180mm for Portraiture

[xkaes]

And it's easy enough to make your own soft-focus/portrait/verito lens:



All you need are the correct supplementary lenses to make the above design -- a weak meniscus lens in the front and a stronger doublet in the rear. And a step-up ring or two for your shutter.

I use inexpensive 55mm Rolev close-up filters in the front, and add more expensive 55mm Minolta doublet close-up lenses in the rear. They made three -- in unusual diopters. #0.95, #2.00, and #3.80. Don't ask me why.

So with a Rolev #1 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 208mm Verito.

And with a Rolev #2 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 172mm Verito.

And with no filter on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 263mm Verito.

The aperture will, of course, vary with the shutter diameter.

[jnantz]

doesn't even have to be that fancy, a Wollaston meniscus lens works great as portrait lenses.

http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html

And it's easy enough to make your own soft-focus/portrait/verito lens:



All you need are the correct supplementary lenses to make the above design -- a weak meniscus lens in the front and a stronger doublet in the rear. And a step-up ring or two for your shutter.

I use inexpensive 55mm Rolev close-up filters in the front, and add more expensive 55mm Minolta doublet close-up lenses in the rear. They made three -- in unusual diopters. #0.95, #2.00, and #3.80. Don't ask me why.

So with a Rolev #1 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 208mm Verito.

And with a Rolev #2 on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 172mm Verito.

And with no filter on the front of a shutter, and a Minolta #3.80 on the rear of the shutter, I end up with a 263mm Verito.

The aperture will, of course, vary with the shutter diameter.

[xkaes]

doesn't even have to be that fancy, a Wollaston meniscus lens works great as portrait lenses.

http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html

Thanks for the link. You are absolutely correct. There is no need to use two close-up lenses for soft-focus/portrait work. You can use just one, and it can be an inexpensive one, as well. But in order to get into the 200-250mm range, an inexpensive close-up lens will have to be a #4 or #5 (180mm needs a #5.5), and when used alone there will be too much chromatic aberration for most portrait work -- unless you stop way down.

That's why the Verito approach was so popular. It's just a little more glass, and is best wide open.

[AidanAvery]

Bernice, thank you very much for that post about the 210 Prinz. It's really good to hear that it doesn't have negative reviews across the board. For what it's worth, I've been enjoying using it so far. And at the time of reading your post, I had just pulled some 4x5 negatives out of the tank that I am really happy with. As has been pointed out in this thread, a lens is hardly the most important part of a portrait. But still it's nice to see some encouraging negatives taken with it. I'm hoping I'll get a chance to scan the negatives tomorrow - if so, I'll post a few of the results.

I think I'd forgotten to answer a few questions earlier in the thread. I shoot in black-and-white. I already work mostly in portraiture, and mostly on medium format up until now (sometimes 35mm depending on the project).
As for how I am going to print/process images, up until now I have scanned negatives and edited them in photoshop/lightroom. However, I'm excited because at the beginning of the July I'll start having access to the local university's darkroom where I'll be able to make enlargements, etc. I'll also have access to their drum scanner. So I'd imagine it'll be a combination of the two: scanning and editing most images, but then working in the darkroom with those that I like the most.

Thanks for the continued recommendations, everyone. I am going to avoid any SF lenses, SF filters, or diffusion filters for now. I know some people stand by them, but in my experience they just aren't my cup of tea. And in the case of the filters specifically, I'd much rather just work with a lens I love, than try and diffuse a lens that I feel is too sharp. In this case, I'm not looking for a soft focus product, only a lens that isn't clinically and off-puttingly sharp. I do sometimes use harder lighting in my portraits, which can be challenging as the format size grows and the detail becomes more visible. This was something that I had to learn to balance carefully when I moved up to medium format a few years ago. As has been pointed out in this thread, thoughtful and intentional lighting is important.

xkaes, thanks for the recommendation as well. I think I'll hold off on making one myself. I think getting to know the new camera and format is enough for me right now. I'd like to go with a lens that's ready to roll. But in the future that sounds like a project I'd enjoy.

I'm still thinking the Xenar is the move when I find one. However, the negatives that I developed yesterday from the Prinz make me feel good about using that for now while I wait for the right Xenar. I'll know more when I scan the negs, but my impression is that this Prinz is working well.

[Peter De Smidt]

Aiden,

That's great! If it were me, I'd spend a good amount of time using the Prinz. I'm planning on using a longer lens in the same series for portraits with an 8x10. Have fun!

[Bernice Loui]

Hello Aiden,

IMO the more important priority at this point in LF time is to develop view camera skills and all related to using the view camera for portraits. Essentially set the "lens" thing aside for now as the 210mm f6.3 Prinz is more than likely going to do great for your current needs. This means figuring out portrait pose, portrait lighting, interaction with the portrait sitter(s), processing film and the print making process and all that. Do try making portrait images with this 210mm from f6.3 (full aperture) to about f16, might discover f8 to be about ideal for head/shoulder portraits. It is much about focus fall-off and the way-smoothness of focus fall off rendering of the portrait sitter's face/head.

Now curious of your portrait images, so share if possible.

Bernice

[xkaes]

xkaes, thanks for the recommendation as well. I think I'll hold off on making one myself. I think getting to know the new camera and format is enough for me right now. I'd like to go with a lens that's ready to roll. But in the future that sounds like a project I'd enjoy.

I'm always a fan of "To avoid GAS, use what you got".

Should you want to learn some more about Verito-type lenses, here is a good summary:

https://apenasimagens.com/en/verito-...-wollensak-en/

[mdarnton]

OP hasn't really made it clear what he's looking for. Initially it seemed like he wanted a normal lens with pleasing rendering, but it's drifted over to overtly soft focus lenses. OP, what are you looking for?????

[BrianShaw]

OP hasn't really made it clear what he's looking for. Initially it seemed like he wanted a normal lens with pleasing rendering, but it's drifted over to overtly soft focus lenses. OP, what are you looking for?????

Post #1: "I really love the look of 180mm lenses with the 4x5. But, frankly, I am a bit lost as to which to pick. I would love any recommendations, specifically in regards to portrait work."

Post #44: "a lens that isn't clinically and off-puttingly sharp."

[AidanAvery]

Thanks, Brian.

OP hasn't really made it clear what he's looking for. Initially it seemed like he wanted a normal lens with pleasing rendering, but it's drifted over to overtly soft focus lenses. OP, what are you looking for?????

Apologies if there was any confusion, Michael. But I actually did state in my last post that I'm specifically not looking for soft focus lenses or filters.

"I am going to avoid any SF lenses, SF filters, or diffusion filters for now. I know some people stand by them, but in my experience they just aren't my cup of tea. And in the case of the filters specifically, I'd much rather just work with a lens I love, than try and diffuse a lens that I feel is too sharp. In this case, I'm not looking for a soft focus product, only a lens that isn't clinically and off-puttingly sharp."

I think they were being recommended because my purpose for the lens is portraiture and sharpness was a concern, but your initial impression is correct. I created the thread looking for a normal lens with pleasing rendering.

EDIT: And this thread has been very, very helpful. Thanks again, everyone. I will probably follow Bernice's advice and shoot with the 210 Prinz for now while I get acquainted with the camera, meanwhile keeping an eye on the classifieds and ebay etc for a Xenar.