Which 210mm F5.6 for portraits?

[William Whitaker]

...Secondly it has greater depth of field due to the way the effect of its soft focus works....

Lastly the lens like the Imagon demands a much stronger lighting ratio, about 5:1 compared to the 3:1 used normally and it doesn’t perform well from light from an umbrella. It performs best from strong direct light. Like an elliptical reflector.

Interesting points. I've long contended that coverage and relatedly depth of field, being defined by an arbitrarily chosen value for circle of confusion are not defined (or at least, not well-defined terms) if applied to soft-focus lenses. If a lens never achieve critical focus, how can it be claimed that it has any coverage at all (or, similarly, any depth of field)?

It became evident to me fairly early on while working with soft focus lenses (mostly the Verito in my case), that effective use of the lens' qualities seemed very dependent on light quality, a quite hard light seeming to display the lens' qualities best. Which is to say, a higher ratio as you pointed out.

I realize this jumps the bounds of the OP's original request, but it does fit within the general interest of this group.

[Bernice Loui]

Indeed,

IMO, Too often image makers focus excessively on lens performance, film-developer, print making and ....

-Then forget Lighting makes ALL the difference.

Much of photography is about light, shapes, form, contrast-tonal range. Soft focus lenses are a very good example if how light ratios have a drastic effect on how they render. This applies to non-soft focus lenses.

Photographs are two dimensional renderings of a three dimensional world. Lighting is just one of the tools that can be used to give the impression of depth within a two dimensional images.

Oil painters have used texturing by height of the oil painted structures to increase lighting effects, A, Rodin used texturing of his sculptures to increase the effects of lighting. Consider how these artist have used their tools available to enhance the behavior of light used for viewing their creations of expression.



Bernice

Interesting points. I've long contended that coverage and relatedly depth of field, being defined by an arbitrarily chosen value for circle of confusion are not defined (or at least, not well-defined terms) if applied to soft-focus lenses. If a lens never achieve critical focus, how can it be claimed that it has any coverage at all (or, similarly, any depth of field)?

It became evident to me fairly early on while working with soft focus lenses (mostly the Verito in my case), that effective use of the lens' qualities seemed very dependent on light quality, a quite hard light seeming to display the lens' qualities best. Which is to say, a higher ratio as you pointed out.

I realize this jumps the bounds of the OP's original request, but it does fit within the general interest of this group.

[Oren Grad]

Interesting points. I've long contended that coverage and relatedly depth of field, being defined by an arbitrarily chosen value for circle of confusion are not defined (or at least, not well-defined terms) if applied to soft-focus lenses. If a lens never achieve critical focus, how can it be claimed that it has any coverage at all (or, similarly, any depth of field)?

I'd put it just slightly differently. Depth of field is a subjective attribute, the perception of which depends in part on how focus transitions are rendered by an optical design. One important consequence is that even for lenses that are not soft-focus designs, standard calculations based on a specified circle of confusion, which assume that all lenses share the same, idealized optical properties, will not necessarily yield perceptually accurate results for actual lenses in the real world. Another is that one lens with a given specification - say, a 210mm f/5.6 plasmat - might differ from another of nominally identical specification in this respect.

Now how's that for a can of worms?

[Pere Casals]

Lastly the lens like the Imagon demands a much stronger lighting ratio, about 5:1 compared to the 3:1 used normally and it doesn’t perform well from light from an umbrella. It performs best from strong direct light. Like an elliptical reflector.

This interesting information, time ago I saved this link: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...l=1#post549170

[Andy Eads]

I'm with the folks who are recommending longer focal lengths than 210 mm. When taking a head and shoulders photo or a tight head shot the longer focal length means a longer lens to subject distance. That affects perspective and your freedom to move lights around if needed. It was a size beast but I used a 240 mm Caltar S II and made wonderful portraits with it. The 210 mm Symmar in my kit found use for full length and group portraits. I also had a 203 mm Ektar that was wonderful for its light weight and sharpness.

[Bob Salomon]

This interesting information, time ago I saved this link: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...l=1#post549170

Glad it caught your interest!

[Bernice Loui]

Regarding lens focus transitions, Fast forward to about 3:30 in this video and watch how this Cooke S4 transitions from in to out of focus at the center and edges..

This is related to out of focus rendition of a given lens. The film and video folks are very aware of stuff like this. For view camera folks who are interested in everything in focus, or always stopped down to the smallest possible aperture to achieve depth of view-depth of focus, transitions from in to out of focus may not be a lens performance consideration in their image making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM09x8Zk3_k

Everything in focus orthodoxy in view camera images appears to have it's roots in Group f64, it is one image making methodology, but there are many others including Pictorialism and related soft focus image making. It appears the everything in focus orthodoxy has influenced the modern view camera optics designs resulting in stuff like optimization for f22, the common Plasmat design, multi coating and more along these same goals.


Bernice

[Oren Grad]

For view camera folks who are interested in everything in focus...

One of the things that sank in as I gained experience with large format, and especially with 8x10 and larger, is that even accepting standard DOF calculations based on idealized optics, standard CoC assumptions are always way optimistic relative to my viewing habits, and there are many, many situations where it's not possible to achieve universal apparent focus even by stopping down all the way. From there, it was impossible not to start noticing how stuff that was almost-but-not-quite in focus was rendered. I actually don't care much about focus transitions of large format lenses at or near full aperture, as I almost never use LF lenses that way. Rather, I'm interested in how transitions are rendered at smaller stops - f/22 and beyond - with subjects that have a great deal of depth - say, outdoor scenes focused at middling distances.

Oh, yes: my advice to the OP is to continue using his Caltar II-E/Geronar and get to know it better.

[Pere Casals]

is that even accepting standard DOF calculations based on idealized optics, standard CoC assumptions are always way optimistic relative to my viewing habits...

In the movie industry beyond the DOF calculations based on idealized optics, also they have "through-focus MTF" graphs. IMHO just this is interesting to realize that theoric DOF may not explain perfectly OOF lens roll-off.

This is an article showing "through-focus MTF" for a B&L Super Baltar... http://cinematechnic.com/optics/super-baltar

[Bernice Loui]

A lens has essentially a point or plane of focus, once moved away from the point or plane of focus it becomes "apparent" focus to varying degrees. How these transitions and renditions for out of focus areas can have a LOT of variations and nuances.

*Lighting has a strong effect on these aspects of lens personality.

This is one of the many aspects of lens personality that typical resolution chart testing and similar will not reveal, much like crafting a great musical instrument science, skill of craft, materials alone is not enough there is very artistic and humanistic aspect to these creations.


Bernice