lens. Others more experienced would have more to say.

Mine is not in a shutter. Possible to put in a Shanel shutter? 25cm works, not sure about 30cm. Otherwise, maybe not ticking that box.

Happy hunting!


Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[Mark Sawyer]

Just as a passing mention, the Tessars will mostly have the same look, with the variations being coatings and maximum aperture. So the Zeiss Tessars, Velostigmats, Raptars, Commercial Ektars, Paragons, Fuji-Ls, Xenars, etc., fall into the same category.

That said, the Kodak f/4.5 Ektar, also a Tessar and often single coated, is a fine choice most people overlook. But an f/4.5 of any design is going to require a big shutter, which can be worth as much or more than the lens.

[Peter De Smidt]

I like Raptars, too. I have a 240. The problem, and the problem with Ilex lenses, are the shutters. I'm just not a fan. I prefer how modern Copal, Compur and Prontor shutters work. For instance, with my 159 WA Wollenstock, it's hard for me to tell if I've successfully closed the shutter. It's hard for me to read the settings.....

[Luis-F-S]

When in doubt, a Dagor is always a good choice!

++1 What I use. Great lens in a Copal3. Also try to find a 12” G Claron. Both are single coated.

[Eric Woodbury]

I have a 12" f/2.5 Aero Ektar that holds the door open. But no shutter or iris. I wonder how it would be for portraits.

[Ari]

Fujinar 30cm?
Tessar, single-coated, f/4.5. Covers 8x10. Within your budget, even allowing for shutter (assuming it can be mounted on one).
I'm too new to have much to compare to, but I dig it for portraits (4x5 for me). I'd describe it as having a softish presence, but not a soft focus lens. Others more experienced would have more to say.
Mine is not in a shutter. Possible to put in a Shanel shutter? 25cm works, not sure about 30cm. Otherwise, maybe not ticking that box.
Happy hunting!

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Thanks. The Fujinar 30cm was an early hopeful, but I haven't found it in a shutter, nor do I know if it ever found its way into a Shanel or Copal 3.
I have the Fuji 250 f/6.7 for the shorter focal length already.


I have a 12" f/2.5 Aero Ektar that holds the door open. But no shutter or iris. I wonder how it would be for portraits.
Probably great, if you can control it.

[neil poulsen]

Luis mentioned the 300mm G-Claron. A little older lens is a 300mm Repro Claron. (I recently saw one for sale on eBay.) Also, a 12" Red Dot Artar. Single coated, but very sharp at those distances. They cover8x10 at infinity, but without much in the way of movements.

I finally filled in my 300mm gap with a single-coated Fujinon 300mm, inside lettering, that's in absolutely beautiful condition. (I haven't used it yet; it's been on my Covid quarantine shelf.) In the same vein, there's a 300mm Schneider, single coated, convertible Symmar.

[Bernice Loui]

Difficulty with large aperture 12" / 300mm lenses for 8x10 and large aperture 12" / 300mm lenses in general, majority of them are older and in older shutters (IMO, not shutter speed consistent, not always reliable). This was a problem that HAD to be addressed back in the 8x10 film days since many really GOOD portrait lenses were in wonky old shutters or barrel only.

Some time in the later 1980's of the 8x10 days wanting to use vintage lenses for portrait images resulted in becoming Sinar shutter centric.
For images made with strobe, shutter speed accuracy, consistency and all those demands required from a shutter exposing film with mostly constant light demanded proper shutter performance. Using strobe negates much of that.

~Strobe has a great tendency to traumatize the portrait sitter~

That said, once the Sinar shutter was on camera, all the problems with vintage shutters went away opening up the ability to use virtually any lens in barrel or shutter (long as T setting operates) that fit a Sinar lens board.

Having done the 12" lens rounds on 8x10, most single coated full aperture f4.5 Tessars work good for 8x10 head-shoulder portraits with a typical taking aperture of f8_ish. The uncoated Tessars tend to be too low contrast. Of these the faves are 12" f4.5 Ektar and 300mm f4.5 Xenar. Others are likely not going to be that different. 12" Heilar has a softer-rounder out of focus rendition at their full aperture, in the end, preferred the Ektar & Xenar. Kodak Portrait could work good for you if that is the kind of look you're after.

Other vintage could be Goerz Celor, TTH Cooke Aviar both are non-coated as delivered. The 300mm f4.5 industar (Russian Tessar) remains a bargain with performance that would surprise most. 300mm f4.5 Boyer Saphir (French) is another example of lesser known large aperture Tessar. Difficulty, these are in barrel like many other large aperture lenses that can fit this need good.

Round aperture common in older barrel lenses or shutters (Ilex, Compound and..) IS desirable over the modern shutters (Copal and such) with less than round apertures.

Non-Tessar lenses like modern plasmats might not produce the out of focus rendition desired with the process versions having too small a full aperture.

Suggestion would be to get a Sinar or similar shutter on your camera of choice, find a suitable 12" or 300mm Tessar with a full aperture of f4.5, then focus FAR more on lighting and non lens-camera image making techniques... Effective portraits will allow some expressive aspect of the portrait sitter's personality and soul to shine in the finished print. This is often far less about the technical aspects of image making many photographers obsess over, but MUCH more about the portrait sitter.



Bernice

[maltfalc]

industar 37. this one even comes with a bonus camera. :P https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Soviet-Camera-FKD-18-x-24-Lens-INDUSTAR-37-4-5-300-Pavilion-camera/233960030413?hash=item36791ac0cd:g:czoAAOSwE~xgbtyq

[Ari]

Maltfalc, I've looked at the Industar lenses for wet plate, but for film I wish there were a shutter option. I'd get one in a heartbeat.

Bernice, thanks as always for your help. I need a lens in a shutter, as I don't want to go through finding then mounting a Sinar shutter to my non-Sinar camera.
FWIW, I like to shoot wide open, or maybe at f8 or thereabouts.
Will continue looking, thanks again.

[Kiwi7475]

Just a thought. I have several 300mm f4.5 barrel lenses because they were cheap. If you are willing to approach portraits with film like you do wet plate (without using strobes), ie. making exposures in the seconds, what I do is I use a 100x100mm ND filter (3 or 6 stops depending on how much light there is and what film I use) and literally I use blu tack to hold it in place in front of the lens. Once you’re in the second to few seconds regime, you really don’t need a shutter. Just count Mississippi’s. But yeah that means you need to approach it like wet plate portraiture to make sure the person is still.

[Sean Mac]

Maltfalc, I've looked at the Industar lenses for wet plate, but for film I wish there were a shutter option. I'd get one in a heartbeat.

214751

This is an FKD shutter and Industar 300 F4.5 on a 162x162 Linhof board.

Cheap when they show up.

:)

[Tin Can]

So we can assume Packard shutters are not a solution for you?

How were you planning to use the Kodak 405 or 305?

As some point out, strobes and flashbulbs eliminate many shutter problems and can overpower the Sun

I find my biggest problem is sitters

If you want 'sharp' perhaps Digi is best

This is very interesting to me and a good movie

How ‘Mank’ Shot Day for Night, and in Hi-Dynamic Range Black-and-White (https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/mank-shooting-hi-dynamic-range-black-and-white-1234602414/)

[maltfalc]

Maltfalc, I've looked at the Industar lenses for wet plate, but for film I wish there were a shutter option.click the link, there's a shutter included.

[Hugo Zhang]

Ari,

You seem to be chasing that elusive dream portrait lens. Been there and done that and found it. :-)

Our tastes in them sometimes are highly subjective, shaped by our diverse personal photographic experiences.

If you tell us more about the reasons of rejection for each lens that you have used, maybe we will have more clues and point to some interesting directions.

I agree with Bernice that light conditions play important roles, sometimes more than subject matters, compositions and even lenses. A Sinar auto shutter or a Packard shutter will help you widen your choices.

I do agree that lenses do have their own unique ways to announce themselves individually, sometimes strongly and sometimes quietly. I am still learning my lessons as I have more than a dozen 8x10 "portrait' lenses.

[Bernice Loui]

Packard shutters work, can work really GOOD. For BIG lenses, they are often the only solution. Exceptions might be a BIG leaf shutter like the Fairchild K35.

That said, IMO packard shutters should be serious considered. They can be adapted to most any camera and the electric solenoid versions are surprisingly accurate with a good controller. They do not do fast shutter speeds, but work good at shutter speeds not higher than about 1/10 second. They were the standard process camera shutter and a large number of industrial cameras using BIG process lenses back in the day. To this day Packard shutters are not that $ and remain a good value.

IMO, the Kodak 405mm /16" f4.5 Portrait Ektar is GOOD for 8x10 if that is the look of interest. The 305mm / 12" were made in barrel (f4.5) and Ilex# 5 (f4.8) functionally identical other than shutter -vs- no shutter.

All that said, Lighting IS often more significant than just lens personality. Then the objectives of the portraiture begins to creep in.

Photographer using the portrait sitter as a means of their ego and expressive tool?

or..

Photographer does as much as possible to capture some expressive aspect of the portrait sitter in the print image?

or..

Portrait sitter desires their portrait image to be their fantasy of beauty.

As previously mentioned, photographers tend to focus on hardware widgets like camera, lens and such. While lighting, pose, ability of the portrait sitter and all those non-hardware factors are often more significant the the hardware widget aspects. This is the less on lens-camera pitch, more on lighting, pose, composition working with the portrait sitter pitch and related pitch.

Keep in mind, some of the most expressive portrait images were created out of modest hardware widgets with exceptional lighting, pose, composition and knowing what the finished print needs to be.

BTW, 8x10 polaroid was a fun and good way to check out portrait stuff back in the day. Got to a point where strobes for portraits were not an option.

Then there are environmental portrait where the moderate wide angle focal length can work good.


Bernice




So we can assume Packard shutters are not a solution for you?

How were you planning to use the Kodak 405 or 305?

As some point out, strobes and flashbulbs eliminate many shutter problems and can overpower the Sun

I find my biggest problem is sitters

If you want 'sharp' perhaps Digi is best

This is very interesting to me and a good movie

How ‘Mank’ Shot Day for Night, and in Hi-Dynamic Range Black-and-White (https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/mank-shooting-hi-dynamic-range-black-and-white-1234602414/)

[Jim Noel]

I am a Packard user. They are a marvelous answer to a good old lens, like my 12" Velostigmat with the now broken Studio shutter. A wonderful lens for portraits that I also use in photographing nature. The Packard is mounted on a board I attach to the front of this lens, and others, with 3 adjusting screws. If the light is too bright for 1/25-1/30 second I also carry an assortment of neutral density filters.
AN inexpensive way to obtain and use some great old lenses for portraits or otherwise.

[William Whitaker]

A Cooke series XIV (yep, that's 14, not 15) is a great portrait lens IMHO. Mine is sharp, yet has a fullness and roundness to the image that is almost indescribable, except maybe to say "Cooke magic". It's a 330mm, f/6.3 anastigmat.
A series XV is similar in its rendition whilst in the 12-inch configuration. I can't speak for the XVa because I've never used (nor seen) one.
But whatever you choose, you'll do well if you always make the best photograph you can. Thousands of photographers over the last century and a half can't be wrong.
Pay close attention to your lighting as that is everything.
Cheers!

[Ari]

Ari,
You seem to be chasing that elusive dream portrait lens. Been there and done that and found it. :-)

Yes, I found it too, Hugo. It was the Cooke. I had to sell it, there were a few good reasons to sell it, but now I'm trying to find a $300 version of a Cooke.

What was wrong with the other lenses? Depended on the lens, but whatever it was at the time, they were all eclipsed by the Cooke, so I sold them all.
The one I like the best was the 12" Commercial Ektar, but I no longer want to deal with those shutters and the inherent problems.

I think I've settled on the Fujinon-S series for now. A decent, single-coated Tessar in a Copal 3 that won't break the bank. I'm excited to try it and see how it can work for portraits on film.
My other lenses are all barrel lenses, nothing expensive, but all of them serve a purpose.

Thanks again, Bernice. Thanks, Jim for your input as well.
My opinions are based having lighting and everything else where I want it, I'm only isolating the lens' performance in my assessments.

Will, thanks for pulling me back ever so slightly to the Cooke side.

[Tracy Storer]

Another +1 for the Dagor. I don't know what version you had, but if it was too harsh looking perhaps you were stopped down too far? I also enjoy my 11.75" Heliar, but I tend to use it closer to wide open than you might want to (I llke the quick focus fall off.)


When in doubt, a Dagor is always a good choice!

[William Whitaker]

Will, thanks for pulling me back ever so slightly to the Cooke side.

Sure. What's a little more guilt?...

[paulbarden]

Just as a passing mention, the Tessars will mostly have the same look, with the variations being coatings and maximum aperture. So the Zeiss Tessars, Velostigmats, Raptars, Commercial Ektars, Paragons, Fuji-Ls, Xenars, etc., fall into the same category.

That said, the Kodak f/4.5 Ektar, also a Tessar and often single coated, is a fine choice most people overlook. But an f/4.5 of any design is going to require a big shutter, which can be worth as much or more than the lens.

I have the 12” f4.5 Ektar and I love it. It can be exquisitely soft if I want it to be, or sharp as a knife (but never harsh contrast).

[Corran]

Neil mentioned it, I'll mention it too: older Symmar or Symmar-S lens in Compur shutter?

The Compur will have the circular diaphragm opening which will give OOF rendering a better look than the newer Copals when stopped down. I think the older Symmars that I've used check your boxes...

Alternatively, not in your budget, 30cm APO Lanthar ;).

[Vaidotas]

I remember your portrait and interior shots with Bausch Lomb Tessar (8x10?) which I liked.
And reducing your format to your comfort zone expands your search to significant degree.

[Ari]

Thanks, guys.
Tracy, the Dagor didn't work for me, could've been a dud. It was very contrasty, but not in a good way.
Paul, you turned me on to the Kodak Anastigmats for wet plate, and I still have one for 4x5.
Bryan, I considered the Symmar and nearly bought one. I think I'll try the Fuji S or L first, since I've never used either before.
Thank you Valdotas. I liked them too, but the post-processing with the B&L was a lot of work.

This is always fun to do everyone in a while, see what others use, what they recommend, and maybe get some fresh ideas. Thanks, everybody.

EDIT: I bought a Fujinon L 300mm lens in the end.
I like what I read about it: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?123106-Fujinon-L-300mm-5-6
And it's in an older Copal 3 shutter with 10 blades, so it has a nice round aperture.
Single-coated Tessar-type, but not much coverage (don't need a whole lot for portraits). Should be interesting, I look forward to trying it out.
Thanks again

[Peter De Smidt]

Ari, I look forward to hearing how this lens works out for you.

[Ari]

Thanks, Peter.
My usual test is shooting in open shade first, then a second test with flash.
After scanning, I look to see how much post work needs to be done to get the values I like.

By the sounds of it, the Fuji should be well-balanced in terms of contrast and hopefully have that sharp/smooth look common to older Tessar lenses.

[Peter De Smidt]

I used mine the other day, but I haven't gotten around to scanning the film.

[Bernice Loui]

12" f4.5 Ektar has become the default 5x7 portrait lens, it is good in many ways. Full aperture of f4.5 is a nice option to have for Portrait work.
Not a small.
214816

12" f4.5 Portrait Ektar, the other choice.
214817

These two are the most often used for 5x7 portrait work.

300mm f4.5 Xenar is the third choice.
214818

Having the full aperture of f4.5 is a nice option if that is the image quality desired. Most of the Portrait images are made between f4.5 to not often f11. Most often used is f8.


Bernice





I have the 12” f4.5 Ektar and I love it. It can be exquisitely soft if I want it to be, or sharp as a knife (but never harsh contrast).

[Mark Sawyer]

Bernice, do you find any discernable difference between the f/4.5 Ektar and the f/4.5 Xenar?

[Chauncey Walden]

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Goerz Celor. If it was good enough for Hurrell.....

[Daniel Unkefer]

I also have the 300mm f6.3 barrel Commercial Ektar and a barrel 300mm f4.5 Xenar. Good on 5x7 but a bit short for my taste for closer 8x10 portraiture. Back when I was doing some of this I preferred the barrel 480mm Rodenstock Apo Ronar, my idea at the time was to combine acutely sharp lens, with very soft very large box lighting. Later I acquired a 59cm barrel Zeiss Apo Planar and alternated between the two lenses. I was doing fairly tight face shots

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48575543432_a0e3933570_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2h1smHw)8x10 Norma 480 Apo Ronar (https://flic.kr/p/2h1smHw) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

[Two23]

For 300mm on 8x10 I've been using the uncoated Velostigmat. Considering you want a lens in shutter I'm thinking your best and most reasonable option is a Raptar, which is a mono coated Velostigmat, in Betax shutter. They are a great value and relatively plentiful.

Below photo is a tin type I took with the 300mm Velostigmat, f4.5.


Kent in SD

[Mark Sawyer]

I also have the 300mm f4.5 barrel Commercial Ektar...

Just nit-picking here, but the f/4.5 is a plain old Ektar. The f/6.3 is the Commercial Ektar. Personally, I'd rather have the f/4.5...

[Daniel Unkefer]

Just nit-picking here, but the f/4.5 is a plain old Ektar. The f/6.3 is the Commercial Ektar. Personally, I'd rather have the f/4.5...

Thanks Mark, I went and looked. I have the 300mm f6.3 Commercial Ektar in barrel.

[paulbarden]

Just nit-picking here, but the f/4.5 is a plain old Ektar. The f/6.3 is the Commercial Ektar. Personally, I'd rather have the f/4.5...

I love my f4.5 Ektar. Its beautiful even wide open.

[Bernice Loui]

Have used the 12" f4.5 & 300mm f4.5 Xenar (dealer freee-be as these barrel lenses back then had near zero market value) since the 90's.

The f4.5 Ektar has softer-rounder out of focus rendition at f4.5 to f8 than the Xenar, it also has more neutral color rendition compared to the Xenar. Contrast is about similar.. Given a forced choice, the f4.5 Ektar would be the keeper over the f6.3 Commercial Ektar.

Keep in mind, this is splitting small differences.

Back in the 8x10 days, the far preferred H&S focal length would be about 480mm to 19" like this 480mm f4.5 Xenar. These produce a look on 8x10 that is kinda special. partly due to the f4.5 effect with 8x10 and the personality of a good Tessar design lens. No longer do 8x10 these days, but still fond of this 480mm f4.5 Xenar.. likely due to fond memories of the 8x10 images it made.

214855

That said, still of the opinion lighting, pose, composition far exceed the fine differences between these lenses with portrait sitter's expressive image being the most important factor that makes an effective portrait. IMO, it is MUCH about the portrait sitter, far lesser about the foto hardware.


Bernice



Bernice, do you find any discernable difference between the f/4.5 Ektar and the f/4.5 Xenar?

[Mark Sawyer]

Thank you, Bernice! It seems in theory the Xenar and the Ektar, both being single-coated f/4.5 Tessars, should behave the same. But theory and practice are two different things, as some retired baseball player once noted. And while I don't have a 300mm f/4.5 Xenar to compare it to, I agree that the Ektar is pretty special!

[Bernice Loui]

On paper and in theory, the f4.5 Ektar and f4.5 Xenar should be much the same, in real world image making they are different.. Yes the differences are subtle yet visible for those that know what to look for. Once those differences are learned, IMO, they become a matter of preference.

That said, they are likely going to bury me with that 12" f4.5 Ektar. It's been with me for decades, made lots of images with it and never fails to deliver. That said, don't think this is a 12" f4.5 for all, for those who appreciate it.. might fit this Ektar really kinda special.


Bernice


Thank you, Bernice! It seems in theory the Xenar and the Ektar, both being single-coated f/4.5 Tessars, should behave the same. But theory and practice are two different things, as some retired baseball player once noted. And while I don't have a 300mm f/4.5 Xenar to compare it to, I agree that the Ektar is pretty special!

[Ari]

Bernice, are you comparing two coated lenses (12" Ektar & 300mm Xenar), or is the Xenar uncoated?

[Bernice Loui]

Both 12" f4.5 lenses are single coated. Tried uncoated tessar lenses in the past. contrast is too low and flare prone.
That said, proper lens shade can make more difference than most realize. Of the lens shades tried, the Sinar moving curtain shade works really good when properly set up.
214864

Suspect the color rendition of the Kodak Ektar lenses is due to Lanthium glass they used, single coating and artful tweaking of the lens designs.

Note on coatings, it does affect color rendition regardless of what has been said about it. Even after doing gray card test, zeroing in the color with cc filters, same lighting, same color transparency film. Color rendition varies. This is another subtle difference, for the vast majority of color images, not significant. It depends on individual preferences and all related to that. While multi-coating absolutely aids contrast, some times the higher contrast is not desirable. One example of uber contrast lenses for LF was the multi-coated 355mm f8 Gold Dot Dagor, some will adore what this lens does, others not so much.


Bernice




Bernice, are you comparing two coated lenses (12" Ektar & 300mm Xenar), or is the Xenar uncoated?

[Mark Sawyer]

Just a note that on the early ('40s-'50s) single-coated lenses, the coatings were somewhat soft. It's best to clean them only when needed, and special care should be taken when cleaning them.

[William Whitaker]

Suspect the color rendition of the Kodak Ektar lenses is due to Lanthium glass they used, single coating and artful tweaking of the lens designs.

Note on coatings, it does affect color rendition regardless of what has been said about it. Even after doing gray card test, zeroing in the color with cc filters, same lighting, same color transparency film. Color rendition varies. This is another subtle difference, for the vast majority of color images, not significant. It depends on individual preferences and all related to that. While multi-coating absolutely aids contrast, some times the higher contrast is not desirable. One example of uber contrast lenses for LF was the multi-coated 355mm f8 Gold Dot Dagor, some will adore what this lens does, others not so much.

This is very interesting. Thanks!
I briefly owned a 355mm f/8 Dagor and it was painful to look at. Not so much color, but its overall image rendition was the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. But that's another subject, I'm afraid.

I appreciate color fidelity, but I'm a poor judge, I believe. Since childhood I've noticed that the "color temperature" of my eyes is different. The left eye is distinctly warmer than the right. Cataract surgery has only exacerbated that issue, so I wouldn't trust anything I have to say about color!

[Bernice Loui]

Got one of these 355mm f8 Gold Dot Dagors as a dealer loaner back when they were new_ish. Did some test images, the results were in some ways remarkable as to how contrasty the colors were (amplified by color transparency film) in the film image. Yet, the actual resolution is no better than other similar lenses at the same taking aperture. No thank you, went back to the dealer and thanks for the experience.. once was more than enough.

Keep in mind this was the era of hard hitting over color saturated, poke your eyes out commercial ad images.. This lens did not sell well, KEH in the later 90's had a bunch of them and kept reducing the price by the month in an effort to move them.
214892

Today, this multi-coated Dagor appears to have become a cult fave with ? as the market value of these have gone way up, like a long list of other collector cult favorites.


Bernice



This is very interesting. Thanks!
I briefly owned a 355mm f/8 Dagor and it was painful to look at. Not so much color, but its overall image rendition was the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. But that's another subject, I'm afraid.

[Luis-F-S]

Also bought a 14" Gold Dot Dagor in Compur from B&H new some 30 plus years ago. Still have it, thought I tend to use the 12" Golden Dagor more. L

[Ari]

Following up with this thread:

The new lens arrived today from an eBay seller in Japan, it looks great and I'm quite excited to use it.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51126400504_3b979f46a3_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kTSaDS)

The front element has some scratches, this was mentioned in the sale, but the glass is in otherwise beautiful shape.
The scratches shouldn't show up at all, or maybe they'll help with the diffusion!

What drew me to this lens was that it met two criteria I had: it's of the right vintage (60s/70s) and it's single-coated. It was also affordable, which was important, but less so than the other two points.
What clinched it was the Copal 3 shutter with 10 blades, and not the usual 7 blades. I'm hoping this will be a factor in any work I do with this lens, especially portraits.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51126247542_af8f3580e2_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kTRobA)

Thanks for everyone's help, very much appreciated.

[drew.saunders]

...
What drew me to this lens was that it met two criteria I had: it's of the right vintage (60s/70s) and it's single-coated. It was also affordable, which was important, but less so than the other two points.
What clinched it was the Copal 3 shutter with 10 blades, and not the usual 7 blades. I'm hoping this will be a factor in any work I do with this lens, especially portraits.



Your comment made me go look at my 3 Copal-3/3S lenses, all silver ring, to count their aperture blades. They're a Fujinar 21cm/4.5, Fujinar 25cm/4.7 (optically an f/4.5, but f/4.7 in a Copal shutter), and an Imagon 250mm. All are 10 bladed too! Since the Imagon only needs a shutter, not aperture (I stop it down a bit to help focus, then open it up again and use the disks), that's good to know should I want to swap cells with a 7-bladed shutter and another lens in the future.

Enjoy! I do enjoy my single-coated Fuji Tessar-design lenses, and I think you will too!

Drew

[Ari]

Thanks, Drew! I’m eager to try the L lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Very curious to hear your impressions of the 300mm f5.6 Fujinon L.
Projected prediction, you'll like it lots :)


Bernice





Following up with this thread:
The new lens arrived today from an eBay seller in Japan, it looks great and I'm quite excited to use it.

[Ari]

Thank you, Bernice. I think you may be psychic. :)

I used it today, but it will be a while before I can share the photo with all of you.
Nowhere to dry my film yet, and I'm in between scanners.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm fine with just your observations. :)

[Ari]

Handsome lens, snappy dresser. The life of the party.
Can't say more until I see the film. :)

[fuegocito]

I tend to favor a narrower view, and a bit more space between me and my subject, hence I went with the 420mm version of the L, and I like it a lot. Really gentle rendering at wide open and sharp till it hurts when close down to about 22/32.

[Andrzej]

This is soft focus lens.

[Andrzej]

Hi Ari

Kodak 12" f/4.8 Portrait. I had one, didn't really know what I had, and sold it. Big mistake.

This is a soft lens. Ari wants a sharp one.

[Ari]

I tend to favor a narrower view, and a bit more space between me and my subject, hence I went with the 420mm version of the L, and I like it a lot. Really gentle rendering at wide open and sharp till it hurts when close down to about 22/32.

Good Covid focal length, I guess. And portrait FL preferences vary quite a lot. I couldn't go longer than 360, but some people like 420, 500 and longer.


This is a soft lens. Ari wants a sharp one.

I had that lens, Andrzej, and liked it, but not my style. Thanks

[fuegocito]

Good Covid focal length, I guess. And portrait FL preferences vary quite a lot. I couldn't go longer than 360, but some people like 420, 500 and longer.


:) Yeah, for a while I was working with the 14" CE and for a head and shoulder(ish) shot I think I was less than 2 meter from the person. With the size of an 810 I felt it was a bit crowding in on the person(not close friend or family). I think that attests to the difference in everyone's personal bubble size.

[Bernice Loui]

Goes back to that comment about using a 480mm f4.5 Xenar for head-shoulder portraits. Using a 480mm on 8x10 gives enough space between sitter to camera and allows for more lighting options. The look is also different using this focal length for head-shoulder portraits.

16" or 420mm_ish would be the shortest comfy head-shoulder 8x10 portrait focal length. Experience says, 12" or 300mm is too close for comfort with some portrait sitters. Add to this possible lighting limitations and the look of a 12" or 300mm is just different.

None of which figures into curiosity of how Ari likes this Fujinion L..


:)
Bernice




:) Yeah, for a while I was working with the 14" CE and for a head and shoulder(ish) shot I think I was less than 2 meter from the person. With the size of an 810 I felt it was a bit crowding in on the person(not close friend or family). I think that attests to the difference in everyone's personal bubble size.

[Ari]

Goes back to that comment about using a 480mm f4.5 Xenar for head-shoulder portraits. Using a 480mm on 8x10 gives enough space between sitter to camera and allows for more lighting options. The look is also different using this focal length for head-shoulder portraits.

16" or 420mm_ish would be the shortest comfy head-shoulder 8x10 portrait focal length. Experience says, 12" or 300mm is too close for comfort with some portrait sitters. Add to this possible lighting limitations and the look of a 12" or 300mm is just different.

None of which figures into curiosity of how Ari likes this Fujinion L..


:)
Bernice

Indeed. To each his/her own.
And I'll post example shots of the Fuji L 300 asap.

[Ari]

Just wanted to update and/or close this thread. I got the Fuji L 300, and so far, it's been great. Thanks for all your suggestions!
Here's an example:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51183452203_f018484731_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kYUz8R)

[cowanw]

Pay him what you owe!

[Ari]

Pay him what you owe!

I did. I like my thumbs where they are!

[Peter De Smidt]

Nice work, Ari!

[Ari]

Thanks, Peter.

[Drew Wiley]

Now I want one of those Fuji 300 L's; lovely gradation.

[Ari]

Thanks, Drew.
Earlier I ran a non-scientific test of the 300L with CatLabs film, and I like what it does with the background/OOF at about 5-6 feet away.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51186294828_1b767aee84_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kZa99C)

[Peter De Smidt]

That's a nicely neutral background blur. Personally, I don't like attention-getting background blurs, ala swirlies, blobs, strainer aperture shapes..... Occasionally, they can be effective, but mostly, imo, they aren't.

[Bernice Loui]

Nice image Ari.

More of why Tessar lenses have their place in the world of LF image making. This is one of the reasons why the LF lenses are split into large aperture Ektars and smaller aperture APO artars with the taking aperture split about f16. Taking aperture of f4.5 to about f16 (max) with the Ektars or Xenar, then taking aperture f16 and smaller with APO artar and similar.

Sample image made with the 300mm Xenar at f4.5. Focus is at the lamp on post.
215973


Bernice




Thanks, Drew.
Earlier I ran a non-scientific test of the 300L with CatLabs film, and I like what it does with the background/OOF at about 5-6 feet away.

[Ari]

Thanks, Bernice. I like the OOF in the Xenar shot, a different kind than what the Fuji gives.
Agreed on the taking apertures. Don't think I've ever used smaller than f/16 for a portrait, most of the time the lens is one stop down from maximum aperture.
Partly out of necessity to get an ok shutter speed in case of movement, but these kinds of lenses really shine when shot close to wide open.