Fastest 400-450 "portrait lens" for 8x10?

[mark_tucker2]

I have a new (old) Deardorff 8x10, and want to start a new portrait project, shooting tight

faces. I am looking for a portrait lens that would equate to an 85mm lens on a Canon;

slightly longer than normal. Would love to find something fast-ish, for bright ground glass

focusing; I'll be shooting indoors with strobe. Am I correct in assuming that 400-450

would equate to an 85 in 35? Is there anything out there that's fast? Say, maybe 5.6 or

faster? Am I dreaming...? Thank you.

 

MT, http://www.marktucker.com

[clayh]

The Kodak 405mm portrait lens has a maximum aperture of 4.5. It is a hoss of a lens

though. It is a coated lens, so it is has quite a bit of snap. I love it. The only knock on it is

that you have to use it with a Packard shutter of some sort. I have never seen one in a

shutter. If you are interested in seeing what one looks like, email me off list and I can snap

a digital picture and send it to you. wcharmon at wt dot net

 

-

[andrea_lee3]

One of the strange things about 8x10 is that you don't need your portrait lens to be twice

the length of normal if what you're want are to avoid bulbuous noses and have a

pleasantly blurry background. You can work quite well with a 300; the garden-variety

Apo-Sironar is a Compur 3, which lets in more than enough light at its (usable) top speed

of...5.6.

[tim_atherton9]

depending on how you measure it (4:5 aspect ratio or diagonal of image area), 85mm in 35mm = around 617mm to 685mm on 8x10

 

I think 450mm = around 56mm to 63mm in 35mm

[sanders_mcnew]

Andrea, your observations on lens length for 8x10 portraiture caught my eye. does anyone know whether a 10-inch Commercial Ektar would have enough coverage for 8x10 portraiture?

 

Sanders McNew, www.mcnew.net

[tedharris]

Waht sort of a maximum aperature you need for focusing depends on the ambient/

modeling light you have available. If you are working with strobes that have modeling

lights you should be able to focus without problems with the slower lenses such as the

Nikkor 450 M. I regularly use a Fujinon 300 A (f9), Docter 360 Apo Germinar (f9) and

Nikkor 450 M (f9) for portrait and other studio work with an 8x10. My modeling lights put

out 300 to 500 watts each and normally use two for main lighting and a few others key

lights, highlights, etc. The two main lights modeliung lights generally give me plenty of

light to focus.

[scott_davis5]

I think what is considered to be one of the best ever portrait-length lenses for 8x10 is the Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" F6.3 . They show up on ebay regularly, and in the stock of most reputable used equipment dealers. The only quibble is that the shutters have a bipost flash sync, so you'll have to either A: find someone to convert it to PC, or B: find a bipost sync cord. I know that Calumet sells sync cords with bipost connectors, but they're a miserly 3 feet long I think.

[jnanian]

try a 13 1/2 " f3.8 wollensak vitax

( there are others that are longer but they don't show up in the usual places too often )

 

jay tepper has a 13 1/2 " here :

http://jay-tepper.com/lenses.html

you can get a sync'ed packard shutter from hub for not too much too ....

 

good luck

[steve_hamley]

Mark,

 

Good to see you back.

 

Hurrell used a 16-1/2" (420 mm) Goerz Celor, so a 16-1/2 Artar should be good, reasonably cheap, and in a shutter. Not as fast as the Celor, but not a lot slower, but Hurrel typically shot at f/16 I think. Also the 19" Artar.

 

Other candidates, 14" Wollensak Veritar, the previously mentioned 14" Commercial Ektar favored by Karsh, and if you don't mind going shutterless, 360 - 420 - 480 mm f/4.5 Voigtlaander Heliars, Universal or otherwise. Huge glass though, and late coated ones are rather spendy. Nice look though.

 

Steve

[ole_tjugen]

You'll need a shorter focal length than the corresponding one for 35mm du to the extra bellows extension needed - a tight portrait on 8x10" is well into the macro area!

 

A 300mm lens will give a working distance in the vicinity of 2m, with the bellows taking about 1/2m of this.

 

There are few fast lenses in shutters in these focal lengths (300mm +), one is the old Schneider Xenar 300mm/f4.5. No new lenses have been made since the production of Compound #5 shutters was halted in the 1970's.

 

Since you'll be trawling the secondhand market anyway, I'll recommend a Heliar which was made in focal lengths from 120 to 600mm (I have a 150mm which is wonderful, uncoated), or perhaps even a Petzval!

 

Also take weight into account - a 300mm/4.5 Xenar in shutter weighs well over 1kg (2 lb), a 450mm will be more than twice as heavy. Not many cameras can handle that.

[mark_tucker2]

Thank you all very much. After thinking about this more, I think that I'll also shoot a great

deal with my HMI, and if so, I'd like to shoot relatively wide open for no depth. I'd like to

go just long enough to avoid that wompiness that you get, when you stick a Deardorff too

close into someone's face. Similar to the womp of, say, a 50 on a Canon; it's just too short.

 

Also, I'd like something in a modern shutter, where you can easily and quickly have a lever

to open and close the lens. Nothing worse than trying to shoot spontaneously, of people,

with a lens that requires two steps to get it opened and closed. It would be great if the

glass itself was funky, but I'd love to be able to mount it in a modern shutter.

 

It sounds like I need between a 450 and a 600. Is there something like that, that would go

into a modern shutter?

[steve_hamley]

Mark,

 

All of the Goerz Artars up to 24" (600mm) will go into a Copal #3. Artars are f/9 through 16-1/2", and f/11 for the 19". Also Dagors up through at least the 16-1/2" f/7/7.

 

You won't find anything at 420mm or longer at f/5.6 that will go into a Copal. You're into #5 range at 12" and 4.5, or 14" and about f/5.6 - f/6.8.

 

One other idea, the 600mm f/12 Fujinon C. Same as an Artar, and you can get one new or used. At 600mm, the f/12 shouldn't give too much DOF.

 

Steve

[mark_tucker2]

My goodness. Now THERE is a sentence that makes me realize that I'm not shooting 35

digital: "f12 won't give you too much depth of field..."!

 

We're not in Kansas any more, Toto.

 

(I can't imagine that I could focus at f12, but maybe it's possible).

 

Also, in general, what are the best sources to try to actually find and BUY an oddball lens/

shutter such as this? eBay? Are there guys that specialize in selling funky old lenses like

this?

[steve_hamley]

Mark,

 

The Fujinon 600 mm f/12 lens is quite bright because all the light rays are hitting the GG essentially head-on. You'll be surprised. I also suspect that with a 600 mm lens, if the eye of a tight head shot is in focus, the ears won't be at f/12 although I haven't actually tried it.

 

Funky lenses? try some of these, although eBay is hard to beat for funkiness.

 

http://www.mpex.com/current_index.htm

 

http://www.igorcamera.com/large_format.htm

 

http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=LF&cid=06&sid=newused&crid=9158755

 

http://www.apug.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=148

 

http://www.qualitycamera.com/ (website is down; call)

 

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/ (go to Azo forum then classifieds)

 

Steve

[steve_hamley]

Mark,

 

Other ideas: Tape a 35 mm close up lens to your Copal #3 you use for "experiments". IIRC, a #2 is about 500 mm. See if it covers at portrait lengths. I use a #4 close up on a Compound #3 for 4x5; effctive length is a little under 250mm IIRC. You'll have to kluge up an aperture scale but a couple of polaroid shots should do it - that's what I did.

 

These things are sharper than you might imagine, but still not as sharp as a real lens.

 

I'm going to be on the road for a few hours but when I get home I'll slap the 600 mm f/12 Fuji and the #2 closeup on a 8x10 and post the DOF results for you. I may even have some notes as to the effective aperture of the #2 and Compound setup.

 

Steve

[jay_de_fehr]

My 17" Kodak Copying Ektanon in #3 Copal works great at f10, for headshots in 8x10. Not much dof at portrait distances, but enough (tip of the nose, to behind the eyes), if you're careful. Focussing in available light is not a problem. I could send you a jpeg example, if you'd like.

[jay_de_fehr]

Or I could post one here...<div></div>

[jim_galli4]

Mark, You've got a second problem nobody's mentioned. The classic brass portrait lenses from the Hurrel / Hollywood era are enormous. I have an 18" f4 Verito, a 42cm 4.5 Heliar, 42cm 4.5 Xenar, 15" 5.6 Cooke and the Deardorff won't handle any of them. Even if they would fit on a 6" board, (some will), but virtually anything that you're describing is too heavy for the deardorff front standard. You need a Kodak 10A Century Studio camera with the big 3 wheeled stand to support large aperture 16+ inch lenses.

[steve_hamley]

Mark,

 

Jim is correct of course, I stopped thinking about the classic portrait lenses when you said you wanted a modern shutter. But Jim's right for another reason too: many of these lenses are so large in diameter that any packard shutter that will fit conventionally on a Deardorff board will have a maximum opening smaller than the glass and so you'll end up with f/5.6 (if you're lucky), f/6.8, f/9... I have this problem with a 360 mm Universal Heliar I have. I figured if I did get it into a #5 Compound (I didn't), I'd have about an f/5.6 lens. A large Luc shutter might work, but ones large enough to fit a 360 f/4.5 are rare indeed.

 

However, all is not lost. I did set up the 8x10 with the 600 mm f/11.5 Fuji, and even in rather dim room light I can focus pretty easily at max aperture (it's actually f/11.5, not f/12). To get a tight headshot, the subject will need to be about 77" from the lensboard and you'll need 32-1/2" of bellows, which Deardorffs don't have, but you'll be very close, probably not a significant difference if you can get 30 - 31" of bellows. When the eyes are in focus (well, at least one eye), neither the tip of the nose or the ear will be in focus, the ear pretty "badly" out but I think that's what you're wanting.

 

The #2 closeup lens will cover 8x10 at 54" subject to lensboard distance, and you'll need 29" of bellows. It's light enough to focus taped to my Compound #3, but focusing is difficult just because it's a single meniscus lens and not inherently very sharp wide open. Stopped down, it may surprise you. Wide open in a Compound #3, this "lens" has greater depth of field than the Fuji, as is my experience with close up lenses taped to a shutter. You might get less depth of field by making a 500mm lens with two #1 closeups taped fore and aft of the shutter. I don't have two on hand so I didn't try it.

 

So any of the previous suggestions will probably do what you want. I'd look at Fuji 450 mm f/12.5, 19" f/11 Goerz Artar, 16-/2" f/9 Goerz Artar, or a 14" Commercial Ektar. All but the Fuji will likely be in Ilex shutters, with the Commercial Ektar being in an Ilex #5. Not exactly modern, but a decent used Ilexii should be serviceable in spite of the fact that one of mine just died a few weeks after a CLA.

 

Anyway, that's the deal. I'm over in Knoxville, so if you want to try some classic lenses out, let me know. I'm always looking for an excuse to get out of town for a day.

 

Steve

[mark_tucker2]

How 'bout this one:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&category=30077&item=3852932709&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

 

And whoever outbids me is in trouble!

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

Try lensandrepro.com. They know a lot about funky lenses & typically have a lot in stock.

[william_whitaker1]

Mark,<P>

 

To echo Jim's comment, the old portrait lenses are quite large and often heavy. They <I>have</I> to be if they're going have a long focal length <I>and</I> be fast. And you've discovered one of the limitations to using a field camera: lens board size. <P>

 

Two lenses which would work on the Deardorff are the 305mm Kodak Portrait which is, I believe, an f/4.8. It comes in an Ilex #5 which should give you flash sync, too, for your situation. A 14" Wollensak Verito would also fit on a 6" Deardorff board. They're not as heavy as they look, consisting of only three elements. You'd need to front-mount a sync Packard, but it should work.

<P>

Old portrait cameras - Agfa, Century and the like - show up occasionally. These are studio cameras with a lens board size typically around 9 inches and a front standard which is a fixed monolith capable of supporting the big lenses. The lenses you're thinking of using do exist, but just wouldn't be a good match for your camera.<P>

[william_whitaker1]

Or you could make an 8x10 Plungercam....

[emile_de_leon9]

I've been using an F3 343mm Dallmeyer on my Deardorff 8x10 with unexpectedly good reults wide open if this interests you.Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com

[tom_johnston4]

<p>I stumbled across this old thread and thought I would add my own thoughts for the benefit of anyone who may be interested in the topic in the future.<br>

Some of the responses here indicate that the person making them do not fully understand the 8x10" format and may very well have never actually used the format<br>

Andrea claimed that one of the nice things about 8x10" is that you don't need long lenses to achieve proper perspective. That's not true. No matter what format you use, you should be about 6 feet or more from the subject to avoid having noses appear bulbous, etc. That has nothing to do with the format. Of course, you can shoot the picture with a relatively short lens in 8x10" from the proper distance but the subject's face will be small on the film. You might as well shoot with a smaller format. A 12" or even a 14" lens on 8x10 is about right for full-length portraits but they are too short for head & shoulder shots. Scott recommends a 14" Commercial Ektar. I have such a lens and, in fact, my member portrait was done with such lens. It's nearly a full-length shot. The lens is too short for head & shoulder shots on 8x10" unless you want distorted perspective.<br>

Ole says that you need shorter lenses on 8x10" due to the lens extension. That's incorrect too. If you are shooting head & shoulder portraits in 8x10" you have to use the right focal length lens and that means you have to have enough bellows extension. Most 8x10" cameras have ample extension for the lenses you need for portraits. After all, they wouldn't be of much use if they didn't. The larger the camera, the more extension it has to have. My old 8x10" camera, which is nothing special, can handle lenses for h&s portraits with no problem and so will most cameras.<br>

Steve recommended that you use a 35mm close-up lens. I don't know if he was kidding or not but no MM lens will cover 8x10 film. You would end up with a tiny circular exposure in the middle of the film. You might as well use it on a 35mm camera! Further, you don't want to shoot h&s portraits from close-up anyway. If you took Steve's advice, you would end up with a huge bulbous nose on a tiny exposure in the film. The rest of the film would be wasted and even the image that was there would be ridiculous. I hope Steve was just kidding. If not, that's one of the problems of forums like this... people advising others about things they don't know about.<br>

When you get to focal lengths like the 17"" lens used to make the picture in the thread, you are getting in the ball park but even longer lenses would be better.<br>

35mm film does not have the same aspect ratio of 8x10" film, of course, so a direct comparison is not precise. However, traditionally, part of the 35mm frame was cropped to make prints that were in the aspect ratio of 8x10" film. If, say, you like the perspective of an 85mm lens in 35mm then you can multiply that by 6 to get the approximate equivalent in 8x10". That would be about 500mm. Personally, I like a longer focal length for 35mm h&s portraits... more like 100mm. That would mean that about a MM lens in 8x10 would produce about the same perspective (shot from the same distance to cover the same subject.) <br>

Someone also asked if an 10" Commercial Ektar would have enough coverage for portraits. I think the lens does cover 8x10" film but I don't have one and don't know that for sure so I would have to look it up. However, coverage isn't the important issue here. It's perspective. 10" is too short for h&s portraits unless you don't mind wasting most of the film or terrible perspective. IMO, 10" is even too short for X" portraits. I prefer a 300 or even a 360mm lens for portraits in 4x5".<br>

Lastly, I'm not sure why you want a very fast lens. Of course, they produce a brighter image on the ground glass for focusing and focusing is also easier with a fast lens because of the limited depth-of-field but the size, weight, and cost of the lens goes WAY up with fast lenses. Of course, if you want very limited doff, that is a consideration but you will be fairly close to the subject and dof will be short anyway. You should be able to limit it with a "normal" speed lens and you definitely don't need a fast lens to freeze subject movement because you are shooting with strobes. <br>

The point I making is that perspective is paramount. Everything else should be secondary to it. For pleasing perspective, your camera should be at least about 6 feet from the subject. Then you simply choose a lens that "crops" the image to cover what you want in the picture. If you use a relatively short lens with an 8x10" camera at the proper distance from your subject, you would be better off simply shooting the picture in a smaller format because the image size will be the same no matter what format you use if you are using the same lens. </p>