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

[koraks]

However 5x4 is very economical, With very “close “ attribution to 10x8.

Sure, but if contact printing is in his future, the difference is HUGE. Since you were alluding to alt. process as well...

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Looking at the big picture. Someone (the op) is looking to do 10x8, and that’s a good thing, however the person gets there. There are many lenses that are quite wonderful. Try them all!!!

 

[Ian Grant]

The OP mentions he was given an old 10x8 field camera, as Jim Galli mentions some lenses are big and heavy, so a lot depends on the rigidity of the front standard and the size of the lens boards. For instance my TT&H 16.44" RR weighs 755g inc lens board, and my 8¼" f4 Dallmeyer 2B Petzval 1,070g. It's something the keep in mind, next week I'll see a Dallmeyer 3B in action, an even heavier lens which has been cleaned and repolished, but it is even heavier.

Looking at the big picture. Someone (the op) is looking to do 10x8, and that’s a good thing, however the person gets there. There are many lenses that are quite wonderful. Try them all!!!

That's important, I was surprised at the performance of my Dallmeyer 2B,

Ian

 

[btaylor]

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.

I often see this advice, just scale up.
8x10 is different. I am not aware of a portrait lens made that’s 600mm made for 8x10. The most common lenses made or used for portraits are 14”-16” in 8x10 format.

 

[jimgalli]

The original manufacturers speak to the issue. Hermagis Eidoscop 8X10 = 14 3/4" Wollensak Verito for 8X10 = 14 1/2" Gundlach Serie B Petzval for 8X10 = 15" etc.

 

[GregY]

14" Commercial Ektar...worked for Yousef Karsh.... if you like that sort of thing

 

[GregY]

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

You're going to need lots of bellows draw and a big room to use a 600mm.....

 

[Strembicki]

I have been using a 240mm and recently purchased a 300mm f5.6 W Fuji and did some studio portraits with it, mostly upper shoulder portrait work and I am very happy with the results.

 

[Ian Grant]

I often see this advice, just scale up.
8x10 is different. I am not aware of a portrait lens made that’s 600mm made for 8x10. The most common lenses made or used for portraits are 14”-16” in 8x10 format.

My second Agfa Ansco 10x8 camera came from a New York portrait studio photographer's daughter with a 12" f4.5 Gundlach Radar lens, oddly the only other lens he used was a 165mm f 8 Super Angulon.

14" Commercial Ektar...worked for Yousef Karsh.... if you like that sort of thing

There was a shift in approach to portraiture around the time of WWII, it had already been happening earlier in the UK/Europe, the image and 1948 book Jim Galli posted is of a bygone pre-war approach. But it's also interesting to use a 20" Dogmar for portraits these were very sharp dialyte type lenses, however it's about how you use the lens.

I would guess Karsh was the cutting edge of change.

You're going to need lots of bellows draw and a big room to use a 600mm.....

That added space issue, there is a practicality, Mine with 10x8 is a 420mm I guess I can squeeze in my TT&H 16.44" RR lens, It.s not just the lens to subject distance, it's the space needed to compose the image on screen.

Ian

 

[greg zinselmeier]

You're going to need lots of bellows draw and a big room to use a 600mm.....

My first studio was in a warehouse building on the ninth floor in the garment district in St. Louis in 1990. It was over a hundred feet long. Great light, too bad every body started flocking in. The rent went through the roof in 3 years.

I don’t own or have used anything long then a 420, but some 10x8 have 36” of bellows.I think a 600 could be used.

 

[Ian Grant]

My first studio was in a warehouse building on the ninth floor in the garment district in St. Louis in 1990. It was over a hundred feet long. Great light, too bad every body started flocking in. The rent went through the roof in 3 years.

I don’t own or have used anything long then a 420, but some 10x8 have 36” of bellows.I think a 600 could be used.

Yes, my Agfa Ansco Commercial View, with its extension rail, has 36½" bellows extension, my Universal View is only 26½". I do have a 20" (508mm) f8 Rapid Rectilinear

Jim Galli mentioned various 10x8 portrait lenses and they fall between 360mm to 400mm. But when we think of 35mm portrait lenses they tend to be 75mm to 105mm, however with LF and particularly 10x8 we start running into Focal lengths with shallow depth of field, and also increasing bellows extension.

I've just tried the 20" RR on my Agfa Ansco and actually a head & shoulders sot is not as difficult as I'd assumed, maybe 12 to15ft lens to subject and 22" extension. bought the lens from a Polish seller, however it's probably British made as it's a standard RPS 3" threaded flange. The RPS standard flanges were adopted by some companies in 1881, by around 1890 Ross, TT&H, Wray and I think Dallmeyer, used these flanges.

Ian

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Yes, my Agfa Ansco Commercial View, with its extension rail, has 36½" bellows extension, my Universal View is only 26½". I do have a 20" (508mm) f8 Rapid Rectilinear

Jim Galli mentioned various 10x8 portrait lenses and they fall between 360mm to 400mm. But when we think of 35mm portrait lenses they tend to be 75mm to 105mm, however with LF and particularly 10x8 we start running into Focal lengths with shallow depth of field, and also increasing bellows extension.

I've just tried the 20" RR on my Agfa Ansco and actually a head & shoulders sot is not as difficult as I'd assumed, maybe 12 to15ft lens to subject and 22" extension. bought the lens from a Polish seller, however it's probably British made as it's a standard RPS 3" threaded flange. The RPS standard flanges were adopted by some companies in 1881, by around 1890 Ross, TT&H, Wray and I think Dallmeyer, used these flanges.

Ian

Ian, thank you for sharing some names of older lenses, and their history. I only have modern lenses in shutter ( Fujinon, and Schneider) . Because of this thread, I’m gonna start looking (research)for some older. Lenses . Maybe a rapid rectilinear, or an unsymmetrical doublet. Or Dallmeyer triple achromatic. Something earlier than an anastigmat.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Btw, I can only get 31” +\~ of bellows ext. on my calumet. so my Fujinon 420 L is about all I handle for 1:1 or close to it.

I only do studio work, so my camera stays in the same spot.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

I have a 19" APO Artar that's been reshuttered in a modern Copal shutter. I very occasionally use it with 4x5, but that much bellows draw makes my camera a target for shake on windy days.

However, I've hung on to the lens on the hope that I will find a great deal on an 8x10 camera, where it would be well suited for all manner of shooting, including portraits, I think.

The Artars were designed as process lenses, if memory serves, but they are tack sharp and contrasty in normal picture taking situations. The one downside as a portrait lens, though, is that they're not very fast. This one is an f/11. I also have similarly reshuttered 14" Red Dot Artar which I use far more, but it's only an f/9 as I recall. So, you could run into long exposure issues depending on how you're lighting your subject.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, thank you for sharing some names of older lenses, and their history. I only have modern lenses in shutter ( Fujinon, and Schneider) . Because of this thread, I’m gonna start looking (research)for some older. Lenses . Maybe a rapid rectilinear, or an unsymmetrical doublet. Or Dallmeyer triple achromatic. Something earlier than an anastigmat.

I only had modern lenses for a few decades. The exception was a 12" f8 Wray RR lens, bought in the late 1980's but never used back then, I would only use Multi Coated lenses. I bought a Speed Graphic with a 1930s 135mm Tessar, and found it s flat contrast problematic, then T coated 150mm CZJ Cells (approx 1954), what a difference, good contrast no flare when a Canon prime zoom would flared badly.

Now I can happily blame Dan Fromm and Jim Galli for opening my eyes, and use of vintage lenses

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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

That rule doesn't quite apply once you get into bigger formats. At 8x10, a tight headshot is about a 1.5:1 reproduction ratio. On 11x14, it's 1:1. On bigger formats, like 14x17 or 16x20, head and shoulders are 1:1. Once you get into that range, lenses will behave more like you would expect of a longer lens. You don't see many people shooting ULF with 48" lenses. The bellows draw would be insane!

 

[chuckroast]

That rule doesn't quite apply once you get into bigger formats. At 8x10, a tight headshot is about a 1.5:1 reproduction ratio. On 11x14, it's 1:1. On bigger formats, like 14x17 or 16x20, head and shoulders are 1:1. Once you get into that range, lenses will behave more like you would expect of a longer lens. You don't see many people shooting ULF with 48" lenses. The bellows draw would be insane!

Also, the longer the lens, the shallower the DOF, all things being equal. you don't want a portrait where only the nose is in focus ...

 

[Reinhold]

For what it’worth, I’m attaching a mark-up copy of Kodak’s Lens-vs-Format graphic.

Equivalent Focal Lengths_2a.png

Also: here’s a portrait of JUDY (cropped from 8x10) shot with a 335mm f:4.6 Wollaston lens.



Reinhold

Re-Invented Photo Equipment

 

[geirtbr]

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.

Book:

Abel 1947 Professional Portrait Potography : Charles Abl : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Professional portrait photography

archive.org

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Fuji single-coated L-series tessars seem to be prized by portrait studios. The 420L has already been mentioned. There is also a 300L. I did my occasional 8x10 studio portraiture with a multicoated 360 Kern Dagor; but prices on those have gone astronomical in recent years. If I went back to that sort of studio work, I'd just find a shutter for my old single coated Zeiss 360/9 tessar graphics barrel lens, which has better out of focus rendering (bokeh) than the Dagor.

Going more modern in terms of tessars, the Nikkor 450 M is a highly respected; and its single-coated predecessor, the 450 Q, also turns up sometimes. ... Alas, that's the only focal length of the M series I don't have.

8X10 still has numerous advantages over 4x5 when it comes to black and white portraiture. Not only is it better for contact prints, but it's large size makes retouching and pencil smudge blending much easier; same goes for selective red dye usage. Many people have forgotten just how routine and relatively easy that was. The shallowness of depth of field with 8x10 lenses can also be an asset in this case.