Seeking recommendations on portrait lens

[Lightbender]

FYI. shooting portraits with 8x10 is quite a bit different than small formats.

For head and shoulders, you may instead want to go for a lens in the 200-250mm range.


-You will need to extend the lens quite a bit for head+shoulders. So that 200mm lens will be more like a 300- 350mm.
And it will be easier to find a lens in a shutter at a good price. Just about any modern lens will do at that focal length.

Whatever lens you get, make sure to compensate for the bellows extension.
You will be basically shooting at a macro magnification. 8x10 film taking a 16x20 scene. Thats like 1:2, or using 35mm to photograph a silver dollar coin.

For longer lenses in shutters, the ilex paragons/ ilex caltars are a best bet.

If you are not worried about a shutter, then there are many barrel lenses available.

[goamules]

I think we should pause for a reply from the original poster now. So often people post open ended questions, then we all start answering ourselves for weeks, with no further input from the questioner.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Thank you all for taking the time to answer my questions.
To clarify, I am looking to do mostly Hollywood "Hurrell" style black and white head and shoulder style portraits with 8x10. All the information I have found online has, for the most part been contradicting itself.

As for coated or uncoated, I rather like the look created by uncoated lenses for portraits, but am not going to insist if perhaps their is a certain unloved coated lens available inexpensively.

As for shutter, yes I would like one, particularly one with a flash sync. But I have no issue acquiring a packard shutter for such if needed. I would just need recommendations and advice on what type and size.

My main concern is the focal length, everything I have read gives me a completely different suggestion and I am confused largely because of the format and the near 1:1 ratio.

FYI - I am currently shooting 4x5 B&W portraits with an uncounted 380mm barrel lens.

To summarize - I am seeking an inexpensive (as in "I am nearly broke") lens that won't give me subject distortion.

[Scott Davis]

For Hurrell style portraits, you're looking at something like a Vitax or a Verito (both made by Wollensak). The Verito is SLIGHTLY less expensive than the Vitax, but both will run you in the $1K+ range for a version that will cover 8x10.

[Peter De Smidt]

He used an 18" Verito lens on a Century studio 8x10, and later on he use a Turner Reich triple 12-19-25. I have both an 18" (450mm) Verito and a Kodak 2D 8x10. That would not be a good combination. At best, the lens weight would damage the front standard. Packard shutters with sync work fine, but it's more convenient to have a regular shutter. Standard filter threads are nice, as well. I bought my 420L Fuji, a tessar, for about $300. Older lenses can be outstanding, but the shutters are more problematic, and they can easily require a CLA, which adds a lot to the cost.

The cheapest thing to do would be to buy a Packard with sync and then get a barrel lens.

[William Whitaker]

To summarize - I am seeking an inexpensive (as in "I am nearly broke") lens that won't give me subject distortion.

If you're nearly broke now, you'll be fully broke soon. Don't ask me how I know...

Not intended to be flippant.

There are some good suggestions above. In fact, almost any lens will suffice to get you started. The old Tessar 1c lenses are quite nice wide open at f/4.5. There were a lot of "commercial" lenses produced the first half of the 20th century which were intended to be used as portrait lenses at wide apertures and sharp lenses stopped down. The Gundlach Radar comes to mind, although there were many others. Peruse the old catalogs at http://cameraeccentric.com/info to familiarize yourself with what was around back in the day. Today that stuff is all over Ebay. If a Verito is what you want to eventually use, you'll find one in time. They're forever showing up for sale. But start now with what you can afford. The experience gained will only benefit you later!

[SergeiR]

For Hurrell style portraits, you're looking at something like a Vitax or a Verito (both made by Wollensak). The Verito is SLIGHTLY less expensive than the Vitax, but both will run you in the $1K+ range for a version that will cover 8x10.

depends on period. Actually later ones shot with sharp Celor and other stuff (some books would claim him being first one to actually starting close Verito to achieve sharper looks in portrait.. which i think is bogus claim, but hey).
"soft" look of later ones is more of retouching technique.

to OP: anything from 300mm onwards will do just fine. 10" , and 12" lenses in barrel or in shutter are out for sale for 200$ or so with shutter, or even less in barrel. However if you doing 380 on 4x5 you do look at much longer focals to get same unnatural compression of perspective (almost twice the diagonal - which means you need 500mm+ - plenty of 480mm+ are out there though).

[mdarnton]

If the 380mm lens you already have and are using will cover 8x10, and it should unless it's a tele, it would seem like that's the cheapest solution until you get your feet wet and start jonesing for something in particular.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

The 380mm I have won't cover 8x10 - Its a tele

[Alan Gales]

If you look at George Hurrell's photographs his images were soft focus at first and became sharper later in his career. Also be aware that his images were highly retouched as was a common practice with Hollywood portraiture. You need a lot of light for shooting 8x10 indoors. Hurrell used hot lights but you could instead use strobes.