300mm f/5.6 Question

[Bernice Loui]

Out of focus content -vs- lens focal length style images are complex and not as simply as using the largest aperture lens available to "throw" the background out of focus with the subject in "sharp" focus. A great number of complexities comes up with images like this as the out of focus content will become part of the image composition. These examples are not LF, but from the current rehab walks using a digital or 35mm roll film camera. There are plenty of LF sheet film examples, but they need to be dug out then scanned to post.. not worth the effort as the examples are much the same sheet film or digital or _ .

What lens focal length, lens-camera to flower distance -vs- background -vs-lighting? 35mm film.


Canon EF 24mm at f1.4 FF digital. Camera/lens was about 12" from the flower, background is far in the distance. Notice the heart shape in the out of focus area?


Canon EF 300mm at f2.8 FF digital, guess the distance from camera/lens to subject and background and lighting.


Canon EF 14mm at f2.8 FF digital. Yes, even a extreme wide angle lens can produce effective out of focus content images.


Go to post# 25, previously posted regarding using process lenses for close up. Note the out of focus rendition, composition and..
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...17#post1635417


Lighting, image composition, subject, out of focus areas all must work together to result in an effective image. Large aperture lens on camera alone is simply not enough.


Bernice

[Serge S]

Hi,

I use a Commercial Ektar 12" lens for the application you have in mind.
Works like a charm-creamy backgrounds & beautiful skin tones

[Ari]

And a recent shot I'd have loved to have even shallower DoF on...

Attachment 225364

Keep in mind that a 300mm lens is going to compress more than your photo above.
This may or may not be displeasing (it is for me).
A Petzval lens is one solution, though they're hard to find on the cheap.
And a 210 f/4.5, shot wide open with an eye toward subject-to-background placement, is probably going to be a very good starting point.

[Huub]

Another lens to consider is the f5.5 360mm Schneider tele-xenar. Comes in a big copal 3 shutter, but with its 21 cm ffl distance very usuable for head and shoulder portraits with a camera that only has 30cm of bellows available. And shot wide open, the depth of field is minimal.

[John Layton]

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!

[Oslolens]

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!

That is what 3D printing is for - ca 58mm round, named and black discs for each focal length in the Copal #3 shutters.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[drew.saunders]

Do you want to shoot wide open only, all the time? Can you get a Sinar shutter or similar on your camera (might require getting a Sinar camera)? If so, then slide projector lenses might work for you. Leitz made a 150/2.5 Hektor and a 200/2.5 Hektor (and probably many others, I have a 200/2.5 that some decade I may get working on a camera), plus there are others. Here's an older thread on that topic:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...as-taking-lens

[Bernice Loui]

About the later 1980's was when the question of iris shape was settled. If in to out of focus quality and out of focus rendition is valued, using non-modern lenses like Tessar, Dagor, Artar, Heilar and etc at or near their full aperture could be a better solution to this need/image goal. A decision was made decades ago to focus on barrel lenses with Sinar & Sinar shutter which solved this problem nicely. No need to 3D print round iris inserts which has a different set of problems.



Difficulty being, the current fashion of striving for the lowest weight field folder camera likely driven by digital or roll film habits and reading stuff on the web as to what IS the most highly desirable view camera instead of focusing on what the image goals are, what lenses are needed to achieve this then consider what camera system will properly support these needs/goals.

This is another fact-reason why no light weight field folders here as they are simply too limiting in too many ways for the image goals in mind.

For images with the majority of the image in perceived focus ala Group f64 "Straight Photography" iris shape is just not that important. This reality is illustrated in modern -vs- vintage shutters as vintage shutters have nice round iris designed in by the folks well aware of the need for a round iris. Once this need was negated by the focus on majority of the image in focus being the thing, the once round iris went away with the designers and marketing folks understanding that the round iris held little to no market value.



Iris shape came up when dealing with lenses for the linhof technikardan 23s as it is a conventional view camera with no integrated shutter. Solution was to use vintage shutters, get them good again and live with this trade off.


Bernice

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!

[Kiwi7475]

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.

[mhayashi]

Alternatives are
Zeiss Tessar 165mm f2.7 and
Zeisss Biotessar 165mm f2.8.

If you can find one in the compound V shutter, you’re lucky but most samples are in barrel mounts so the Sinar copal shutter should be used with these lenses.