Dan: BECAUSE I already had a Fuji 240 A for other purposes and perhaps didn't need to spend the dough. Simple as that. But yes I can do the same 2X math and I get your point. THank you.
Dan: BECAUSE I already had a Fuji 240 A for other purposes and perhaps didn't need to spend the dough. Simple as that. But yes I can do the same 2X math and I get your point. THank you.
There is also a 180 Fuji A. The problem with portraits is that these kinds of lenses are super sharp, and unless you're using a backdrop, the out-of-focus background rendering or "bokeh" is not very smooth or pleasant. But the 240 focal length is a lot nicer perspective for head and shoulders shots. But are you really commonly going clear to 1:1 in terms of close-range use? If you're comfortable working at a long bellows extension, and your camera remains stable, why not? I do it quite often with my Sinar monorails.
Good info. Thanks! I bought the 240A for a small, portable lens with a good rep, and like the lens. One of the articles I've seen did recommend it for portraits, but didn't discuss the bokeh - if fuzzy memory serves me right. I figure to try the Rodinar Macro before making a decision on whether to keep it. My goal was less for macro per se than simply still life.
ANd aren't the Nikon M's Tessar lenses and also similarly sharp? On the other hand, the cost of soft lenses (see Igorcamera.com) ... modern Cooke etc. to use in portraits tends to crank higher and higher. I think a new Cooke is cranking in around $5,000. Ouch.
Not a lot wrong with the 240mm Fujinon A if it meets what you need. Should be fine at infinity and to life size 1 to 1. Your Toyo has enough bellows to work at life size making the other challenges camera support, lighting and all related to that. In the case of table top, the 240mm continues it's advantage due to distance between what you're trying to image and lighting it. Again what is so often not considered, how ya gonna light what your trying to photograph. IMO, in this case lighting and set up is FAR more important than all that lens stuff.
BTW, back in the doing lots of table top images on 4x5 days, 240mm was the far preferred focal length. The lens was either a 9-1/2" APO artar or 240mm APO ronar on a Sinar P, typical taking aperture was f16 to f32 with camera movements (always done), bellows factor correction as needed.
As for Portraits using the 240mm Fujinon A, just use it and see how it goes. If for some reasons the image results does not work for you, then it is time to consider something else. Ignore all that hype found in the web, make images with the tools in hand now, carefully evaluate what the results are before deciding different tools are needed.
Nikkor M is often used as a longer than normal focal length lens. Works fine as a normal length lens depending on what is considered or desired asa "normal" format focal length. They tend to be smaller than the common f5.6 Plasmat due to their smaller full aperture. They are a fav of folder cameras folks due to their small size and good optical performance. Notable to Nikon LF lenses in general, they tend to have higher contrast rendition than other brand of lenses from that time. This is neither better or worst, it is simply an image preference and lens flavor you'll need to decide on. Vast majority of modern LF lenses made by the big four Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon were intended to be used daily by working photographs with demands for image quality. That was the bar all LF optics manufactures had to meet or they would not sell to a market base that was trying to put food on their table, roof over their head and studio and keep paying clients happy and good with the images produced. Essentially, don't obsess over is the lens "sharp"..
The modern Cooke PS945 is good, at a $. My take on that is lighting, capturing expression of the portrait sitter and a very long list of other factors are more important than focusing on lens choice. What most portrait sitters and enthusiast tend to value in portraits is expression and lighting rendition. While the lens is part of this, it should NOT be the obsession for making portraits.
Bernice
Originally Posted by roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau
Hi Bernice
You have been very helpful, and some darn good advice too, topped with good practical experience.
Thank you very much
Dave
OK, as per Nikkor M's. They're also small, and very sharp, contrasty, and superbly color-corrected. But they're an improved tessar design, and nowhere near as good at near macro distances, whereas Fuji A's are marketed as "Super Plasmats" specially close-range corrected, with bigger image circles than Nikkor M's (for example, the 240 Fuji A will easily cover 8x10 film at infinity, while an even longer 300 Nikkor M barely does). I own and use both types.
Thanks, Drew
That is also very interesting, I research to death whatever I buy, i think a lens that is optimised for 1:5 to infinity suit my work. I am now looking at Fujinon A 240 and Rodenstock Sironar-S 240 which is a little higher price tag.
Dave
Last edited by Gnomon; 9-Feb-2021 at 01:29.
ALL of the f5.6 Plasmats from the big four (Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon, Schneider) are far more similar than different. There are slight differences, but essentially more the same than different.
BTW, the Fujinon A is a 6 element Plasmat.
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks