For portraiture: 80mm with extension tube a bad idea?

[philipus]

Hello everybody

I have a 80mm Planar FE (and 203FE) and am considering adding an extension tube as a birthday present to myself.

I've shot SLRs for years (EOS) but never used extension tubes. I've read that an 80mm with extension tubes is not recommended for closer/tighter (but not really tight head shot) portraits because the perspective will look distorted. It is said that a 150mm would be better. Could someone explain this, perhaps with example images?

I know the 150mm range (or roughly 90mm in 135) is a very nice portrait focal length but I am trying to understand why an 80mm with extension tube would be less ideal for tighter portraits.

If it is possible to shoot such portraits with an 80mm, should I go for the 16 or 21 tube?

I can't buy a 150mm at the moment so if the above tubes are bad ideas for natural-looking tighter portraits, then I might instead get a 56 to shoot quasi-macro (which I am also interested in) and extend my close-portrait equipment later when funds allow.

Very grateful for any advice
Philip

 

[bluez]

Close up portraits with a normal lens or a wider lens, doesen't look good. There are several videos on you tube that explains why (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dau5jIY586I).
Now the good thing is that a portrait lens dosen't have to be sharp or have high contrast to look good, in fact a not so sharp lens might look more flattering.

So if you can't afford a 150 or 210mm i would try to get an inexpencive teleconverter. It might work very well. There is one for sale at ebay for 33$ (HASSELBLAD ROKUNAR HB 2X).

 

[philipus]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm at work (evidently very focused haha) so can't watch Youtube but I'll have a look when I come home.

I've checked Flickr for images taken with the 80 and extension tubes and most seem OK to my eyes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/b_o_d/9472752655 (with the 16)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/summer_ming/4580274217 (with the 21)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/summer_ming/4566773907 (with the 21, here I believe I can see the distortion).

Note, I'm not looking to fully fill the frame with a head (or less) but want to leave room around. I'm beginning to wonder if the 16 isn't the ticket.

cheers
philip

 

[gone]

Remember, an 80mm MF lens is a wide angle lens. If your subject has a small nose, it may work, sorta. With a largish nose, they or you won't be happy. The Jimmy Durante effect. As bluez mentioned, look for the teleconverter or a not so sharp longer length lens. The cheaper lenses may not have great bokeh, and a teleconverter will make your lens slow, meaning more of the background is going to show up in focus. A distracting background ruins portraits, so if you can't find a good lens for portraits in your budget and if a teleconverter gives you too much background (in a studio you can control the background of course so no big deal), then you can always stand back to avoid the big nose effect and crop. W/ 120 there's plenty of real estate on the neg, so you should still be able to get a good smallish portrait.

All of this is why I prefer 35mm for portraits, and one of the reasons is that small change will buy you a really good portrait lens. One of the better ones is a Canon FD 85 1.8. The FD S.C. 135 2.5 is good too, but you get compression w/ that focal length. The nose tends to get small, but a little smooshed looking sometimes. The 85 lens is better, and the 1.8 aperture means it's a little soft and you can get just the eyes in focus at times. Nice effect. . Then there's the Leica R 90 lenses. An Elmarit is great, a Summicron is pure magic. Expensive though for the Summi lens.

 

[Dinesh]

Remember, an 80mm MF lens is a wide angle lens. .

Isn't an 80 on MF a standard lens?

 

[bdial]

The 80 should get plenty close enough for portraits, I'd think an extension tube, even a short one would have you doing portraits of the sitter's nose or eyes.
If portraits are the goal and your budget doesn't allow a longer prime, the suggestion of a teleconverter is a good solution, another might be getting a Softar soft focus filter. Won't help with working distance or close distortion, but it will tame the sharpness.

Note that for tight portraits with the 150 (500 series lens) you do need a short extension tube, as the close focusing is not terribly close for that lens.

 

[philipus]

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated.

The 80 should get plenty close enough for portraits, I'd think an extension tube, even a short one would have you doing portraits of the sitter's nose or eyes.

I'm not so interested in having the face fill the screen, but rather fitting head and hair in the frame as well as the upper part of the shoulders. I guess there's a correlation between the amount of distortion (with an 80 plus tube) and the working distance and the tube used. From the various examples I've seen on Flickr many portraits with 80 plus the 10 or 16 tubes will result in normal-looking faces.

br
Philip

 

[bluez]

A normal lens equals the diagonal of the negative, thats 79mm on a 6x6 that makes a 80mm a normal lens on Hasselblad. What i think momus is think about is that a diagonal on 35mm is a 43mm lens.
So compared to a 50mm normal lens, a 80mm feels slightly wide.

 

[bluez]

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated.



I'm not so interested in having the face fill the screen, but rather fitting head and hair in the frame as well as the upper part of the shoulders. I guess there's a correlation between the amount of distortion (with an 80 plus tube) and the working distance and the tube used. From the various examples I've seen on Flickr many portraits with 80 plus the 10 or 16 tubes will result in normal-looking faces.

br
Philip

If you are going to make shoulder portraits, do you really need close up tubes?

 

[bdial]

I suppose I should talk about things I've actually tried

I don't have an 8 or a 16 tube, but do have a 10 and a 21. Just did a quick test with my accommodating wife. With the 21 and the 80 at infinity, the framing is tight for a head portrait, it's pretty much just the face. The 10 gives me head and shoulders kind of loosely framed. Distortion-wise, either seem ok. Working distance is maybe 2 feet.

Based on my quick experiment, the 8 tube will probably give you the most flexibility. At infinity you can probably fit the top of a head down to the bust or perhaps the waist, and you'll still have the ability to frame tighter with closer focusing.

You may still want a softar too, unless you want to be able to count pores.
Hope that helps.

 

[mdarnton]

I have tubes, but mainly use a Proxar for what you want to do. It's faster and cheap, and the quality is good. A 2M will start you at about six feet and closer in than the lens alone, but not too close, so it's good for portrait range.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Agree that the 8mm extension tube would be the most sensible choice since everything longer than that would definitely give you too narrow a frame. On the other hand, I think you won´t need an extension tube at all since head and shoulder portraits should be possible without it. The 80mm FE lens does even focus some 2 inch closer than the 80mm CF lens if my memory is right... In general, with the 203Fe I would choose on of the E-tubes, not the older ones. (In case of the 8mm, you do not have a choice though, since it was never available with electric contacts). They keep you the automatic features of your camera and they do not cost more than the older tubes if you shop carefully.For tight portraits, 150/2,8 FE or 180/4 CFe would be my recommendation, but if you are on a budget, you can also try one of the cheap Vivitar or Kenko 2x tele converters.

Edit: I completely forgot that you can´t use the 8mm on the 200 series! (See the following post). In this case: I would not use a tube at all. 16mm is way too much an extension for portraiture with the 80mm. To be true I´m not sure if you can attach the Vivitar or Kenko converters either, better look for further information on that. Sorry!!!

 

[itsdoable]

I use the 203fe with proxars and extension tubes, and I'll just reiterate what mdarnton and Slixtiesix says.


Proxars are much more convenient than extension tubes, you can quickly install or remove then with little fuss. Extension tubes require you to remove the lens, add the tube, replace the lens. The final results are the same (I'm sure if you pixel peek on a digital back, you'll see some differences). The 2m and 1m proxars are most useful for this.


If you get extension tubes, there are two important things to keep in mind:

1) I would recommend getting the "E" versions, the cost is more, but you retain aperture information for the built in meter - if you don't use the built in meter, then the non-E tubes are fine.

2) Many of the older extension tube <55mm do not fit on the 200/2000 series bodies because they interfere with the shutter setting ring. If memory serves me right (!!) the 8mm and 10mm extension tubes are not compatible with the 203, neither is the old 21mm. The shortest extension tube I have that works on the 203 is the 16mm, which gives you a maximun working distance of ~2ft with the 80mm FE lens. The shortest E-compatible extension is 16mm.


As far as using the 80mm or the 150mm, the longer focal lengths allow you to get a tight framing with a greater subject to camera distance. The closer you are (ie 2ft) the more fore-shortening you have with perspective, so you accentuate features on the face. The further away, the less prominent those feature become. So it really depends on how you want it to look. There is no right or wrong, but culturally, most people prefer decentuating the size of the nose, which means being farther away from the subject, hence the longer lens. There are some wonderful portraits taken with 300mm (and longer) lenses.

 

[MattKing]

With all due respect, there is too much discussion of equipment options in this thread.

The issue isn't which focal length or accessory to use - it is which working distance will result in the most flattering perspective.

If you are too close to your subject, their nose may look too large, their ears too small, and their heads and upper bodies will appear to be too "three dimensional" (i.e. too deep).

If you are too far from your subject, their various parts may look to be of appropriate relative size, but they may look too "flat" - i.e. they won't appear sufficiently three dimensional.

The experience of many photographers over many years leads to the conclusion that a good working distance will be achieved by filling the frame with a lens of a focal length that is approximately twice the length of a "standard" lens.

In some cases, however, those lenses don't focus close enough to do that. IIRC, the Hasselblad 150mm lenses are in that group. So sometimes it is necessary to add some close focusing capability. Close-up filters are often a good option for portraits.

Another excellent option is to use an 80mm lens, shoot from a bit farther away (more of a one third-length portrait), and crop in the darkroom. What you gain in flattering perspective will often offset the slight loss in technical quality that results from the crop.

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated.

I'm not so interested in having the face fill the screen, but rather fitting head and hair in the frame as well as the upper part of the shoulders. I guess there's a correlation between the amount of distortion (with an 80 plus tube) and the working distance and the tube used. From the various examples I've seen on Flickr many portraits with 80 plus the 10 or 16 tubes will result in normal-looking faces.

br
Philip

The extension tube has one job. It allows you to focus when very close to the subject.

The reason you might want to get close to the subject is to magnify the subject, fill the camera frame. Extension tubes are used, for example, to take a picture of the stamens in a flower or a ring or a bug or other small subject

Given your subject matter it won't help you focus, in fact it might make it impossible to focus.

 

[markbarendt]

In my experience the best way to get a normal looking print is to start at the wall where you want to put the photo.

If you want a 16x16 print and your normal print viewing distance is about 2', the 80 on you Hasselblad will give you a normal looking print.

If you want a 24x24 print at the same 2' print viewing distance you could use a wider lens yet and still have it look normal.

If you are going to print 10x10 a longer lens will make a print that looks more normal, at the same 2' viewing distance.

So point your 80 at the frame you want to put the portrait in, move forward or back until the picture area is framed perfectly in the finder. The lens is then at the "normal perspective" viewing distance for the print.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello everybody

I have a 80mm Planar FE (and 203FE) and am considering adding an extension tube as a birthday present to myself.

I've shot SLRs for years (EOS) but never used extension tubes. I've read that an 80mm with extension tubes is not recommended for closer/tighter (but not really tight head shot) portraits because the perspective will look distorted. It is said that a 150mm would be better. Could someone explain this, perhaps with example images?

I know the 150mm range (or roughly 90mm in 135) is a very nice portrait focal length but I am trying to understand why an 80mm with extension tube would be less ideal for tighter portraits.

If it is possible to shoot such portraits with an 80mm, should I go for the 16 or 21 tube?

I can't buy a 150mm at the moment so if the above tubes are bad ideas for natural-looking tighter portraits, then I might instead get a 56 to shoot quasi-macro (which I am also interested in) and extend my close-portrait equipment later when funds allow.

Very grateful for any advice
Philip

Most people wrongly assume that changing focal length changes perspective,because,yhey've been told this fallacyso many times by so many different sources.Still,That is not at all true.only changing the viewpoint changes perspective.So, unless you and your camera move,changing focal length just changessubject magnification.Using an extensionringmoves you and your cameracloser to the subject,whichchanges perspective indeed!Moving the viewpoint closer to the faceThis is not very flattering for a portraitThe nose appears larger than it reallyisand the ears seem further awayand smaller than they are.Changing to a 150mm on the other hand,enlarges the entire subject uniformly and thereforemore natuarally. Consequently, a 150 ispreferred over an 80mm with extension tubes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Isn't an 80 on MF a standard lens?

It certainly is!'normal' is everything close to negative diagonal.

 

[philipus]

Thank you all very, very much for this wealth of information. I appreciate that you've taken the time to write such detailed replies. I wish there were a "Thank you" button in the forum.

The Proxar filters are interesting. This thread has caused me to look for portraits taken with such filters. I'm actually quite impressed with the quality I've seen at Flickr. Perhas that's a good middle way for now.

I checked the data sheets for the CF and FE lenses and, indeed, there's a difference in close focusing distance, 0,9m vs 0,6 (I guess roughly 3ft vs 2ft). At the closest distance the data sheets tell me that the field size is 51x51cm vs 31x31cm. I actually hadn't realised this. The question is if the 80mm will cause disturbing distortion in the closer focusing range but I guess that will also depend on the size of the subject's ears and nose

So, I now understand that an extension tube likely won't help me with respect to portraits.

I prefer portraits where the subject looks natural. Perhaps there's no way getting around buying a longer lens. I know I'll be getting a 150mm at some point and have also toyed with the idea of the 180 and a 250 but we'll see where that lands ultimately. Regarding 150mm lenses, though, the FE has a closest focusing distance of 1,2m at which point the field size is 39x39 cm. That actually sounds really perfect for my purposes (similar to the 150CF's 40x40 at 1,4m). 1,2-1,4m is a pleasant working distance, I find.

Best
Philip

 

[RalphLambrecht]

A normal lens equals the diagonal of the negative, thats 79mm on a 6x6 that makes a 80mm a normal lens on Hasselblad. What i think momus is think about is that a diagonal on 35mm is a 43mm lens.
So compared to a 50mm normal lens, a 80mm feels slightly wide.

Good analysis;I always wondered why there are so few 43mm lenses for 35mm photography around:confused:

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With all due respect, there is too much discussion of equipment options in this thread.

The issue isn't which focal length or accessory to use - it is which working distance will result in the most flattering perspective.

If you are too close to your subject, their nose may look too large, their ears too small, and their heads and upper bodies will appear to be too "three dimensional" (i.e. too deep).

If you are too far from your subject, their various parts may look to be of appropriate relative size, but they may look too "flat" - i.e. they won't appear sufficiently three dimensional.

The experience of many photographers over many years leads to the conclusion that a good working distance will be achieved by filling the frame with a lens of a focal length that is approximately twice the length of a "standard" lens.

In some cases, however, those lenses don't focus close enough to do that. IIRC, the Hasselblad 150mm lenses are in that group. So sometimes it is necessary to add some close focusing capability. Close-up filters are often a good option for portraits.

Another excellent option is to use an 80mm lens, shoot from a bit farther away (more of a one third-length portrait), and crop in the darkroom. What you gain in flattering perspective will often offset the slight loss in technical quality that results from the crop.

I use a similar rule for all film formats35mm to 4x5:
get a normal lens for std photography
1/2 the normal length for landscapes and
twice the normal length for portraits.

 

[markbarendt]

The Proxar filters are interesting. This thread has caused me to look for portraits taken with such filters. I'm actually quite impressed with the quality I've seen at Flickr. Perhas that's a good middle way for now.

No, probably not. Close up filters fill the exact same role extension tubes do. That is not to say that good portraits can't be made that way, it is to say that it won't be anywhere near what a 150 mm lens does.

Perhaps there's no way getting around buying a longer lens.

Not true.

There are countless examples of 6x6 portraits done with 80mm lenses that look perfectly normal.

Your 80mm lens is a very useable tool for portraits.

 

[removedacct1]

If you buy a 150mm Sonnar lens, it will undoubtedly get lots of use. I purchased one for $250 last fall and its an excellent lens. See: Portrait shot with the Sonnar 150mm T* lens, This about as close as you can get to the subject without adding a Proxar filter, but its plenty close for head-and-shoulder portraiture.

 

[philipus]

.
Not true.

There are countless examples of 6x6 portraits done with 80mm lenses that look perfectly normal.

Your 80mm lens is a very useable tool for portraits.

I agree - the 80 Planar is a very useful lens and works in a wide range of settings. What I meant was that it has limitations if one wants to fill the frame with the head and only the top part of the shoulders. Given that most people tend to be roughly 40-50cm wide at shoulder height one would have to shoot the 80 at less than a metre (and even closer for women probably) so that will introduce some distortion.

But it's a great lens.

 

[philipus]

That's a very nice portrait, full of character.

I agree - the 80 Planar is a very useful lens and works in a wide range of settings. I only meant that it has limitations if one wants to fill the frame with the head and only the top part of the shoulders. Most people tend to be roughly 40-50cm wide at shoulder height so one would have to shoot at less than a metre (and even closer for women probably) which will introduce some distortion.