Telephoto Portrait Lenses for 4x5

[Bruce Gavin]

I am searching for active discussion and feedback on the performance of telephot o lens designs for 4x5. These would include, but are not limited to, the Fuji 3 00-T, Tele-Artons, Tele-Xenars, Nikkor-T, etc.

My application is a Crown Graphic and I have a maximum flange focal distance of 225mm and still able to calibrate my rangefinder. The maximum bellows draw is a bout 323mm.

I would like to hear about user experiences with telephoto lenses for sharpness and image quality specifically at portrait distances, and also at infinity.

The MTF numbers available on the Schneiders appear to indicate that telephoto le nses perform significantly less than Tessars and Plasmat formulas.

Ideally, I would like to find a telephoto such as the Fuji 300-T that would be v ery sharp, similar to the 105/2.5 Nikkor telephoto for the Nikon 35mm format.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I once owned a Fujinon 300T and was very pleased with it. I did however use it for general landscape work, not portraiture. One of the downfalls of telephoto designs is that at close distances, where the subject size on film exceeds 1/10th of the actual size of the subject, you must take into account the exit pupil factor. I never did even find out what the factor was for that lens! Using this lens or any similar type for portraiture will require exposure compensation for the above reason.

[Patrick Raymore]

Do you really need (or want) a very sharp lens for portrait?

[Doug Paramore]

Amen to Patricks statement. For portraits, you need the worst "piece of crap" lens you can find and even then you may want to sandpaper the front element. Lens sharpness and protraits don't go together unless you want some unhappy customers. Even men don't want every pore and every imperfection to show. You may can soften a good telephoto with soft focus filters enough to use it with portraits, though. A super sharp lens for portraits requires a lot of retouching on the negative, which is time consuming if you do it and expensive if you sent it out. Incidentally, a soft filter on the enlarger is not the same as a soft filter on a camera. The effect on the lighting is exactly the opposite. If I were buying one lens, I would probably go for sharpness for scenics, etc. and get a good soft filter, such as the Harrison and Harrison filters which are made for the movie industry to make the aging movie stars look good. Hope this helps, Doug.

[Joseph Dickerson]

Don't overlook the possibility of using a soft focus lens. Fuji has (had) two. The 250mm SF Fujinon and the 180 SF Fujinon. Either should work on your camera although the 250mm, if I remember correctly, is in a #3 shutter. Then there is always the Imagon which is/was available in a number of focal lenghts. these lenses are great for portaits but very sharp if you stop them down so you can also use them for commercial, scenics etc. unlike the junk lens that was suggested earlier.

[Bruce Gavin]

I can always "dumb down" a sharp lens... cannot sharpen up a junker. I've shot portrait since 1968 with Nikkor 105/2.5, which is one of the sharpest lenses Nikon ever made, and am very happy with it.

I figure a Softar would really soften up a sharp lens when the need arises.

Everything I read on these fora indicate the LF telephotos are significantly less sharp than plasmats and tessars. I'm hoping to stir up some comments from those who have owned and used LF telephotos as to their actual performance at portrait distances.

The Soft focus lenses (250mm, et al) are beyond my 225mm flange focus needs, unless I fabricate a reversed wide-angle lensboard. I am contemplating doing this for my Nikkor-M 300/9 lens...

[M.]

How about the lenses that came with Graphics? There were 10" and 15" Optars (Raptars) f:5.6 in barrel for Speeds and Graflex, and in shutters for Crowns and views. See them often on eBay for a lot less than Scheider or Fjui lenses.

[Dean Lastoria]

I use a Schneider Tele Xenar 240 (old). I like it. It isn't the sharpest lens in the world, but that's not what I want. I don't have much space so I like the focal length. Though it has little room for movement. I use it on a view, and am thinking of moving to my Crown so that's what I'd do. It would be a good Graflex lens, as you don't need that much circle.

Dean

[Bruce Gavin]

The more I research this topic, the more it looks like I am going to avoid a telephoto altogether in favor of long focus, narrow angle lenses. Evidently, the optical quality in LF telephotos isn't nearly as good as that of 35mm telephoto lenses such as the Nikkor 105/2.5 lens. For me, there isn't any sense in shooting 4x5 with dull optics when I can shoot 6x7 and get sharper negs, and a rig that is easier to pack.

Size and weight are big factors for my field camera use; movements are not. This makes the dialytes such as the Apo-Ronar and Red Dot Artar look very attractive. The Fuji 240/9 AS would be the winner for pure "small and light".

I have a request in to SK Grimes about fabricating a 70mm extension lens board for the Graphic that will allow me to use longer lenses including my Nikkor-M 300mm.

[Patrick Raymore]

Have you considered Medium format, especially since you don't need movements. In old Fuji large format catalogs Fuji warns specifically against using it's A series for portraits. If you have used these lenses then you know that they render detail with excruciatingly clarity that would be very unfaltering in a portrait.