looking to build a speed graphic portrait camera

Lachlan Young · Aug 1, 2017

A few key points:

Firstly, I don't think there have been any recorded incidents where injury was caused to end users by the very mild radioactivity of lanthanum glass. It might slightly fog film if you left the lens sitting directly on top of a sheet of film for several hours without anything else in the way.

Next, lenses in the approx 135-210mm range are easiest to use on a speed/ crown graphic - you don't need an immensely long lens, all it'll do is make it harder to hold focus. Avoid the Aero Ektar and go for something like a classic 150 or 180mm Symmar (lots and lots of them out there). Ian's suggestion of the 210 Geronar is another good option, the 150 is worthwhile too. Overcomplicating your kit at the start is a guaranteed route to frustration, wasted time & it'll show in your work.

Finally, the graflex back is handy but not essential, and you might be able to save a few pennies by getting a speed/ crown with a non functional rangefinder.

hsandler · Aug 1, 2017

I have a 240mm Sironar and it works well for portraits.
Studio example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/34325843606/in/dateposted-public/
This was on a Toyo, but the lens will fit a Graphic.

Here is a portrait example with a 135mm lens on a graphic. You can see the perspective is a little distorted because you have to get too close to fill the frame for this seated portrait. For full length standing it would be ok.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/32725165581/in/dateposted-public/

However, a couple of points to consider based on the original post:

-the focal plane shutter lets you use shutterless lenses, but is not conducive to using electronic flash. There is no sync speed except T. You would really need to plan on using strong continuous lighting in the studio environment.
-you asked about roll film backs. In this case, a shorter focal length, like 150mm is a good portrait lens. You might consider a miniature or century graphic if you have no plans to shoot 4x5.

michr · Aug 1, 2017

shutterfinger said:
The most common side rangefinder on Speed Graphics is the Kalart which can be calibrated for lens from 101mm to 165mm.
View attachment 183596
Something I didn't know, thanks.

michr · Aug 1, 2017

hsandler said:
-you asked about roll film backs. In this case, a shorter focal length, like 150mm is a good portrait lens. You might consider a miniature or century graphic if you have no plans to shoot 4x5.

I'll second this. Buy a lens for the format you want. 2x3inch Graflexes can be had for around the same cost as the 4x5. Lenses which cover the format are much easier to find and often cheaper (the large old folding bellows cameras, some as cheap as $10, all cover the format). They also weight a bit less and are smaller.

One thing to note about the rollfilm back. They're kind of inconvenient if you're using the ground glass, you have to remove the glass after focusing (and find a place to put it), attach the back, pull the darkslide, and then reverse the process. It's a little more convenient to use a 2x3 film holder, but, if you want color, roll film's your only good option. The good news is there are film holders which slide under the ground glass back, but I can't remember the brand. Hopefully someone else has experience with them.

jim10219 · Aug 1, 2017

I wouldn't get a Crown Graphic. If you're going to get one of these cameras, get one with a focal plane shutter. Otherwise, get something with more movements or easier to carry. These press cameras are fairly portable, but not a light as most field cameras, and don't have anywhere near as many movements as any monorail or most field cameras. Don't worry about rangefinders. They're not something you'll likely use in a studio as they don't allow you critically focus the camera on small details, like a person's eyes. If you're shooting on the go, then they're pretty handy. But for portraiture, I don't think you'd ever want to use one. The roll film backs are okay, but they're just another expense. If you want to go roll film, then get a medium format camera. It'll be smaller, lighter, and probably cheaper. Otherwise, you can always crop down a 4x5 shot.

I'd look for a Petzval, around 8" (200mm) in focal length. If you're into portraiture, that's the type of lens you'll probably get one day, so why not start off with it. They can produce an interesting swirly bokeh that most other lenses can't. If you get one with waterhouse stops, you can stop it down and eliminate that swirly bokeh if it's too much for you. Since almost all of these will come without a shutter, you'll need a focal plane shutter in your camera to use them. There's also a Schneider Tele-Xenar 360mm lens you might look at if you want to do close up head shots. Due to it's telephoto design, it's one of the few, not crazy expensive lenses of that length you can put on a Speed Graphic and still use at portrait distances. Though really, any 150-250mm lens ought to work for you.

But definitely look for a camera in good condition. I bought my Anniversary Speed Graphic in pretty rough shape and spend several months and doubled it's original cost restoring it. If you like projects, they're fairly easy cameras to work on, but it's usually cheaper in the long run to buy one in great condition to start off with than it is to buy one as a project, because parts can be expensive and hard to come by. Also, keep in mind there will be other costs if you're new to 4x5 like film holders, dark cloths, changing bag, loupe, a proper film scanner or 4x5 enlarger, and perhaps a steadier tripod.

In any event, I wouldn't buy anything for a while. Spend some time doing tons of research over what exactly you want. This stuff can get really expensive, really quickly, so it pays dividends to educate yourself as much as possible before plunking down any cash. There will be a tendency to buy cheap stuff now just to get started, and then upgrade later. The problem is, that will likely cost you quite a bit more than just buying exactly what you need the first time.

Nodda Duma · Aug 1, 2017

shutterfinger said:
Radioactive lens also known as Hot lens used lithium glass that contained some radioactive particles that were filter out once discovered. A radioactive lens is not dangerous unless left next to your film for a day or more or you keei it next to you for an extended period of time. Search engine radioactive camera lens for exact details. Wollensak lens are not radioactive as far as I know.
Air bubbles were common in vintage lens and do not cause defects in the image. They are a sign of quality glass.

I was watching this thread for advice on portrait lenses and didn't intend to post, but needed to respond to these incorrect statements.

Lithium is not naturally radioactive and lithium glass is not a thing that exists. While there are optical materials that contain lithium compounds (e.g. lithium flouride, which are not radioactive), the topic at hand considers thorium-oxide optical material used as lens elements in the design of numerous camera lenses in the 1940s-1970s timeframe. In fact, the first link that comes up in a Google search for radioactive camera lens discusses the use of thorium oxide and why it was used.

This includes many Ektar lenses. The danger is actually minimal if you educate yourself on care and useage, but the bigger issue is the browning of the thorium-doped element over time causing a color shift in your photo.

Also, air bubbles were common In the past due to manufacturing limitations. The existence of air bubbles were definitely not a sign of higher quality. Quite the opposite: Higher quality glass lack air bubbles (or have insignificantly small and minimal numbers of air bubbles). Today, air bubbles are very rarely encountered in common optical applications due to manufacturing improvements over the years minimizing their existence in the glass blanks.

Alan Gales · Aug 1, 2017

I had a Crown Graphic for a bit. Mine came with a Schneider 135mm lens and I added a Caltar 210mm lens which was a rebadged Rodenstock Geronar. The 210 would just fold up inside the camera. Having a 135mm and a 210mm lens is a very nice pairing for portraiture.

The Crown is a bit lighter in weight but the Speed has the advantage of the focal plane shutter if you need it.

Sirius Glass · Aug 1, 2017

For the Pacemaker Speed Graphic, I have a 90mm, 135mm, 210mm and Rodenstock Imagon lenses. The first three cover wide angle, normal and short telephoto. The last is a soft focus lens.

For the Graflex I have a 7 1/2" and 15" [380mm] lenses, but that is a much different animal.

anorphirith · Aug 1, 2017

lens recommendations so far

"any 200mm LF"
Rodenstock 210mm f6.8 Geronar
Congo/Osaka Commercial 210mm f6.3
8"/5.6 TeleRaptar
Ektar 203mm f/7.7
210mm Symmar S
254mm Tele-optar.
Aero-Ektar 178 f2.5
210/370 symmar
210mm Commercial Ektar
150 or 180mm Symmar
210 Geronar (mentioned 3 times )
240mm Sironar
Petzval, around 8" (200mm)
Schneider Tele-Xenar 360mm
210mm rodenstock imagon

so it looks like the 210mm is the prevalent focal range
the 210mm geronar is popular but it's hard to find on eBay and has a small aperture
the 210mm symmar is another popular one and much easier to find on eBay, and has a larger aperture.

I'm a little surprised that I didn't get more recommendations for faster aperture lenses (5.6 or faster) isn't it going to be easier to shoot with available light and have a better DOF ?

Thanks everyone !

jim10219 · Aug 1, 2017

Well, remember with large format, 5.6 is pretty fast and will give you a pretty shallow depth of field. You're going to have these cameras up on a tripod most of the time (if not always) so camera shake is rarely an issue like it is with hand held. Tripods are almost mandatory if you're going to be focusing through the ground glass. And in general, the exposure times on large format cameras tend to be a lot longer than on smaller formats. Also, the apertures tend to be a lot smaller (bigger numbers). I shoot at f/64 often with my large format. I don't think I have a 135 or digital lens that even goes past f/22.

And we're talking about 200mm lenses. I don't think I've ever even heard of a f/1.4 210mm lens on any format. And even if there were, it would be almost impossible to keep the eyes of your subject in focus, as most people can't keep their heads perfectly still in the time it takes to insert a film holder, pull the dark slide, and fire the shutter. That would be a razor thin depth of field! Like you'd have the eye lashes out of focus if you got the eye in focus! So f/4.5 is close to the limit as to what is practical.

There are about a million different valid options for a portrait lens on 4x5. Each will have it's own unique look and drawbacks and advantages. Some will be more subtle than others. 210mm is just a good middle length, which is why it's recommended so often. That, and there are a lot of examples out there that are relatively inexpensive compared to some other options. It's not necessarily the best. It's just a safe compromise.

Doc W · Aug 1, 2017

A larger aperture makes it easier to focus but LF lenses are not at their best wide open. Also, there is often a substantial cost increase from f/8 to f/5.6.

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 1, 2017

I have a very nice 210mm Geronar in the latest all black Copal shutter, I can sell. LKM... I'll post price and pics here. There will be little delay because that lens is in a box sitting 60cm from my right arm at this very moment, so I don't have to search for it.

shutterfinger · Aug 1, 2017

Another fact about Focal Plane Shutters in 4x5 format cameras in landscape position the shutter travel time is .03 seconds at 1/1000 shutter speed and .05 seconds at 1/30 second.
This means the subject will have to be perfectly still for the duration of the exposure.

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 1, 2017

shutterfinger said:
Another fact about Focal Plane Shutters in 4x5 format cameras in landscape position the shutter travel time is .03 seconds at 1/1000 shutter speed and .05 seconds at 1/30 second.
This means the subject will have to be perfectly still for the duration of the exposure.

Hmm, hadn't considered that... makes perfect sense.

Lachlan Young · Aug 1, 2017

anorphirith said:
the 210mm geronar is popular but it's hard to find on eBay and has a small aperture
the 210mm symmar is another popular one and much easier to find on eBay, and has a larger aperture.

I'm a little surprised that I didn't get more recommendations for faster aperture lenses (5.6 or faster) isn't it going to be easier to shoot with available light and have a better DOF?

The Symmar (& the Rodenstock Apo Sironar, Nikkor, Fujinon etc) f5.6 lenses are all quite readily available (lots of them were made), however they are quite hefty bits of glass. The slower Xenar, Geronar etc are quite a bit lighter, & at f22 (where most LF lenses are optimised for) you're not going to see a lot of difference unless you need huge movement abilities (not going to happen on a speed graphic). The 203mm Ektar is astoundingly good too & should let you close the camera with it attached.

Also consider that in a 16x20 enlargement off 4x5, a 210/5.6 wide open at 5ft has a depth of field of an inch or less. Can your subjects stay still enough?

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 1, 2017

I have a very nice/clean 203mm Ektar I can sell too... sitting in the same box as the Geronar.

Ian Grant · Aug 1, 2017

anorphirith said:
lens recommendations so far

"any 200mm LF"
Rodenstock 210mm f6.8 Geronar
Congo/Osaka Commercial 210mm f6.3
8"/5.6 TeleRaptar
Ektar 203mm f/7.7
210mm Symmar S
254mm Tele-optar.
Aero-Ektar 178 f2.5
210/370 symmar
210mm Commercial Ektar
150 or 180mm Symmar
210 Geronar (mentioned 3 times )
240mm Sironar
Petzval, around 8" (200mm)
Schneider Tele-Xenar 360mm
210mm rodenstock imagon

so it looks like the 210mm is the prevalent focal range
the 210mm geronar is popular but it's hard to find on eBay and has a small aperture
the 210mm symmar is another popular one and much easier to find on eBay, and has a larger aperture.

I'm a little surprised that I didn't get more recommendations for faster aperture lenses (5.6 or faster) isn't it going to be easier to shoot with available light and have a better DOF ?

Thanks everyone !

From your list I use:

Rodenstock 210mm f6.8 Geronar
Congo/Osaka Commercial 210mm f6.3
Ektar 203mm f/7.7
210mm Symmar S
150 or 180mm Symmar
210 Geronar (mentioned 3 times )
240mm Sironar - no instead a 2400 Nikon W
Petzval, around 8" (200mm)
Schneider Tele-Xenar 360mm

i also use a 150mm Geronar and various Tessar lenses in the 135mm to 250mm range, and a few Cooke Triplets (genuine)

Ian

anorphirith · Aug 1, 2017

Old-N-Feeble said:
I have a very nice/clean 203mm Ektar I can sell too... sitting in the same box as the Geronar.

I"m very mildly interested haha. how much for both lenses ? (you can PM me I guess)

Ian Grant said:
From your list I use:

Rodenstock 210mm f6.8 Geronar
Congo/Osaka Commercial 210mm f6.3
Ektar 203mm f/7.7
210mm Symmar S
150 or 180mm Symmar
210 Geronar (mentioned 3 times )
240mm Sironar - no instead a 2400 Nikon W
Petzval, around 8" (200mm)
Schneider Tele-Xenar 360mm

i also use a 150mm Geronar and various Tessar lenses in the 135mm to 250mm range, and a few Cooke Triplets (genuine)

Ian

which one of those has the best tones & contrast ?

I don't really mind the sharpness since I'll be shooting mostly portraits, I care more about the tones and the contrast. and a nice out of focus starting right after the eyes, so probably 10cm DOF if I want to have the nose nice and sharp

I think I'll be getting a 240mm symmar s mc , that seems like a safe choice

Lachlan Young · Aug 1, 2017

anorphirith said:
I don't really mind the sharpness since I'll be shooting mostly portraits, I care more about the tones and the contrast. and a nice out of focus starting right after the eyes, so probably 10cm DOF if I want to have the nose nice and sharp

I think I'll be getting a 240mm symmar s mc , that seems like a safe choice

You'll be looking at f22 for your preferred depth of field without tilt. Most of the glass mentioned above is fine in terms of sharpness etc, you might find the older glass to be a little or a lot softer contrast-wise - ie pre multicoating/ uncoated, depending on the underlying lens design. The 240 Symmar is a beast of a lens in a Copal 3 - avoid in 4x5 if you can - it's really a 5x7/ 8x10 lens. Look for a Fujinon 250/6.3 (copal 1) or 240/9 (copal 0), you'll have an easier time of it, lose little in the way of coverage & filters are smaller.

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 1, 2017

anorphirith said:
I"m very mildly interested haha. how much for both lenses ? (you can PM me I guess)

Current market value for the pair is approximately US$260 plus shipping. I'll sell them both for US$215 plus actual shipping cost. I'll post pics if you're interested.

Ian Grant · Aug 2, 2017

shutterfinger said:
Another fact about Focal Plane Shutters in 4x5 format cameras in landscape position the shutter travel time is .03 seconds at 1/1000 shutter speed and .05 seconds at 1/30 second.
This means the subject will have to be perfectly still for the duration of the exposure.

Of course that de[ends on what direction the object is moving but at its worst it's like this Ironically it'll look most exaggerated at the highest shutter speed.

A point not mentioned with longer lenses like the 240mm Symmar/Sironar/Nikon W is the fastest shutter speed with a Copal #3 shutter is 1/125th, a telephoto in a Compound like my 360mm f5.5 Tele Xenar is 1/100th, so a Speed Graphic is the best option for higher shutter speeds.

Ian

darkroommike · Aug 3, 2017

Ian Grant said:
Those 10" Wollensak lenses seem strange they appear to have no aperture control.

Ian

They may have come off a TLR long roll camera and were the viewing lenses not the taking, or an SLR long roll camera with a behind the lens electric shutter.

Ian Grant · Aug 3, 2017

anorphirith said:
which one of those has the best tones & contrast ?

I don't really mind the sharpness since I'll be shooting mostly portraits, I care more about the tones and the contrast. and a nice out of focus starting right after the eyes, so probably 10cm DOF if I want to have the nose nice and sharp

I think I'll be getting a 240mm symmar s mc , that seems like a safe choice

All the lenses I listed are coated except the Petzval and the Geronar, Symmar S, and Nikon W are Multi-Coated. In practice it's difficult to see any differences in Tone & Contrast between Coated and Multi-Coated lenses particularly with B&W film.

The 203mm Ektar is the sharpest of all those lenses (at all apertures) but the Nikon and Symmar are superb. Forgetting the Petzval as they are quite different all the lenses are sharp at f22 but the Triplets and Tessar (type) lenses go softer at the edges and corners as you open them up using wider apertures. So comparing similar200mm FL lenses the Gronar is significantly softer at f8-f11 9edges/corners) than the Tessar type Osaka Commercial which itself is softer than teh Symmar S, this is why many use Triplets and Tessar lenses for portraits. Now because you're shooting 5x4 and/or MF with a 210mm lens with a large image circle you will only using the centre portion of the image circle that's why some would prefer a 210mm Triplet like the Geronar for portraits.

Ian

mdarnton · Aug 3, 2017

Since OP is using a roll back, the stock lens on a Speed Graphic should be totally adequate for portraits, with no fuss of messing with boards and RF alignment. 210 is marginally too long, and longer is way overkill. The usual recommended length for portraits is the two sides of the film summed; since 6x9 is more like 55x85, that makes 140 the traditionally correct length to use--close enough to 135mm.

210 or a bit longer would be a good lens for 4x5, but that's not what he's said he'll be using.

anorphirith · Aug 3, 2017

Ian Grant said:
Now because you're shooting 5x4 and/or MF with a 210mm lens with a large image circle you will only using the centre portion of the image circle that's why some would prefer a 210mm Triplet like the Geronar for portraits.

Ian

IT doesn't look like the geronar is made in 240. what I'm really trying to achieve is minimum DOF before using the movements.
hoping for results close to this

mdarnton said:
Since OP is using a roll back, the stock lens on a Speed Graphic should be totally adequate for portraits, with no fuss of messing with boards and RF alignment. 210 is marginally too long, and longer is way overkill. The usual recommended length for portraits is the two sides of the film summed; since 6x9 is more like 55x85, that makes 140 the traditionally correct length to use--close enough to 135mm.

210 or a bit longer would be a good lens for 4x5, but that's not what he's said he'll be using.

So I bought a Wista 45DX since I'll be traveling soon
I also bought a that Wollensak barrel lens, I probably won't be able to use it for a while but for 75$ it wasn't a huge deal.
I'll either need a sinar shutter that I'll try to adapt on the wista 45dx or I'll have to buy a speed graphic pacemaker or anniversary to use some cool barrel lenses.
also I mentioned the 6x9 film back to make the camera more versatile, but my primary use won't be with the film back, It'll be regular 4x5 (until the films become unavailable then i'll only shoot 6x9 I guess)
also for the lenses I figured I might as well buy an 240mm APO lens since the price difference between the 210/ 240 MC and the APO's lenses aren't that big. and they'll probably hold their value better.

looking to build a speed graphic portrait camera

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency