nick_rowan

Glenn,

 

<p>

 

Are you saying that if I stand, for example, 10 feet away from a

person and point a 480mm lens at them and then stand 5 feet (or

whatever distance would be necessary to create the same cropping of

view as the 480mm creates) from the the same person and point a 210mm

lens, that the photographs taken with these 2 lenses at these 2

distances would be exactly identical?

 

<p>

 

Then why should I shell out $1500. for a long lens, when I can just

use the 210mm I have now, and simply MOVE CLOSER to my subject when I

photograph them?

I am losing it again...I don't get it...if what you say is true, then

all a longer lens does is CROP a view and make that portion of view

full-frame: so why is that cropped view DIFFERENT than if I simply

move closer to the subject and crop the picture to the same

dimensions?

 

<p>

 

I don't want to merely "crop a picture closer", I want to alter the

relationship between the ground and the subject--or the foreground and

the background--

 

<p>

 

Either a long lens does that or it doesn't--

 

<p>

 

If it doesn't do that, then I'd just as well use a shorter focal

length and move closer--

 

<p>

 

If it does do it, then I would like to find a lens longer than 360mm

that will accomplish this "effect"--

 

<p>

 

I think the central idea in all these explanations is getting lost,

that a long lens causes at least some perceived/relative--call it what

you like--CHANGE IN "RELATIVE SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE"--I like to call it

"compression", you may call it "cropping"--but "cropping" to me

implies NO SPATIAL/DIMENSIONAL CHANGE--and I just can't see how that

could be the case--

 

<p>

 

But if it is the case, then I don't see any argument for purchasing/

using a longer lens.

 

<p>

 

I mean: either a long lens produces a different-looking picture than a

normal focal length or it doesn't--

 

<p>

 

You have to concede that the relationship between foreground and

background within the frame undergoes SOME change by using a really

long lens, or not--

 

-------------------

 

<p>

 

 

On another note, I don't have the option to crop my 4 x 5 negatives,

as I am making mural-size prints and need to utilize the full frame--

to keep the enlargement ratio to a minimum (approx 12x).

 

<p>

 

I am already well aware of the bellows issues with regard to telephoto

vs. normal design--I am not concerned with that--but are you implying

that the view of a telephoto lens is DIFFERENT than a normal-design

long lens, AT THE SAME LENS-TO-SUBJECT DISTANCE? Ie: if I stand 7

feet from a person with a telephoto lens, and then stand 7 feet from

that same person with a normal-design long lens in the same focal

length, that the two "cropped views" are different?

Thank you both for your very detailed answers, but I am still

struggling to understand what you said.

 

<p>

 

Are you saying that the "compression" one senses (and won't you at

least grant the fact that there is at least an APPARENT sense of

compression caused by the view-cropping effect of long lenses?) in a

photo taken with a long lens is due to the natural condition of

foreshortening which the human eye is subject to simply being

replicated--and, if you will, exaggerated--by the way a long lens

crops out the "outside" portion of a frame and highlights one "center"

portion, thereby removing the spatial-context for that center portion

to relate to, giving all objects at whatever distance (both from each

other as well as from the lens) within that central portion the

appearance/illusion of being compressed or brought closer together, in

relation to the lens/eye?

 

<p>

 

I'm sorry--that's probably way too convoluted...but I think I may be

getting it, I'm not sure--I've been conditioned to think about this

very simple idea very differently all these years, and I have to

"unlearn" it now (I never thought about it from the perspective of how

our eyes actually "do the compressing" naturally every time we see

distant objects and diminish their perspective), but I still have some

very practical questions, as they relate to lens purchases, which are

really the most important in the end.

 

<p>

 

 

Having said all that both of you said: can you both (or anyone else

for that matter) please offer me some guidance and recommendations as

to what focal-length long lens(es) you think I should get for trying

to achieve this "appearance" of compression that I am trying to

attain? I have now a 150, 210, 240, and 305. I don't feel that the

210, 240, or 305 are capturing enough compression; I have recently

considered purchasing a 360mm, aware that is the "high-end" of the

traditional spectrum of 4x5 portrait lenses, but have tried it out and

still feel it is too much like my 210mm (can barely see a difference

when I simply move closer with the 210--is that possible?). I also

tried out a 420mm (Red Dot Artar) and felt that focal-length came ALOT

closer in increasing the "claustrophobic effect" of compression I am

looking for--does that reaction make sense (it's only 60mm longer than

the 360, and yet seems to yield a bigger difference than exists

between the 210mm and 360mm [a 150mm difference])? And what about a

450mm, or 480mm? Would those be good choices too? (Forget about

issues of bellows requirement; I have enought for all up to at least

480mm) Have either of you ever heard of using such long lenses in a

studio setting to shoot a portrait with a 4 x 5 camera? Or SHOULD I

JUST ABANDON THE WHOLE PROSPECT OF PURCHASING THESE LONGER (ie 360,

420, 450, and/or 480mm) LENSES, AND SIMPLY PHOTOGRAPH AT A CLOSER

LENS-TO-SUBJECT DISTANCE WITH MY EXISTING 210MM or 305MM LENS?

 

<p>

 

Will I really capture the "dramatic" illusion of "compression" I am so

desiring with any of these longer lenses, filling all frames HALF-

FIGURE? Or do you think the effects will be inconsiderable, in

relation to simply moving closer with one of the focal lenths I

already have?

 

<p>

 

Thanks again--

 

<p>

 

Nick

With all due respect, I don't care what anyone else says, there IS a

difference in look between German and Japanese glass, as there is a

difference in look between Fuji and Nikkor, as well as between

Schneider and Rodenstock (although I would argue the differences are

smaller, at least to my eyes, between the two German manufacturers);

all of these differences are admittedly small, but nonetheless

apparent--and perhaps even quite considerable to a very sensitive eye-

-enough to make me recoil from Nikkor, for instance, and choose to go

with Rodenstock or Schneider, because I felt the Japanes glass was

clearly too warm for my tastes and purposes (I am aware of reactions

to the exact opposite, but I simply can't see how they come up with

that) and I shoot black-and-white only! No color. I recently

compared the Nikkor 300M, Fuji 240A, Schneider G-Claron 305,

Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 360, Schneider Symmar-S 360, and Rodenstock

Sironar N 480--along with the several Rodenstock Sironar N lenses I

own and am accustomed to shooting with--and there were definite

"AESTHETIC" differences in look and feel among all of them (the

difference between warm and cool one of the biggest), that went beyond

all the technical data that each lens carried. I often wonder why

these subective "aesthetic" factors get all too readily passed over in

the anxious attempt to quote the lens's "circle of coverage" this or

the "angle of view" that. Yes, a lens's aesthetic qualities are

ultimately subjective and much harder to concretize, but such

characteristics are just as important as its technical data in my

opinion, and need to be aired and addressed far more often.

About one week ago I raised the question of whether "telephoto-design" lenses produce pictures that look in any way different than "normal-design" lenses in the same focal length. The answer to my question was understandably universal: no. But in the course of answering the question some people pointed out that I was wrong in my perception of the effects of long lenses, in that LONG LENSES DO NOT COMPRESS FOREGROUND AND BACKGROUND, BUT (FOR LACK OF A MORE PRECISE WAY FOR ME TO PUT IT) MERELY "CROP THE IMAGE AND ENLARGE IT". Well, at the time I first read this, I didn't think much of it because I was much more concerned with the possible differences between telephoto and normal-design lenses. But since then, I have gone back and reflected on this other aspect of their answer, and simply can't understand, for the life of me, how this could possibly be true.

If long lenses do not compress foreground and background space then why is that when I have used a 105mm lens (or a 135mm, or a 200mm for that matter) in a 35mm format to photograph people, for example, did the space between the subject and the background seem to shrink, and the things in the background seem to move closer to the foreground subject--or vice versa? And why is it that when I am watching a movie that takes place in a city and the camera has a long lens focused on a busy sidewalk full of people walking in one direction, do all the people appear to be walking on top of each other? And why is it that if a long lens was focused on two cars in the distance following each in a car chase would the two cars--even if they were separated by a great distance, be seemingly brought closer together by a long focal length lens--and the longer the lens, the greater the closeness? Or is this effect due exclusively to the illusion of diminishing perspective (inherent in our own unaided eyesight), and the fact that the long lens merely crops the portion of this diminished perspective, and appears to heighten it by presenting just a small piece of it?

I am only really interested in answers to these questions, insofar as they relate to THE PROPER LENS SELECTION FOR LARGE-FORMAT CAMERAS.

Basically my problem is this: I own 150mm, 210mm, 240mm, and 305mm lenses for my 4 x 5 camera, but I would like to get a longer lens that hopefully will provide greater "compression of space" in my portraits, making my pictures of people "more dramatic" by "exaggerating their size or presence". So far, neither the 240mm nor the 305 have really accomplished this effect for me. Is it true that the 210mm will yield a perspective that is IDENTICALLY THE SAME, for example, as a 480mm, as long as I move close enough to create the same cropping between the two lenses? But if this were the case, then why do people recommend long lenses, such as the 300mm or 360mm for 4x5-format portraiture? Isn't it true that the longer lenses alter the space, volume, perspective (call it whatever you like) and "flatten" the face, reducing any possible exaggerations of nose and chin etc, thereby effecting a more complimentary look?

 

<p>

 

But, then again, I have become quite confused lately because I recently compared pictures taken of a person with a 360mm and a 210mm, and the pictures taken with both lenses DID look almost the same (or perhaps exactly the same, but I can't quite believe it nonetheless), if I simply moved closer to the subject when I used the 210mm.

 

<p>

 

Is there any point in purchasing a long lens if one is able to move close enough with a 210mm, to produce the same cropping with the shorter lens?

 

<p>

 

Am I wasting my money on a huge misapprehension--if this is all I "plan" to accomplish with a longer lens? (In this case, the 360mm lens in question is about $1400--so the answer is really important.)

 

<p>

 

Will a 420mm or a 480mm lens not produce pictures that are in any way more "dramatic" or "foreground-and-background-compressing" than say a 210mm lens positioned much closer (to produce the equivalent cropping)?

 

<p>

 

Is the purpose of a long lens merely to bring distant objects closer that might otherwise be too small because they are too far away (as in the case of a nature or sports photographer)--WITHOUT EFFECTING ANY CHANGE IN THE SPACE OR VOLUME BETWEEN FOREGROUND AND BACKGROUND?

 

<p>

 

I have taken pictures for many years--albeit with 35mm more than large-format--and I am really embarassed that I don't know the answers to these seemingly basic but admittedly elusive questions. Embarassingly, they have dogged me for some time, now that I am shooting exclusively in large format and seeking to achieve a certain "look" or "effect" with my portraiture--and I've yet to grasp it or come to a clear answer in my head still in all the hours I have spent studying my prints. The answer is important because it determines which lenses it is necessary--or pointless--to buy.

 

<p>

 

Anybody's help would be much appreciated.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again.

 

<p>

 

 

Nick Rowan

 

I just want to thank all of those who have so far replied with an

answer to my question--both on and off site--I am just so impressed

and gratified by the generosity and degree of knowledge of everyone

who takes part in this large format discussion; I have learned SO much

from reading through all the many many questions and answers within

this forum! I will TRY to respond individually over the the next day

or two to those who took the time to reply! Thanks again!

 

<p>

 

Nick Rowan

I just want to thank everyone that has so far replied with an answer,

both on and off site--I am new to this website, and am just so

impressed and gratified by the generosity and degree of knowledge of

everyone involved; I learn so much from this forum.

 

<p>

 

I will try to reply individually in the next day or two to everyone

who took the time to answer my question.

 

<p>

 

Nick Rowan

Are Ilex and Acme lens shutters reliable and accurate after many many years of use? And, perhaps more importantly, how do they compare to contemporary Copal and Compur shutters? I am thinking of buying some older Goerz lenses that--more often than not--come mounted with ILEX or ACME shutters, and not having ever used them myself, I don't know how good they are. (I am only used to Copal.) If you were buying the lens yourself and you had the choice of purchasing the same lens in an earlier (1950's, 1960's) ILEX vs. a later (1970's, 1980's-present) COPAL (or COMPUR) shutter, which would you choose, and why?

 

<p>

 

Also: Is it true that ALL the old Ilex shutters had two-hole flash outlets, rather than the standard single-hole outlets common on all lenses made today? If so, is it easy and inexpensive to have the old outlet converted from two-hole to single-hole?

 

<p>

 

Thank you very much.

 

<p>

 

Nick Rowan

At the risk of appearing stupid or annoying again in my elementary questions about lenses, I would like to pose another one about telephoto vs normal-design lenses. With all issues regarding bellows-draw aside, do telephoto-design large-format lenses produce pictures that look in any way diferent than standard-design large-format lenses, in the same focal length, aperature, focus-distance etc? I am concerned primarily with compression of space--and the extent to which each MIGHT differ in the degree and manner of spatial compression it produces, particularly with respect to the possible differences in depth-of-field between the two lens types, at the same focal lenth, distance-of-focus, and f-stop. Does the telephoto lens produce greater compression--or more "dramatic pictures" if you will--perhaps owing to an inherently shallower depth of field than the normal-design lens, in the same focal length, etc--or would the two pictures be indistinguishable in their "look"-- apart, of course, from the obvious expected differences between manufacturers and lens lines within the same manufacture?

 

<p>

 

Nick Rowan

Michael,

 

<p>

 

Thanks alot for your reply. Do you know if 240mm, 360mm, and 480mm

were the ONLY focal lengths Schneider ever made the Apo-Artar in

shutter, post "Red-Dot"? (I'm assuming by your answer that Schneider

also made 3 other focal lengths in this same lens line, all higher

than 480mm, and only in barrel.) Do you know if this particular

incarnation of the Apo-Artar lens was multi-coated in all the years it

was made by Schneider? And most importantly: do you know how the Apo-

Artar rates against the previous Red Dot Artar--made under both

Schneider, as well as by its originator, Goerz?

 

<p>

 

Would it be possible to fax me the pages of the Schneider Apo-Artar

lens brochure you quoted from?

 

<p>

 

Thanks alot.

 

<p>

 

Nick

I am interested in purchasing an Artar lens, and am wondering where I might be able to get specific 100%-accurate specs (such as circle of coverage, angle of coverage, serial#-per-year, total number of focal lengths ever made and in which years, shutter size, filter size, etc), independent test reports, general educated opinions, and a historical overview of possible changes that were made to this lens over the last 40 years or so, right up to the latest year of manufacture under Schneider. I have already checked out all of the information available on this website, but need more. Is anyone aware of any articles published over the years in the various photography magazines--other than the 1995-96 multi-part History of Lens Design articles in View Camera magazine? Or any books, other than Rudolf Kingslake's A History of the Photographic Lens (Academic Press, 1989), or Jim Stone's and Steve Simmons' books on view cameras, that would provide elaborate and comprehensive information/data on this legendary lens?

 

<p>

 

Failing that, I would be interested in anyone's personal feelings/meditations on this lens, in terms of its sharpness, resolution, (at both a close and distant focus), tonality, aesthetic qualities, general performance, and usage, for both 4 x 5 and 8 x 10.

 

<p>

 

Thanks alot.

Doug,

 

<p>

 

Thank you very much once again for your detailed reply. I am sorry

for not replying sooner, but I have been out of computer-range since

last Tuesday.

 

<p>

 

Since posting my original question on the Large Format Q & A Forum, I

have tried out a (Schneider) Apo-Artar lens (also a "process lens",

but perhaps optimized at distances greater than 1:1), and detected

less perspective-flattening than I felt was the case with the G-Claron

and Apo-Ronar. I have also rethought my initial conclusions about the

flat-field lenses, and now think that perhaps it is the fact that

these lenses focus everything along the same plane as you say--instead

of along a curve--that gives me the ILLUSION of there being a

flattening of space. (I certainly never meant to say or suggest that

the actual SHAPES of objects in the pictures were altered.) Maybe the

difference between the flat-field and normal-design lies in the way

the two types render depth of field. Or maybe it doesn't have

anything to do with either of these factors, but with the fact that

they are less tonally rich or nuanced optically, I'm not sure--I just

feel there is something different about the pictures they produce vs.

a normal-design lens, such as the Schneider Symmar-S, which I tested

them against. Would you agree?

 

<p>

 

But as I said, the Apo-Artar exhibited less of this quality/these

characteristics than the G-Claron and Apo-Ronar--and in fact was

noticably sharper than these 2 lenses, so I am going to go with the

Apo-Artar. In a word, I preferred the "palette" of the Apo-Artar.

 

<p>

 

Since you seem to be so knowledgable about lenses, could I pose

another question to you? I would like to take pictures of people with

my 4 x 5 camera, using a long lens, instead of the normal 150mm or

210mm. I want to use a long lens not because I can't get close enough

to my subjects, but because I want to COMPRESS THE SPACE between them

and the background, to DRAMATIZE the palpability of their physcial

weight and presence, so to speak.

 

<p>

 

Do you know if a so-called TELEPHOTO-DESIGN lens brings about greater

compression of space than a normal-design long focal-length lens, IN

THE SAME FOCAL LENGTH? Once again, does the telephoto lens produce a

different effect or look, than a normal-design in the same focal

length? ( I know all about the fact that a telephoto lens requires

less bellows, but am not concerned with any of that--I simply am

interested in the "look" of the pictures.) Someone at a camera store

recently told me that alot of commercial photographers in LA who shoot

cars, use TELEPHOTO lenses on their large format cameras, to achieve a

dramatic compression of space--but I negelected to ask him if these

photographers chose the telephoto over a long normal-design

specifically for its possible unique effect, or JUST to cut down on

bellows draw.

 

Thanks alot.

 

<p>

 

Nick

 

<p>

 

 

PS Which large-format process lenses do you have/like especially?

Thank you for all who replied. I have one more question, though--and

that concerns the "look" of pictures produced by flat-field lenses vs.

normal-design lenses. I recently did a test with my 4 x5 camera,

comparing a 360mm Apo-Ronar, a 355mm G-Claron, and a 360mm Schneider

Symmar-S, photographing the same person at about 5 feet away, with

each of these lenses on 4 x 5 b/w film. I may be mistaken, or misled

in advance by the phrase "flat-field", but I could have sworn that the

pictures taken with the flat-field lenses flattened the overall space

and reduced the three-dimensionality of the person's body and face in

the picture. (I shot the person lying down on the floor.) The

normal-design seemed to render the "volume" of the person's body

adequately, while the flat-field lens flattened that volume and made

the subject appear more two-dimensional, in the same way--for those

who are knowledgable in art history--that Cezanne and Picasso

flattened space in their paintings, by compressing the background with

the foreground. Does this make any sense?? Has anyone else noticed

this characteristic about flat-field lenses--particularly when using

them to photograph people?

 

<p>

 

I don't want to make my subjects flatter--if anything I would like to

accentuate their tactile mass, volume, weight, and physical presence.

Should I rightly avoid using "flat-field" lenses as a long lens for my

4 x 5 camera and instead choose a normal-design lens, or am I

completely mistaken in my observations of the pictures I took?

 

<p>

 

I would appreciate anybody's input on this. Thank you very much.

 

<p>

 

Nick Rowan

Doug,

 

<p>

 

Thanks alot for your reply.

 

<p>

 

I should have mentioned in my original question that sharpness is so

critical in my lens selection because 1) I am making 20x mural-size

fibre-based enlargements from 4 x 5 negatives and 2) deliberately

going for a "non-traditional" harsh or clinical look in my portraits,

with as much "unflattering" clarity and detail as possible. In

addition to sharpness, I would like to get a lens that has adequate

contrast or "punch". Do you think that the older non-coated or

single-coated Artar or Red Dot Artar lenses--as well as the

contemporary single-coated G-Claron or Apo-Ronar lenses--have enough

CONTRAST to provide the result I am looking for? Or do you think that

this lack of contrast--if there is one--could be made up completely in

the film or paper processing (B/W)?

 

<p>

 

But getting back to the thrust of my original question--if you are

saying that process lenses are perfectly fine for making portraits,

why would photographers NOT use these lenses over "normal-design"

lenses in these situations, given the fact that they are so much

smaller, lighter, and less expensive? Or put a little differently,

is there ever a time when a photographer would OPT DELIBERATELY to use

a process lens for shooting a portrait, OVER using a normal-design

lens? For the particular unique "look" or "effect" that it might

yield, in contrast to the regular design? And if this is the case,

exactly what might this AESTHETIC difference be between the pictures

that these two types of lenses produce? (I have noticed a certain

understandable "flattening" of space or volume so far in the 305 mm G-

Claron I rented for my 4 x 5, but maybe I'm wrong about that.) Does

the process/flat field/copy lens yield a different look than the

normal-design lens, and if so can you describe or define what that

look might be? Per your reply, would the process lens actually

produce images SHARPER than normal design lenses--and thus would this

lens be actually be BETTER SUITED than the normal design lens for

making billboard-sized enlargements, as I am doing?

 

<p>

 

 

Your answers to as many of these questions as possible would be

greatly appreciated--

 

<p>

 

 

Thanks alot.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

Nick

Jim,

 

<p>

 

Thank you for your early reply Jim--I would be interested, of course,

in hearing from anybody else... In response to your answer, I should

elaborate on my original question by saying that I am planning to make

20x black-and-white fibre enlargements from 4 x 5 black-and-white

negatives--so that is one reason why SHARPNESS is so critical in my

lens selection. Secondly, perhaps contrary to "traditional" portrait

aesthetics, I am going for a very "harsh" or "clinical" or relatively

"unflattering" effect in these portraits, so I would like to get a

lens that will provide enough contrast or "punch". Are the older-

design Artars and Red Dot Artars--as well as the newer G-Clarons and

Apo-Ronars for that matter--noticeably lower in contrast (due to their

single-as-opposed-to-multi-coating) than a multi-coated lens, such

that these lenses would not be appropriate for my needs? Or do you

feel this can be compensated for in the film/print processing? But

these issues of lens coating and contrast aside, I am still interested

in general whether the flat-field lens can perform just as well or is

just as appropriately equipped as the normal-design lens for shooting

half or quarter-figure portraits.

Are process/flat field lenses, such as the Schneider G-Claron, Rodenstock Apo-Ronar (contemporary) or Goerz/Schneider Artar or Red Dot Artar (classic) ok to use for taking portraits, at say 5-10 feet from the camera? I have read and heard that many large format photographers use these lenses in the field for shooting landscapes and scenics--primarily because they are smaller and lighter and thus easier to transport--but am wondering if these same lenses will deliver OPTIMAL results when focused at much closer camera-to-subject distances, such as in a portrait situation, in both a studio setting as well as on location. Some people have told me that the flat field lens is designed for producing optimal results ONLY at 1:1 (and moreover, only at f/22); others have told me that this is not true, and that a good "copy" or "process" or "flat field" lens--as long as it is of good quality--will work excellently at any focused distance (and at several aperatures of f/22 and smaller). I am more aware of the latter group defending these lenses in their use for infinity-work (ie for landscapes, vistas, scenics etc) than for all the focused distances BETWEEN infinity and 1:1, such as would be encountered in a half-figure portrait at 5 feet, for example. To that end, I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has used the process lens for portaiture, not just for scenics. Is the process lens for this use just as good--ie just as sharp--as a "standard-design lens", such as the Rodenstock Sironar N or S or the Schneider Apo-Symmar? Or would the "standard-design lens" perform better than a flat-field lens for portaiture? Or, on the other hand, would the flat-field lens--precisely because it is optimized for 1:1 work--actually yield SHARPER pictures than the standard-design lens, at such close distances? Finally, of all the process/flat-field/copy lenses available, which in your opinion do you think are the best (the sharpest, yielding the best tonality etc) or which do you like the best--taking into account of course the ultimate subjectivity of all such judgments. I will be using this lens primarily for 4 x 5 work as a long lens (but possibly for 8 x 10 too) for photographing people--and am considering focal lengths of between about 300mm and 480mm.