Jump to content

8 x 10 portrait lens


cecilhanson

Recommended Posts

Sorry, this is complicated (not just because you are blessing me with mixed units!) Usually I'd argue via the crop factor or calculate the standard lens for both formats look which multiplicator of it you are shooting happily and figure out what the asked focal length would be, by using that multiplicator.

Unfortunately a tight head shot comes close to true macro work in 8x10" So I do suppose you'll generate 150% bellows draw compared to a shot at infinity which will narrow your FOV down further and for that reason you might get away with a shorter focal length than figured out.

Calculated 8x10" standard lens: 32,53mm 6x7 standard 9cm. - So you are shooting 2x standard lens now and looking for 65cm minus something.

To define "something" it would be handy to measure the image diagonal of your tight head shots and the bellows draw they generate for your MF camera. Depending on the space you have at hand you'll also have to decide if you are able to shoot with lens or only film at the same spot in relation to your subject

I guess you'll be happy with 52cm (or something in that range).

Sorry again; no 1st hand experience; I won't shoot bigger than 13x18.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must figure in the bellows extension. Because a head shot filling an 8"x10" piece of film is almost lifesize, and requires a bellows draw almost twice the lens focal length.

 

I'd say that a 'standard' 300mm lens would get you pretty close. No more than 400mm would be needed at the very most. But also bear in mind that the lens is going to be right in the sitters face, and the perspective is therefore going to be quite different.

 

Your subject is how far from the lens with the 180 on 6x9cm? What, 1.2 to 1.5 metres?

 

To get the same perspective would need a very long lens indeed on 10x8, and a darned big studio space. Are you sure you want to commit to that?

What size lens should I use for an 8" x 10" format to achieve the same great results as I get with my 2 1/4" x 2 3/4" medium format camera?

 

- If it ain't bust, why fix it?

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut is something in the 600mm range. A "standard" 6x7 lens is 90mm(although that's not absolute) while 300mm gives roughly the same field of view on 8x10.

 

If you want to shoot sheet film, I'd suggest going with 4x5 as a stepping stone rather than going all the way to 8x10. You can get by with a much less expensive ~300mm lens and a tight head shot should only need ~1/2 stop of bellow correction rather than ~2 stops as in 8x10.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Ben, something in the range of 600mm will allow camera position and framing similar to 180mm on 6x7. The 8x10 camera needs to have enough bellows to handle a 600mm lens. Another option is a telephoto lens, an example of which is the Nikkor-T ED 600mm f/9, with flange focal distance of slightly more than 400mm and covers 8x10 at f/22.
  • Like 1

Wilmarco Imaging

Wilmarco Imaging, on Flickr

wilmarcoimaging on Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "standard" 6x7 lens is 90mm (although that's not absolute) while 300mm gives roughly the same field of view on 8x10.

 

- Yes, but at 300mm effective focal length, the 10"x8" lens is focussed at infinity. If you want to fill the frame with a human face, then you're looking at focussing on a subject area of about 10"x12" or just slightly more. That's a magnification of 0.67 to 0.8, which requires a further 200 to 240mm of bellows extension and gives an EFL of 500 to 540mm.

 

So no, a 300mm lens on 10"x8" doesn't give the same field of view as a 90mm on 6x9cm, unless they're both focussed at infinity.

 

However, in order to get approximately the same perspective (with the subject 1.2 to 1.5m from the lens), you need a lens of between 500 and 600mm focal length. Those aren't cheap or that easy to find.

 

I agree with Ben, that moving up to 5"x4" gains you a whole lot more image quality, much more economy, and much less impracticality.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Yes, but at 300mm effective focal length, the 10"x8" lens is focussed at infinity. If you want to fill the frame with a human face, then you're looking at focussing on a subject area of about 10"x12" or just slightly more. That's a magnification of 0.67 to 0.8, which requires a further 200 to 240mm of bellows extension and gives an EFL of 500 to 540mm.

 

So no, a 300mm lens on 10"x8" doesn't give the same field of view as a 90mm on 6x9cm, unless they're both focussed at infinity.

 

However, in order to get approximately the same perspective (with the subject 1.2 to 1.5m from the lens), you need a lens of between 500 and 600mm focal length. Those aren't cheap or that easy to find.

 

I agree with Ben, that moving up to 5"x4" gains you a whole lot more image quality, much more economy, and much less impracticality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a far wider and more readily available film choice with a far wider lens availability with much lighter cameras, tripods and lenses and film holders!

 

Film is so good these days(and despite the naysayers has continued to improve in the digital age) that it's hard for me to imagine dealing with 8x10 unless I wanted grain free 8x10 contacts(which a modern digital can do a lot more easily) or wanted to wall-sized enlargements.

 

I admit to sometimes lusting after an 8x10 camera, but even if the camera itself is inexpensive to buy there's a lot of both tangible and intangible cost that comes with it. I already find myself leaving 4x5 at home in favor of 6x6 or 6x7-although that's a bit of a weird situation since my 6x7 kit is larger and heavier than my 4x5 kit, but I can easily fit a half dozen rolls of film(60 frames) in a jacket pocket where I might be lucky to fit 2-3 film holders.

 

4x5 does make life very easy for the sheet film shooter, though. Even really high quality lenses are relatively affordable(my last purchase was a ~$300 75mm Nikkor-SW f/4.5). I've had people give me film holders, and walked into camera stores where I've picked out a nice pile of them and given a price that worked out to $2-3 a holder. I once paid $10 each for some new in box ones, but that's the most I've ever paid(aside from Grafmatics, which are still worth a decent amount but of course have their advantages in terms of space in your camera bag-I paid $50 or so for my last one, new in box). If you know where to look, 4x5 holders are easy to find and cheap. By contrast, the same shop that will sell me 4x5s for a token amount will want $30+ for a nice 8x10 holder(and the last time I bothered to look, KEH was getting $50+). Fresh film tracks pretty closely with 4x5 per surface area, but that still means that you're paying 4x the cost per sheet. Even well expired 8x10 brings big money on Ebay.

 

I've been offered 4x5 Sinars for what struck me as virtual give-away prices(the last was around $400 with a 150mm Rodenstock and a tripod) but I've always passed because I look at how big and heavy they are. Even an 8x10 field camera seems like the same story-much less a monorail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been offered 4x5 Sinars for what struck me as virtual give-away prices(the last was around $400 with a 150mm Rodenstock and a tripod) but I've always passed because I look at how big and heavy they are. Even an 8x10 field camera seems like the same story-much less a monorail.

 

Hey Ben

Let me know if you run in a Sinar F2 at a good price, I might want to upgrade my Toyoview.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of filmholders, I've had a few warped plastic DDSs that wouldn't sit flat on the camera back.

They've all been Fidelities, and the issue is with the closure flap.

 

The flap somehow warps such that it will no longer sit flush with the rest of the holder and consequently holds one end of the DDS proud of the camera seat by a fraction of a millimetre.

 

I suppose you could file or otherwise rub down the offending flap. Or you could just make sure, as I did, only to buy Toyo holders in future.

 

WRT Grafmatic holders. Where to start? Even when perfect the register isn't standard. Add in the fact that many of them have warped with age, and that the film-sheaths get easily bent and don't sit flush with the front of the magazine..... etc., etc. Even if you do manage to figure out and remember the correct sequence for resetting the numbering, pulling and pushing the darkslide, flicking the little thingumajig and hopefully not managing to eject a filmsheath into broad daylight!

 

Briefly, they ain't worth the hassle, Vlad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using a 180mm on my 2 1/4 " x 2 3/4" medium format for tight head shots and have been pleased with the results. What size lens should I use for an 8" x 10" format to achieve the same great results as I get with my 2 1/4" x 2 3/4" medium format camera?

 

I want to personally thank everyone who so generously took the time to share with me their knowledge. I do not have my Mamiya RZ 67 anymore. It's been 6 years since I have done any photography. I recently turned 70 and with extra time on my hands I decided to get me an 8x10 view camera and try my hand making tintypes, not for a business, just as a hobby. I purchased an Intrepid 8x10 view camera. There is a really great guy in Tuscany named Samuele who is making me a custom wet plate holder that allows for a full 8 x 10 image. I have a bunch of 8x10 frames from back in the day and I want to use those for the tintypes. Samuele website is stenopeika.com for those who are not aware of his operation. He shoots tintypes as well as glass and understands the equipment requirements. He also makes beautiful custom large format cameras and attachments. I did check with The Intrepid camera company and they said that their camera will handle the 600mm lens without problems My budget will not allow for much more than $500. Considering I will be shooting more than just head shots and given the knowledge you have provided me maybe the 300-360mm is more realistic for me. It is my understanding that these 450-600mm lenses with their double digit apertures make it difficult to focus because of the small amount of light they provide. I have seen these 300mm at f5.6 any thoughts about going with those instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few LF lenses exceed f/5.6, it's kind of the normal aperture for 5x4 and above.

 

You need a good dark-cloth and a focus magnifier. A linen-tester will do in a pinch.

Understand, I was thinking about using my 25 yr. old anastigmat lupe 7x (1 1/2") Dia. manufactured by Peak in Japan? I used it for viewing my transparencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I shoot dry plates, which are ISO 1 or ISO 2. I've been using a Chamonix 4x5 and a c.1925 Gundlach Korona 5x7 for this. Since the plates are so slow I mostly only use lenses made before 1860. These give a classic look. I also have a cluster of lenses from 1905-1925 that perform very nicely on glass plates. For portraits with the 5x7 I've been using an achromatic doublet lens 16 inch (450mm) that was made in the late 1840s. I also have a 300mm (12 inch) c.1862 Voigtlander Petzval I'm having a lens board made for the Korona. There are some bargains in older lenses that have either a very slow or no shutter. I'm avoiding 8x10 for now because of the expense, but hope to start doing some wet plate in the coming year, mostly with the 4x5 and a Chamonix holder.

 

 

Kent in SD

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...