210mm compared to 240mm

My nikkor 210mm from Kumar arrived today. Kumars service is exemplary. I will definitely be using him again.

I now understand how the 240mm would be tight on bellows extension. I am just about able to do head and shoulders but the distance to subject is not to my liking. Loads of testing in 4x5 and 6x12 to do.

Kumar also put in a fresnel lens. It makes a drastic difference to my nikkor 90mm f8. You do see weird rays of light due to two fresnel lens on top of each other but for composing its brightens up the edges. Having a fresnel in the bag could be a great setup maybe.

Now of to shoot some film :)
 
Just a thought here...I have been through all of these contortions, and eventually retired my 203 Kodak Ektar and my 12 inch Symmar and standardized on a 10-inch Commercial Ekar for close-in portraits. It works well on my Linhof, which the 12 did not, and the C.E. gave me a bonus it took some time to appreciate. Those Commercial Ektars give modeling that the Symmar and the f7.7 Kodak Anastigmat did not. Yes, a three-dimensional impression. Hard to quantify but now, a few years after making this change, I love it more and more.
I too had a late model f3.5 210 Xenar lens that I used in a university job for years. I thought it would be poor--it was wished on me, not my choice-- but no. It was super sharp at smaller apertures and gave bright contrast differences at every aperture. It made an excellent lens for portraits and I overcame the wider look by using it with a 31/4 x 41/4 back. Portraits, I found, just rarely need the definition of a full 4x5 negative, Mostly these were portraits of scientists for reproduction in scientific magazines and journals. I wasn't making prints in the Karsh tradition! My 2 cents here ( Do you folks say that in the U.K.?)
 
I forgot to say, humping a view camera around the campus was necessary for the scientific work. I did not want to add the extra burden of a second camera body, lens, and roll film. I got by with the Technika. And after many frustrating failures, I put away my Linhof rollback too, for good. Too many nasty surprises -- skipped frames, focus errors due to film buckling. 2 cents again!
 
Brian Berry said:
Just a thought here...I have been through all of these contortions, and eventually retired my 203 Kodak Ektar and my 12 inch Symmar and standardized on a 10-inch Commercial Ekar for close-in portraits. It works well on my Linhof, which the 12 did not, and the C.E. gave me a bonus it took some time to appreciate. Those Commercial Ektars give modeling that the Symmar and the f7.7 Kodak Anastigmat did not. Yes, a three-dimensional impression. Hard to quantify but now, a few years after making this change, I love it more and more.
I too had a late model f3.5 210 Xenar lens that I used in a university job for years. I thought it would be poor--it was wished on me, not my choice-- but no. It was super sharp at smaller apertures and gave bright contrast differences at every aperture. It made an excellent lens for portraits and I overcame the wider look by using it with a 31/4 x 41/4 back. Portraits, I found, just rarely need the definition of a full 4x5 negative, Mostly these were portraits of scientists for reproduction in scientific magazines and journals. I wasn't making prints in the Karsh tradition! My 2 cents here ( Do you folks say that in the U.K.?)
Click to expand...

The 203mm Ektar and 210mm Symmar are significantly sharper at wider apertures than a Tessar type design, even the slower versions. A Cooke triplet is a step softer at wider apertures, and that's a desirable attribute for portrait lenses.

The 210mm f3.5 Xenar had been dropped by 1963, so there aren't many coated versions, and today they aren't cheap second hand.

The UK expression "Tuppence for your thoughts" two old pre-decimalisation pennies is the origin of the My 2 cents.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top