Sharpest 150mm - 180mm lens wide open

[thomascanet]

Hello to all again, I am a newbie to this LF world, and I have some (maybe)

obvious questions... Thanx for your answers!

 

I am trying to make some portraits with a Technika IV I recently got in an

interesting auction on *bay. It comes with a Linhof select 150mm Symmar from

1964. I made some tests with headshots wide open, and as I can't make any

comparison, I wonder if a newer lens would be sharper.

 

I plan to use it in a "creative" way, playing with the swing and tilt to make

portions of the image unsharp, that's why I need to use it wide open, to

increase the effect.

 

Does anyone tryied these kind of lenses and made some tests? Which are your

recommendations, regarding to sharpness? (the weight is not an issue to me).

Would the defocus effect increase with longer focal lengths?

 

Another question...

 

Is there much difference between the 150mm and the 180mm lens (in terms of

perspective regarding portraits)?

 

Thank you very much for all your answers!

[friedemann_pistorius]

I have no experience with the specific lens you own. I'm using a

Schneider Apo Symmar-L 150 and could not be happier. In

terms of perspective regarding portraits there's not much

difference between 150 and 180mm. I'd prefer lenses in the 240

- 300mm range because of their good working distance and the

better and more pleasing perspective. I'd also stop the lens

down to at least f11, better f16, even for the purpose you

describe, to get the sharp portions REALLY sharp. Using the

camera's movements should be sufficient enough to defocus

the remaining portions of the picture to your satisfaction. Just my

opinion...

[pico_digoliardi]

The sharpest wide open 150mm is a 135mm Planar 3.5. :)

[brian_ellis16]

Few LF lenses are really sharp wide open, on most LF lenses wide open is for focusing and composition, not for making photographs. The Symmar is a decent lens even though it's old. Usually with it and similar older lenses the "problem" isn't so much sharpness as it is lack of contrast (easily fixed in printing) and coverage (not normally a problem with portraits).

 

If by "defocus effect" you mean depth of field, if all other things affecting depth of field remain the same a longer focal length lens will have less depth of field than a shorter one.

[donald_brewster]

I second Pico's suggestion. I will add the 135mm and the 150mm f2.8 Schneider Xenotar as another option.

[leicaglow]

While wide-open is relative with this suggestion (f/9), the Schneider Claron is pretty good "wide open". I have a 150mm that's dang sharp.

[dave_s]

Thomas, I have the same 150 Symmar as you, but mine's from about 1962. It's a good lens for my purposes-- sharp and contrasty around f/16 - f/22 although I'm sure the newer versions have it beat.

 

FWIW, I have some old Rodenstock literature in which they recommend f/16 - 22 as the working aperture for a Sironar, with the proviso that you won't lose much if you go to f/11 or f/32.

 

I wonder if a lumenized 152mm Ektar would be a good inexpensive choice for a sharp lens wide open or one stop down, although not in the same league as a Planar. Is this sane?

[john mackay]

<p>Don't forget to read <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm">

Kerry Thalman's review</a> of Future Classic LF Lenses including the CZ 135 Planar, the Schneider HM and the Rodenstock 150mm Sironar S where he reports that the glass <i>"is incredibly sharp all the way to edges, and even at large stops"</i> I mention Kerry's review because he has either owned and/or used all

the above lenses.</p>

<p>Don't forget that you'll only be around 1mtr from your subject for head and shoulder portraits with a 150mm which wide-open at f/5.6 will only give around 37mm of DOF or around the same DOF as provided by a 50mm f/2 wide-open on 35mm format.</p>

<p>You may instead want to consider some of the traditional portrait lengths of 210mm - 305mm.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

As some of the otheres have said, LF lenses are generally intended to be used stopped down a few stops. I did some experiments with two modern, state of the art LF lenses and found that for best sharpness over a very wide field, f16 or beyond was needed. The center was sharper earlier -- what picks up the most in stopping down is the corners. So for portraits you might not need to stop down as far. Plus you might not need or want the ultimate in sharpness for portaits.

 

Rodenstock's product literature states that the Apo-Sironar-S lenses can be used one stop wider than the Apo-Sironar-N lenses. The "S" lenses use ED glass and consequently have reduced chromatic aberration -- the reduced CA is shown on graphs on the datasheets.

 

I think you will find depth of field to be really tight with the lens wide open, and will lose some shots to the subject moving out of the focus zone. I think you will find the depth of field to still be plenty tight, what I assume you want by defocus effect, even with stopping down a couple of stops, particularly if you use a longer lens.

 

150 and 180 are very close, only 20% different. Both are normal lenses. The format diagonal of 4x5, based on the usable image area, is about 153 mm. So these lenses are distinctly shorter than traditionally recommended for portraits. You could use them for environmental portraits.

[sheldonnalos]

I'd say that the Rodenstock APO Sironar S series of lenses is probably the sharpest of the modern lenses when shot wide open. I love my 150mm f/5.6 and would add a 210mm if I could afford it. I went with APO Sironar N for my 240mm primarily for price reasons. The APO Sironar S lenses also have a very pleasing out of focus rendition (bokeh).

 

Here's a straight on portrait (no movements) taken with my 150mm APO Sironar S shot wide open at f/5.6 on TXP @ 320 in Xtol 1:1, scanned on Epson 4870.<div></div>

[sheldonnalos]

And heres a 100% crop, scan is roughly 1800dpi.<div></div>

[sheldonnalos]

Now that I look at that crop, I think that's me reflecting in his eye, silhouetted against the sky!

[christoph_hammann]

Not to meddle with your creative choices, but with one of these lenses wide open and anti-

Scheimpflug swings/tilts, you'd get a very small zone of focus. Linear, I'd call it. Like in focus

on the pupils, but not the eyelashes. Whenever I've tried something like this, I've stopped the

lens down to working aperture.

OTOH, you'd get lots of beautiful <unword>bokeh<\unword> ;-)

Christoph<div></div>

[big toys are better]

Process lenses such as the G-Clarons were often used wide-open in their normal work forum. If you don't mind losing that stop and a half, then that would work well. A 200 or 300mm Nikon "M" series would have the advantage of being very sharp and contrasty since they are more modern multicoated designs. This would be particulary useful if you are working in color.

[thomascanet]

Thank you very much for your answers! I will work on further on the defocus techniques, as you have proved me that there is no real need to shoot wide open.

Also I am impressed with the pictures posted here. That's just what I am trying to do...

[kelly_flanigan1]

Since Thomas's lens in question is a Linhof select 150mm Symmar F5.6 ? then wouldnt one want to COMPARE IT to another 150mm ish lens at the same F5.6 fstop? ; insteads of "wide open"?<BR><BR>Thus a Xenar, Xenotar, Planar, Ektar in the 150mm range might be compared?

[christopher perez]

I've been looking at classic and modern lenses wide open. In 150mm, I very very seriously doubt you'd be able to tell any difference between your current Linhof Select and a more modern optic.

 

Want to be neurotic? That's easy. Throw money at the problem and buy a different lens.

 

Want to be pragmatic? Shoot what you currently own.