Portrait lens suggestions?

[EdSawyer]

I have a nice Nikkor-T 360/500mm combo that would fit in your budget, be sharper than many of the things discussed here, and give you 2 focal lengths to work with... Just a thought.

[Tobias Key]

I bought a 360mm 5.5 Tele-Xenar (early 70's vintage) in a Compur 3 shutter to shoot 4x5 portraits. I haven't tested it properly yet so can't give firm conclusions, but I saved a lot of money compared to any equivalents that cover 10x8 (it only covers 5x7) and the idiosyncracies of tilting a telephoto lens won't matter as I generally only use a little shift in portraits.

[Ken Lee]

Although portraits come in all shapes and sizes, there is a classic rule of thumb for determining focal length for portraits: film height + film width.

For 4x5, that's 4+5 = 9 inches or 225mm. For example, the sublime Cooke portrait lens is 225mm.

If we consider the actual size of the film used, we can subtract roughly 1/2 inch for the blank film edge. That gives us an 8 1/2 inch lens... 210mm. There are many available in shutter: many were manufactured.

If you want something longer, consider a 240mm or 250mm lens. Keep in mind that depth of field starts to disappear as focal length increases, unless we stop down considerably, which means longer shutter speeds or lots of light are required.

Once we get up into this length, lenses with wide apertures (4.5 for example) start to get large and heavy, exceeding the capacity of many 4x5 cameras and the size of their lens boards.

[Alan Gales]

Although portraits come in all shapes and sizes, there is a classic rule of thumb for determining focal length for portraits: film height + film width.

For 4x5, that's 4+5 = 9 inches or 225mm. For example, the sublime Cooke portrait lens is 225mm.

If we consider the actual size of the film used, we can subtract roughly 1/2 inch for the blank film edge. That gives us an 8 1/2 inch lens... 210mm. There are many available in shutter: many were manufactured.

If you want something longer, consider a 240mm or 250mm lens. Keep in mind that depth of field starts to disappear as focal length increases, unless we stop down considerably, which means longer shutter speeds or lots of light are required.

Intereresting! I've never heard that before.

I always figured a normal focal length for full length to waist up shots and a longer length for waist up to head shots. How long determined by how much compression the photographer wanted.

[dpn]

I'm curious why no one has mentioned the article on the front page of the site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

[SoulfulRecover]

I did read through the front page article

[docw]

Is a Kodak Commercial Ektar going to fit on a 4x5? I have a 14" on my 8x10 but that shutter is BIG.

[Alan Gales]

Is a Kodak Commercial Ektar going to fit on a 4x5? I have a 14" on my 8x10 but that shutter is BIG.

The 12" is in an Ilex #4 shutter which is smaller than the #5 shutter your 14" is in.

Besides size there is also weight. I put my 250mm F/6.7 Fujinon on a 4x5 Tachihara that I had and I felt that it was too heavy for the front standard. It depends upon the camera that the OP owns.

[jnantz]

SoulfulRecover:

a couple of things to keep in mind...
even if you get a modern sharp vivid &c lens
there are ways to use those lenses to make them
less vivid &c ( usually involves obstructing your field of focus
or changing where your focus point is ). older lenses while they tend to be sharp stopped down
sometimes have a way about them that wide open or less stopped down
there is still some sharpness, but the out of focus areas have a different feel to them
than modern lenses. some older lenses to think about might be symmar convertibles
as well as rapid rectilinear lenses ( some say boring brass lens ). unless it is a fast rapid rectilinear lens, like a verito or simlilar
hollywood type portrait lens, it won't be as slow but it will still have smooth out of focus areas.
you might also look for the ilex seminat lens if you can find one cheap. it was used in the fillm industry
as well as with still cameras, it was super fast ( f3.5 ) and not really very soft, except the out of focus areas
have a look to them that is beautiful. ive had one for a long time and it is one of my favorite lenses to use.

good luck!
john

[Tobias Key]

Although portraits come in all shapes and sizes, there is a classic rule of thumb for determining focal length for portraits: film height + film width.

If you want something longer, consider a 240mm or 250mm lens. Keep in mind that depth of field starts to disappear as focal length increases, unless we stop down considerably, which means longer shutter speeds or lots of light are required.

.

Depth of field for any lens is actually the more or less the same if the framing of the image is the same, because as you use longer lenses you move further back.

calculations from dof master all lenses at F16

210mm lens focused @ 210 inches DOF 80.9 inches

360mm lens focused @ 360 inches DOF 79 inches

150mm lens focused @ 150 inches DOF 83.8 inches

So yes, longer lenses do have less depth of field but not hugely so. It's really a myth that has built up because no one in their right mind makes head shots with a wide angle lens.