Looking for a lens recommendation for 5x7, long normal or short tele

I've long been tempted by LF and have a few bits of 4x5 gear, but what I really like are contact prints, so I think if I get serious and finally go for it, I'd want to do 5x7. To that end, I'm looking for recommendations for a (relatively) affordable lens that will cover 5x7 with a least a little room for movements, and be long enough (and fast enough) for upper body or even head and shoulders portraits. "Old fashioned" look is fine, as is less than spectacular resolution, as I won't be enlarging (looking for that smooth gradation more than the ability to make large prints)

Arithmetically, with common lenses, you should find your minimum coverage in the 210mm area (a little more or a little less, depending on variables), and your "portrait" length around 250+ mm.

And now twenty or thirty LF photographers will be along to tell you I'm wrong, and in detail how I'm wrong.

Resolution on virtually any lens that covers 5x7 will be more than adequate; I'd recommend looking for a coated lens. Since a "normal" lens for 5x7 is about 210 mm, you might like something about 300 mm for focal length. Personally, I have a 300mm Commercial Congo f/6.3 lens in a Copal shutter. It's nice and compact, and coated. You might look for something similar.

And, I agree with the above post--anything 250mm and above ought to work out fine for your portrait lens. With LF, it seems the focal length multipliers for wide/long lenses are not quite as much as for small formats. For some reason, it just seems to work that way.

Fuji W 250mm...either of the two max aperture models will be great, with the f/6.7 being a little more expensive due to covering 8x10 very well. But might be too sharp for you for portraits, but great for everything else.

If you can locate a 135 Wide field Ektar made by Kodak you will have a gem that covers 5x7 and is wide(ish). I have one and don't use it because all my LF work is 8x10. However I am not a subscriber and so not in a position to put it up for sale. Still it is a beautifully sharp coated lens.. I think single coated. So keep an eye out.

A 135mm Wide Field Ektar would not be considered a "long normal", nor a "short tele" for 5x7....

I have a variety of lenses for my 5x7 cameras. In the normal range, my favorite is the multicoated 210mm/5.6 Fujinon NWS plasmat, with outside lens barrel lettering. This used lens is inexpensive, very sharp, and with excellent coverage,although physically large like all 210mm plasmats. I also use and like the older but very sharp 203/7.7 Kodak Ektar, a Dialyte design process lens that's small and light, but not much coverage beyond the minimum required for 5x7. Supposedly, the 203/7.7 Ektar was a favorite of Ansel Adams on 4x5. It does cover 5x7, though barely, and most Kodak Supermatic shutters defiinitely benefit from a professional CLAC.

240mm-300mm lenses probably best fit your described needs. Of those, I would agree with the earlier poster that the early single-coated Fujinon 250mm/6.7 W plasmat is one of the better ones. I got mine for under $200 plus shipping and it's very nice. Also suitable, are 240mm and 305mm f/9 G-Claron plasmats and 305mm Repro-Clarons Dialyte-style process lenses. All are nicely sharp and also small enough to work with most field cameras. Many people swear by the 300mm Nikkor M or 10 inch and 12 inch Commercial Ektars. These are Tessar-formula lenses.

Some older lens designs like Dagors and Zeiss Protar VII work ok, some very well. But, there is more sample variability among those older lenses.

I can't really comment upon soft-focus lenses. They're just "not my thing" and, although I have one or two lenses that are soft-focus, I've never bought one, at least not intentionally.

I’ve got the Schneider Symmar 240, which has enough image circle for 8x10 and is still reasonably compact. I use it without problems on my Chamonix 4x5, which is not a first choice for carrying heavy lenses. I happen to prefer Schneider mostly, although Nikon is not bad and has often more compact lenses. You might evolve to 8x10 if contact printing is your desire, so anyway, I’d look for a lens that covers that too.

The 210mm g-claron in rhe early dagor version in a #1 shutter is hard to beat. Its f9 but well. Wide open it has some glow, stopped down razor sharp. Big coverage.

chris77 said:

The 210mm g-claron in rhe early dagor version in a #1 shutter is hard to beat. Its f9 but well. Wide open it has some glow, stopped down razor sharp. Big coverage.

Click to expand...

i omitted the 210 G-Claron plasmat version in my previous response, although I also have one of those. I found the 210/5.6 Fujnon NWS optically better and multicoated yet less expensive. Of course, it may just be sample variation. My 305 G-Claron plasmat is a delight while still small and light for its focal length. It is definitely sharper than my early version 240mm Dagor-style G-Claron.

By the late 1980s, basically every new large format lens from Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Fujinon are all good lenses. Buying them now, used, is basically buying by overall condition, shutter functioning, and price. The Fujinons seem the least expensive among comparable lenses, a plus.

PFGS said:

I've long been tempted by LF and have a few bits of 4x5 gear, but what I really like are contact prints, so I think if I get serious and finally go for it, I'd want to do 5x7. To that end, I'm looking for recommendations for a (relatively) affordable lens that will cover 5x7 with a least a little room for movements, and be long enough (and fast enough) for upper body or even head and shoulders portraits. "Old fashioned" look is fine, as is less than spectacular resolution, as I won't be enlarging (looking for that smooth gradation more than the ability to make large prints)

Click to expand...

Heliar 30cm, or the 36 for a supreme bokeh, the heliar power cannot be overlooked

commercial ektar, 12". the 14" was Karsh's workhorse for most of his career in 8x10, including official portraits of US presidents since Ike to Bush father.

the symmar 300 convertible to 500 offers two focals, the 500 /12 conversion is excellent for portraits. for head and shouders a 500 is suitable for 5x7, you have the right subject-camera distance like if it was a 135mm ifocal n a 35mm slr, a compendium shade may be necessary for the converion to overcome flare, as illumination circle is crazy big.

AnselMortensen said:

A 135mm Wide Field Ektar would not be considered a "long normal", nor a "short tele" for 5x7....

Click to expand...

And neither is a 210mm. And depending on the 5x7 the OP buys, I doubt it will have enough bellows for a head & Shoulders with 500mm lens.

look for a wollensak triple convertible or turner reich triple convertible. great coverage, indestructible, and. nice OOFA.

my choice of a slightly longer than normal 7x5 lens is a 240mm in my case an f5.6 Nikkor W, but I also have a pre-WWII 240mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar, and a 210mm f5.6 Symmar S.

For a longer lens I have a 360mm f5.5 Tele Xenar, they aren't expensive (coated but pre MC version) cover 7x5 and need little bellows extension on a 5x4 camera.

Ian

Donald Qualls said:

And now twenty or thirty LF photographers will be along to tell you I'm wrong, and in detail how I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I agree with you, Donald.

This article is from Large Format Photography Forum. It is geared towards 4x5 but you can find a "look" you like and buy the same lens in a longer focal length for 5x7.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

If you find you like large format photography then you should consider becoming a member of Large Format Photography Forum. There are a lot of Photrio members there as well and we would be glad to have you!

On the Large Format Photography Forum you can click on the Image Sharing and Discussion thread. There are portrait threads where you can look at images. A lot of the portraits include what lens was used.

If you are interested in a certain lens mentioned here then you can also type that lens in on Flickr. You will see examples shot with that particular lens to give you a better idea of how it renders.

I am partial to my 250mm Tessar which seems to work just right for a lot of things, including portraits. Mine is in barrel with no shutter but I'm sure it can be found in shutter as well. I am working primarily with dry plates from Jason right now so this hasn't been a handicap.

Donald Qualls said:

Arithmetically, with common lenses, you should find your minimum coverage in the 210mm area (a little more or a little less, depending on variables), and your "portrait" length around 250+ mm.

Click to expand...

+1

250 mm Tessar best buy for what you'll get - 210 will also work in nice Compound or Compur shutter

If you want short tele: 300 mm Tele-tessar (harder to find)

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who weighed in on this thread. As it happened, before I got a chance to really look into any of these suggestions, I took the opportunity to buy a B&J Grover (5x7 w/ 4x5 reducing back) with a Rodenstock Sironar N 150mm f5.6 and a Bogen 3040 tripod, all in good condition, for the not very princely sum of $90. This glamorous and exotic rig (the Pentax K1000 of large format?) should keep me busy screwing up a box or three of Fomapan, by the end of which time I'll likely either know a lot more about what I want in a second lens, or be ready to send it all down the river...

If you do decide you're done with that, let me know, and I'll drive to you to pick it up... I wouldn't mind having a 5x7 monorail alongside my 4x5 Graphic View...

Several recommendations, depending on your budget:
Kodak Commercial Ektar 12" (305mm) f6.3 - you can't go wrong with this lens. It's a highly acclaimed classic, covers 8x10 with some movement, so it will do extremely well on 5x7. There's also a 10" (250mm) version out there if you want the look but want to save a few $$.
Voigtlander Heliar 240mm f4.5 - AMAZING lens. The budget for it will be a killer though, but worth it if you can manage.
Just about any modern 300mm plasmat lens - A Fuji, Rodenstock, Nikkor or Schneider 300mm f5.6 lens will provide more than ample coverage, and be able to give you shallow dof should you want/need it.

This is also going to depend on if you need it to be in a shutter or if you are ok with a barrel lens. You can find a lot of classic portrait lenses in barrel for a lot less than their brethren (sistren?) in shutters. If you're willing/able to do the "Galli shutter" thing (use a pair of dark slides like a guillotine shutter) you can get a better lens for less money.

Donald Qualls said:

If you do decide you're done with that, let me know, and I'll drive to you to pick it up... I wouldn't mind having a 5x7 monorail alongside my 4x5 Graphic View...

Click to expand...

Ha, for all you know that could be a 600 mile drive...

5x7shooter said:

I also use and like the older but very sharp 203/7.7 Kodak Ektar, a Dialyte design process lens that's small and light, but not much coverage beyond the minimum required for 5x7. Supposedly, the 203/7.7 Ektar was a favorite of Ansel Adams on 4x5. It does cover 5x7, though barely, and most Kodak Supermatic shutters defiinitely benefit from a professional CLAC.

Click to expand...

The 203mm f7.7 Ektar and before that its un-coated Anastigmat predecessor have good coverage for 7x5. That's why Kodak sold them with the Kodak Specialist 2 half plate camera essentially a Kodak Ltd British derivation of the 2D. Kodak half plate plate/film holders are the same outside dimensions as 7x5 plate/film holders.

I've had 5 203mm Ektars, and still have 3 of them all are (were) in modern Compur/Copal/Prontor #0 shutters, the 4 British made ones two in Prontor SVS shutters and two earlier ones in Kodak Epsilons, the 5th a US Ektar is in a Compur #1 this is the one I use most. When the Supermatic shutters were no longer made Eastman Kodak fitted the remaining cells in new aluminium mounts.

Ian

PFGS said:

Ha, for all you know that could be a 600 mile drive...

Click to expand...

Nah, I'm close to the center of the state. Less than 300 miles from Murphy, about the same from Kitty Hawk.