8x10 portrait lens question

[Trimitsis]

I am working on an 8x10 portrait project using one of two lenses depending on the context: a Schneider Symmar-S 240mm f/5.6 and a Fuji W 360mm f/6.3. For the purposes of the project, it's important to me that the lens be very sharp at maximum aperture; I'm finding this to be very true of the Symmar and not true at all of the Fuji. So I'm looking for recommendations for another lens with a similar focal length (360-ish) and similar maximum aperture that would give me better results. I'd be grateful for any suggestions.

Thanks!

Milton Trimitsis
Boston, Ma

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" f6.3. It's widely recognized as a phenomenal portrait lens for 8x10- Yousuf Karsh favored it for his portrait work.

 

[karl]

Surprising. I would think the Fuji 360 would be quite sharp wide open. The Nikon W 360 is pretty reasonable these days. As are the the Symmar and Sironar 360mm lenses. Personally I like the Osaka Commercial 360/f6.8, which is a copy of the 14" Commercial Ektar.

 

[gone]

The terms very sharp wide open and portrait lens are seldom seen together. If you're seeking sharp and can control the background (drop cloth for instance), just stop that sucker down, unless you're running into uncomfortably long shutter speeds in low light, then yes, wide open it is.

Still, since LF lenses are designed for coverage, not necessarily sharpness, some sort of compromise will be needed.

 

[Trimitsis]

Thanks for the responses so far. The portrait work I am doing requires a large aperture/shallow DOF as I am photographing people in their workplaces. The backgrounds are typically quite busy, so lighting and plane of focus are the only tools I have to emphasize their faces. Regarding the 14" Kodak, it seems that Karsh used it pretty stopped down. Does anyone have any experience with its behavior wide open. Also, does anyone have any experience with either the Schneider Symmar or the Rodenstock Sironar 360s (any version)? How do they look at maximum aperture?

 

[removed account4]

Trimitsis:

i have done similar work ( since about 1986 ), but always used a flash ( either a sunpack, or lumedyne 244 )
so i was always able to stop down, sometimes quite a bit. would use of a small flash be part of the mix ?
knowing how dim the places i have had to do workplace portraits ( environmental work, corporate work &c )
it would have been nearly impossible to just shoot wide open and not have a slow shutter speed.

if you are looking for a similar construction / sharpness to your symmar, a g-claron is also a plasmat design
( from what i remember ) they fit without any modification into a copal 1 press ( or polaroid ) shutter ...
i've never shot portraits ( but have done copy work ) with a long gclaron, so i don't know what they would be like
not at infinity, i do know the tominon 127 that came with my speed graphic makes beautiful portraits, not at infinity, and it is also a flat field lens
( also on a polaroid shutter ) ... unfortunately the claron is f9 ( i think ) not much of a wide open shallow DOF ..

good luck with your quest !
john

ps, i use a wollensak 1a triple convertible ( 13-20-25 ) wide open, beautiful DOF shallow and sharp where it needs to be.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thanks for the responses so far. The portrait work I am doing requires a large aperture/shallow DOF as I am photographing people in their workplaces. The backgrounds are typically quite busy, so lighting and plane of focus are the only tools I have to emphasize their faces. Regarding the 14" Kodak, it seems that Karsh used it pretty stopped down. Does anyone have any experience with its behavior wide open. Also, does anyone have any experience with either the Schneider Symmar or the Rodenstock Sironar 360s (any version)? How do they look at maximum aperture?

I've shot with the 14" CE wide open or nearly so and it has sharpness where it is in focus, and the out-of-focus areas (OOFAs) are very nicely soft and quite blurry. I don't think I have any examples posted here now to show you, but even down at f/11 or f/16, your depth of field is pretty shallow (full body but not much more when focused full-length, not quite the entire head when focused for a tight head-shot). At f6.3, you'd be lucky to get from in front of the ear to the end of the nose in focus on a head shot. Bear in mind that f/16 is really only 2 1/2 stops down from wide open.

 

[Trimitsis]

I've now done one portrait session with a Schneider Apo-Symmar 360mm f/6.8. It's a beast of a lens (even by 8x10 standards), but is remarkably sharper at full aperture and f/8 than the Fuji 360. Thanks for all the information!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't quite get the obsession with sharpness. Do you want to get mites on someone's eyelashes in focus? And if sharpness is your priority, I'd be a lot more concerned about keeping the film flat in the holder than nitpicking over several similar lenses wide open. If one had to choose a general purpose plasmat for this kind of purpose, I've found the older Symmar S to give a more pleasant rendering rather wide than the distinctly sharper later plastmats by the "big four". With 8x10 film you've got so much surface area that any modern lens will give you a lot of information on the neg. But very few large format lenses have ever been made which were intended to be used wide open and crisp at the same time. How are you handling depth of field wide open? People's faces aren't exactly flat, so I'd be paying attention more to the quality of the out-of-focus rendering itself, which is inevitable.