300mm f/5.6 Question

[dbla]

Hey all,

I shoot on a Wista 45 and a Chamonix 45N-1. I am trying to emulate the DoF (bokeh) achievable by some of the more expensive/harder to get Xenotar 150 f/2.8 lenses for portraiture. I shoot a lot of environmental portraiture and use a 150 with good success there, but when I get tighter on a subject (think head or head and shoulder) I would like to be able to blow the background entirely to creamy DoF. Would a 300 5.6 do this for me? or even just a 210?

I'd love to see some examples!

Thanks in advance,

-A

[dbla]

And a recent shot I'd have loved to have even shallower DoF on...

225364

[Kiwi7475]

The cheapest way to blur the background is to use what you have and increase the distance between the subject and the background…..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Noel]

Try shooting with the lens wide open and focused just short of the subject.

[dbla]

The cheapest way to blur the background is to use what you have and increase the distance between the subject and the background…..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, but at some point you may not be able to move further away or manipulate the subject that much. A lot of my portraits are environmental with people I don't know, so I'd rather that I was adaptable rather than asking the subject to adapt.


Try shooting with the lens wide open and focused just short of the subject.

But a longer focal length would further accentuate this right?

[Bernice Loui]

150mm f2.8 Xenotar Previously discussed:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138566-Schneider-150mm-f-2-8-Xenotar

As previously posted, 150mm f2.8 Xenotar and 178mm f2.5 Kodak Aero Ektar have become "cult" lenses due to their full aperture and appeal to those transitioning from digital or roll film cameras wanting to keep the selective focus image style.

For head/shoulder portraits on 4x5, consider a longer focal length of 10" / 250mm to 12" / 300mm and a f4.5 to f6.3 Tessar formula lens in a round iris shutter or in barrel (tends to aid in to out of focus transition and rendition). 150mm / 6" IMO is too short a focal length for head/shoulder portraits on 4x5.

Another previous discussed for 8x10, much applies here.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?163239-Suggest-a-12-quot-(300mm)-lens-for-portrait-work-on-8x10

Camera (Wista 45 and a Chamonix 45N-1) could be a limitation to support lenses like this due to the physical size and camera and bellows extension needed by lenses like this and lenses like these often come in vintage shutters that likely need service/clean/lube/adjust to function properly. Another way is to size up in sheet film format.


Bernice

[Kiwi7475]

Sure, but at some point you may not be able to move further away or manipulate the subject that much. A lot of my portraits are environmental with people I don't know, so I'd rather that I was adaptable rather than asking the subject to adapt.



But a longer focal length would further accentuate this right?

I think this may offer some insight regarding the interplay of blur, focal length, and background distance:

https://lewiscollard.com/technical/background-blur/

Note in particular that “If you maintain the same framing and keep everything else the same (i.e. the same absolute aperture), the amount of background blur decreases as you increase focal length!”

By the way the author provides the python source code, so you could check for yourself eg for what background distances a longer lens of smaller minimum aperture would increase the blur,or not.

I’ve done some environmental portraiture, and sometimes it’s easier to just guide the conversation with the person being photographed to turn him/her to have the most distant background possible… and go to locations where those are common place. If you’re just shooting on a street and someone’s resting against a wall, no lens is going to blur that wall very much. But if you talk to him and have him rotate so that it’s now the opposite street in the background, almost any lens wide open will blur it significantly.

[reddesert]

Roughly, the size of out of focus blur is proportional to the diameter of the entrance aperture (focal length divided by f-number). If you use the lenses wide open, some aperture diameters are: for 150/5.6 = 27mm, for 150/2.8 = 54mm, for 210/4.5 = 47mm, for 300/5.6 = 54mm, and so on.

I'm hardly an expert on this kind of portraiture, but for your application, I would consider looking for a Tessar-design lens in maybe the 210-250mm range with a max aperture of say 4.5-5.6 (maybe even f/6.3). These will give you a fairly large aperture, so a lot of defocusing of the background, they're not terribly expensive compared to lenses like a Xenotar, and they also should have a manageable bellows extension. For head and shoulders work, you might be at a magnification of 1:5 or 1:4, meaning a 300mm lens could need 360-375mm of bellows, which may be difficult or unwieldy with your camera.

Changing the focal length will also mean changing the camera position, and that can influence the background appearance. Also, strategic choice of the background and relative lighting of the subject and background can change it a lot.

[dbla]

Good point, appreciate this.

[Oslolens]

One of the reasons to get a petzval lens or a lens with high grade of "bent sharpness" instead of the plane is to keep the center in focus and corners out of focus.
Raf cameras has adapter ring to mount filters on Copal #3 (58mm) or #3S (56mm) shutters.
With 2 close up filters with 58mm diameter/threads you can make yourself such lens.
Start with +3 for ca 160mm or +2 for 250mm lens.
Aperture is ca focal length divided by aperture: 160/45= f3.5 or 5.6 for the 250mm.
If you go for a heavy plasmat the Fujinon-W 300mm is the smallest of them.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Bernice Loui]

Out of focus content -vs- lens focal length style images are complex and not as simply as using the largest aperture lens available to "throw" the background out of focus with the subject in "sharp" focus. A great number of complexities comes up with images like this as the out of focus content will become part of the image composition. These examples are not LF, but from the current rehab walks using a digital or 35mm roll film camera. There are plenty of LF sheet film examples, but they need to be dug out then scanned to post.. not worth the effort as the examples are much the same sheet film or digital or _ .

What lens focal length, lens-camera to flower distance -vs- background -vs-lighting? 35mm film.
225419

Canon EF 24mm at f1.4 FF digital. Camera/lens was about 12" from the flower, background is far in the distance. Notice the heart shape in the out of focus area?
225420

Canon EF 300mm at f2.8 FF digital, guess the distance from camera/lens to subject and background and lighting.
225421

Canon EF 14mm at f2.8 FF digital. Yes, even a extreme wide angle lens can produce effective out of focus content images.
225422

Go to post# 25, previously posted regarding using process lenses for close up. Note the out of focus rendition, composition and..
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?167730-Process-Lens-amp-Close-Work&p=1635417#post1635417


Lighting, image composition, subject, out of focus areas all must work together to result in an effective image. Large aperture lens on camera alone is simply not enough.


Bernice

[Serge S]

Hi,

I use a Commercial Ektar 12" lens for the application you have in mind.
Works like a charm-creamy backgrounds & beautiful skin tones

[Ari]

And a recent shot I'd have loved to have even shallower DoF on...

225364

Keep in mind that a 300mm lens is going to compress more than your photo above.
This may or may not be displeasing (it is for me).
A Petzval lens is one solution, though they're hard to find on the cheap.
And a 210 f/4.5, shot wide open with an eye toward subject-to-background placement, is probably going to be a very good starting point.

[Huub]

Another lens to consider is the f5.5 360mm Schneider tele-xenar. Comes in a big copal 3 shutter, but with its 21 cm ffl distance very usuable for head and shoulder portraits with a camera that only has 30cm of bellows available. And shot wide open, the depth of field is minimal.

[John Layton]

On a regular basis I tend to wish that all LF lenses would be supplied with a multiple-blade, circular aperture. Heck...I'd pay extra for this if it were an option!

[Oslolens]

On a regular basis I tend to wish that all LF lenses would be supplied with a multiple-blade, circular aperture. Heck...I'd pay extra for this if it were an option!That is what 3D printing is for - ca 58mm round, named and black discs for each focal length in the Copal #3 shutters.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[drew.saunders]

Do you want to shoot wide open only, all the time? Can you get a Sinar shutter or similar on your camera (might require getting a Sinar camera)? If so, then slide projector lenses might work for you. Leitz made a 150/2.5 Hektor and a 200/2.5 Hektor (and probably many others, I have a 200/2.5 that some decade I may get working on a camera), plus there are others. Here's an older thread on that topic:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87645-Want-advice-on-using-Projector-Lens-as-taking-lens

[Bernice Loui]

About the later 1980's was when the question of iris shape was settled. If in to out of focus quality and out of focus rendition is valued, using non-modern lenses like Tessar, Dagor, Artar, Heilar and etc at or near their full aperture could be a better solution to this need/image goal. A decision was made decades ago to focus on barrel lenses with Sinar & Sinar shutter which solved this problem nicely. No need to 3D print round iris inserts which has a different set of problems.

225428

Difficulty being, the current fashion of striving for the lowest weight field folder camera likely driven by digital or roll film habits and reading stuff on the web as to what IS the most highly desirable view camera instead of focusing on what the image goals are, what lenses are needed to achieve this then consider what camera system will properly support these needs/goals.

This is another fact-reason why no light weight field folders here as they are simply too limiting in too many ways for the image goals in mind.

For images with the majority of the image in perceived focus ala Group f64 "Straight Photography" iris shape is just not that important. This reality is illustrated in modern -vs- vintage shutters as vintage shutters have nice round iris designed in by the folks well aware of the need for a round iris. Once this need was negated by the focus on majority of the image in focus being the thing, the once round iris went away with the designers and marketing folks understanding that the round iris held little to no market value.

225430

Iris shape came up when dealing with lenses for the linhof technikardan 23s as it is a conventional view camera with no integrated shutter. Solution was to use vintage shutters, get them good again and live with this trade off.


Bernice



On a regular basis I tend to wish that all LF lenses would be supplied with a multiple-blade, circular aperture. Heck...I'd pay extra for this if it were an option!

[Kiwi7475]

As usual we are so far from answering OP's question at this point. Everything has its place and if you know what the limitations are and don't go crazy you can be successful. As it turns out, light foldable cameras have been recorded to take successful portraiture shots and landscape shots (imagine that!). Can OP's Chamonix handle an Aero Ektar 305mm f2.5? No. Few cameras will. Does OP need to abandon the Chamonix that he has and buy a Sinar, Arca, or alike, to be able to do some environmental portraiture? No way!

Coming back to OP's question, I provided earlier some insight on how to see if for his normal shooting scenarios, a longer focal length of smaller minimum aperture could yield a more blurred background. But generally speaking I think OP would be better served by going with something in the F2.5-f2.8 category instead of a longer focal length like 300mm at f5.6. But because of weight and cost constraints, you will be somewhat limited to normal focal lengths. A Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8, for example, will fit in a Copal 3 and is not particularly heavy. It is also not that expensive. Another option is the 150mm f2.5 Hektor mentioned earlier. The Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 possibly, but it is a bit heavy for the Chamonix, I would not recommend it. The trade here is that these focal lengths are not really suited for close-up portraiture because of the distortions they introduce.

[mhayashi]

Alternatives are
Zeiss Tessar 165mm f2.7 and
Zeisss Biotessar 165mm f2.8.

If you can find one in the compound V shutter, you’re lucky but most samples are in barrel mounts so the Sinar copal shutter should be used with these lenses.

[Bernice Loui]

How does one gain the ability to know what place stuff belongs, their abilities, what that stuff might be most suited for?

To properly answer a question often involves expanding all involved with the question to come to some possible answer. More complex the question, more complex the answer. It is that simple and why a "direct answer" often does not properly address the what appears to be a simple question that has many levels of complexity.

Fact is the Chamonix or similar light weight field folder HAS very real limitations, Identical to Sinar or any other camera/image system made.
What MUST be realized and understood are the limitations and if they are going to be a serious enough limitation to negatively impact the image goals.
This is much a "chicken or egg" question, without knowing precisely what ya want, it can be difficult to achieve what ya want which is directly tied to how to achieve what ya want. The how is tied to the limitations of the tools/means and all related to trying to achieve what ya want as a goal. Fact is, a camera system with integrated shutter, insignificant limitations on camera extension/bellows, modular will and can offer a LOT more options to deal with this image making need than a light weight field folder. Can one work within these limitations, absolutely. Can these limitations grow into a problem that impacts the desired image goals absolutely.

There are Plenty of 8"/210mm to 10"/250mm f4.5/f6.3 lenses in shutter that easily meets this need and would easily work GOOD on the Chamonix or any other light weight field folder. Simply placement of subject (portrait subject) to camera closer then greatly increasing the distance between the subject to background will increase background "blur".. as exampled by previous images posted. Or apply a properly done hand painted backdrop which goes a long ways to dealing with the "background issue".

As for projector lenses like Leica 150mm f2.5 Hektor, Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8 are as delivered no iris.. The Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8 fitted into a copal# 3 shutter adds a non-round iris and not a budget lens any more.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/284519150483

https://www.catlabs.info/product/rollei-heidosmat-150mm-f2-8-mc-in-custom-copal-3-shutter-xenotar-alternative

And they are not a small lens..

IMO, 150mm as previously posted is too short a focal length for head/shoulder portraits on 4x5.


Bernice



As usual we are so far from answering OP's question at this point. Everything has its place and if you know what the limitations are and don't go crazy you can be successful. As it turns out, light foldable cameras have been recorded to take successful portraiture shots and landscape shots (imagine that!). Can OP's Chamonix handle an Aero Ektar 305mm f2.5? No. Few cameras will. Does OP need to abandon the Chamonix that he has and buy a Sinar, Arca, or alike, to be able to do some environmental portraiture? No way!

Coming back to OP's question, I provided earlier some insight on how to see if for his normal shooting scenarios, a longer focal length of smaller minimum aperture could yield a more blurred background. But generally speaking I think OP would be better served by going with something in the F2.5-f2.8 category instead of a longer focal length like 300mm at f5.6. But because of weight and cost constraints, you will be somewhat limited to normal focal lengths. A Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8, for example, will fit in a Copal 3 and is not particularly heavy. It is also not that expensive. Another option is the 150mm f2.5 Hektor mentioned earlier. The Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 possibly, but it is a bit heavy for the Chamonix, I would not recommend it. The trade here is that these focal lengths are not really suited for close-up portraiture because of the distortions they introduce.

[Bob Salomon]

How does one gain the ability to know what place stuff belongs, their abilities, what that stuff might be most suited for?

To properly answer a question often involves expanding all involved with the question to come to some possible answer. More complex the question, more complex the answer. It is that simple and why a "direct answer" often does not properly address the what appears to be a simple question that has many levels of complexity.

Fact is the Chamonix or similar light weight field folder HAS very real limitations, Identical to Sinar or any other camera/image system made.
What MUST be realized and understood are the limitations and if they are going to be a serious enough limitation to negatively impact the image goals.
This is much a "chicken or egg" question, without knowing precisely what ya want, it can be difficult to achieve what ya want which is directly tied to how to achieve what ya want. The how is tied to the limitations of the tools/means and all related to trying to achieve what ya want as a goal. Fact is, a camera system with integrated shutter, insignificant limitations on camera extension/bellows, modular will and can offer a LOT more options to deal with this image making need than a light weight field folder. Can one work within these limitations, absolutely. Can these limitations grow into a problem that impacts the desired image goals absolutely.

There are Plenty of 8"/210mm to 10"/250mm f4.5/f6.3 lenses in shutter that easily meets this need and would easily work GOOD on the Chamonix or any other light weight field folder. Simply placement of subject (portrait subject) to camera closer then greatly increasing the distance between the subject to background will increase background "blur".. as exampled by previous images posted. Or apply a properly done hand painted backdrop which goes a long ways to dealing with the "background issue".

As for projector lenses like Leica 150mm f2.5 Hektor, Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8 are as delivered no iris.. The Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8 fitted into a copal# 3 shutter adds a non-round iris and not a budget lens any more.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/284519150483

https://www.catlabs.info/product/rollei-heidosmat-150mm-f2-8-mc-in-custom-copal-3-shutter-xenotar-alternative

And they are not a small lens..

IMO, 150mm as previously posted is too short a focal length for head/shoulder portraits on 4x5.


Bernice

Some of those Rollei projector lenses were delivered with an adjustable aperture to improve performance with both glass and non glass mounted slides.

[Bernice Loui]

Curious Bob, never seen one of these. Where they common or special order?


Bernice


Some of those Rollei projector lenses were delivered with an adjustable aperture to improve performance with both glass and non glass mounted slides.

[Bob Salomon]

Curious Bob, never seen one of these. Where they common or special order?


Bernice

Common, but expensive option. Available in both 90mm for 35mm projectors and 150 for 6x6. Metal mount.

[Bernice Loui]

Wow, memories of 6x6 projectors. Rollie was a good projector. Kinderman 6x6 was another. Top of that heap was Hasselblad PCP-80, that was a GOOD 6x6 projector system with Zeiss projection lenses.

Bernice



Common, but expensive option. Available in both 90mm for 35mm projectors and 150 for 6x6. Metal mount.

[Bob Salomon]

Wow, memories of 6x6 projectors. Rollie was a good projector. Kinderman 6x6 was another. Top of that heap was Hasselblad PCP-80, that was a GOOD 6x6 projector system with Zeiss projection lenses.

Bernice

That was an oversized mistake of a projector. Rollei, Liesegang and Kinderman were far better choices. Just imagine trying to find a tray for that PCP today!

[Kiwi7475]

How does one gain the ability to know what place stuff belongs, their abilities, what that stuff might be most suited for?

To properly answer a question often involves expanding all involved with the question to come to some possible answer. More complex the question, more complex the answer. It is that simple and why a "direct answer" often does not properly address the what appears to be a simple question that has many levels of complexity.

Fact is the Chamonix or similar light weight field folder HAS very real limitations, Identical to Sinar or any other camera/image system made.
What MUST be realized and understood are the limitations and if they are going to be a serious enough limitation to negatively impact the image goals.
This is much a "chicken or egg" question, without knowing precisely what ya want, it can be difficult to achieve what ya want which is directly tied to how to achieve what ya want. The how is tied to the limitations of the tools/means and all related to trying to achieve what ya want as a goal. Fact is, a camera system with integrated shutter, insignificant limitations on camera extension/bellows, modular will and can offer a LOT more options to deal with this image making need than a light weight field folder. Can one work within these limitations, absolutely. Can these limitations grow into a problem that impacts the desired image goals absolutely.

There are Plenty of 8"/210mm to 10"/250mm f4.5/f6.3 lenses in shutter that easily meets this need and would easily work GOOD on the Chamonix or any other light weight field folder. Simply placement of subject (portrait subject) to camera closer then greatly increasing the distance between the subject to background will increase background "blur".. as exampled by previous images posted. Or apply a properly done hand painted backdrop which goes a long ways to dealing with the "background issue".

As for projector lenses like Leica 150mm f2.5 Hektor, Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8 are as delivered no iris.. The Rollei Heidosmat 150mm f2.8 fitted into a copal# 3 shutter adds a non-round iris and not a budget lens any more.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/284519150483

https://www.catlabs.info/product/rollei-heidosmat-150mm-f2-8-mc-in-custom-copal-3-shutter-xenotar-alternative

And they are not a small lens..

IMO, 150mm as previously posted is too short a focal length for head/shoulder portraits on 4x5.


Bernice


I have seen your point about image goals in about 100 postings by now. It is indeed a valuable and important message but sometimes it's OK for people to experiment without knowing exactly what the exact final image goals are.

Your point about distancing from the background is a good one, so good in fact I made it as early as post #3.

OP's Chamonix can definitely handle the Heidosmat. The lens itself is only a bit over 300 g, and wit ha simple 3D printed cone you can get it on a Copal 3. If the whole point is to shot it wide open I don't think not having an iris is a problem.


225480

225481

Yes the ebay listings you mention are outrageous and they are perfect examples of listings that will never sell. INSTEAD if you look at the sold listings then you'll see that it has been recently sold in February alone 3 times for prices ranging between $75 and $115. You just need to be patient, it'll come up again soon at an affordable price. If you absolutely need it now then yes, you have only the outrageous options, but then again you could then probably afford a Xenotar 2.8 instead....

[Oslolens]

I can confirm the Chamonix will handle a 300mm f5.6 without any problems. At infinity my CM Fujinon-W can still be moved 90mm further from the film plane, but as others have pointed out, a 240-250mm will do the job and they can be found in smaller shutters, the old, but sharp Symmar 240mm in #2 and the 250mm Fujinon-W in #1https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220311/c321e380985b7414c87d2a0b0c33530b.jpg

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Serge S]

Yes! I agree

Unfortunately cost savings trumps quality sometimes.


On a regular basis I tend to wish that all LF lenses would be supplied with a multiple-blade, circular aperture. Heck...I'd pay extra for this if it were an option!