lens for b/w portraits

[pierods]

I am trying to find a good lens for portraits, to be used on my F80, almost exclusively for b/w film.

I was looking into buying an expensive lens, 135mm f/2 DC, but then had a conversation with an old timer, and he told me that from the 60s onwards, lenses have been optimized for color, so for truly great b/w I need an old lens (like from the 50s).

Is is a ton of BS or is it true?

Or maybe, since color doesn't matter, any lens is good as long as it matches resolution figures of expensive lenses?

I don't really know what the most important feature of an excellent b/w lens. I was going to take the easy way and assume that an excellent modern lens is an excellent b/w lens.

True?

 

[arigram]

An excellent lens is an excellent lens, period.

 

[dferrie]

I'd agree with arigram, if it's good, it's good.

 

[arigram]

A longer answer.
Modern lens ARE optimized for color, but that doesn't mean that they are bad for BW, quite the opposite.
Don't forget, that all lenses capture light in colors, its the film that "converts" it to black and white.
Better capture of colors by the lens, better tones on BW film.
Modern lenses have better element design, better element structure, multiple anti-flare, contrast and color saturation
coatings, distortions and chromatic aberrations are better controlled, but that of course it all depends on the
lens itself.
My Hasselblad Carl Zeiss lens in their latest design are better in general than ones made in the 60s for example,
but they are also better than cheaper modern lenses. So, its not strange that an older lens will be better than a
modern lens if the former is of higher quality design to begin with.

EDIT: Steve's post expands on mine.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think it's possible for an older lens which is great for black and white to not perform so well for colour but a lens which is good for colour should also be good for black and white.

In the early days of black and white the film did not have even colour sensitivity and was particularly poor in the red region. A simple lens will focus different colours in a slightly different place which, for early black and white film, was not too important. This is called chromatic aberration.
When colour arrived, lens design had to improve to get all the colours focussing in the same place to prevent soft images.
A lens corrected for colour is known as achromatic.

Good description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens

I think this is where the confusion arises.

EDIT: I see Ari answered whilst I was typing!



Steve.

 

[edz]

I am trying to find a good lens for portraits, to be used on my F80, almost exclusively for b/w film.

I was looking into buying an expensive lens, 135mm f/2 DC, but then had a conversation with an old timer, and he told me that from the 60s onwards, lenses have been optimized for color, so for truly great b/w I need an old lens (like from the 50s).

Is is a ton of BS or is it true?

In every pile of dung is a worm of truth.

Since the 1960s glass has been optimized for sharpness and colour correctness. These are not always traits universally desirable with B&W or portraits. Portraits don't, for instance, always want to be sharp down to the smallest human flaw. They also might want a bit more, or a bit less contrast. Often one wants a large geometric aperture but not necessarily sharpness, a more gentile transition out of field and partially what one often calls "bokeh".

Or maybe, since color doesn't matter, any lens is good as long as it matches resolution figures of expensive lenses?

Resolution is, I think, not the primary concern but "look". Many of us really like the look of old glass. Colour? Its been around since the 1940s (Schneider's Xenon and Xenars were often sold in the 1940s and 1950s over Zeiss' models due to what was then considered their better colour correction and contrast).
Resolution and sharpness? A 50+ year old Voigtlaender Ultron 50mm/1:2 has resolution at the top of the league by today's standards: f/4 center 165 lp/mm.
.

I don't really know what the most important feature of an excellent b/w lens. I was going to take the easy way and assume that an excellent modern lens is an excellent b/w lens.

What's a good screwdriver? One that fits the screw.

 

[Steve Smith]

Resolution is, I think, not the primary concern but "look".

I think this is the most important point.



Steve.

 

[RobC]

Try a 100mm macro lense for a few portraits and then you'll see why sharp is not necessarily desirable.

 

[Anscojohn]

Pierods,
Back when I first began photographing, it was common for someone doing portraits to take their lens, put a filter on it, and then add all kinds of stuff on the lens, then shoot wide open, to "soften" the effect. Nylon mesh, vaseline, etc. etc. The theory was that too sharp an image was not necessarily desirable for portraits.
As others have said, a good lens is a good lens, is a good lens. FWIW, my own thoughts have always been around focal length, not "sharpness.," Perhaps the most commonly used lens for portraits was the 105 2.5 Nikkor. It and others from 80 to 105 were the focal lengths I always preferred. An old 80 mm 2.8 East German Tessar, with some fall off at the edges wide open, did a nice job for me. My very favorite was a 100 mm 2.8 Meyer Orestor. It had no automatic diaphragm, but it was very compact, light as a result. It focused just fine at f/ 4.0 and open shade portraits on FP-4 always seemed to have a nice "look" to them.
Use a fairly wide aperture, focus on a catch light in the subject's eye, and go to it.
My two cents.
John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

 

[fschifano]

There's an easy way to do this too. Yes, it's true that some very old lenses are not color corrected. It's also true that these lenses may not perform very well with modern panchromatic B&W film for the same reason they don't perform well with color film. So, for the most part, you've been fed a line by this particular old-timer. Glad you didn't swallow the hook.

There is no need to go out and buy a really expensive lens for portraiture. If your F100 can handle MF lenses, and I think it can, you can pick up a used 85mm f/2 Nikkor for not much money. The lens is simply spectacular. It's small, light, and incredibly sharp. You can soften it up a little with a very light diffusing filter if you want. I use one for portraits and have never been let down.

 

[Nick Zentena]

If you want 135mm the AIS or AI [not sure if they'll meter on your body or not] will be very reasonable. Most people seem to have developed a taste for shorter then 135mm. Means those of us who like 135mm get nice lenses for not much.

 

[panastasia]

I just gave away my 85mm f1.7 Rokkor recently, not knowing it was worth 5 times what I thought it's value was ($200+) - way more than what I paid new. The glass was mint. Oh well.

 

[Doug Webb]

If autofocus is important to you and the full range of metering functions is important to you, then any autofocus lens made by Nikon in the 85 to 135 range should work. I have the 85 1.8D autofocus lens and I use it a lot on my F100 for portraits. I previously used a 105 on manual focus bodies, but now I like the 85 better. If you really want a very tight close up headshot with the 85mm lens you may need a short extension tube. If you use a longer lens in a very tight space you may find your back against the wall. Be sure that an older manual focus lens will mount and work with your metering system or you may find yourself with a lens you can't use or don't like using. If you really want an older manual focus lens you can probably pick up an older manual focus body to go with it for a very reasonable price.
Good luck,
Doug Webb

 

[DBP]

My favorite Nikon lens for portraits is a battered old 85/2 that has lots of what are euphemistically referred to as 'cleaning marks'.

 

[Erik Ehrling]

I am trying to find a good lens for portraits, to be used on my F80, almost exclusively for b/w film.

Both the Nikkor AI-S 105mm f2.5 and 85mm f1.4 are legendary portrait lenses and you can't go wrong with either one. The 105mm is my favourite and is cheaper. (Not sure how well AI-S lenses work with the F80, though, as I'm only using manual bodies...)

Regards,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... an old timer, and he told me that ... for truly great b/w [portraits] I need an old lens (like from the 50s)...[???]

Single coated lenses often work better for B&W in general because the slightly increased flare acts a 'flashing' exposure to get the shadows off the toe of the film's response curve. With color film this flare can result in an objectionable color-cast to the shadows. Voigtlander sells single coated versions of some of it's RF lenses for B&W use.

Going further, uncoated lenses can give a bit of glow to hair highlights and old soft-focus portrait lenses are still prized for their, er, soft-focus look. Of course, large format photographers have a wider choice in these old lenses.

If you are stuck with 35mm then Nikon makes/made a variable-softness portrait lens. Minolta, Canon and Pentax also produced portrait lenses. Other lenses to consider are the 'Lens Baby', the 60's soft-focus novelty lenses from Spiratone et. al., and do-it-yourself lash-ups made from close-up lenses and bellows/cardboard tubes/etc..

You might try a 30's Exakta lens with a Nikon-Exakta adapter.

Google for 'soft focus lens' and 'portrait lens' for more information.

 

[Anscojohn]

My understanding is the the original question was about conerns over sharpness with black and white--and here we are all telling him how to blurry up a lens!! (vbg)

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

 

[John Koehrer]

Link #16 from Nicholas has the right idea. With current technology it's possible to be too sharp for a portrait. The single coated Nikkor 105's & 85's are all pretty good.
The 85's allow a little more comfort indoors in that you're not backed against a wall. 105's you need a little more room for the same head size, and though some people like 135's I've never been happy with the results from them. I perceive more "flattening" than I care for.
Isn't it voigtlander that produces a lens with either multi-coating or single coating depending on whether you shoot B&W or color?

 

[edz]

Isn't it voigtlander that produces a lens with either multi-coating or single coating depending on whether you shoot B&W or color?

Its really quite silly. The background is that many B&W films have some UV sensitivity. Since single coatings will filter less UV the theory is that one has more flexibility without and not much to grain with multicoatings. I could even argue coatings! I personally like some uncoated glass. I have a late 1930s Zeiss Sonnar that is quite nice. Its sharp but still wonderful as a miniature format portrait lens with just the right contrast---- for B&W I've found it far preferable to the post war coated versions. Coatings, of course, have changed. My late 1930s Schneider Xenon is quite different from my sample 1940s postwar Xenons. In my postwar books the Sonnar and Biotars are considered B&W while the Schneider Xenons and Xenars are called "colour". By the early 1950s at the very latest professional and amateur gear was already geared fully for colour photography (its in the 1960s and 1970s that colour film and processing came down in price and became more accessible to a mass public).

 

[pierods]

I think I'll have a hard time finding a lens from the 30's...somebody has a practical suggestion? (nikon mount)

 

[Dan Fromm]

Pierods, this is an interesting discussion filled with irrelevant hot air. Just get a Nikkor the focal length you need that will meter and, if needed, autofocus on your camera and use it. And don't look back.

There is a myth to the effect that older lenses were not well achromatised. This is largely nonsense. It was put out by mainly by a couple of German manufacturers (Agfa, Voigtlaender) who claimed that the lenses they started to sell in the late 1940s (Color Ambion, Color Skopar, ... ) were better achromatized than their older ones, so buy a new camera now to use with color film, you old camera's no good. Buy! Spend!

Thing is, a poorly achromatized lens won't give a sharp image on b/w film. In fact, at least one lens maker produced a soft focus lens that got the soft focus effect because it was deliberately made anachromatic. Boyer's Opale, for example.

About relevancy. You're stuck with F mount. Ain't no poorly-corrected Nikkors in F mount. Other makes, perhaps, but Nikkors are all pretty good.

FWIW, I used to shoot informal portraits at events, carried a pair of Nikkormat FTNs, each with a sonnar-type 105/2.5 Nikkor. One loaded with color film, the other with b/w. When I was careful about focus, composition and exposure the results were good. When I wasn't, they weren't.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

 

[John Koehrer]

Its really quite silly

Might be silly, but it's their marketing & manufacturing.

 

[keithwms]

On the Nikon side I like the 105s for portraiture. The 105/1.8 and the slower (but non-macro) 105 are notable. I don't think the 135 DC has enough bokeh control (I am comparing it to a medium format SF lens though, maybe it's not fair).

You'll just have to experiment. The good news is that experimenting is fun. More fun than following my advice, that's for sure

 

[edz]

There is a myth to the effect that older lenses were not well achromatised. This is largely nonsense. It was put out by mainly by a couple of German manufacturers (Agfa, Voigtlaender) who claimed that the lenses they started to sell in the late 1940s (Color Ambion, Color Skopar, ... ) were better achromatized than their older ones, so buy a new camera now to use with color film, you old camera's no good. Buy! Spend!

No. They NEVER claimed that their objectives were better corrected--- and some, in fact, were. The claims were sometimes about better optics (a lot of the market was about offering options and many of the companies came out with more simple, cheaper designs) but mainly about coatings and contrast. The post war Sonnar and pre-war Sonnar, for example, from Zeiss were made using the same calculations-- in fact the German Luftwaffe got coated ones delivered for their air surveillance cameras (Robot II) during the war (also used alloy shells instead of steel). The belief and message from Schneider (and accepted by the market) was that the coated ones worked better with colour. Colour photography was very very expensive and anyone with deep enough pockets to shoot color tended to need little reason to get new gear. Keep in mind that the cameras we are talking about cost no less than a good months salary of a higher place civil servant (such as a town's mayor). Despite the prices the post-war German economy was in a state of boom consumption. Most of these cameras had waiting lists (some even as long as 6 months to a year). People not just bought the cameras but all kinds of accessories and cases (alone the popular Omnica leather cases cost $50-$75 USD in the US and were even less "affordable" in Europe) pricing the gear en par with a well known economy automobile. Some of the U.S. attempts too were not cheap--- the $800 USD one would have needed to spend in 1948 for a Bell and Howell Foton comes to mind.

 

[ehparis]

I am trying to find a good lens for portraits, to be used on my F80, almost exclusively for b/w film.

I was looking into buying an expensive lens, 135mm f/2 DC...

Is is a ton of BS or is it true?

BS

Find a good used 85mm f1.4 AI or AIS lens and live happily ever after.