Recommendations for a solid portrait lens for an 8x10" view camera

I'm finally diving head-first into large format after I was gifted an old field camera by my father. 20-25 years ago, I made thousands of photographs with an old fully-manual 35mm Nikon camera that I loved, so I have a fairly functional understanding of the dynamics of film exposure. But this camera is a bit different, given that it is outfitted with a Kodak No. 35 F-4.5 Anastigmat 10" lens and a Packard #5 Shutter (aside: does that 10" label mean this is effectively a ~254mm focal length lens?). That Packard shutter is driven by a pneumatic tube with a bulb; it does not have any sort of timing mechanism (it is not the style of packard shutter with an insertable pin to provide a ~1/25 timed shutter). So I am essentially restricted to making ~1/3s or longer photographs since that's about all I can do by hand. So far, I've been able to work with that, but I'm getting eager to get more precise with my timing than what my hand allows. I've made a couple dozen photographs (developing both negatives and prints myself) with the camera over the last few of months and really enjoyed it. I'd like to get a bit more refined.

In particular, I'd like to take some solid family portraits. Individual head/shoulder shots. I don't have any flash equipment, nor do I desire any at the moment; I'd like to work with available light, either indoors or out.

To that end, I've been scouting some other lens options that would be well-suited for portrait photography, including ones that come with a (timed) shutter.

So my questions are:
1. What is the most widely-recommended focal length for a view camera (8x10") lens for portrait photgraphy?
2. With that focal length in mind, what are some reliably solid lenses that are available today (new or used)?
3. For instance, I've found a 210mm F/5.6 Nikon lens with a Copal 1 shutter seems to be available on the used market for a price that doesn't shock me (around $300). Is that a good option?
4. Anything else I should be considering?

Thank you in advance.

It depends on what sort of focal length your looking for .
Around 300mm is ( IIRC) is the rough equivalent as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera when used on a 10x8 camera .

So the 10" lens at around 254mm is slightly wider , and 210mm quite a bit wider . ( That would be the standard lens for 7x5) .
For head and shoulder portraits, that might be a bit wider .
I think 450mm is more where your looking .

What lens did you use on your Nikon for the portraits your after ? 85mm ? 135mm ?

Apart from controlling exposure with ND filters and the aperture when your restricted with the shutter speed , you can do a handheld shutter .

Hold two pieces of card in one hand with a triangular slit between them .
Hold the bottom one against the lens , remove the dark slide , and twist your wrist to give the exposure.
Replace the dark slide before moving the card .
The narrower the gap , the shorter the exposure, the wider the gap , the longer the exposure .
Keep the speed you move the two cards the same
SLR cameras expose the film this way , albeit the shutter is behind the lens and not in front.

I've exposed film with several barrel lenses like this , and overall the negatives have come out from satisfactory to spot on .
It does take practice to get the hang of it , so prepare to waste some film .

Take some practice shots to get the hang of it before doing your portraits.
I've done this with Fomapan 200 that I usually expose as ISO 125 and it's worked well .

You do not want too short of a FL...the best facial perspective obtained in any format is when the shooting distance is about 8-10' away from the subject.
So the tightness of framing of the subject that you want would determine a suitable FL to use at that shooting distance.

Fujinon F/8 420mm L

I recently ventured into 8x10 portrait photography, and here is my experience so far. I guess you can find more information and better feedback on Large Format Forum.

You can do very well with a 10-16 inch lens, depending on the style. 10" for full body, 12" for half body, 14-16" for head and shoulder. Anything longer will be nice "in theory", but gets either too big or too dim very quickly. And your bellows draw will be huge.

There are lots of good choices in the 12-16" focal length that are reasonably priced. There is really no bad lens in large format for portrait, just different characters. I especially like the effects when they are wide open.

a) You can go for the more modern plasmats, such as Symmar or Fujinon W. They typically come in modern shutters with all the speeds you need. The older models (Symmar Convertible, and Fujinon W with lettering inside the ring) tend to be cheaper, and actually more pleasing for portraits (high resolution with moderate contrast). The rendering will be more neutral and modern.

b) Or you can go for classic Tessar designs like Kokak Ektar, Commercial Ektar, and numerous copies such as Ilex (rebranded as Caltar, Orbit, Carl Mayer), Fujinon L. They have the classic Tessar look, which can work better for portraits.

c) Or you can go for classic Dagor designs like Goerz Dagor or other copies of Double Anastigmats. But they tend to be barrel lenses without any shutter, or quite expensive if already mounted in modern shutter.

d) Or you can go for one of those really vintage Petzval lenses (which I like the visual effects most). But they are almost always big, heavy, expensive and without any shutter. So you need some kind of Packard Shutter again.

So depending on your preferred portrait style, you might want to choose the type of lenses within your budget.

generally I've found that most of the "inexpensive" 8x10 lenses are longish 4x5 lenses that happen to have enough coverage for 8x10. Generally for portraits I'd be looking at somewhere in the range of 360mm-480mm, and if you want one of those with a built in shutter, you're looking at a modertely expensive lens--$500+ usually.

If you want inexpensive, you'll probably need a manual shutter like a hat or pair of cards as mentioned above. There are inexpensive barrel lenses that can work well, if you can get on with the manual shutter method.

Search for Nikon 300mm f9 example is first to pop up.

neilt3 said:

Around 300mm is ( IIRC) is the rough equivalent as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera when used on a 10x8 camera .

Click to expand...

It feels considerably wider to me. I think 360mm would be closer to a normal lens based on the 8x10" image diagonal, too.

300mm is certainly on the wide side for head & shoulders portraits, but can work OK for environmental portraits.

greg zinselmeier said:

Fujinon F/8 420mm L

Click to expand...

Yes, at least. Preferably longer for h&s portraits.

In a pinch, one could even unscrew either of the cells from an existing lens to obtain a longer focal length. You generally lose a lot of compensation so image quality suffers, but for portraits, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

mshchem said:

Search for Nikon 300mm f9 example is first to pop up.

Click to expand...

Lighter weight than an also common & affordable 300/5.6 Symmar-S, but the projected image is kind of dark. At 300mm, I'd personally opt for a larger aperture to make focus & composition easier.

JakeMike said:

3. For instance, I've found a 210mm F/5.6 Nikon lens with a Copal 1 shutter seems to be available on the used market for a price that doesn't shock me (around $300). Is that a good option?

Click to expand...

Way too short and won't even cover 8x10 I bet. I haven't looked at the specs but 210/5.6 doesn't throw that big an image circle. It would cover 5x7 with minor room for movements.

Welcome to Photrio!

Focal length is a matter of personal choice and the way a photographer works, it also depends on the space available if shooting indoors.

A 240mm lens is quite practical if space is tight, otherwise I'd stick to a 300mm. Currently I'm shooting with my 8¼" (210mm) Dallmeyer 2B Portrait Petzval on my 10x8 camera, with a 5x4 reducing back, so equivalent to a 420mm, and for full length shots I'm tight on space. I have a 360mm Apo Ronar but need to adapt a shutter beforeI can use it.

My preference is to slightly wider angle for portraits.

Ian

You're asking, what's the best exotic italian sports car available in my $12,000 budget. Zero. The best advice is to find a long out of print book by Charles Abel called Professional Portrait Lightings (they do turn up on ebay) and read what the long time users of those cameras were doing when the original industry was still alive. It was published in 1948 and those cameras were still out on the ground, in the studios, in common use. It has a single portrait that shows what each lens / format / lighting scheme can accomplish. The book is mesmerizing (that's why its expensive) and you can look up each lens that made each portrait on ebay and get a sense of what they go for these days. Beware though. A 14" Heliar is an entry level lens in that world.

An important parameter to observe is the PLANNED VIEWING DISTANCE of the finished picture. Do you plan to post the picture on a wall, with perhaps a viewing distance of 5 feet? Or do you plan to present your photos to be viewed from normal reading distance? I suppose you don't plan to enlarge your 8x10 negs? In that case you should expose your picture with a lens with a focal length equal to the viewing distance - to get a natural perspective with depth in it. I.e. perhaps between 10 - 18 inches. If you plan to post the pictures on a wall to be viewed from 5 feet, you would then have to expose your picutres with a lens of 5 feet focal length - obviously not practical.
If you want to post your pix on a wall, why not make the photos with your Nikon and a 100 mm lens, and then enlarge 15 times, you would then get a natural depth and perspective from 5 feet away.

jimgalli said:

You're asking, what's the best exotic italian sports car available in my $12,000 budget. Zero. The best advice is to find a long out of print book by Charles Abel called Professional Portrait Lightings (they do turn up on ebay) and read what the long time users of those cameras were doing when the original industry was still alive. It was published in 1948 and those cameras were still out on the ground, in the studios, in common use. It has a single portrait that shows what each lens / format / lighting scheme can accomplish. The book is mesmerizing (that's why its expensive) and you can look up each lens that made each portrait on ebay and get a sense of what they go for these days. Beware though. A 14" Heliar is an entry level lens in that world.

Click to expand...

Interesting reference, thank you!
Is it similar to this later book by the same author?
"Practical portrait photography for home and studio"

I think it looks very interesting.

geirtbr said:

Interesting reference, thank you!
Is it similar to this later book by the same author?
"Practical portrait photography for home and studio"

practical portrait photography : edwin a. falk sr. & charles abel : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

I think it looks very interesting.

Click to expand...

I've not looked at the other book. The references to camera, lens, film, and lighting with a visible finished product are what drives the price of the first book into the stratosphere. My copy won't be sold until I'm dead and my kids (sorry kids) are sorting through my mess and sell it. For instance, where else would I be able to find out what a 20" Goerz Dogmar would produce stopped down to f6.3. It's kind of priceless. Lots of Verito's still in use. A few Pinkhams. Rare, even then. Lots of old Petzval's soldiering on. Lots of modern Tessar's. Cooke knucklers. Voigtlaender Heliars Etc. Those old boys were serious and there was no sense of novelty that we now enjoy.

These are the types of books that make me feel wealthy; not gold or diamonds or platinum...

Kino said:

not gold or diamonds or platinum...

Click to expand...

Maybe not diamonds or platinum, an ounce of gold chloride and half an ounce of chloroplatinate is a whole different ballgame...

Yes I love such books! The Lustrum press series of practical photography come to mind, although not as technical, but highly recommended!
I sendt an email to my local library to see if its possible for them to order the book somewhere, so I cross my fingers....

maybe you can find a nice old 19 inch Artar.

This is all such phenomenal input; thank you all so much for responding. A lot to digest; I'm going to go through it all and process it. I've even already found (and bought) a used copy of that Abel book - can't wait to get it.
While I continue investigating: can someone point me to a resource to learn how to ascertain whether a given large format lens will work on an 8x10" camera? For instance, I know several of those listed in this thread will (based upon the input people are giving me), but how would I tell if a given lens available on the used market would cast a large enough image circle for an 8x10" camera (is there a mathematical way, rather than just googling each lens and whether it casts a large enough image for 8x10)?

JakeMike said:

just googling each lens and whether it casts a large enough image for 8x10

Click to expand...

That's really the most practical and reliable way. Lens data can usually be found fairly easily.

JakeMike said:

This is all such phenomenal input; thank you all so much for responding. A lot to digest; I'm going to go through it all and process it. I've even already found (and bought) a used copy of that Abel book - can't wait to get it.
While I continue investigating: can someone point me to a resource to learn how to ascertain whether a given large format lens will work on an 8x10" camera? For instance, I know several of those listed in this thread will (based upon the input people are giving me), but how would I tell if a given lens available on the used market would cast a large enough image circle for an 8x10" camera (is there a mathematical way, rather than just googling each lens and whether it casts a large enough image for 8x10)?

Click to expand...

Yes. Different lens designs have different cones or angles of sharp usable area. For instance Tessars usually have a good 60 degree angle. Dialyt like the Artar someone mentioned have about 50 degrees. Plasmat types usually have 70 and a little more. Symmetrical plasmats like G-Claron can have up to 85 degrees. Wide field lenses 90 degrees Wide angle lenses 100+ So if you measure the corner to corner distance of an 8X10 negative its something like 310mm? iirc Thus if you're considering a Tessar you need one with a distance so that 60 degree angle covers the corners. But then you want movements so add another 40% to your distance so you've got some cone hanging well over the edges to move around in. Then consider more distance so that proportions look right. A wide angle lens is so close to a head you can see well around both sides. A longer focus just sees the front. That's what you want for portraits. Then consider out of focus renderings. The 19" Artar is excellent for impossible detail on granite. But it also makes a human face look like granite. Different lenses have different personality profiles. The Heliar I mentioned has long been prized for it's peach fuzz smoothness on portraits. Lots of different things. to consider. So then you'll default to a 19" Heliar or Petzval and you'll discover when you get it that it weighs 9 pounds and covers a 7" lens board. Oops. Cake and eat it too. The Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar in the old #5 shutter was the best common denominator of a lot of the criteria I just laid out for many folks. Me, I don't have one. I had to have the big Century Studio camera with the billboard front that can hold up a 22" Ilex Photoplastic or a 19" Eidoscop.

I use this site:


plus there are other LF lens list spread out over the internet. Look at the image circle. To cover 8x10 with no movement, I beleive you need about 318mm image circle.

Keep in mind that most of these online lists are transcriptions from various sources and are not necessarily authoritative.

To piggyback off Jim Galli's comments, one thing you need to think about is what kind of portraits do you want to make - do you want count-their-eyelashes sharpness or do you want smooth-and-creamy-skin-tones-and-glowing-highlights softness? If the former, then a modern plasmat lens or even a Tessar type like the Commercial Ektar would be the place to go. The Ektar is a nice compromise in that what is out of focus is creamy smooth but what's in focus is razor sharp. If you have the budget for only one lens, then that would be where I would go because it is easy to find a 14" Commercial Ektar in a shutter. A 300 or 360mm Heliar, moderately stopped down, will be comparable in the blend of smooth/sharp, but trying to find one in a shutter is an uphill (and expensive) task.

If you want soft-focus, there are two types of soft-focus lenses - the ones that create the softness through chromatic aberrations in the glass, and get sharper the more you stop down, and the types that vary the softness through mechanical alteration of the lens element positions. The former category are lenses like a Hermagis Eidoscope or a Kodak Portrait. Shot wide open or nearly so, they have wild blur and glowing highlights. Stopped down to f/11 or lower and they sharpen up significantly. An outlier in that category would be a Rodenstock Imagon or a Fuji soft focus lens - they do the chromatic aberration thing and take it a step further with the "sink strainer" discs.

Examples of the second category are lenses like the Cooke Series IIa or a Dallmeyer which have either front or rear elements that can be turned to move them out of alignment to varying degrees, increasing the soft focus effect the more they are twisted. Pretty much all of these will cost you a hefty chunk of change (over $1000, and in some cases well over $1000, into the high four/low five figure range). Also, most of these will require a camera that can support a >6" lens board.

If you're looking for some specific options that would be available in a shutter and will not completely break the bank, I'd look for a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar or a 305mm Kodak Portrait lens. Either one will run you around $1K (you might get lucky and find one of either one for less than that, but you'll be gambling that the shutter won't need a major servicing). While the 305 Portrait is a little on the short side for an ideal portrait lens, it will cover 8x10. The 14" Commercial Ektar will cover 8x10 with ample movement. I haven't shot a 305 Portrait but I do have a 405 Portrait which is only available in a barrel mount for use with a Packard shutter. I use it in the studio with strobes.

The Rodenstock Imagon will run you considerably more than $1k for a 360mm (the first version that will cover 8x10) and will only be available in barrel. While Fuji made a similar design lens, I don't think they ever made them in any focal length great enough to cover more than 5x7.

For those who don’t know , 10x8 is expensive. However 5x4 is very economical, With very “close “ attribution to 10x8.

I would like to know what is the final out put? Carbon? Platinum, silver gelatin, salt, ???
The paper would matter too, if alt. Process.

Realism is there are some excellent early portrait lenses around at bargain prices if you look in the right places, Jim Galli certainly does, Eddie Gunks definitely did (we met up and he stopped with me on a UK visit).

I'm currently using a £30 ($36) Dallmeyer Quick Acting f4 8¼" Portrait Petzval, I will for now have to stick to 5x4 or maybe Half plate/7x5 with this lens, I'm not paying well into 4 figures for a longer FL But I do have a TT&H 12"x10" f 8 16.44" Rapid Rectilinear, and unbranded 20" f8 RR lens, and a few others.

The major issue is shutters, here in the UK/Europe we are lucky there was a wide choice, I mainly use Thornton Pickard roller blind shutters, but my favorite is a Gitzo studio shutter with flash sync. I have Dallmeyer Ideal shutters (Packard licence), Norka, Eyelid, Agi, Luc, Day, and some more obscure brands like J Wrench, Le Mignon . . . . . . . .

Ian

Wait a minute, I think someone who has used a smaller format. Who has experience with head shots, would do the the math with scale ing the lens. If you like the results of 6x4.5 with a 150mm lens , then try a 600mm with a 10x8. Is you shoot with a 75mm on a 35mm then try a 420mm on 10x8.


The op never stated what he is shooting with now, and whether he likes his/ her results