300mm f/5.6 Question

[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/rol...ar-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/rol...ar-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/rol...ar-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.






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 #1

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!