I am looking for a portrait lens for my 14x17 camera. My friend has a 330mm f/5.6 VI Cooke portrait lens,and it will be cover my 14x17 camera at portrait distance. but I like Heliar, I am looking for a more longer one than 330mm, So how about 360mm f/4.5 Universal Heliar or 420mm f/4.5 Heliar?thanks
Just about any lens made by Carl Zeiss could be considered a portrait lens :-)
CP Goerz
Hi there,
Heliar 360 and 420 are very nice on 8 X 10 but will not reach 14 X 17. You might be able to use a 480 but will most likely need a 600. Have fun finding one, good luck.
Happy holidays.
The 20" f/7 Caltar will cover 14x17. This lens was sold by Calumet in the 70's.
You might possibly consider using a portrait lens intended for a smaller format as a convertible lens by using the rear element only which would yield a longer focal length than the combination. Wollensak in their catalog went as far as suggesting this for the Verito:
  "The rear lens may be used alone and renders about the same diffusion as the doublet, so the Verito is virtually two lenses in one."
The rear element of the 14 1/2" Verito is listed in the catalog as being 24" and the rear element of the 18" Verito is listed as being 30". I've not tested to find out myself, but I'd guess you'd probably have coverage for 14x17 at portrait distances with at least one, if not both of these lenses converted. When removing the front element, remove the front barrel and not just the element so that you avoid mechanical vignetting. And don't forget to adjust your exposure. If I calculate correctly, the converted lens will be about f/6.6 in both cases (or -1.5 stop from the original f/4).
Wollensak did sell a conversion element ("extension lens") for the 18" Verito. It replaced the original front element and increased the focal length of the lens to 22 1/4". They're kind of unusual, but occasionally show up in the usual places. I have used this combination on 20x24 and it covered at portrait distance.
Cheers -
I'm building a 14x17 camera, primarily for portraiture, and I intend to use the 28" element from my Turner/Reich Triple convertible, and the 24" element from my 14 1/2" Verito. The Verito is faster, but the Turner has a better shutter. Both will cover 14x17 at portrait distances.
Jay
Portrait work implies a lens which is much longer than that required to merely cover the format. If you had a 330mm lens which would cover, portraits taken with it would suffer from a big nose problem.
If I've done the math right (always doubtful) the diagonal of 14" X 17" is just over 22' or 559mm. The only member of the Heliar family with a focal length longer than that is the 600mm f4.5. As Paul Fitzgerald indicates, finding one might be a problem. Some of the old "brass cannon" Petzval Portrait lenses came in longer focal lengths and would probably be easier to find. Dallmeyer made them in lengths up to at least 37".
As a real way out in left field solution, if the front of your camera is strong enough, you might consider one of the mostly WWII aerial photography lenses.
To add on to Ernest's point, although they are uncommon, very large Petzval type lenses can be picked up fairly cheaply on eBay, if you are patient. Optimally, you would want at least a 24" or 26" lens, although a 22" might cover. So, the Dallmeyer 6D (24" f/6) will probably cover, and the 7D or 8D will certainly cover. These were made up to the 1940s, and make beautiful portrait lenses, although they are REALLY massive lenses. I have a 5A (22" f/4 for 11x14) which stands 13" and has 5" glass elements. These are not for field cameras with 6" lensboards.
Hi there,
Check ebay item #3862468405, a 22" B&L Stigmar in studio shutter, it may be of interest.
Along with everything else suggested don't forget the :
Goerz Celors and 7.7 Dagors
Voigtlander Collinears and Onyx
Kodak Anastigmats, Copying Ektanons and Process Ektars
All were made long enough to cover 14X17. That was inches, right?
Smile
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks