180mm for Portraiture

[AidanAvery]

Hi all,

I'm new to large format. I recently picked up a 4x5 Linhof Color Kardan 45s. I'm looking for a 180mm lens. I specifically shoot photos of people, and primarily in the studio-portraiture, dance,

I really love the look of 180mm lenses with the 4x5. But, frankly, I am a bit lost as to which to pick. I would love any recommendations, specifically in regards to portrait work. I have read the large format lenses for portraiture page (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/), which I found really helpful (does most of the information offered for 150mm/210mm lenses apply to 180mm of the same make? Or is that making too large an assumption?). Still, I feel a bit lost and daunted by the decision.

The three lenses that I have found myself drawn to are:
180mm Schneider Symmar-S f5.6
180mm Fujinon-W f5.6
Or, a 180mm Schneider Xenar. I love the look of the Xenar in the info page about lenses for portraiture, but finding example shots from this lens has been less straightforward and there seem to be several different iterations of it. Frankly, I feel a bit in over my head.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated! I would love to hear others' experiences choosing lenses for portraiture.

(I apologize if I'm asking something that's been asked and answered before. I found a lot of 180mm threads, but most were for all-purpose or landscape shooting.)

[Dugan]

The Symmar-S and the Fujinon are both Plasmat-design lenses, and usually quite sharp throughout their aperture range.
The Xenar is a Tessar-formula lens, generally less "clinically sharp" until stopped down to f16-f22.

[AidanAvery]

The Symmar-S and the Fujinon are both Plasmat-design lenses, and usually quite sharp throughout their aperture range.
The Xenar is a Tessar-formula lens, generally less "clinically sharp" until stopped down to f16-f22.

Thanks, Dugan. I think one thing I've been a bit concerned about is lenses possibly being excessively sharp. Is that something that people consider? I guess it might sound a little silly, since 4x5 offers such quality, to be concerned about something being too sharp. But it's been on my mind.

[mdarnton]

Opinion? Definitely the Xenar or any other f/4.5 Tessar formula lens, for their smooth rendering of nearbyout of focus areas such as hair and ears.

No need to buy a modern lens for this... An old American tessar such as a Paragon or Raptar will be cheap and good for the task.

Many of my protraits were shot with tessar types, like this one, https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/17384810858/in/dateposted/

[Tin Can]

Hi Michael!

Viewers may click twice on the Flickr right arrow to see the good old days

I love that shot of me with 3X4 RB

Miss you guys




Opinion? Definitely the Xenar or any other f/4.5 Tessar formula lens, for their smooth rendering of nearbyout of focus areas such as hair and ears.

No need to buy a modern lens for this... An old American tessar such as a Paragon or Raptar will be cheap and good for the task.

Many of my protraits were shot with tessar types, like this one, https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/17384810858/in/dateposted/

[AidanAvery]

Opinion? Definitely the Xenar or any other f/4.5 Tessar formula lens, for their smooth rendering of nearbyout of focus areas such as hair and ears.

No need to buy a modern lens for this... An old American tessar such as a Paragon or Raptar will be cheap and good for the task.

Many of my protraits were shot with tessar types, like this one, https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/17384810858/in/dateposted/

Thanks for the input, Michael. And thanks too for sharing the image - great shot you have there.

Again showing my newness to the format, would a Xenar or any other, older tessar-style lens require a different shutter than a modern lens?

I have two empty Kardan lens boards at the moment, but I am a bit at a loss as to figuring the necessary shutter, etc for whatever I end up buying.

[BrianShaw]

Whatever lens you get, check that there are soft focus filters (softar, soft/fx, or the like) available in that size. For a lot of portraiture, you'll want something to cut the sharpness.

[abruzzi]

Thanks for the input, Michael. And thanks too for sharing the image - great shot you have there.

Again showing my newness to the format, would a Xenar or any other, older tessar-style lens require a different shutter than a modern lens?

I have two empty Kardan lens boards at the moment, but I am a bit at a loss as to figuring the necessary shutter, etc for whatever I end up buying.

Well, by and large, you want to buy lenses already in shutter. That’s a little less necessary with newer lenses because of the Copal 0/1/3 standardization, but older lenses don’t buy shutter less unless a) you have a Sinar shutter or graphic with a focal plane shutter, b) you’re comfortable using a hat or dark slide as a shutter, c) are planning to sent it to someone to adapt, or d) you know enough about interchangeability that you’re confident you already have a shutter that matches.

[Dugan]

180mm equates to ~7". There are quite a few older Tessar-type lenses available in that focal length.
Bausch & Lomb, Wollensak, Ilex, etc.
They are usually in older shutters such as Alphax, Betax, Ilex Universal, Ilex Acme, etc.
The positives of older shutters:
Almost completely round aperture, good for out-of focus rendition. Most Copals have five blade, pentagon-shaped apertures.
Usually inexpensive.
Readily available.
The negatives:
Usually need a CLA, they're old, most likely not exercised regularly.
Flash sync is usually Bi-Post (obsolete, but with workarounds)
They don't conform to Copal sizes.
Limited or unobtainable fast speeds.
Some require long-throw cable releases.

Whatever shutter you get, make sure to get a mounting flange or retaining ring with it!

[Ulophot]

Aidan, I'm no lens expert, but my primary concern is portraiture, and I share your feeling about pore-sharp lenses. I'm not looking for such sharpness in my work. I disagree, respectfully, with the reply above about the need for soft-focus filters, on two counts: 1. You may not be looking for that degree of softening, though, yes, some are very mild in effect; 2) there are other ways to achieve softening when such a filter is not available. It really depends on the look you are try to achieve.

I have, by default, a 210 Komura, which, while (single?) coated (to preserve contrast) and by no means soft, is not the super-sharp variety. Default, because it's what I could afford 30 years ago and has done fine for me, with plenty of coverage when I need movements.

As for softening -- and this is an area likely to arouse passions of controversy -- I have occasionally used black tulle fabric tightly stretched over a small frame. There is a hexagonal type, which softens very little, and a much finer weave rectangular type, with a greater affect and a requiring a slight exposure increase, depending on your situation.

As you may know, one can also diffuse the projected image in enlarging, but the effect is different: "In-camera" diffusion spreads the highlights, "in-enlarger" diffusion spreads the darkest tones. W. Eugene Smith, who worked primarily in 35mm, often used a square of aluminum window screen, lightly spray-painted matte black, under the enlarging lens during part of the exposure. At certain magnifications, this can significantly reduce the apparent size of the grain while providing a sort of harmonizing effect. I made myself one and have used it a good deal with smaller formats and fast film, but it can also be used with 4x5 for very subtle effects when used for, say, 10-20% of the time (some exposure increase needed).

I hope this helps.

[drew.saunders]

I have a 180 Xenar that I bought in 2011 and haven't used as much as I'd like. I asked my home machinist friend Milt (who builds his own hot rods) to drill out my lensboard to fit the #2 sized hole, and tap screws for the flange, so to say "thanks" did a portrait session of Milt and his wife Mary with the 180 Xenar.

You'll absolutely want a hood with this lens, as it flares if you suggest the presence of side light!

From that portrait session, the good shots are:
https://live.staticflickr.com/6115/6300759573_394b5ce2b5.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/aAM3iK)10-30-11-1 (https://flic.kr/p/aAM3iK) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/6047/6301291662_b203048eb4.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/aAPLtG)10-30-11-2 (https://flic.kr/p/aAPLtG) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/6232/6301291720_2d98e36534.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/aAPLuG)10-30-11-3 (https://flic.kr/p/aAPLuG) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr

Almost 11 years later, I took it out again, and will try to remember to use it more often. Here's a shot from a recent visit to a nearby garden:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52013464072_e24d45dbcf.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nffAKj)04-08-2022-04 (https://flic.kr/p/2nffAKj) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr

[Peter De Smidt]

Don't stress over this. Take a look and find what seems like the best fit. There are no guarantees with anything that you buy that it will be The One. Get one in a good shutter with the flash sync you need, assuming you're using flash. Now go take a bunch of pictures. Most 1980s lenses and newer are optimized for work at f/22. They get less sharp at bigger stops. Note: it's better to have a lens that's sharper than it needs to be than one that isn't sharp enough. "Sharpness" in portraiture has more to do with lighting, focusing, aperture, and shutter speed than it does with different types of lenses, assuming the lenses were not designed to be soft focus. If you want to use filters, make sure the lens has standard filter threads....

[AidanAvery]

Thanks to those who have replied so far, this is all very helpful.

@Drew, thanks for sharing those images. The background rendering is very smooth, and subjects are sharp but not too sharp. Really lovely.

@Peter and Ulophot, thank you both for the input regarding sharpness.

I think I'm still struggling a little bit with the shutter question. Let's say I buy a Xenar or other older Tessar-like lens with a shutter included. How would I go about mounting this to one of my boards.

My other remaining question is, how do I know which lenses/shutters are compatible with strobes. I have pc-sync chord, and I'm willing to invest in whatever other chord I might need. What I absolutely don't want is to end up with a lens/shutter combo that I like, but that cannot be used practically with a strobe. (I only ever need to sync with a single strobe, not multiple, if that makes things easier.)

[xkaes]

My other remaining question is, how do I know which lenses/shutters are compatible with strobes. I have pc-sync chord, and I'm willing to invest in whatever other chord I might need. What I absolutely don't want is to end up with a lens/shutter combo that I like, but that cannot be used practically with a strobe. (I only ever need to sync with a single strobe, not multiple, if that makes things easier.)

Most shutters have a single contemporary PC connection, and most are X-synch. Some shutters have a switch such as FP or X synch. Just make sure your shutter has a contemporary X-synch PC connection. If you need more than one strobe at some point, you can get "dongles" that allow you to connect more than one flash cable to the shutter. These are usually about $5. Just like a common household electrical extension cord.

[Peter De Smidt]

Look for a lens in the right board. Given your camera, you should be able to do that. If not, you'll have to buy a board with the right-sized hole, or have a blank board drilled.

According to:
https://www.shutterbug.com/content/classic-camerasbrthe-linhof-kardan-color-45sbran-economy-monorail-classic
Your camera takes standard Linhof 162mm square lens boards. (I don't know any more, as I don't have any of the related gear, but there are many here that do, and I'm sure they'll chime in if I'm wrong.)

[AidanAvery]

Thanks, Peter and xkaes. Again, both comments were very helpful. I think I'll look for a Xenar in the right board in that case.

@drew, were those photos above taken with the 180mm Schneider that reads "tele-xenar"? I'm not sure if there's a lens that omits the "tele" or not, but just want to make sure I'm understanding which exact lens you used.

[Peter De Smidt]

Note that 180mm and 210mm lenses are very similar, but 210s are much more common, and thus maybe cheaper.

[xkaes]

You might find this Ph.D thesis regarding the history and nature of portrait & soft-focus lenses interesting/revealing/informative/helpful/etc. I know I did:

https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/505/WRussellYoungPhDThesis.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

[AidanAvery]

Wow, yes, I will really enjoy reading that. Thank you.

And yes, Peter, I initially went back and forth thinking about a 210 as well, I see they are everyone online. But I recently downsized my shooting space, and I seem drawn to the 180 focal length just a bit more, so for now I'll try to hold out for a 180. Thank you.

[mdarnton]

210 mm isn't as long as it might seem. This is a 210 mm Paragon from about 5 feet:. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/12154146424/in/dateposted/

[drew.saunders]

Thanks, Peter and xkaes. Again, both comments were very helpful. I think I'll look for a Xenar in the right board in that case.

@drew, were those photos above taken with the 180mm Schneider that reads "tele-xenar"? I'm not sure if there's a lens that omits the "tele" or not, but just want to make sure I'm understanding which exact lens you used.

Plain Xenar (Tessar clone), not a telephoto design. Look for a 180 f/4.5. The more common tele-xenar is a f/5.5

Here’s some photos of one: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/schneider-180mm-4-xenar-compur-4x5-55-1871646602

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kevin Crisp]

You might consider the Fujinon 180mm SF lens. They are inexpensive -- make sure you get one with one of the diffusion discs. There's a red disc and yellow disc. Stopped down they are plenty sharp, at different apertures there is a wide range of diffusion.

[Peter De Smidt]

You might consider the Fujinon 180mm SF lens. They are inexpensive -- make sure you get one with one of the diffusion discs. There's a red disc and yellow disc. Stopped down they are plenty sharp, at different apertures there is a wide range of diffusion.

That's one of the few lenses that I really dislike, and my Ebay moniker is 'fujinon'. It's not sharp, and it's not really soft.

[xkaes]

It's not sharp, and it's not really soft.

Sounds like the perfect portrait lens!

[Dugan]

I had a Fujinon SF...didn't like it.
The out-of-focus highlights had the strainer pattern.
Very strange looking.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sounds like the perfect portrait lens!

Not for me.


The out-of-focus highlights had the strainer pattern.

Only if you use the strainer disk, which you don't have to do.

[mdarnton]

Yeah. Gutted my SF to make something better. Most unspecial lens ever, IMO:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/16945855792/in/dateposted/

[Jody_S]

Classic portrait lenses for 4x5, readily available in decent if antique shutters:

Wollensak Velostigmat Ser II 7-1/2"
Kodak Commercial Ektar 8-1/4"
I have both sitting on a shelf upstairs, I never use them. I always go for the 210 uncoated Xenar.

The uncoated Xenars you'll find will be in older dial-set Compur shutters with a pneumatic mechanism for the slow speeds, they're more finicky, but if you get it running right it will run dependably for another 100 years. The newer coated Xenars tend to be much more expensive, but you can find one in a modern Copal shutter from time to time. You might be able to find an equivalent coated Fujinar 210 in Shanel 5S shutter for less than the modern Xenar. Don't forget the Congo tessar, if you're looking for a modern coated lens.

Also surprised no one has suggested a Heliar? Classic portrait lens. Apparently the Emperor of Japan liked Heliars so much he would not allow himself to be photographed with anything else. So there are now a number of 1930s Heliars coming out of Japan.

[Bob Salomon]

Classic portrait lenses for 4x5, readily available in decent if antique shutters:

Wollensak Velostigmat Ser II 7-1/2"
Kodak Commercial Ektar 8-1/4"
I have both sitting on a shelf upstairs, I never use them. I always go for the 210 uncoated Xenar.

The uncoated Xenars you'll find will be in older dial-set Compur shutters with a pneumatic mechanism for the slow speeds, they're more finicky, but if you get it running right it will run dependably for another 100 years. The newer coated Xenars tend to be much more expensive, but you can find one in a modern Copal shutter from time to time. You might be able to find an equivalent coated Fujinar 210 in Shanel 5S shutter for less than the modern Xenar. Don't forget the Congo tessar, if you're looking for a modern coated lens.

Also surprised no one has suggested a Heliar? Classic portrait lens. Apparently the Emperor of Japan liked Heliars so much he would not allow himself to be photographed with anything else. So there are now a number of 1930s Heliars coming out of Japan.

Or, the Imagon

[Peter De Smidt]

All great lenses.....except for the Fujinon SF.....but are some of these good for someone starting out? I have a couple of Imagons, for example, and they're great, but they're much harder to use than a regular lens.

[Bob Salomon]

All great lenses, but are some of these good for someone starting out? I have a couple of Imagons, and they're great, but they're much harder to use than a regular lens.

Why? If you use the correct lighting they are easy to use.

[Peter De Smidt]

They are hard to focus, and, yes, I've read and tried all of the suggestions here over the years. The lens is also less versatile than, say, a Xenar. LF is hard enough for a beginner....

[AidanAvery]

Thank you again for the responses, everyone.

If it changes the discussion at all, my Color Kardan came with a 210mm Prinz f6.3. I know this isn't the most stellar lens (Bob, I have seen your strong thoughts on this lens in a former thread when I first searched around trying to dig up any info on it); however it is nonetheless a 210mm Tessar-type. This is what I've been shooting with so far - I actually just pulled my first 4x5 negatives from the tank. I am very excited to try some enlargements in the coming weeks.
Anyway, being that I don't have a ton of spare funds, I probably won't go for a second 210 at the moment.

I know 180 is very similar to 210, but I really have a strong gut feeling that 180 is going to be the all-purpose focal length for me. So at least for a while, I'm going to keep the search to 180. Again, this thread is making me think that a Xenar is the move. So far I have yet to find one that seems like it's in relatively good condition and could be easily used on my Linhof. I searched for several of the other recommended Tessar-type 180s as well, but no dice just yet. If I wait long enough and I still can't find one, then I'll consider opening up the search to include a 210 Xenar.

[Dugan]

It sounds like you have a good basis to start with.
Shoot a few boxes of film to get comfortable with it, make some prints, then re-evaluate to see what needs changing in order to improve your "vision", workflow, or results.
Most of all, have fun!

[jnantz]

How are you going to make your prints, in a darkroom ? or scanning and adjusting things using PS? there are ways to make even something made with a sharpish lens less sharp when enlarging ( or contact printing ) ( you use cellophane ) or after it's been scanned . so in the end all you really need is a lens. still you can't go wrong with a tessar ..
are you planning on available light ? color? b/w? Have you made similar photographs with other formats ? what lens did you use for that ?

[drew.saunders]

There’s a 180/4.5 Fujinar on eBay right now for a good price. It’s in an older Copal 3 shutter, which is going to be easier to mount and service than an older shutter. I have four single-coated Tessar design lenses, a 165/3.5 Zeiss Tessar, the 180/4.5 Xenar, a 210/4.5 Fujinar and a 250/4.7 Fujinar. They all give similar results.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PunkFunkDunk]

If you end up buying an older lens in an older Compur shutter, I can recommend Custom Photo Tools (based in Portugal, Google them) for professionally machined adaptor rings that will fit Compur rear threads to lens boards with standard Copal holes. I purchased a brass adaptor ring to mount my Xenar 15cm f/3.5 in Compur II / 5 Tube shutter and it worked a treat. Cost was about USD 50 inclusive of international shipping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tobias Key]

I don't know if if is the same sort of thing at all, but have you thought about getting a couple of the more subtle tiffen pro mist filters? There are digital photographers who use the just to take the edge off the sharpness of digital files so they might be a workable solution. You get the benefit of using a new modern lens and shutter with the ability to add or remove sharpness gradually. Link for sample images https://tiffen.com/pages/black-pro-mist-edu

[Peter De Smidt]

I have a little bit of experience with diffusion filters....getting the right one is hard! Different systems, different lighting, and, especially, different enlargement factors will have a huge impact on the results. I use a 1/4 strength Tiffen black mist filter for my college videos, as it cuts down on moire without making the image too soft.

[Bernice Loui]

Not a lot wrong with that 210mm f6.3 Prinz lens. It is a re-branded Commercial Congo made by Yamasaki, Japan. Commercial Congo lenses happened after Kodak got out of producing their Commercial Ektar view camera lens business decades ago. It is a Tessar design good performance at full aperture of f6.3, idea about f8 to f16, with the optical performance dropping off past f22. Think these were in a Copal shutter making it an absolutely worthy normal 4x5 lens, if the lens is in good condition and is performing as it should, there would be little reasons to move to a different 210mm lens for now.

This 210mm f6.3 Prinz lens could be better than initially perceived, judge this lens by it's images produced instead of by brand name only.

Difference between 180mm -vs- 210mm is not that significant, moving the camera could achieve similar results for relative objects size rendered on 4x5 sheet film. IMO, better to step down to a 150mm/6" then crop if needed. 210mm focal length works for head/shoulder portraits on 4x5 and more, much a matter of camera position relative to the portrait sitter(s)..

Schneider Xenar has been made for many decades. It is a classic Tessar formula lens. Early ones are non-coated, mid production are single coated, near the end of it's production multi-coated. They render contrast differently depending on coating or non-coating and vintage. Don't be fooled by higher contrast being "sharper" when the image results are not actually "sharper"

Tessar design view camera lenses were very common due to their overall performance and into out of focus rendition appeal. Tessar design lenses were also common in small film format camera for much the same reasons. After making piles of portraits over the decades, soft or soften focus images are not always ideal, at times critically sharp in a portrait is desirable, other times, soft focus images are desirable.. it all depends on the portrait image goals. Ponder what areas of the portrait needs to be in focus, this relates to lens aperture needed at specific lens to subject distances. Knowing this as a image goal will go a long ways to decide lens type and lens aperture needed.

As for the Fujinon SF, used three versions, 180mm for GX680, 180mm in shutter, 250mm in shutter. They can be used with or without the strainer (yellow or red dot) inside the lens. With or without the internal strainer the transition from into out of focus and out of focus areas is not pleasing. Not recommended unless this lens is tried/used lots knowing this lens personality meets your image goals.

As for soft focus filters/add ons in front of the lens, they can work. They do not produce the same soft focus results as a soft focus lens.

The more important aspect of portrait images is lighting with expression of the portrait sitter being the. most important aspect of portrait images. All that "gear" related stuff is much secondary.


Bernice










Thank you again for the responses, everyone.

If it changes the discussion at all, my Color Kardan came with a 210mm Prinz f6.3. I know this isn't the most stellar lens (Bob, I have seen your strong thoughts on this lens in a former thread when I first searched around trying to dig up any info on it); however it is nonetheless a 210mm Tessar-type. This is what I've been shooting with so far - I actually just pulled my first 4x5 negatives from the tank. I am very excited to try some enlargements in the coming weeks.
Anyway, being that I don't have a ton of spare funds, I probably won't go for a second 210 at the moment.

I know 180 is very similar to 210, but I really have a strong gut feeling that 180 is going to be the all-purpose focal length for me. So at least for a while, I'm going to keep the search to 180. Again, this thread is making me think that a Xenar is the move. So far I have yet to find one that seems like it's in relatively good condition and could be easily used on my Linhof. I searched for several of the other recommended Tessar-type 180s as well, but no dice just yet. If I wait long enough and I still can't find one, then I'll consider opening up the search to include a 210 Xenar.

[xkaes]

And it's easy enough to make your own soft-focus/portrait/verito lens:

228306

All you need are the correct supplementary lenses to make the above design -- a weak meniscus lens in the front and a stronger doublet in the rear. And a step-up ring or two for your shutter.

I use inexpensive 55mm Rolev close-up filters in the front, and add more expensive 55mm Minolta doublet close-up lenses in the rear. They made three -- in unusual diopters. #0.95, #2.00, and #3.80. Don't ask me why.

So with a Rolev #1 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 208mm Verito.

And with a Rolev #2 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 172mm Verito.

And with no filter on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 263mm Verito.

The aperture will, of course, vary with the shutter diameter.

[jnantz]

doesn't even have to be that fancy, a Wollaston meniscus lens works great as portrait lenses.

http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html



And it's easy enough to make your own soft-focus/portrait/verito lens:

228306

All you need are the correct supplementary lenses to make the above design -- a weak meniscus lens in the front and a stronger doublet in the rear. And a step-up ring or two for your shutter.

I use inexpensive 55mm Rolev close-up filters in the front, and add more expensive 55mm Minolta doublet close-up lenses in the rear. They made three -- in unusual diopters. #0.95, #2.00, and #3.80. Don't ask me why.

So with a Rolev #1 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 208mm Verito.

And with a Rolev #2 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 172mm Verito.

And with no filter on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 263mm Verito.

The aperture will, of course, vary with the shutter diameter.

[xkaes]

doesn't even have to be that fancy, a Wollaston meniscus lens works great as portrait lenses.

http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html


Thanks for the link. You are absolutely correct. There is no need to use two close-up lenses for soft-focus/portrait work. You can use just one, and it can be an inexpensive one, as well. But in order to get into the 200-250mm range, an inexpensive close-up lens will have to be a #4 or #5 (180mm needs a #5.5), and when used alone there will be too much chromatic aberration for most portrait work -- unless you stop way down.

That's why the Verito approach was so popular. It's just a little more glass, and is best wide open.

[AidanAvery]

Bernice, thank you very much for that post about the 210 Prinz. It's really good to hear that it doesn't have negative reviews across the board. For what it's worth, I've been enjoying using it so far. And at the time of reading your post, I had just pulled some 4x5 negatives out of the tank that I am really happy with. As has been pointed out in this thread, a lens is hardly the most important part of a portrait. But still it's nice to see some encouraging negatives taken with it. I'm hoping I'll get a chance to scan the negatives tomorrow - if so, I'll post a few of the results.

I think I'd forgotten to answer a few questions earlier in the thread. I shoot in black-and-white. I already work mostly in portraiture, and mostly on medium format up until now (sometimes 35mm depending on the project).
As for how I am going to print/process images, up until now I have scanned negatives and edited them in photoshop/lightroom. However, I'm excited because at the beginning of the July I'll start having access to the local university's darkroom where I'll be able to make enlargements, etc. I'll also have access to their drum scanner. So I'd imagine it'll be a combination of the two: scanning and editing most images, but then working in the darkroom with those that I like the most.

Thanks for the continued recommendations, everyone. I am going to avoid any SF lenses, SF filters, or diffusion filters for now. I know some people stand by them, but in my experience they just aren't my cup of tea. And in the case of the filters specifically, I'd much rather just work with a lens I love, than try and diffuse a lens that I feel is too sharp. In this case, I'm not looking for a soft focus product, only a lens that isn't clinically and off-puttingly sharp. I do sometimes use harder lighting in my portraits, which can be challenging as the format size grows and the detail becomes more visible. This was something that I had to learn to balance carefully when I moved up to medium format a few years ago. As has been pointed out in this thread, thoughtful and intentional lighting is important.

xkaes, thanks for the recommendation as well. I think I'll hold off on making one myself. I think getting to know the new camera and format is enough for me right now. I'd like to go with a lens that's ready to roll. But in the future that sounds like a project I'd enjoy.

I'm still thinking the Xenar is the move when I find one. However, the negatives that I developed yesterday from the Prinz make me feel good about using that for now while I wait for the right Xenar. I'll know more when I scan the negs, but my impression is that this Prinz is working well.

[Peter De Smidt]

Aiden,

That's great! If it were me, I'd spend a good amount of time using the Prinz. I'm planning on using a longer lens in the same series for portraits with an 8x10. Have fun!

[Bernice Loui]

Hello Aiden,

IMO the more important priority at this point in LF time is to develop view camera skills and all related to using the view camera for portraits. Essentially set the "lens" thing aside for now as the 210mm f6.3 Prinz is more than likely going to do great for your current needs. This means figuring out portrait pose, portrait lighting, interaction with the portrait sitter(s), processing film and the print making process and all that. Do try making portrait images with this 210mm from f6.3 (full aperture) to about f16, might discover f8 to be about ideal for head/shoulder portraits. It is much about focus fall-off and the way-smoothness of focus fall off rendering of the portrait sitter's face/head.

Now curious of your portrait images, so share if possible.

Bernice

[xkaes]

xkaes, thanks for the recommendation as well. I think I'll hold off on making one myself. I think getting to know the new camera and format is enough for me right now. I'd like to go with a lens that's ready to roll. But in the future that sounds like a project I'd enjoy.

I'm always a fan of "To avoid GAS, use what you got".

Should you want to learn some more about Verito-type lenses, here is a good summary:

https://apenasimagens.com/en/verito-veritar-wollensak-en/

[mdarnton]

OP hasn't really made it clear what he's looking for. Initially it seemed like he wanted a normal lens with pleasing rendering, but it's drifted over to overtly soft focus lenses. OP, what are you looking for?????

[BrianShaw]

OP hasn't really made it clear what he's looking for. Initially it seemed like he wanted a normal lens with pleasing rendering, but it's drifted over to overtly soft focus lenses. OP, what are you looking for?????

Post #1: "I really love the look of 180mm lenses with the 4x5. But, frankly, I am a bit lost as to which to pick. I would love any recommendations, specifically in regards to portrait work."

Post #44: "a lens that isn't clinically and off-puttingly sharp."

[AidanAvery]

Thanks, Brian.


OP hasn't really made it clear what he's looking for. Initially it seemed like he wanted a normal lens with pleasing rendering, but it's drifted over to overtly soft focus lenses. OP, what are you looking for?????

Apologies if there was any confusion, Michael. But I actually did state in my last post that I'm specifically not looking for soft focus lenses or filters.

"I am going to avoid any SF lenses, SF filters, or diffusion filters for now. I know some people stand by them, but in my experience they just aren't my cup of tea. And in the case of the filters specifically, I'd much rather just work with a lens I love, than try and diffuse a lens that I feel is too sharp. In this case, I'm not looking for a soft focus product, only a lens that isn't clinically and off-puttingly sharp."
I think they were being recommended because my purpose for the lens is portraiture and sharpness was a concern, but your initial impression is correct. I created the thread looking for a normal lens with pleasing rendering.

EDIT: And this thread has been very, very helpful. Thanks again, everyone. I will probably follow Bernice's advice and shoot with the 210 Prinz for now while I get acquainted with the camera, meanwhile keeping an eye on the classifieds and ebay etc for a Xenar.

[jnantz]

Thanks for the link. You are absolutely correct. There is no need to use two close-up lenses for soft-focus/portrait work. You can use just one, and it can be an inexpensive one, as well. But in order to get into the 200-250mm range, an inexpensive close-up lens will have to be a #4 or #5 (180mm needs a #5.5), and when used alone there will be too much chromatic aberration for most portrait work -- unless you stop way down.

That's why the Verito approach was so popular. It's just a little more glass, and is best wide open.


less than$4 plus shipping at anchor optical .. not much CA ..


good luck with your project OP!

[xkaes]

I see that Kumar just sold a very nice Wollensak Verito 8.75" (222mm). It's a beauty, for sure, but it makes me appreciate my home-made "Verito" even more.

[Bernice Loui]

This link has a nice illustration of classic three point cinema lighting as previously discussed on the George Hurell thread:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155701-George-Hurrell-Documentary/page2

As noted in the Verito portrait lighting notes:
228364

IMO, so many that try soft focus lenses do not get proper is the usage of "hard" light as needed. This is essential to achieving the "glow" often associated with soft focus portraits and soft focus images. The current portrait lighting norm (has been for a while now) is to use a soften key light ala soft box, beauty dish, large parabolic light source or similar for shadow control with non-soft focus lenses. There is also a vignette applied in front of the lens to aid in head/shoulder composition.

*Also noted as most important, Portrait sitter's expression.

228367

This style of portraiture appears to be not very popular today.


8x10 contact prints from film negatives made using soft focus lenses and lighting properly project a rather special quality to them... that is lost once the film negative produced in this way is enlarged more than 2x.

Where soft focus lenses can produce portraits that might not be appealing and overly softens is the use of soft diffused light combined with a soft focus lens, non-symbiotic combo.

Challenge to using soft focus lenses is focusing. Focusing should be done at the lens aperture to be used, hard key light and a flash light at the eyelashes often helps. Still, it takes practice, practice, practice to achieve consistent good focus with soft focus lenses.


Bernice





I'm always a fan of "To avoid GAS, use what you got".

Should you want to learn some more about Verito-type lenses, here is a good summary:

https://apenasimagens.com/en/verito-veritar-wollensak-en/

[Tin Can]

I hear you about SF enlargements

I just don't

Now...

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, you have to get the diffusion right for a given print enlargement, and it likely means stopping down a bit more for bigger enlargements....

And you don't have to follow "The Rules". Hurrell didn't. He stopped his Verito much more than standard practice at the time, for example. The main push for the super soft lenses was to minimize retouching. Hurrell didn't care about that, and so a sharper image than standard practice was fine. And this applies today. If you're going to make contact prints without any negative retouching this will likely call for more diffusion than if you do the retouching or if you scan and do digital retouching. Portrait dodging and burning in photoshop is effectively very similar to pencil retouching on the negative.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Here a thought,

The 210 Prinz is a Commercial Congo. Looking on Ebay I see a lot of Congos! If you like the 210 Prinz you might want to pick up a 180 Congo? Prices look good!

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=commercial+congo&_sacat=0

[Jody_S]

Here a thought,

The 210 Prinz is a Commercial Congo. Looking on Ebay I see a lot of Congos! If you like the 210 Prinz you might want to pick up a 180 Congo? Prices look good!

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=commercial+congo&_sacat=0

My 300 Congo is one of my favorite lenses. I understand they fit in a standard shutter but I've always used with either a Packard or a LUC shutter.

[AidanAvery]

Following up here.

Daniel, not a bad idea to look for a congo at the shorter focal length. That is something I might consider down the road if I don't end up finding a Xenar.

I had the wonderful experience of using a virtual drum scanner for the first time yesterday. I scanned the negatives that I'd shot with the Prinz. I am really happy with the results, both from the lens and the scanner. Finally seeing the negatives inverted and scanned in such high resolution has been a great learning experience about shooting with my new (and first) large format camera.

I am not familiar with the best way to share images on this forum, but I'll just try attaching them to the post and see how it likes it.

EDIT: The images are being significantly compressed when I upload directly to the post. Any tips on the best way to share them here to avoid such drastic compression?

EDIT: Figured it out, I think.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52165200167_5cb111e7b9_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ntEhAT)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166710205_2c8c46d16c_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ntN2u2)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166710685_e1ccf874b3_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ntN2Ci)

[AidanAvery]

Figured it out! Images above.

[Randy]

I have a very nice Wollensak Series II Velostigmat in 7.5" FL (190mm). I believe these are Tessars. Mine is in an Alphax shutter but no PC socket. I suspect they can be had in other shutters. I haven't used mine yet (what are you waiting for?) so I can't report, but I have an older version in 8.25" FL (209mm) and it is a wonderful portrait lens.
BTW, I also have a Fuji 180mm that I personally do not find it overly or distractedly sharp.

[Peter De Smidt]

Great job!

[Tin Can]

Very good model

and

prints

Wow!



Following up here.

Daniel, not a bad idea to look for a congo at the shorter focal length. That is something I might consider down the road if I don't end up finding a Xenar.

I had the wonderful experience of using a virtual drum scanner for the first time yesterday. I scanned the negatives that I'd shot with the Prinz. I am really happy with the results, both from the lens and the scanner. Finally seeing the negatives inverted and scanned in such high resolution has been a great learning experience about shooting with my new (and first) large format camera.

I am not familiar with the best way to share images on this forum, but I'll just try attaching them to the post and see how it likes it.

EDIT: The images are being significantly compressed when I upload directly to the post. Any tips on the best way to share them here to avoid such drastic compression?

EDIT: Figured it out, I think.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52165200167_5cb111e7b9_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ntEhAT)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166710205_2c8c46d16c_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ntN2u2)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52166710685_e1ccf874b3_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ntN2Ci)

[Bernice Loui]

Result !!!

Nice images shared, plenty "sharp", note the tonality and how the in to out of focus areas render in these images. IMO, this 210mm "Prinz (ala Congo-Yamasaki)" lens fits your portraits good in many ways.

Strive on, your best images are yet to happen.


Bernice




Figured it out! Images above.

[BrianShaw]

Very nice results, Aidan. Reminds me of a favorite “junk lens” I often use, a 5x7 Gundlach Radar.