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

[tom_johnston4]

<p>Attached is a 3/4 length portrait done with a 14" Commercial Ektar on an 8x10" camera. Look at how small my face is. This was shot from about 6 or 7 feet. You can see that a much longer lens was needed if a head & shoulders portrait with good perpective was the goal. This lens covers way too much of the subject at proper shooting distances for head & shoulder portraits. Now, imagine how small my face would be if I had used some of the shorter lenses recommended in this thread.</p><div></div>

[tom_johnston4]

<p>I couldn't edit my previous post so I want to add this: When someone recommended using a 35mm close-up lens, I assumed they were talking about a macro lens because they specified 35mm. But if they are talking about supplementary close-up lenses (diopters) this is something you can experiment with but you will lose some sharpness. They must have meant a diopter because they mentioned taping it to the lens - which you don't have to do - you can get them with the proper threads for your taking lens. They have nothing to do with the format being used. But to increase the effective focal length of the lens, you would need to use negative diopters. Good luck finding them! :-) The normal "plus" diopters would effectively shorten your focal length which is exactly what you do NOT want for your purposes. Remember perspective is only a function of the distance from the camera to the subject. A "plus" close-up diopter would force you to get even closer to the subject, distorting the subjects features even more.</p>

[andrea_lee3]

<p>A bit of a blast from the past, this! I agree with you that perspective is something that shouldn't change whether you are looking through the naked eye at 6 feet, through the viewfinder of a 35mm camera, or an 8x10. But the effect of the format on how that same perspective is rendered onto film changes with the format. Let's take the opposite extreme: a Minox camera with a 15mm lens at its fixed aperture of 3.5 will give you an 8x11mm frame with everything in focus; a large format at 4.5 you'd get sliver-thin DOF. A portrait lens is defined as twice the length of the diagonal, which would be about 600 mm for 8x10, which is unwieldy and unnecessary. I've done beauty shots (i.e., just the face) with a 300mm with no distortion and a DOF shallow enough to be of artistic use. I'm not claiming that large format magically changes the rules of perspective, but as far as achieving a particular result the way the format works is not the same as for 35mm or medium format; the equipment works for us in a different manner. </p>

[tom_johnston4]

<p>This is a response to an old post by Andrea. She writes:<br>

" I'm not claiming that large format magically changes the rules of perspective, but as far as achieving a particular result the way the format works is not the same as for 35mm or medium format; the equipment works for us in a different manner.<br>

With all due respect, that statement is completely wrong and illustrates the confusion there is about perspective. The format or equipment used has absolutely no effect on perspective. Perspective is controlled by only one single thing no matter what lens or format is being used : the distance from the lens to the subject. Lens focal length does no affect perspective as many believe. Format has nothing to do with at all either. Only subject distance affects perspective. In fact, the perspective you get with any lens is exactly what you will see with your own eyes without a lens at all. Again, it's the distance to the subject and nothing else. Focal length merely affects what included in the image, i.e., cropping.<br>

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't believe this simply get a copy of Ansel Adams' The Camera. He demonstrates this fact clearly with examples. I am always suprised to see that even some professional photographers don't understand this fundamental and crucial fact.</p>