Telephoto lenses for LF 4x5 Portraits?

[harlequin]

Hello
Want to up my portrait quality will a telephoto lens help in that regard? I use a Sinar A1 camera and shoot Ilford FP4 I currently use a computar lens currently and it is crazy sharp and slightly clinical look.

360 400 500 mm I am wanting to compress the image slightly have the ability to provide shallow depth of field throw background out of focus (bokay) and good rendering. Looking at Fuji and Nikon versions.

If anyone has experience with these type of lenses I would like to hear the pros and cons of use. Maybe even a sample image to see the final result. I am concerned about the weight of front element sticking out also the rear element could potentially make contact with the ground glass.

Portrait distance between camera and subject would be between 4 and 8 feet
Thank you for your opinions and guidance on these specialty LF lenses!

Harlequin

 

[Ian Grant]

The Schneider 360mm f5.5 Tele Xenar would fit the bill, plenty about at reasonable prices. The reality is LF lenses have shallow depth of field anyway which is why typical 5x4 portrait lenses are in the 200mm to 270mm range.

Ian

 

[Huub]

Another vote for the 360mm Tele Xenar. The f5.5 makes it easier to focus the for instance the 360mm Nikon Tele ED. At the other hand: i always found that the very shallow dept of field when fully open doesn't make it easy to work with and i almost use always a 210 mm for portraits.

 

[Ian Grant]

Another vote for the 360mm Tele Xenar. The f5.5 makes it easier to focus the for instance the 360mm Nikon Tele ED. At the other hand: i always found that the very shallow dept of field when fully open doesn't make it easy to work with and i almost use always a 210 mm for portraits.

I'm in agreement my choice for portraits (that I'll be shooting soon) is a 210 f6.8 Geronar, or a Dallmeyer 8" f4 Quick Acting Portrait Petzval - this doesn't have the usual swirl as it;s a Petzval with improved spherical correction.

Maybe the OP should try a 210mm lens first, or perhaps a 240mm.

Ian

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Wouldn't it depend on whether you're shooting full body, headshot, shoulder and headshot, upper body, etc?

Here's a chart that might come in handy. It gives frame sizes (angle of view at subject distance) for each lens vs. distance from the subject, vs DOF.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"f":19,"av":"32","fl":210,"d":1158,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}

 

[Nokton48]

Testing Shanghai 220 Wedding Flash Mamiya C22 105DS by Nokton48, on Flickr

I also favor the 360mm Schneider Tele-Xenar. I use two of these on my 5x7 twin lens Sinar Norma portrait camera.

 

[xkaes]

A 400mm at six feet is lots of bellows and really close. Is that what you are looking for?

 

[Rob Skeoch]

When I shot LF I had both the Fuji C 300mm and 450mm. They were both excellent and I shot manly portraits with them. You have to have the bellows reach through, otherwise you can't focus.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For an A1, I wouldn't go much longer than a 240mm-270mm non-telephoto. You've got a maximum of about 18" bellows extension on that camera. I did a fair amount of portrait/half-length photos with a 210 on an A1 and was very happy with it.

Correction of terminology from your post:

Bokeh (a Japanese word) has to do with the QUALITY of out-of-focus areas - a lens can be said to have good bokeh or bad bokeh. It is NOT synonymous with shallow depth-of-field.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not all otherwise excellent lenses have a pleasing out-of-focus background rendering, ala bokeh. I use regular Sinars, and am not familiar with how much extension is possible with an A1. But if it is 18 inches, that is more than enough for 360mm, and there's no reason to necessarily use a bulky telephoto design. And even 360 is awfully, awfully long for 4x5 portrait work. One old time trick to alleviate background distraction in a studio is to simply use a softly blotched background fabric, with nothing crisp on it. Another is to select lenses which aren't "busy" in how they do handle out-of-focus content. Something like Fuji L tessar lenses were popular with portrait photographers for that reason, versus their more "clinical" ones. Still very sharp and not soft-focus at all, but with gentler edge transitions.

Teles per se put a lot of extra leverage on the front standard, and might be harder to stabilize. And realize that if you're considering something like an old Schneider Tele-Xenar, they weren't all that good for color film usage. The more expensive Tele-Arton was.

 

[xkaes]

When I shot LF I had both the Fuji C 300mm and 450mm.

But were you six feet away from the subject for portraits?

 

[xkaes]

Something like Fuji L tessar lenses were popular with portrait photographers for that reason, versus their more "clinical" ones. Still very sharp and not soft-focus at all, but with gentler edge transitions.

That helps explain why the Fujinon L lenses -- there were only three (all single coated) -- have retained their value. For anyone looking for a less expensive option, Fuji offered the same lenses in similar focal lengths -- in barrel -- in the single coated Fujinar series and the uncoated Rectar series.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks for that input. I have seen Fujinars offered in Seiko shutters. My own tessar set is the late Nikkor M series, and hard-hard sharp. But I also have a Zeiss 360/9 single-coated process tessar with lovely bokeh and a sufficiently large image circle for 8x10 film, but haven't installed it in a shutter yet, so have to rely on lenscap style exposures.

360 and 450 lenses are fine for 8x10 portraiture; but I can't imagine using them at the short range under question for 4x5 film unless one wants a nose-plus-eyeballs-only shot. I once had a makeshift studio setup where I shot a 14 inch Kern Dagor from about eight feet away using 8x10, or potentially a little closer.

 

[ags2mikon]

Do you have the ability to use barrel lenses? I think Sinar had a board shutter. If so the Fujinar lenses were very popular in Japan just for that. I have some I haven't tried yet. 180mm, 210mm, 250mm and 300mm. Tessar formula and fast / easy to focus. Also look at the Wollensak 15" telephoto, 380mm and f 5.6. Portrait work needs a little less bite than landscape work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There have been user comments that the Fujinars weren't nearly as well corrected as the subsequent L series. That might or might not matter to a portraitist. But they do come up for sale sometimes already mounted by someone in a shutter, typically a Shanel. The problem today is that if you seek out a good condition later shutter like a Copal, it might be more expensive by itself than simply buying a good condition Fuji L or Schneider Xenar lens complete with its original shutter. Sinar shutters are still around in several flavors, and for some people make a lot of sense, especially in a studio; but out in the weather, maybe not so much. Having all you eggs in one basket has its disadvantages.

 

[Ian Grant]

Teles per se put a lot of extra leverage on the front standard, and might be harder to stabilize. And realize that if you're considering something like an old Schneider Tele-Xenar, they weren't all that good for color film usage. The more expensive Tele-Arton was.

I would disagree with the comment about extra leverage on the front standard with a telephoto, I find the exact opposite. The 360mm Tele Xenar has a back focus of 183mm and weighs 670g, in comparison my 240mm f5.6 Nikkor W is 820, that's probably the heaviest lens I'd want to use on a 5x4 camera.

In terms of overall stability there's also the factor of bellows extension, so with my Wista 45DX the lens that causes the greatest instability is the small and light 300mm f9 Nikkor M at 290g, of course less of an issue with a sturdy monorail camera.

Ian

 

[xkaes]

My Mamiya 37mm f4.5 fisheye weights 1280gr (almost three pounds) and I have not had much trouble using it on my 4x5" TOKO field cameras. Of course, I don't need much extension at all -- thankfully. With a lot of extension, even a light lens can be a challenge.

 

[Nokton48]

Sinar shutters are still around in several flavors, and for some people make a lot of sense, especially in a studio; but out in the weather, maybe not so much. Having all you eggs in one basket has its disadvantages.

Curious where you get this idea? I own six Sinar Norma shutters, I've used them in the field thousands of times. In fact I just had all of them CLA'ed, some were new to me. What downsides I wonder?

BTW Camtronics in Columbus Ohio does an excellent Norma Shutter CLA for a very fair price. https://camtronicscamerarepair.com/

 

[DREW WILEY]

Perhaps you have a slightly different idea of outdoor use than me. I cumulatively hauled Sinars at least 15,000 miles on foot often involving severe mountain weather, up steep ice slopes, remote desert issues etc. While a Sinar shutter is something I myself would like to own, relying on a single shutter and one more piece of intermediate gear under such conditions didn't seem ideal to me. I was routinely carrying packs up to around 90 lbs, because those also had to contain full supplies for any given trip, along with tent, food, and a certain amount of mountaineering gear. And many times the camera was set up in precarious places or used during high winds. Emergency camera repairs sometimes had to be improvised. The simper the better. I'm a bit too old now for that level of carry weight now, or to fool around anymore with heavy packs on Class 3 terrain, but still often use a Norma for day packing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ian - my 360/10 Fujinon A in its no. 1 shutter weighs half as much as your 240 Nikkor, and nearly half as much as your 360 Tele Xenar, and is optically superior to either. Both my 240 Fuji A and similar G-Claron are way lighter still. So I stand 100% with my stability assessment.
I can't imagine how you get along with those draft horse weight lenses on a little wooden Wista without vibration issues. I have a distinctly more rigid little Ebony folder (which handles even my 360 at full extension quite solidly), but of course prefer to shoot a Sinar monorail instead whenever possible, especially when long focal lengths are involved. I often use a Sinar for up to a 450mm Fuji C lens (non-tele).

But the worst thing for stability is often an under-built tripod or tripod head. Ball heads should be outlawed for anything serious. I don't use heads at all for my view camera work, or for big MF teles either. I bolt em directly to the tripod platform top, preferably a wooden Ries, though I also have a couple of good CF tripods when greater portability is a priority. One tap with the finger at the front end of a camera at full bellows extension, and if it exhibits any vibration more than a split second, that's unacceptable for me. It should dampen instantly.

 

[abruzzi]

I know little about the A1 other than it looks like an F but with a different rail. If that is in fact what it is, the sinar shutter can be left in place and it wouldn't impact the portability a whole lot, however, yes, you'd be relying on a single shutter for your lenses, so in a sense it is putting your eggs in one basket. OTOH, the OP is discussing portraits, so it unilkely he's hiking to the top of a mountain to take the portrait.

The bigger problem is the sinar shutters have gotten a bit pricey, so I think the OP is better with a 210 or 240mm Xenar in a shutter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, studios often involve strobes, though I preferred traditional Arri and Lowell hot lights. But I actually did most of my limited amount of portraiture outdoors, "eviro-portraits", and clients couldn't stand around forever like me waiting out a snow flurry in the mountains, so one or two sheet films shots might be it, with zero tolerance for camera vibration in the process. Had to get it right the first time. They were paying me for mounted prints afterward, often high-quality framed too by myself, not for quantity of shots or a session per se. A different niche than the usual suspects.

Style-wise, I prefer the extremes of 8x10 and 35mm formats for portraiture, but have also used the Sinar 4x5 and P67 system with its teles too. It's all good.

 

[Mick Fagan]

For quite some time I used my Komura f/6.3 T400 which uses a Copal 3 shutter, mounted onto a Technika board for 4x5" use.

Works well for portrait work, which was mainly on a Toyo 45G monorail, but also worked on my Shen Hao HZX45-IIA 4x5" wooden folder. It weighs 903gm on my kitchen scales.

Eventually though for portrait work I picked up a Fujinon NW f/6.3 250mm which is nothing short of perfect for portrait work with 4x5" film from my personal point of view.

I also have a Schneider Kreuznach Tele-Arton f/5.6 in a Compur 1 shutter, which was my shorter length tele objective for 4x5". It works quite well and was really good on the Shen Hao being lighter than the Fujinon 400mm Tele.

Since acquiring the normal NW Fujinon f/6.3 250mm lens I pretty much only use this for portrait work now.