Want to Buy 8x10 portrait lens

You know what they say about one man's junk is another man's treasure? I'm kind of afraid I'm asking for every man's treasure. Maybe you've got some 8x10 gear collecting dust?

I recently picked up a kodak 2d 8x10, which I am very excited to play with. Right now, my biggest problem is that I only have a 7" lens (semi-wide) and my goal for the camera is portraiture.

I'm hoping someone out there has an old a portrait lens (somewhere between 12"-16", but I'll happily entertain longer) in a shutter, with 8x10 coverage.

My camera has minimal movements, so I don't need a lot of coverage.

For the time being, I'm shooting on paper, and my lighting kit consists of speed lights. So I'd really like a fast aperture on the lens and a sync port on the shutter. Although, if I had to chose, the aperture is more important, as that helps me focus in low light. With ISO6 paper I can always just use bulb and a remote to trigger the flashes.

Cosmetic condition isn't terribly important to me, but I don't want anything that will impare the image quality (I'm thinking KEH's BGN).

Uncoated, single coated, whatever, it's all good. Three element, four, more, so long as the centre is sharp I'm happy. Character or clinical, I'll be happy either way.

If you have something you think would fit my beggar's bill, please let me know.

What's the maximum shooting distance? IMO, a 300mm lens is pretty wide for 8x10 portraits unless you're doing full-length or if you don't have a large enough shooting space. A 180mm lens is very wide on 8x10 so it's useless for 8x10 portraits unless you want the perspective distortion. Does your 7" lens cover 8x10 at infinity? If you never intend to use it then maybe you can sell it to raise the funds for a nice 450-600mm lens... assuming you have a long enough bellows and large enough shooting space for a lens that long.

Old-N-Feeble said:

What's the maximum shooting distance? IMO, a 300mm lens is pretty wide for 8x10 portraits unless you're doing full-length or if you don't have a large enough shooting space. A 180mm lens is very wide on 8x10 so it's useless for 8x10 portraits unless you want the perspective distortion. Does your 7" lens cover 8x10 at infinity? If you never intend to use it then maybe you can sell it to raise the funds for a nice 450-600mm lens... assuming you have a long enough bellows and large enough shooting space for a lens that long.

Click to expand...

I really doubt I could sell the 7" (7-1/4" to be precise) for anything. It is a Wollensak f6.3 in a Gammax No2 shutter that is running slow (I measured 1/12, 1/20, 1/40 on what should be 1/10, 1/50, 1/100), and there is visible fungus on the inner element. I'm planning on taking it apart and trying to clean that off once I have another lens (just in case I really mess it up).

I have a bellows extension, so I can handle pretty close to 36" of extension, but if I don't need to use it, I'd rather not. When I shoot indoors, I'm usually space constrained (my 135mm 35mm lenses get very little use because of this). So yes, I don't want too long of a lens.

My three favourite 35mm focal lengths are 35mm, 50mm and 100mm. I end up using my 50mm for a lot of portrait work, so I've often thought a 35mm and 85mm combo would make a nice minimalist kit, but I've never owned an 85mm lens.

Since I haven't really used this thing yet, I don't know what I want or don't want. Right now, something that lets me do half-body portraits without breaking the bank is a good starting point.

You mention KEH Bgn lenses. Why not give them a look?

Jim Noel said:

You mention KEH Bgn lenses. Why not give them a look?

Click to expand...

I've been keeping an eye on both Keh and the big auction site.

Keh doesn't seem to have much stock for 8x10. And I'm really uneducated with the auction site, so far I haven't seen much (There's a nice Nikkor-w 300 on right now that I may bid on, but we'll see).

I figure there's not harm in asking on here as well.

I'd recommend trying to stay away from the extension on the 2-D, unless you have new bellows.

That's 20" extension and it makes me uncomfortable:

IMG_2780 by Fotoguy20d, on Flickr

If you're shooting indoors with paper, I'd suggest a barrel lens and galli shutter (or a packard) as a great way to get 8x10 coverage on the cheap. What's your budget?

You could look for a nice Turner-Reich (Gundlach) 12-21-28 triple convertible in an alphax shutter. Or one of the longer Symmar convertibles in a Compur or Copal.

Had to look up galli shutter... I think I'll pass on that for now - too much coordination for me. I think lens cap & flash trigger in a semi-dark room is more my speed.

You're in a bind regarding FL vs speed. I think you will find it initially confusing, then simply frustrating.

A 14-3/4" Caltar or 14" Ektar in a gigantic shutter will be f/6.3. Almost anything else will be slower. To get f/4.5 you have to leave shutters behind, at which point you merely need to pump a lot of money into the lens, and get a synchronized Packard shutter to go behind it. For instance, a 42cm f/4.5 Heliar will set you back well over $1000, if you can find one, less for the 36cm version. Otherwise you're stuck with a variety of process-like lenses that come in around f/10 or so, many of which also will not have shutters. I have a 17" f/10 Ektanon that I bought on this path, and yes, it is miserably dark in there with that one on; I quickly replaced it with something faster!

The budget path will be a cold-war era Russian Industar-37, 300mm f/4.5 and a Packard shutter behind it. I can't recommend this lens because I haven't tried it. The various things I read made me think I should save my $100, though I still think about it. 300mm is considered a bare minimum for 8x10--it's the 35mm equivalent of 40mm or so, and 300mm Tessar type lenses don't quite cover 8x10, except they kind of will, especially close. I agree that 300mm is really too short for portraits, though.

I'm doing what you want to do, and I have an adapter board with a synchronized Packard on it, then several lenses on smaller boards to clip on in front of that shutter. One of my favorite lenses is a Reinhold-Wollaston. Wide open it's a fuzz bomb for artistic diffusion. By f/11 it's not bad at all. $100, new! I have the 335mm one.
http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Prices.html
f/5.6 or so: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/15999387531/sizes/l
f/11: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/15556078120/sizes/l

It's an easy, cheap start, and then when you get tired of it you can buy a longer, better Heliar, as I did, or a 14" Ektar, like Karsh used.

Once you get used to them, Packard shutters are great! Especially with strobe or in the studio.

MattKrull said:

I really doubt I could sell the 7" (7-1/4" to be precise) for anything. It is a Wollensak f6.3 in a Gammax No2 shutter that is running slow (I measured 1/12, 1/20, 1/40 on what should be 1/10, 1/50, 1/100), and there is visible fungus on the inner element. I'm planning on taking it apart and trying to clean that off once I have another lens (just in case I really mess it up).

I have a bellows extension, so I can handle pretty close to 36" of extension, but if I don't need to use it, I'd rather not. When I shoot indoors, I'm usually space constrained (my 135mm 35mm lenses get very little use because of this). So yes, I don't want too long of a lens.

My three favourite 35mm focal lengths are 35mm, 50mm and 100mm. I end up using my 50mm for a lot of portrait work, so I've often thought a 35mm and 85mm combo would make a nice minimalist kit, but I've never owned an 85mm lens.

Click to expand...

What are the markings on the 7" lens that you've got, what series etc? That's damn wide for an 8x10" lens, like 35mm equivalent of 22-27mm (depending on which way you crop to compare).
I've been after a cheap 6-8" wide that covers 8x10" for ages (eg a 6.25" f/9.5 Series III Wide).
A regular non-wide angle lens won't cover 8x10" at 7.25" FL. Or does it only cover 8x10 at portrait distances?

If you like 50 & 100mm, do the maths: 50mm on 135 is 408mm on 8x10" (crop the 135 to a 4:5 ratio) or 340mm (crop the 8x10 to a 2:3 ratio).
100mm works out at 680 or 816mm.
With a bellows draw of 36" = 915mm, you won't get to portrait distance with an 800mm lens, if you can even find one.

Try looking around the 14-20" mark, old convertible anastigmats can be had for <$100 (like the 12/21/28" I got last year).

Series II Velostigmats are, I believe, all 4.5 and come in a wide range of focal lengths. They are usually in shutter and often cheap when buying a model without the diffusion control. They are nice portrait lenses.

Dr Croubie said:

What are the markings on the 7" lens that you've got, what series etc? That's damn wide for an 8x10" lens, like 35mm equivalent of 22-27mm (depending on which way you crop to compare).
I've been after a cheap 6-8" wide that covers 8x10" for ages (eg a 6.25" f/9.5 Series III Wide).
A regular non-wide angle lens won't cover 8x10" at 7.25" FL. Or does it only cover 8x10 at portrait distances?

If you like 50 & 100mm, do the maths: 50mm on 135 is 408mm on 8x10" (crop the 135 to a 4:5 ratio) or 340mm (crop the 8x10 to a 2:3 ratio).
100mm works out at 680 or 816mm.
With a bellows draw of 36" = 915mm, you won't get to portrait distance with an 800mm lens, if you can even find one.

Try looking around the 14-20" mark, old convertible anastigmats can be had for <$100 (like the 12/21/28" I got last year).

Click to expand...

It definitely covers the 8x10 at portrait range wide open. I *think* it covers 8x10 at infinity. It seems to based on looking at the ground glass, but I'm really not certain.

I took a photo of th lens on my phone, and I'm at work trying to read the text. What I think it says is:
"Wollensak Velostigmat Series IV f6.3 focus 7 1/4" No.248304" Numbers in italics aren't legible in the photo, so I'm going by memory.

Found this: http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_13.html scroll to page eigtheen. The 7 1/4" is listed as a 5x7 lens.

if don't mind goofing around
unscrew the front element from your 7" lens and see
what its converted focal length is. it will easily ( i am guessing )
cover your 8x10 negative and you can stop down you want to so you don't have to
deal with a less than 1 second shutter speed . the convertd focal length, who knows maybe 12" ?
the aperture, who knows maybe 1.5 -2 stops slower, you can figure that out when you decide what the focal length might be.

a lot of lenses are symmetrical, so they convert, and even ones that don't convert, sometimes look very nice
the way they aren't supposed to look ( converted )

good luck !
john

A 360mm (14") is a perfectly fine focal length for 8x10 portraits. Remember that with 8x10 and bigger, a tight head-and-shoulders portrait is getting into the 1:1 macro range, so you're better off without a super-long lens. Once you get above 11x14, a head-and-shoulders portrait IS a 1:1 macro. So the usual "rules" about portrait lenses start going out the window when you get into big film.

TheFlyingCamera said:

A 360mm (14") is a perfectly fine focal length for 8x10 portraits. Remember that with 8x10 and bigger, a tight head-and-shoulders portrait is getting into the 1:1 macro range, so you're better off without a super-long lens. Once you get above 11x14, a head-and-shoulders portrait IS a 1:1 macro. So the usual "rules" about portrait lenses start going out the window when you get into big film.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about that a lot over the past two days. I've also looked through a couple of my photo books. And Ektar 14" certainly would be perfect (as has been mentioned, if it was good enough for Karsh, I've got nothing to complain about). I just don't see myself using longer than 16".

I've been sent down a number of rabbit holes reading all sorts of information as people have mentioned specific lenses here and via PMs. Some of the old soft focus (or variable soft focus) 14" have picqued my interest. A fellow APUGger (writting that out, I think I prefer the RFF memgers term of "inmate", it sounds more socially acceptable ) has offered me an Ektar 12", and I'll be taking him up on it.
I'm definitely going to keep an eye out for an old 14" or a 16" (old in this case meaning a lens or lens design contemporary to the camera body). But my primary goal is to get a useable lens, and it looks like I'll have that soon.

It's funny, my entry to analogue photography was a 1980s vintage Zuiko 50mm f1.8 adapted on my DSLR. I loved it's colour rendition and the feel of the manual focus. Now, three years later I'm looking at 8x10 cameras, paper negatives, x-ray film, lith film, and investigating lens designs from the 1890s. Instead of silly videos about weed opening the door to heroine and crack, my guidance councillors should have warned me about the dangers of 35mm film equipment. What's next for me? Wet plate? Am I going to end up on a poster warnings kids about the dangers of photography? :confused:

It sounds like you have all the early symptoms of GAS.