Imagon for 8x10

[George Papantoniou]

Is it true that a Rodestock Imagon will cover 8x10 ? I read it in a description on Ebay but I cannot trust what the seller claims to be true... it would be interesting to be able to do soft focus portraits on 8x10 with it, though...

 

[Ole]

The 300mm Imagon (the longest there is, AFAIK) is said to cover 5x7". So it also depends on what is meant by "cover" - the margins on 8x10" will be mush, but that's sort of the point? It won't vignette, that much is certain.

 

[Petzi]

The longest focal length of an Imagon that I have heard of is a 420mm. That would be appropriate for 8x10". A 360mm Imagon also exists. The Imagon 420mm hasn't been produced for a very long time though that doesn't really matter if you can find one.

It would not fit current shutters. I think it may have been available in a #5 shutter. Old Imagons are offered in Compund shutters most of the time. Read here about the Compound shutter: http://www.skgrimes.com/compound/index.htm

Make sure you get the perforated aperture disks that came with the lens also. They are used to control the soft focus effect.

 

[clay]

I had a modern 250 imagon that covered 8x10 at infinity. Were the edges sharp? No. But hey, it was a soft focus lens. I think a lot of the manufacturer's listed coverage figures are VERY conservative. My Kodak 305 portrait lens actually illuminates my 12x20! Go figure.

 

[George Papantoniou]

Thanks, everyone. I won't mind it if the edges of the image are not sharp. I wouldn't like the lens to vignette, though...

 

[Ole]

I wouldn't like the lens to vignette, though...

I've got a 250 sitting around here somewhere - glass only (got it very cheap). It doesn't vignette on 8x10", although I admit to not having tried it in a shutter (it takes a Copal 3s, all I have are Compound 3's).

 

[Petzi]

Thanks, everyone. I won't mind it if the edges of the image are not sharp. I wouldn't like the lens to vignette, though...

The 420mm was designed for 18x24cm, which is reasonably close to 8x10".
The 250mm was to be used with 9x12cm or 4x5"
The 200mm was made for 6x9cm.
The 120mm and 150mm were made for 4,5x6cm and 6x6cm.

If you want reasonably sharp but soft images, then you should follow these suggestions. The purpose of soft focus lenses is not to produce unsharp photos. Not even in the edges.

 

[clay]

Personally, I love the soft swirly edges when you push these lenses beyond their recommended limits. I mean, why the hell call them soft focus if they produce sharp images?

But I agree with you that the reason the manufacturers publish such conservative figures is to ensure that the image is not too soft anywhere on negative.

But I have always hated following well intentioned advice.

If you want reasonably sharp but soft images, then you should follow these suggestions. The purpose of soft focus lenses is not to produce unsharp photos. Not even in the edges.

 

[Petzi]

If you want an unsharp image, you can have that with any lens.

 

[clay]

There is a huge difference between merely 'unsharp' and 'soft focus'.

True enough, 'unsharp' can be achieved by not focusing correctly.

However, the beautiful soft focus effect that I love comes from the highlight glow, which is often uncorrected spherical and chromatic aberration superimposed on a basically sharp image. The peripheral coverage on these lenses seen when pushing their coverage still has that glow and effect, which is something I like. It cannot be achieved by merely being sloppy when focusing an ordinary lens. Entirely different things.

Try it sometime.

If you want an unsharp image, you can have that with any lens.

 

[resummerfield]

While we're on the subject...... I have a Compound #5 shutter. I have also seen 360 Imagons in Compound 5 shutters, as well as 360 Imagons in barrel. Does anyone know if the 360 Imagon in barrel will be a simple fit in a Compound 5 shutter? Also, how about the 420 Imagon--will it fit in a Compound 5?

 

[Ted Harris]

Given that Rodenstock recommends the 200 for 6x9, the 250 for 4x5 and the 300 for 5x7 wouldn't the 360 be the more approprite focdal length for 8x10? I have never seen any Rodenstock literature on the long discontinued focal lengths but 360 sounds more logical to me ... assuming of course we are talking about using the lens for portrait work.

 

[JG Motamedi]

I have never seen a 360mm Imagon in shutter. They wouldn't fit into a no. 5 at full aperture, so it must have been a aftermarket job which sacrificed speed and softness in favor of mounting in a shutter.

If I recall correctly, the 420 was intended to be the 8x10 lens, while the 360 was for 6.5x8.5" full plates.

 

[Petzi]

Given that Rodenstock recommends the 200 for 6x9, the 250 for 4x5 and the 300 for 5x7 wouldn't the 360 be the more approprite focdal length for 8x10? I have never seen any Rodenstock literature on the long discontinued focal lengths but 360 sounds more logical to me ... assuming of course we are talking about using the lens for portrait work.

If the 250mm is for 4x5", then proper focal length for 8x10" would be 500mm, right? The 420mm lens is from a time when only centimeter formats were known in Germany, and 18x24cm is a little smaller than 8x10".

 

[George Papantoniou]

If the 250mm is for 4x5", then proper focal length for 8x10" would be 500mm, right? The 420mm lens is from a time when only centimeter formats were known in Germany, and 18x24cm is a little smaller than 8x10".

I guess that the 250mm was considered to be the proper focal length for the 4x5 because it is longer that the "normal" focal length for this format, which is 150mm. Portrait lenses are longer that "normal" in every format you want. I don't think they chose the 250mm for its coverage.

This takes me to another question I always had. Since in 8x10 the magnification needed to make a close full face portrait is not far from 1:1, the bellows extension will be long and the lens will be further from the film than "normal" (if it was focused at infinity)... Does this change something in the distortion created when working with a "normal" lens in portraiture ? I mean, if I try do do a portrait from a close distance with a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens the face will be distorted. But I tried the same thing (same framing of the face) with an 8x10 and a 360mm (which is like a 60mm for the 35mm format) and there was no distortion. Was it because the bellows extension was so big that the lens "behaved" in terms of image perspective the way a longer lens would ? If this is true, then we wouldn't really need long focal lenghts to make portraits in 8x10, would we ?

 

[Ole]

The "distortion" is a result of perspective, which again depends on the distance from subject to lens. A 360mm on 8x10" at face-filling distance will be something like 1.2m from the subject, which gives a quite different perspective fro the 50cm or so with a 50mm on 35mm film.

My 1910 photography book suggests a minimum distance (lens to subject) of 1.75m for portraits, which means a 480mm lens should be just about right for 8x10".

 

[Paddy]

Given that Rodenstock recommends the 200 for 6x9, the 250 for 4x5 and the 300 for 5x7 wouldn't the 360 be the more approprite focdal length for 8x10? I have never seen any Rodenstock literature on the long discontinued focal lengths but 360 sounds more logical to me ... assuming of course we are talking about using the lens for portrait work.

Rodenstock's literature recommended 5x7" as the max. size for both the 300mm & the 360mm. No mention found for the 420(?) Also, Rodenstock lists a Compound IV as the shutter for the 300mm, and a V for the 360mm.

Glennview has both of these lenses listed: the 300 in compound IV, and 360mm in barrel. His coverage claims echo what has been mentioned here, namely that actual coverage is higher than Rodenstock's (best quality) conservative of 40 deg. - 8x10 for the 300mm and 11x14 coverage for the 360mm

 

[Steve Hamley]

I have a 300mm Imagon; it is in a Compound #5 and looks like it will not fit into anything smaller at full aperture.

Steve

 

[df cardwell]

The "distortion" is caused by a too close working distance, resulting in an objectionable difference in magnification of the near and far points of the sitter. It is exactly the same problem as filling a 35mm frame with a face... with a 20mm lens.

Move the lens away from the sitter, the magnification difference diminishes, and the problem is solved. And, when the image size is equalized by enlargement of 7.2 times, the 50mm lens makes exactly the same image as the 360, from the same distance from the subject.

Like the 50mm on a 35mm camera, 2 meters is reliably safe for a 360 on 8x10, 1.5M is usually OK, and 1.2M is acceptable if you are careful about where the ears and nose are aimed !

And like 35mm, where the small difference between a 50 and a 60 for close up work makes all the difference in a portrait, going from a 360 to 480 makes all the difference in a tight composition.

Practically, though, it is FAR EASIER to compose a portrait loosely on 8x10,
and enlarge the 6x8 / 15x20cm portion of the film, for which 360 is perfect ! Or, compose a head and shoulders image in the 15x20cm core of 8x10 film, and use the remainder of the filed for 'context'.

My 360 Imagon, in Compound, covers 8x10 sufficiently from 2 meters to never have a worry. I think for critical use ( this is silly ) you shouldn't expect it to image more than a 250 mm circle at infinity. Thankfully, the edge of the image circle is not abrupt and we can really get away with a lot with the lens.

 

[George Papantoniou]

Thank you all for the precise and wise answers... indeed, I should have thought about the critical matter of lens-to-subject distance which controls the perspective distortion.

 

[Ted Harris]

I have a 300mm Imagon; it is in a Compound #5 and looks like it will not fit into anything smaller at full aperture.

Rodenstock offered the 300mm in later versions in a #3 Copal and, because of the smaller shutter size, eliminated the widest disc from the box. I have one of these and it came new with only two discs instead of the three that came with my 250. The widest opening in the first disc is 7.7, the same as the widest opening in the middle disc of those offered earlier in a Compound shutter.