8x10 Portrait Lens 240/300/360 ?

[harlequin]

Dear Apug Members,

Trying to find the lens on 8x10 that would emulate my 85 or 105 Nikkor on 35mm.

I just recently got into large format with 4x5/210mm combo and would like to do
dramatic portraiture 8x10/FP4 but do not know what lens combination will put me close
without distortion. I did read an article in the now defunct View Camera Magazine on portraiture
however it was more based on 4x5 where I am sure a 240mm would do the job....I appreciate any feedback on what focal length, brands, I am also guessing I don't need APO type lenses for B+W headshots??

Many Thanks in Advance for your input....


Harle-Quin

 

[John Wiegerink]

Dear Apug Members,

Trying to find the lens on 8x10 that would emulate my 85 or 105 Nikkor on 35mm.

I just recently got into large format with 4x5/210mm combo and would like to do
dramatic portraiture 8x10/FP4 but do not know what lens combination will put me close
without distortion. I did read an article in the now defunct View Camera Magazine on portraiture
however it was more based on 4x5 where I am sure a 240mm would do the job....I appreciate any feedback on what focal length, brands, I am also guessing I don't need APO type lenses for B+W headshots??

Many Thanks in Advance for your input....


Harle-Quin

300mm is about standard on 8x10. You'd have to about double that to get equal to 105mm on 35mm.

 

[LJH]

8x10 is double 4x5.

The maths should be easy.

 

[Craig]

You'd be looking at something in the 450-600mm range.

 

[removed account4]

for head and shoulder portraits just double what you had thought about for 4x5
so a 500mm might do the trick .. but the real trick is finding a 500mm lens that has a shutter
and will not break the bank. if you can hunt down an old wollensak 1a triple convertible, or turner reich triple,
they might give you the portrait you look for, and they can be found in a betax or similar shutter.
an old symmar convertible 300/500 ( f5.6/f12 ) might also work, i've used my 210/370 converted and it does make a nice lens ...
there is focus shift though so you have to be aware of that if/when you stop down, and also be aware
that it will take more than 500 mm to focus at infinity because of the lens design.
( the other symmar convertibles are the same, converted=f12, focus shift stopped down, and take longer
than the FL to focus at infinity for example my 370 takes something like 400+mm to focus at infinity )
there are tessar lenses in shutters too
but unfortunately i don't know their brands or focal lengths they come in,
or what they typically sell for. the lenses i have mentioned sometimes sell for between 200-400$
depending on condition, seller, how many people google and read posts like this, alignment of the start &c ..

good luck !
john

 

[Alan Gales]

How about a Goerz 19" (480mm) F/11 Red Dot Artar? They come in Ilex No. 4 shutters. They are an older lens but are sharp and contrasty like a modern lens. They won't break the bank either.

A lot of people use a 450mm Nikkor or Fujinon which are in more modern Copal shutters but cost more money.

 

[harlequin]

Thanks for the Input I shall investigate 450-480mm Goerz or Wollensak optics out there..
I take it that a 360mm would only be suitable for 3/4 Portrait...?
On the older lenses, do they have a means of connecting to strobe, bipin??

Many Thanks!!

 

[bvy]

I do head and shoulders portraits with a 375mm Caltar. It has a bi-pin connector to trigger a strobe. Works great.

 

[Alan Gales]

Thanks for the Input I shall investigate 450-480mm Goerz or Wollensak optics out there..
I take it that a 360mm would only be suitable for 3/4 Portrait...?
On the older lenses, do they have a means of connecting to strobe, bipin??

Many Thanks!!

A 360mm is considered a "normal" focal length on 8x10. Think 55mm lens on a 35mm camera.

The old Ilex shutters have the bi-pin connectors. Both my 14" (358mm) Commercial Ektar and my 19" (480mm) Red Dot Artar are in Ilex shutters.

 

[Alan Gales]

There are also 24" (609.6mm) F/11 and a 30" (762mm) Artars out there. They are not cheap though.

 

[karl]

360 is the sweet spot for 8x10 portrait lenses in my mind. Keep in mind for head and shoulder work you'll be at nearly 1:1 magnification. Bellows extension becomes an issue with anything longer than 420mm or so.

Actually, all the focal lengths you mention can work quite well for 8x10 portraits depending on your working space and how much of the subject and environment you'd like to include.

 

[tedr1]

This simple formula may help, use the diagonal of the negative as the scale factor

the standard 35mm 50mm lens is a little greater than the diagonal of the negative frame 24x36mm diagonal = 43mm

86mm on 35mm is therefore twice the diagonal (86 is twice 43) and this is one of your reference lengths

105mm on 35mm is about 2.5 times the diagonal so this is a second reference length

the diaqonal of 8x10 film is approximately 12in which is 300mm

so the equivalent on 8x10 of your 85mm lens is twice 12in = 24in = 600mm

and the equivalent on 8x10 of your 105mm lens is 2.5 times 12in = 30in = 750mm


to find the diagonal of any film format add together the distance of the long side squared with the distance of the short side squared, this gives a sum, find the square root of the sum (shopping calculator) this is the diagonal distance

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ted's right but I'll add one caveat. If one crops 135 format to make 8x10 prints then the 'normal' lens for what is now 24x30mm format is a 38mm lens. So the calculations will change a bit.

I'll add one more note: What causes distortion isn't really the focal length of the lens. It's the distance between the camera and the subject. So if you prefer a 125mm lens on 135 format to make 8x10 prints then the equivalent focal length on 8x10 film would be approximately 945mm. However, that's a very difficult focal length to use and requires huge bellows extension on a head-and-shoulders portrait. For larger formats, compromise is needed.

 

[karl]

Except those are unpractical choices for 8x10 portraiture based on subject to camera distance.

 

[locutus]

The other thing to keep in mind is the severe 'focus breathing' that you get on large format, the angle of view becomes much narrower at close focus which by the time you do full face portraits becomes relevant.

 

[mdarnton]

What locutus means is that with an 85mm lens on 35mm filling the frame with an 8x10 subject, the 10mm or so of lens extention needed to attain that means your 85mm lens is functioning as a 95mm. However to do the same thing on 8x10 film your 300mm lens must double its extension, and that turns it into a 600mm lens, functionally with a smaller anle of view han the equivalent 35mm lens. That is why most people shooting portraits use lenses you would think would be too short by 35mm standards. For instance the lens Karsh used most of the time, a 14" Commercal Ektar isn't even equal to a 50mm on 35, but it was fine.

It's all about measuring by reproduction ratio rather than lens/film proportion.


You will find longer lenses are miserable to handle on 8x10. Like Karsh, I find 360mm to be an ideal compromise.

 

[rthollenbeck]

On 8x10, I think the Rodenstock Apo Ronar, Apo Ronar Cl / in 485mm & 600mm Process lenses would get you the focal length and coverage you are asking for. I'm sure there are many others as well. Many lenses can be had second hand at a reasonable enough price. You could use a lens cap or Packard shutter and not have a small fortune in mounting your lens in a shutter.
I really think for portraits though, maybe it is more a question of if you like "the look" these lenses give. Don't be in to big a hurry to shutter your lens. In fact it's probably better to "test drive" the lenses until you find what your looking for.

 

[mshchem]

My opinion, I have a 12 inch Commercial Kodak Ektar for 90% of what I shoot on 8x10. I have a 14 inch Ilex too. Both are in shutters and have bi-post flash syncs that will work with studio flash. I have a Deardorff V-8. It has plenty of bellows for these lenses.
The other really long lenses seem impractical too me for most 8x10 work. I have a 11 X14 Folmer and Schwing with 5 foot bellows. If you have a 24 inch lens at 1:1, life size on a 11 X14 inch negative (head shot ) you would need 48 inches of bellows extension.

I agree with Karl, 360/ 14 inch is your best bet. Helps if you have a big room with tall ceilings as well The older American lenses are great for portraits, you don't need super apo triple double multi coated.

By the way I have a Nikkor 85mm 1.4, with Fujichrome in a F5 what fun.!

Best Mike

 

[tedr1]

Affordable older lenses suitable for 8x10 portraits include the Schneider convertible Symmars which cover 8x10. The 240 converts to a 400 and the 300 converts to a 500. They come up on ebay. Look for the Symmar, not Symmar S or later versions. Conversion is simple and is done by the photographer whenever required by detaching the front element, leaving the shutter and rear element attached to the camera.

 

[harlequin]

Wow, blessings to all of you, the convertibles might be the way to go as it is 2 2 lenses in one....
I don't think 25" Bellows extension is practical, I shall post some 8x10 BW portraits + erotica once I get my glass.....

Thanks again for the opinions and detailed professional "real world" responses...

APUG Fan
Harlequin

 

[Alan Gales]

Wow, blessings to all of you, the convertibles might be the way to go as it is 2 2 lenses in one....
I don't think 25" Bellows extension is practical, I shall post some 8x10 BW portraits + erotica once I get my glass.....

Thanks again for the opinions and detailed professional "real world" responses...

APUG Fan
Harlequin

Most convertible lenses are not as sharp when just using one of the cells. I think that is great for portraits but you mentioned that you wanted to emulate 35mm Nikkor lenses which are sharp and contrasty.

I use my 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar for portraits. It's sharp but not clinically so. I don't think I would ever use my 19" Artar for portraits unless I used a softening filter with it. Too harsh. Of course I shoot family and friends and not young models with beautiful skin. I usually include a bit of my subject's surroundings. I don't shoot head or head and shoulder shots with 8x10. Of course that's just me and what my subjects want.

 

[tedr1]

What locutus means is that with an 85mm lens on 35mm filling the frame with an 8x10 subject, the 10mm or so of lens extention needed to attain that means your 85mm lens is functioning as a 95mm. However to do the same thing on 8x10 film your 300mm lens must double its extension, and that turns it into a 600mm lens, functionally with a smaller anle of view han the equivalent 35mm lens. That is why most people shooting portraits use lenses you would think would be too short by 35mm standards. For instance the lens Karsh used most of the time, a 14" Commercal Ektar isn't even equal to a 50mm on 35, but it was fine.

It's all about measuring by reproduction ratio rather than lens/film proportion.

The OP seems to be seeking the effect provided by a "long" lens, his Nikon 85 and 105mm lenses. The purpose of these in portraiture it seems to me is to enable the subject to be further from the camera than would be the case with a standard lens, it is this distance from the camera that is the source of the pleasing perspective effect. This is the opposite of the effect on perspective that is rendered by short lenses, and which may be the source of the "distortion" that the OP mentions and that he wishes to avoid, this is sometimes known as "big nose" distortion and is sometimes felt to be unpleasant in a portrait. The look is determined by the subject to lens distance not by the bellows extension. A short lens with a lot of bellows extension does not produce the effect of a long lens. I think this is correct, if not I am sure someone will correct me

 

[jamespierce]

I use 300mm, 360mm and 480mm Schneider lenses on my 8x10 for studio portraits. I strongly prefer the 480mm but you need plenty of bellows (600-700mm) and space to shoot it. You can see a few that I've scanned here - earlier stuff is 300, then 360 and then the final ~10 or so are all 480mm. Generally shooting around F22 to F32. Even a 480mm is only about 70mm equivalent for 35mm, but 8x10 makes it seem like more somehow !

 

[Nokton48]

I have a 59cm Zeiss Apo-Planar that is stunning for 8x10 2X portraiture. Also the 600mm and 790mm Rodenstock Apo-Ronars. In something shorter it would be the old convertible Schneider Symmars. I have used all of these with great satisfaction on my 8x10 Sinar Norma.

I also have Rodenstock Imagons up to 480mm, but that is another different type of lens.

 

[removed account4]

I also have Rodenstock Imagons up to 480mm, but that is another different type of lens.

i think i feel thread drift coming along

i know what you mean ... i held off suggesting any of the-now cult lenses portrait wollensak made
that began with " V " in my first post ... even though they have a softness and look that
can't be matched and can be sharp as nails stopped down, even the f3.8 royal portrait/vitax ...
i imagine the imagon stopped down is sharp as well, and even though it is a cult-ish portrait lens with enough light,
and without the sink strainers it could be a "normal" lens at about f 10 ...
another reason i held off is that wet platers and other collector/enthusiasts
have pushed the prices of these lenses up they exceed the $ the Op probably is willing to spent