"People" Lens for 8x10

[Doc W]

I posted this on "the other forum" but I will try here too.

I am looking for a 240-250mm lens for 8x10 which I will use mainly for photographing people, so how it renders skin tones is important. I have a 14" Commercial Ektar, which I like (particularly the bokeh) but I want something sharper and in a modern shutter.

Any suggestions?

 

[removed account4]

hi doc w
forgive me for being absolutely clueless about ages of lenses
but how about a symmar (schneider) ?
they made these 210/370 convertible ( plastmat design ? )
amd a 150/235
the 1st focal length is both elements and sharp adn nice nice
converted ( front element removed ) is the 2nd focal length .. f12 they advertised it for portraits and landscapes
i've used it both converted and straight, and loved it ( 210/370 ) sweet lens !
the other lens i might suggest is a turner riech convertible .. they used to be sold with gundalach cameras .

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I would recommend a Symmar-S over a Symmar. Economical and available, it's a sharper lens.

Since you're photographing using 8x10, you might consider a Fujinon 250mm f6.7, which covers 8x10 with quite a bit of movement. But perhaps movements isn't a big issue in your situation.

 

[Ari]

Sharpness, in portraits, is kind of overrated, but...
Fuji 250mm f6.7
Nikon/Schneider/Rodenstock/Fuji 300 f5.6
All of these lenses will perform roughly the same, they're all of excellent quality, with only very subtle differences.
Your light will determine how well skin looks, these lenses may be too sharp (unflattering) for some subjects.

 

[chassis]

I like twice normal focal length for portraits. It gives a good subject-camera distance with head and shoulders framing. I'm not an 8x10 shooter, but I think a normal lens is 12" or 325mm. So twice that would be 24" or 650mm. Not sure if this is a common 8x10 focal length. Here are the ones I am aware of that are near twice normal, there are probably more:

Fuji 600/11.5
Goerz 24"/11 Artar
Rodenstock 600/9 APO Ronar
Nikkor 610/9 APO
Schneider 550/11 Fine Art XXL

Best best is the "other site", I would guess.

Agree with Ari on sharpness not being the top priority for portraits.

 

[Vaughn]

A head and shoulders portrait with a 600mm lens is going to require more bellows than most 8x10s have.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A 250 is a bit wide for portraits on 8x10, unless you're doing environmental portraits. I once had a Nikkor 240 in Copal 3 that covered 8x10 - never used it for people shots so I can't say how it rendered skin tones, but it would work for what you're talking about in a general sense.

If you can find one, a Docter Optics 240 Apo-Germinar would be a very fine option. I've used mine for studio portraits on smaller formats, and it covers more than 8x10 at infinity. It's small and light (fits in a Copal 1).

 

[bvy]

Agree with Ari on sharpness not being the top priority for portraits.

Whose portraits, yours or mine? I like eyelashes that will pin prick the viewer.

A head and shoulders portrait with a 600mm lens is going to require more bellows than most 8x10s have.

This is true. Saying "I like this focal length for 35mm" and multiplying upward to find the 8x10 equivalent ignores a lot of practical considerations. You'll find a lot of great 8x10 portraiture being done with a 14" lens -- even head and shoulder. That said, I also agree 250mm is a bit wide for anything but full body or environmental type portraits.

 

[chassis]

Vaughn and bvy, I am not an 8x10 shooter so can't speak from experience about using a 600mm lens on 8x10.

I have enjoyed my experience with portraits using:

100mm on 135
180mm on 6x7
12" on 4x5

Regarding bellows draw for 4x5, I use a Toyo 45AII with an accessory extension back. The bellows draw is more than adequate for head and shoulders with a 12" lens. I realize this is an 8x10 thread so apologies if this has been too off-topic.

 

[ic-racer]

I have a 14" Commercial Ektar,... but I want something sharper....

You might be the first with that complaint about that lens. Maybe yours has been tampered or is dirty.

 

[dpurdy]

I am a bit surprised that the 14" Commercial Ektar isn't sharp enough. I believe they were the lenses of choice for Yousuf Karsh. I know a lot of commercial advertising was shot with those back in the day. My lens of choice is the 14" Red Dot Artar and I have done a fair amount of portraiture with it.
Dennis

 

[Ari]

To be sure, asking this type of question will get you a hundred different lens suggestions from fifty people.
It's quite subjective, as you can see; on 8x10, I like normal FLs for portraits, I found that even using a 14"/360mm lens gave too much of a compressed look.
But others will prefer the very opposite.
I, too, like sharp portrait lenses, just not clinically sharp.
The best lens I've ever seen in a portrait context is the Cooke XVa. Expensive, but worth the price (call me crazy, but it's true).
It's a good guide for how you can evaluate other lenses, I think: sharp, without slicing your eyeballs, rich tones, smooth transitions to OOF, and excellent contrast control.
Not saying you need to buy a Cooke, just see if any lenses you test out offer any, or all, of these qualities.

 

[MattKing]

A head and shoulders portrait with a 600mm lens is going to require more bellows than most 8x10s have.

But it will be really good if you are trying to scare/intimidate your subject.

 

[mrosenlof]

I am of the belief that a sharp lens is great for making portraits, but I recognize that not all sitters might agree with me.

To the OP, what are you going to do with these photos? 8x10 film and a 12 inch Ektar is *normally* a combination that gives a lot of sharpness, if the lens is clean and correct, and if the photographer is mistake-free! excluding the pictorialist era, there are a lot of pictures on 8x10 film or glass that are very sharp, from lenses much older than your Ektar.

 

[removed account4]

i think most lenses are pretty sharp stopped down ..
that goes for most designs, even the ones that were
used wide open .
(modified petzval/RR/plasmat/tessar)

 

[Doc W]

Darn. I just posted a lengthy reply but it got lost in a server error.

Let me try again to elaborate a little.

I am mainly interested in environmental portraits in available light and not traditional studio portraits. My main subjects are either very young (with perfect, unblemished skin) or they are older men (some very old) who couldn't care less about what they look like to a lens. Most adult women won't let me get near them with a camera, including my own wife who says I have the dubious ability to make children look like depressed axe-murderers. When I start to set up the 8x10 and measure light on or around her, she finds many other things to do that require immediate attention.

So, what I want is slightly wider (for environmental portraits) and sharper than what I have now.

Don't misunderstand me regarding the 14 inch Commercial Ektar. I have two of these lenses and love them, especially the bokeh, which comes from the older shutter. I know that Karsh used this lens quite a bit (a few years ago I was lucky enough to see an exhibit of his actual portrait and darkroom equipment, presented by the national archives here in Canada). I could be wrong about "sharpness" with regard to a lens, but I do feel that despite the Commercial Ektar being a fine lens, there is still something about some more modern lenses, some quality, that I want. Perhaps I need to think about this more and look at more photographs from those who know what they are doing.

Having said all of this, I did post my question in the large format forum and the responses there convinced me that the kind of skin tone I want is more likely the result of film/developer/development than the lens.

I used to shoot FP4, developed in HC-110, but never got quite what I wanted. Also the HC-110 is a bit of problem in my Jobo when it comes to high dilutions. So I have switched to FP4 with Perceptol (home-brew) and I am also experimenting with Bergger Pancro, which comes highly recommended with regard to skin tone.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Vaughn and bvy, I am not an 8x10 shooter so can't speak from experience about using a 600mm lens on 8x10.

I have enjoyed my experience with portraits using:

100mm on 135
180mm on 6x7
12" on 4x5

Regarding bellows draw for 4x5, I use a Toyo 45AII with an accessory extension back. The bellows draw is more than adequate for head and shoulders with a 12" lens. I realize this is an 8x10 thread so apologies if this has been too off-topic.

the thing about 8x10 and larger is that you are creeping into, if not fully committed to, 1:1 macro for a tight head-and-shoulders portrait. At that point, a longer lens becomes a liability not an asset, because you not only have bellows extension factors to deal with wrt focusing, but also exposure compensation.

 

[Ari]

Darn. I just posted a lengthy reply but it got lost in a server error.

Let me try again to elaborate a little.

I am mainly interested in environmental portraits in available light and not traditional studio portraits. My main subjects are either very young (with perfect, unblemished skin) or they are older men (some very old) who couldn't care less about what they look like to a lens. Most adult women won't let me get near them with a camera, including my own wife who says I have the dubious ability to make children look like depressed axe-murderers. When I start to set up the 8x10 and measure light on or around her, she finds many other things to do that require immediate attention.

So, what I want is slightly wider (for environmental portraits) and sharper than what I have now.

Don't misunderstand me regarding the 14 inch Commercial Ektar. I have two of these lenses and love them, especially the bokeh, which comes from the older shutter. I know that Karsh used this lens quite a bit (a few years ago I was lucky enough to see an exhibit of his actual portrait and darkroom equipment, presented by the national archives here in Canada). I could be wrong about "sharpness" with regard to a lens, but I do feel that despite the Commercial Ektar being a fine lens, there is still something about some more modern lenses, some quality, that I want. Perhaps I need to think about this more and look at more photographs from those who know what they are doing.

Having said all of this, I did post my question in the large format forum and the responses there convinced me that the kind of skin tone I want is more likely the result of film/developer/development than the lens.

I used to shoot FP4, developed in HC-110, but never got quite what I wanted. Also the HC-110 is a bit of problem in my Jobo when it comes to high dilutions. So I have switched to FP4 with Perceptol (home-brew) and I am also experimenting with Bergger Pancro, which comes highly recommended with regard to skin tone.

Thanks for the replies.

If that's the case, then I'd re-suggest the Fuji 250mm f6.7
It's sharp, comes in a modern shutter (Seiko or Copal), and they're going for ~$225 these days on eBay.
I've always had superb results using FP4+ and HC-110 (dilution H) in a Jobo 3005; I still use that very same combination today, so I'd opine that the lens and the light both play equally important roles in the look of the final image.
Shot with Fuji lens, FP4/HC-110:

 

[Doc W]

Ari, the problem I had was that I could never tame bright highlights with minus development. The development times always got too short, into the "not recommended" region. Both of these are great photos. The first one has the contrast I want and the second has the sharpness I feel I am missing.

Let's get together for a pint and talk about this. PM or email me and let's pick a day. Rain is forecast all this week so we can't get out and shoot. Might as well whine about it in a pub!

 

[jimgalli]

A late, coated, 270mm Dagor comes to mind. Not the easiest to find, but in my experience the single coated Dagor's have some magic at both sharpness and also taming highlights. YMMV. 270mm G-Claron is nearly the same if you can live with f9 instead of f6.8 BTW, not advertised and people around here who know it all will argue, but both of those lenses will cover 11X14 format, so 8X10 is easy.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

As far as the sharpness goes, any modern multi-coated Plasmat should do the trick. Ari's recommendation of the Fuji is a good one. Fujinons are waaaay underrated. I love them myself, not that it should matter. Since you are shooting indoors I would avoid the converted process lens types. Too slow.

As far as better skin tones go, I was going to suggest a heavily solvent developer which tends to smooth things out, but I see you are trying Perceptol. That should give you better skin tones unless you are diluting it.

One question I have since you are not satisfied with the sharpness you have now is what are you doing with the negative? Are you scanning it? Enlarging it? That could be where your issue is.

 

[removed account4]

Plasmat should do the trick

thats what i was thinking !
word of caution, if using the symmars
there is a little focus shift and the infinity focus
is much more than the focal length suggests when converted ( using 1 element )
> for example the 210/370 converted to 370 takes something like 440mm at infinity < ,
so check with a loupe / magnifier after you stop down ... ( and make sure you have enough bellows ! )

 

[iakustov]

For portraits I use these three Fuji in 250mm:
Fujinon 250mm f/6.3
Fujinar 250mm f/4.5 (huge but very bright on the ground grass)
Fujinon SF 250mm f/5.6

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 250/6.7 is a great lens, but distinctly wide for this format, and in my opinion a bit too hard-sharp for portraiture, unless someone has a very smooth complexion. I'd recommend a relatively modern tessar like a Fuji 300 L or 420 L, or 450 Nikkor M. I personally use a modern 14in single-coated Kern dagor. Symmar S plasmats are a bargain and render a tad more gentle look than the latest plasmat equivalents.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

A G-Claron 355mm is a good choice that has been optimized for about that range. Or, the Nikon 450mm M that Drew mentioned.

The Fuji 600mm f11.5 is an extremely rare, expensive lens. Great for ULF, one just sold on EBay for $3400! There are other options in this focal length; but mounted in shutters, even these can be a difficult find.