Achieving adequate DOF in 8x10

[Fr. Mark]

I'm a relative newbie but I do have a 300mm f5.6 which converts to 500 f?8?11? Don't remember right now. I've used it converted a couple times. Makes me nervous. Why? Shutter is open to whatever blows in. Tiny fine threads to possibly mess up. Huge piece of glass to put where while I take the picture? And while I have a front lens cap I don't have one for the usually not exposed back surface. Possibility of dropping. It is also a pain to set up enough bellows on the Sinar 4x5/5x7and even more of a pain to put it on my home built 8x10. I thought convertibles would be the greatest, but in practice so far I'm not liking them in converted mode. Love it as a 300 f5.6. Especially close to the car... I've started restoring an 8x10 field camera. I am considering converting lens approach for that based on simple meniscus lenses better known as close up lenses used at small apertures. But I already know from some tests on 5x7 they don't give as much sharp as I think I want long term. Maybe it will grow on me. Sure is a light weight way to get a 500 mm lens. And a 333mm and a 250 and 1000mm (not that the field camera has enough bellows for 1000mm---the home built does...) in a tiny package that if I play it right may fold with the camera. No way it'd be sharp enough for most of you guys.

[Pere Casals]

I'm a relative newbie but I do have a 300mm f5.6 which converts to 500 f?8?11? Don't remember right now. I've used it converted a couple times. Makes me nervous. Why? Shutter is open to whatever blows in. Tiny fine threads to possibly mess up. Huge piece of glass to put where while I take the picture? And while I have a front lens cap I don't have one for the usually not exposed back surface. Possibility of dropping. It is also a pain to set up enough bellows on the Sinar 4x5/5x7and even more of a pain to put it on my home built 8x10. I thought convertibles would be the greatest, but in practice so far I'm not liking them in converted mode. Love it as a 300 f5.6. Especially close to the car... I've started restoring an 8x10 field camera. I am considering converting lens approach for that based on simple meniscus lenses better known as close up lenses used at small apertures. But I already know from some tests on 5x7 they don't give as much sharp as I think I want long term. Maybe it will grow on me. Sure is a light weight way to get a 500 mm lens. And a 333mm and a 250 and 1000mm (not that the field camera has enough bellows for 1000mm---the home built does...) in a tiny package that if I play it right may fold with the camera. No way it'd be sharp enough for most of you guys.

I felt no pain when used the 265 conversion. I place the removed front cell in a plastic bag with slider, and then I place that in the pocket. Also I blow all before assembling, straight. If you have a problem with bellows then you can unscrew the rear cell instead: then you will have a lower than normal bellows extension ! (Older Symmars had also that focal stamped in the front).


For 5x7 you may notice softness in the far corners, in the center it works perfectly, even better than with 4x5 because enlargement is to be lower. This is a 4x5 lens, not a 5x7 because movements.

Another source of softness is focuss shift, one may have to correct focus if you stop the lens, so you have to focus stopped to /22. Birght points in the scene help a lot.

Of course the conversion is not as operative as the nominal focal, but let me mention some photographs taken with a convertible lens:

Ansel used the 19" (480 mm) component for "Aspens, Northern New Mexico," 1958; both components to get 12" (300 mm) for "Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park," 1940; and the 23" (580 mm) component for "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico,"


(article by Gordon Hutchings in View Camera magazine, July/August 2004.)

[Randy]

Would anyone recommend certain convertible lenses over buying 3 or 4 individual lenses?

I had one convertible for 4X5 but didn't use it much - sold it. I have probably 5-6 lenses to use on my 8X10. The most expensive lens I have is a Fuji W 250mm f/6.7, and it is the only lens I have in shutter. I think I paid about $150 or so. All my other lenses are barrel lenses that I didn't pay more than $100 each.
Learn from my mistakes - just get 1 or 2 lenses. Use the rest of your $ for film...lots and lots of film.

[interneg]

I agree, but for 4x5 this would be 105-125 range. Having a wider focal one can always make crop: Relative size of objects won't change. Anyway IMHO a 150 is better to engage 4x5 because (in general) one has a larger circle that allows a good deal of movements, IMHO, so one can practice that important resource.

120/121mm Super Angulon/ Fuji SW 120mm if you need extreme contortions (hint: you don't). Quite a few 120-135mm lenses cover 5x7 - plenty coverage for movements. 'Practising' camera movements is like practising playing piano by opening and closing the lid. Front rise, fall & shift are useful, but other than a little front tilt or swing, the rest is commentary.

If you've got a Sironar-N, start making images, stop wasting film on 'testing' E-6 films, you'll struggle to find a better balanced set of qualities in a lens - other than a Sironar-S.

Anyway, the single biggest criticism of almost all LF lens resolution tests is that all they're essentially testing is film flatness - unless they're using glass plates or vacuum platens - and you won't generally find those outside of a process camera.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Edward Weston never really envisaged his prints as anything larger than contact prints & that a great many of Ansel Adams' famous images again were envisaged as 8x10 contacts or quite small (max 2-2.5x) enlargements. This has major consequences in terms of taking lens choice, aperture used & effective depth of field. A 2x enlargment off 8x10 is not demanding in any of those areas. A 7-8x enlargement is.

[Pere Casals]

120/121mm Super Angulon/ Fuji SW 120mm if you need extreme contortions (hint: you don't). Quite a few 120-135mm lenses cover 5x7 - plenty coverage for movements.

There is also the Nikon SW 120, now more expensive... it covers 8x10 w/o movements...

If you've got a Sironar-N, start making images, stop wasting film on 'testing' E-6 films, you'll struggle to find a better balanced set of qualities in a lens - other than a Sironar-S.

But I've only the 300... it is impressive. Anyway for portraits I'd seek a some less perfect lens, with some temperament, perhaps I'd prefer a conversion, still I'm not sure. For 4x5 I've the Symmar 210, and the 150, so I'd need to know in what situations I can use that with E-6. I've no multicoated lens in the from the Symmar-S 135 to the Sironar-N 300...

Anyway, the single biggest criticism of almost all LF lens resolution tests is that all they're essentially testing is film flatness - unless they're using glass plates or vacuum platens - and you won't generally find those outside of a process camera.

Well, this is true, wide open we test film flatness and alignment, and as we close we have also good DOF on film plane but then we test difraction limit, at f/3s a Sironar-S is like a Symmar convertible, and at /64 the Sironar-S has same resolving power that a pre WWII glass. Still Weston did not need more to rock.

Ansel Adams' famous images again were envisaged as 8x10 contacts or quite small (max 2-2.5x) enlargements. This has major consequences in terms of taking lens choice, aperture used & effective depth of field. A 2x enlargment off 8x10 is not demanding in any of those areas. A 7-8x enlargement is.

Let's make a guess: Moorise negative resolved 25 LP/mm. A 5x enlargement would resolve some 5LP/mm. This is because a professional enlarging lens way outresolves both the negative 25LP/mm and the on paper 5LP/mm projection, so native resolution is not damaged.

This would be 1.3m high print that could be seen at reading distance without a flaw. Think that 5LP/mm are 0.1mm dots.

A 2m enlargement of the Moonrise would show slight flaw at reading distance and no flaw seen at some 70cm.

Same applies to Weston shots.

At the end with a Sironar-S we can stop or not, if one doesn't stop one gets blur because DOF, if one stops one get blur because difraction limit. In some situations a Sironar-S makes a difference, or not.

For example with a texture that has a 1:1.6 contrast it happens that resolving power is limited by film, TMX delivers 50LP/mm in that contrast. Is there a texture with 1:1000 contrast? If there is one then TMX can resolve 200LP/mm and is no limit in that (rare) situation.

So, IMHO, a sound photograph what needs is a sound photographer, or a large ammount of luck. Technical glass perfection may be irrelevant for a true artist, or the counter because he can use that to drive some aesthetics.

IMHO LF has an obscene ammount of resolving power, it is in excess for most situations. Other strengths are there: film beauty, process beauty, long lens look, DOF vs Movements...

[interneg]

But I've only the 300... it is impressive. Anyway for portraits I'd seek a some less perfect lens, with some temperament, perhaps I'd prefer a conversion, still I'm not sure. For 4x5 I've the Symmar 210, and the 150, so I'd need to know in what situations I can use that with E-6. I've no multicoated lens in the from the Symmar-S 135 to the Sironar-N 300...

I'd suggest starting with the Sironar wide open before trying anything else. Also try the 210 on the 8x10 close up. Try and avoid the 35mm-style long lens mugshot look in LF, it looks rubbish, gets extremely boring extremely fast. In fact, try and avoid translating as little as possible from 'conventional wisdom' 35mm to 8x10 - the more minimally you work, the better. And that approach will make your 35mm work better too.

Or else take the Avedon approach & go with 360mm for everything. Multicoating is much less of an issue than you seem to believe it to be. I'd ignore it.

Ektars and Dagors won't add much (main advantages are light weight (but bulky shutters) and coverage respectively), and Heliars get massive & expensive with freakish speed. An old uncoated tessar lens design shot wide open might be worthwhile.

I also think that 6 months with a Crown Graphic & a 127mm Ektar (or Optar etc) in 4x5 or a 300/360mm in 8x10 would do you a world of good. Pick a lens, sell the rest - force yourself to think around the format.

[Pere Casals]

I'd suggest starting with the Sironar wide open before trying anything else. Also try the 210 on the 8x10 close up. Try and avoid the 35mm-style long lens mugshot look in LF, it looks rubbish, gets extremely boring extremely fast. In fact, try and avoid translating as little as possible from 'conventional wisdom' 35mm to 8x10 - the more minimally you work, the better. And that approach will make your 35mm work better too.

Or else take the Avedon approach & go with 360mm for everything. Multicoating is much less of an issue than you seem to believe it to be. I'd ignore it.

Ektars and Dagors won't add much (main advantages are light weight (but bulky shutters) and coverage respectively), and Heliars get massive & expensive with freakish speed. An old uncoated tessar lens design shot wide open might be worthwhile.

I also think that 6 months with a Crown Graphic & a 127mm Ektar (or Optar etc) in 4x5 or a 300/360mm in 8x10 would do you a world of good. Pick a lens, sell the rest - force yourself to think around the format.

I think this is very good advice, there is a lot of wisdom in it. For the moment my approach to LF has been very technically focused, perhaps too much. Well, this is not completely bad because it allows me to understand (or guess) how masters's photographs were done, technically... But it's time I go in the way you say. Before that I'd need to complete the dry plate/emulsion making process learning/enhancing, mostly because I've it in course now...

[jesse1996]

this is a lot to take in!

[John Kasaian]

Would anyone recommend certain convertible lenses over buying 3 or 4 individual lenses?

Look for a Wollensak 1a. Excellent lens.
Sort of in between the TR and the Cooke, I'd guess.
Gives a lot of focal length bang for your LF buck!
Or try a double convertible, such as an old Symmar

[interneg]

this is a lot to take in!

It's really quite simple - you need to decide why you want to make that sort of image at the size you want to do so. The technique will follow. Consider too that the 28" part of a triple convertible might have been fine for Walker Evans making contact prints from 10x8, but is not likely to hold up to a 7x enlargement from 8x10 colour neg at a level that you might wish it did. What stuff looks like on the internet is often a poor indicator of how it'll look like in printed form. There are top quality lenses that cover 8x10 in the focal lengths you'll need to consider, but are you prepared to pay for them?