Portrait lens for 4x5 press camera

I'm looking for a portrait lens for a 4x5 press camera (busch pressman D). I'd want something roughly equivalent

to (I know "equivalent" is a loaded word when comparing to 35mm b/c different aspect ratios) 80-100mm on a 35mm

system. I think that would be a lens in the 240mm to 300mm range, but tell me if I'm off here.

 

I'm new at 4x5 and not a professional. I don't need something expensive, just functional. Movements are nice,

but don't use a whole lot anyway. Mostly landscape/nature photography and perhaps some portraits. So I'd like

something relatively inexpensive, preferably with a shutter already installed. I'm hoping something can be

found for $200 or less. If that's unreasonable than please educate me kindly as I'm really out of my element (no

pun intended) when it comes to 4x5. Still trying to find my way around.

 

Any recommendations on what to look for?

 

By the way, I'll be shooting mostly color slide, only a little black and white, if coatings and such make a

difference. And I have a 135mm (roughly close to normal) already. (Wide angle will be next, but let's not get

ahead of ourselves)

I had a 8in and a 15 in Wollensak Tele-raptor that I had running on my Speed Graphics.

 

I had the 8 incher on a 2x3 Pacemaker and that was fine but the 15 incher on a 4x5 Pacemaker was front heavy and

BARELY fit on a board. These come up on eBay quite often both in barrel and in shutter as well.

 

The 15 inchers come in single coated? and uncoated I believe. There is a circle around the W to designate coating. Just

google and there is more info, it has been awhile for me.

 

I've seen them with and without shutters for 75.00 to 125.00 USD lately. Nice for portraits.

Almost forgot, a shorter alternative that is MUCH more managable is the 203mm Ektar.

 

I had both the earlier 203 anistigmat and the later Ektar version. These are superb wide open and are fairly plentiful. These go

for way under 100.00

 

The 15 in Wollensak I mentioned weighs...a man maybe 5 lbs so it is crazy to stabilize. I had a secont tripod I rigged to hold

the lens itself when mounted on my Speed.

Thanks for the suggestions Bruce. Any more are appreciated as well.

Assuming you crop to standard sizes like 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20, on a typical 4x5, the lenses with an equivalent

field of view to an 80 to 100mm lens on a 35mm would be 320 to 400mm lenses. To focus a conventional 400mm

lens at 7 ft (a semi-arbitrary portrait distance), the standards needs to be more than 19 inches apart; even for a

320mm focused to 7 ft, the standards need to be almost 15 inches apart. Can your press camera handle that?

 

More realistically, you can use a shorter lens and crop heavily, or get a true telephoto lens (one with an effective

focal length great than its actual, physical focal lenth), or get a camera that will give you more bellows extension.

(On that last option, note that my monorail is rated for a maximum bellows extension of 440mm, so I figure the

longest lens I could practically use would be a 360mm, which would give me the equivalent field of view to a 90mm

lens on a 35mm camera, assuming I crop to 8x10 or 16x20, and which I could focus as close as about 6.5 ft.)

Look for a 7 1/2" Kodak Ektar f4.5 coated in Universal #4 shutter. Not too expensive and really lovely for portraits used wide open. When you move in for a head or bust you'll get near your max bellows with this lens. If you cobble a 240 or 305 on you'll only be able to do full body and groups. 210mm Heliar is $$ is no object. Or dare I mention a certain 190mm f3.5 Zeiss Tessar if you searched on E &ay just now. Killer but perhaps over budget too

Item number: 170249070953 on ebay Calumet Caltar Pro Series 210mm f6.1 lens .

I guess this is a Tessartype lens, maybe Made By Schneider . Looks lika a Xenar. This will do the job very nice and probably inside your budget. Dont mind that its slightly wider than 80mm on 24x36( not much). You will probably love it.

Here I have used my 210mm F3.5 Xenar; 203mm Ektar; 178mm F2.5 Ektar for portraits; and even the 127mm Ektar and 120mm Angulon too.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm aware of the limitations on bellows (at least of a press camera), but I hadn't thought how that would limit the ability to get close, where a "longer" lens wouldn't feel longer if I can't get any closer than full body shots. So that's helpful.

Perspective is determined by the distance alone.<BR><BR> Once a target distance is choosen for client 1#; all the focal length does is define the angular coverage.<BR><BR> Thus a chap with a crew cut (client #1) needs "less angle" than a women with a B52's haircut and a hat (client #2) ; if the distance is the same. <BR><BR>Client #3 might have BIG ears and a small nose and WANT a closer distance; to make the ears appear smaller.<BR><BR> Client #4 might have a BIG nose and small ears; and want a larger distance so the facial features ( the nose) are not made to look larger than "normal".<BR><BR><BR><BR> In WAY too many threads on photo.net folks get wrapped up in the focal length; and miss the basics of how perspective works; ie distance alone. Many folks miss this point; like somehow the lenses focal length warps the universe.<BR><BR>In CINE/movie work the lens selection process is logical; its reversed. One places the cine camera in the location were one wants the perspective to appear like THEY want; then the lens's focal length is choosen capture the angular coverage one wants.<BR><BR>

Aaron, here is an answer from a longtime Busch Pressman user...I too like the 203 7.7 Ektar, and they are not expensive. Great for color, great at wide apertures too, and very sharp (think about you want portraits that are very sharp!). And you have bellows enough to do a tight head shot. Now here is a real budget alternative, a remarkably fine performer that frequently can be found on e----- for less than $50: the 172 mm Kodak anastigmat f7.7. They generally date from about World War I but they are sharp, cover well, and they are very good wide open. They were made for the 3 1/2 x 51/2 big rollfilm folders that were the top of the Kodak line in those years. Uncoated -- yes, but with only four airspaced elements, not such a problem. The shutters are generally quite basic, but if natural light is what you have in mind, they will do. A great lens to get your feet wet in 4x5 portraits without breaking the bank! And if you still have the Busch groundglass in place--try using that 3x4 image outlined in color--it was good enough for Edward Weston, it might be good enough for you! Have fun, and good luck!

(1) Kelly, certainly you are correct that perspective is determined solely by the relative positions of the camera and subject, that that in some ways it makes more sense to choose a nice perspective then chose a lens that gives you the field of view you want for that perspective. However, I suspect that most people who don't have a lot of experience doing high-level portrait work don't quickly and intuitively see the effects of perspective, but get good results by rule-of-thumb instructions like (for a 35mm camera) 'use an 85mm lens for head-and-shoulders portraits and a 135mm lens for head shots', because using such a lens forces them to a position that <I>usually</I> gives a pleasing perspective.<P>

 

(2) As for the assertion that a "210mm f6.1 lens [is] slightly wider than 80mm on 24x36( not much)", well, it's just plain wrong. Again, assuming you crop to standard print sizes like 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20 inches, then a 210mm lens at infinity on a 4x5 is like a 53mm lens on a 35mm--much wider than an 80mm (much less a 100mm). Yes, with bellows extension your field of view narrows somewhat: by the time your focus distance is down to 6 ft, it's more like a 59mm lens on a 35mm--still much wider. In portrait orientation, at 7 ft, an 80mm lens on a 35mm gives you a field of view about 2.1 ft wide; a 210mm lens on a 4x5 would give you a field of view about 2.9 ft wide--37% wider. And it's also (again, assuming crop for 8x10 etc.) 37% taller. So you can crop, but you'd have to crop heavily, and then you are losing <I>almost half of the negative's area</I>. I'm not saying you can't use a 210mm lens on a 4x5 for portraits. For full-length, 3/4, and even half-body portraits, it would usually be fine. For tight portraits like head shots or even head-and-shoulders shots, it is far from ideal. Indeed, IMHO, for most such shots for most people, an RB-67 with some long lenses makes more sense than a 4x5.

The reason one used a 4x5 for portraits long ago was that one just had a bigger negative to retouch on the Adams Retouching machine; ie the HEAD was larger on the negative. Typically one wanted the face to be at least the size of tha dime in the old Kitty West retrouching classes. The negatives were often a tad thicker too; ie less curl to fight.

Dave , thank you for correcting my sloppy maths(figured out that 210 is ca 70 mm 24x36equvialent in my head- error).

But I still have problems figuring out a better portraitfocallength on a 4x5-presscamera. Maybe a Fuji 250 6.3(needs

about 300mm of bellows going reasonably close, I guess). Anything longer should probably be a true 360 mm telelens

with short film-flange distance. The telelens are destroying the 200-dollar budget. The budget, and the versatility of the

210 focallength tells me that 210 is the best option I can imagine. The 210 is is a super lenght for halffigure, and also

usable for fullfigure if you got the space. Tight on the face you can run into longnoseproblems, and for those pictures the

Rb 67 with a long lens is a good idea(or cropping, or 120back, or just loving the long nose). I think 6 feet is a fine

portraitdistance. I don´t like to make larger than life copies- so I do not need Largeformat for close portraits. It is for

halffigure and larger that the Largeformat really is doing good. About perspective. A lot of persons are looking good at 6

feet, but I am looking better at 3,3 feet (because my nose is narrow/pointed). The last full and treequart figure portraits I

made on 4x5 was done with a 150mm, and we got the perspective right. I think the 210 mm is a nice supplement to his

135 mm-lens(which is super for environmental portraits).

I like the 10" (250mm) Tele-Raptar for my Busch Pressman. It only requires about the same draw as the normal 135mm lens, so handing is very similar.<P>Here is a picture of it on my Crown Graphic.<div></div>

I have a Fuji A 240/9 on my Pressman. The last time I checked it would only do head and shoulders due to the bellows. So it needs an extension lensboard for closer shots. A telephoto lens such as the 10" Tele-Rapter as Bill Mitchel has would almost be necessary for head shots with this camera and still maintain the 4X5 image size.

 

Keep in mind when considering lenses that the Pressman boards are small and the bellows opening on the camera is very small also.