8x10 portrait lens

[ndwgolf]

Hi
I'm looking for a 8x10 portrait lens but struggling to get my head wrapped around what focal length. I currently have a grafic kiow 350mm lens that is okay but want something more for head jobs.......any recommendation?
Neil

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I use an old 16 1/2" Artar, still a bit short for heads.

 

[John Earley]

19" Artars (480mm) are a nice length for portraits. They are the equivalent to a 70mm lens in 35mm format photography. This chart will help you see the difference in 8x10 lenses compared to other formats. https://lensn2shutter.com/35mmchart.html

 

[removed account4]

id get a 20" lens
the convention learned was
the "headshot/portrait" for x format is
the "normal" for the next size up ...

depending on the "look" you want, if you need a flash sync &c
you might find a 20/24/28 triple convertible ( turner reich or wolly 1a &c )
that won't totally colapse your monitary fund.. and they will work great
on a 11x14 when you "upgrade"

 

[Doc W]

I am pretty sure Karsh used a 14 inch Commercial Ektar. I have the same lens but I think mine might be defective because my portraits are not as good as Karsh's.

At any rate, if you go that route, make sure the shutter is serviceable. The Ilex is getting pretty old. I have mine checked regularly.

 

[Nokton48]

I have a 59cm Zeiss Apo Planar and a 600mm F9 Apo Ronar that I use for 8x10 portraits. About 2X so that is a preferred focal length for me. Might be a bit long for some tastes but I prefer it.

 

[ndwgolf]

Just a thought, what about if I just move the camera closer and extend the bellows to gain focus then if need be add bellows factor to get the correct exposure?......any downside of doing that?

Neil

 

[removed account4]

Just a thought, what about if I just move the camera closer and extend the bellows to gain focus then if need be add bellows factor to get the correct exposure?......any downside of doing that?

Neil

the downside is the person with the lens won't sell it and get your $$.. !

 

[ndwgolf]

the downside is the person with the lens won't sell it and get your $$.. !

Must be an an American thing

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Just a thought, what about if I just move the camera closer and extend the bellows to gain focus then if need be add bellows factor to get the correct exposure?......any downside of doing that?

Neil

Distortion?
I think of 19 or 20 inches as a minimum for heads on 8x10.

 

[MattKing]

Just a thought, what about if I just move the camera closer and extend the bellows to gain focus then if need be add bellows factor to get the correct exposure?......any downside of doing that?

Neil

The most important factor when shooting portraits is that you choose a working distance that results in flattering perspective.
If you use a lens with a focal length that is shorter than about twice the diagonal of your film format, that will force you to use a working distance that is too close for that sort of flattering perspective - unless you are willing to shoot with extraneous area around the subject, and crop when printing.
A shorter lens and full format printing will lead to emphasized noses, and ears that are smaller than ideal.
Something that matters more to some than others - see my self-portrait below (in profile, but you will probably get the idea):

 

[Ian C]

Adding to the ideas discussed in post #11, in portraiture, one key aim is to obtain a pleasing, natural-looking perspective. Perspective is due to subject-to-lens distance and no other factor. Probably the first consideration should be how tightly you want the subject framed. That will, in turn, indicate the appropriate choice of focal length.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that the majority of tightly-framed portraits on the 35 mm format are done with lenses of 105 mm, 135 mm and longer. That’s not coincidence. A tightly-composed portrait that encompasses, say, 600 mm horizontally at the subject plane places the first nodal point of the lens at 2730 mm (2.73 m) from the subject plane.

That’s approximately the minimum portrait distance for a pleasing perspective. With an 8” x 10” film whose minor format dimension is about 195 mm, the required focal length is about 700 mm. This might be most easily accomplished with a telephoto lens because the telephoto design requires considerably less bellows extension than a standard lens of the same focal length. One such lens is the 8” x 10”-format Nikkor T ED, which can be configured as 600/9 or 800/12, depending on which rear unit is attached to the rear of the shutter. Either of these focal lengths would be useful in this case.

 

[Ian Grant]

id get a 20" lens
the convention learned was
the "headshot/portrait" for x format is
the "normal" for the next size up ...

depending on the "look" you want, if you need a flash sync &c
you might find a 20/24/28 triple convertible ( turner reich or wolly 1a &c )
that won't totally colapse your monitary fund.. and they will work great
on a 11x14 when you "upgrade"

I'd go along with your suggestion of a 20" lens, I have a nice 20" RR that's sitting on my 12"x10" camera at the moment. I have a post WWII Gitzo front mounting shutter, one speed - probably 1/50 and T, with flash sync, it's just a fraction to small to fit the lens hood but I should be able to make an adapter. If not I could use a Thornton Pickard roller blind shutter between the lens and lens board.

Ian

 

[Alan Gales]

Yeah, Karsh used a 14" Commercial Ektar but he liked to use the subject's surroundings to help tell the story. I've got one and they are really nice. I also own a 19" Artar which would be a better focal length for head shots but Artars are sharp. I don't know what kind of look you want. Like John said, I've heard of people using Turner Reich triple convertibles. They are inexpensive but you might expect some balsam separation. I've heard they all have a little.

 

[btaylor]

I have read many times people multiplying the standard 35mm film portrait lens focal lengths and coming up with 600-800mm suggestions as correct for 8x10 format portrait shooting. The standard focal lengths used by most 8x10 portrait shooters were 14” to 18” (350-450mm), the Wollensak and Kodak portrait lenses for instance. Shooting 8x10 portraits is simply not the same as shooting 35mm or 6x6 and multiplying. I like my 375mm Ilex Caltar and 405mm Kodak for head and shoulders portraits.

 

[removed account4]

I have read many times people multiplying the standard 35mm film portrait lens focal lengths and coming up with 600-800mm suggestions as correct for 8x10 format portrait shooting. The standard focal lengths used by most 8x10 portrait shooters were 14” to 18” (350-450mm), the Wollensak and Kodak portrait lenses for instance. Shooting 8x10 portraits is simply not the same as shooting 35mm or 6x6 and multiplying. I like my 375mm Ilex Caltar and 405mm Kodak for head and shoulders portraits.

yeah but if the OP wants a new lens he might as well get a big and expensive one !

 

[btaylor]

Indeed, I suffer from that illness often. Unfortunately (at least for me) it rarely results in better photos!

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd go along with your suggestion of a 20" lens, I have a nice 20" RR that's sitting on my 12"x10" camera at the moment. I have a post WWII Gitzo front mounting shutter, one speed - probably 1/50 and T, with flash sync, it's just a fraction to small to fit the lens hood but I should be able to make an adapter. If not I could use a Thornton Pickard roller blind shutter between the lens and lens board.

Ian

By chance I picked up a large front mounting Thornton Pickard shutter at a Camera Fair this morning and it just happens to fit the front integral lens hood of my 20" RR perfectly, and it's working. I will fully restore it anyway. This will give me shutter speeds of 1/10 to 1/90 plus T. It's the largest TP front mounting shutter I've found so far.

Ian

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

I like 2x normal for head and shoulders composition. For 8x10 this would be somewhere around 600mm or 24".

I like 0.5x - 0.8x normal for looser, quasi-environmental portraits, with framing from full length to waist up. For 8x10 this is in the neighborhood of 150mm - 240mm or 8" - 10".

Decide the style you are aiming for, and the lens choice will become clearer.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have read many times people multiplying the standard 35mm film portrait lens focal lengths and coming up with 600-800mm suggestions as correct for 8x10 format portrait shooting. The standard focal lengths used by most 8x10 portrait shooters were 14” to 18” (350-450mm), the Wollensak and Kodak portrait lenses for instance. Shooting 8x10 portraits is simply not the same as shooting 35mm or 6x6 and multiplying. I like my 375mm Ilex Caltar and 405mm Kodak for head and shoulders portraits.

Yes, it's not as simple as multiplying 35mm focal lengths you have to take the reproduction ratio into account.

 

[removed account4]

LOL im still trying to figure out how not dumping 300$ to 4000$ on a new lens
is an "american thing" if i already have a lens that can be used for a head and shoulders portrait ..
maybe its less of an "american thing" than someone with no "gas" or who doesn't have $$ to spend on stuff he don't need thing LOL

Like John said, I've heard of people using Turner Reich triple convertibles.
They are inexpensive but you might expect some balsam separation. I've heard they all have a little.

maybe i've seen some beauties for not too much money and without separation ...
symmar convertibles too with working shutters and usable 8x10 head/shoulders focal lengths ...
like the dreaded and inconsequential "schneideritis" 1/32" of separation isn't going to amount to much of a difference in image quality
judging from the imagery he OP has in his gallery he's not the kind of person to shoot a cropped h/s 8x10 portrait ...
with a 18" aero ektar wide open so only the subject's nostrils are in focus. >>> or with the "seasick swirlies"
me? i'd rather have a little bit of pre 1980s je ne sais quoi OOFA than uber sharp ( maybe a tessar? formerly cheap brassie or versar* )
... and to be honest i'd most likely save my $$ and walk a few steps to turn my 14" into a head and shoulders lens considering 8x10 film is not pennies a pop..

to each their own as they say

* one for sale on the LF site as i type this .. in a working /serviced snappy studio shutter

 

[E. von Hoegh]

LOL im still trying to figure out how not dumping 300$ to 4000$ on a new lens
is an "american thing" if i already have a lens that can be used for a head and shoulders portrait ..
maybe its less of an "american thing" than someone with no "gas" or who doesn't have $$ to spend on stuff he don't need thing LOL


maybe i've seen some beauties for not too much money and without separation ...
symmar convertibles too with working shutters and usable 8x10 head/shoulders focal lengths ...
like the dreaded and inconsequential "schneideritis" 1/32" of separation isn't going to amount to much of a difference in image quality
judging from the imagery he OP has in his gallery he's not the kind of person to shoot a cropped h/s 8x10 portrait ...
with a 18" aero ektar wide open so only the subject's nostrils are in focus. >>> or with the "seasick swirlies"
me? i'd rather have a little bit of pre 1980s je ne sais quoi OOFA than uber sharp ( maybe a tessar? formerly cheap brassie or vesta )
... and to be honest i'd most likely save my $$ and walk a few steps to turn my 14" into a head and shoulders lens considering 8x10 film is not pennies a pop..

to each their own as they say

A converted Symmar does a fine job on partraits.

 

[bvy]

I'm using a 375mm (14.75") lens for head and shoulder shots on 8x10. Yes, I'd prefer something slightly longer, but I'm maxed out at 24" of bellows draw, so it would be a matter of new lens and camera for me. But I'm happy with what the 375 can do.

 

[Alan Gales]

maybe i've seen some beauties for not too much money and without separation ...
symmar convertibles too with working shutters and usable 8x10 head/shoulders focal lengths ...
like the dreaded and inconsequential "schneideritis" 1/32" of separation isn't going to amount to much of a difference in image quality

Well, I always say that eBay is all about who is looking when. I've seen a ton of them with the separation. Of course a little will only hurt resale value and have no effect on the quality of the photographs. I own a Fujinon 250 f/6.7 lens that has a little "Fujiitus". It's similar to "Schneideitis" but of course is a Japanese strand of the disease instead of the German strand. Doesn't affect quality at all but will slightly hurt resale value. A lot of people prefer pristine lenses and are willing/able to shell out the coin. I've also got a Schneider 121 lens that the rear barrel was engraved by the studio who previously owned it. Mounted on the camera it looks fine but it was dirt cheap because of it's cosmetics.

I was looking at the Turner Reichs at one time but since I don't really do head shots I decided to be unAmerican and not buy something that I really didn't need.

 

[MattKing]

I'm using a 375mm (14.75") lens for head and shoulder shots on 8x10. Yes, I'd prefer something slightly longer, but I'm maxed out at 24" of bellows draw, so it would be a matter of new lens and camera for me. But I'm happy with what the 375 can do.

View attachment 211818

This is a really nice portrait.
But I can really see in it the result of using a short subject to camera distance, and the associated shorter than typical lens for it. The subject is a person who still looks good in those circumstances, but not everyone will.