8X10 portrait lens

[Jim Galli]

Put a good subject in front of the camera and put any lens you want up there. Put a crappy subject and spend $12,000 on a Pinkham Series III and you'll get crap.

I like them all. I have dozens that are worthless on Ebay that I won't ever put a price on because they deliver the goods consistently. Dan't ask, they don't even have names. Then I have the mega bucks Pinkhams, and I like them too! I have a lovely old 16" Ross Tessar that I'd stack against any of the Heliars. The f4 and 4.5 Portrait Euryscops are stellar. But the no-name Ed. Liesegang 24" f8 Euryscop that I shot Eddie with the other day was no slouch. It's for sale, want it?

[Bruce Barlow]

355 G-Claron.

[jnantz]

wide angle rapid rectalinaer
wolly 1a triple ...

why?
because they are the only things i use
on my 8x10

[William Whitaker]

What is your best 8X10 portrait lens and why?

Define "best".

[Asher Kelman]

Second to what eddie says. A Pinkham 14" Visual Quality lens in my case.

Hugo,

Thanks for getting me set up with the beautiful 8x10 Chamonix and guiding me in Tonopah! I'm now using the camera beyond landscapes for full body portraits.

Well, at long last, S.K. Grimes is mounting a Packard and filter holder to the front of my P&S 12" Visual Quality! They're so busy but worth the wait!

As you know, I've been using the PS945 for full figure, but it's really a 229mm 5x7 or 4x5 portrait lens. With the reduction back for 4x5, it's really nice.

For 8x10, I also have Jim Galli's "Ed Liesengang" 18" Rectilinear lens to get an adapter for the same Packard shutter, if I wish. In the end, I may not need it.

Asher

[Shutter]

For me the 'best' 8x10 portrait lens is my APO Ronar 480mm f9.0..and I know that it's a process lens and not meant to be a portrait lens - but I like it and that's all that matters...the only downside is that I don't have a shutter for the lens, I can only use it with my Sinar autoshutter - so I can't use it on my Wehman which really really really sucks :-/

I'm also fond of the 360 Symmar-S but that's a bit too 'close' for my taste and it's very sharp.

But there is no "best" anyway, it's all a matter of personal preference.

[Wayne Lambert]

14-inch Commercial Ektar.

[E. von Hoegh]

16 1/2" uncoated Apochromat Artar.

Why? Well, it's the longest lens I have, and I like the images it gives.
I've also tried the rear element of a 30cm Dagor, which is about 50cm.

[Wayne Lambert]

I forgot to say why I like the 14-inch Commercial Ektar. I like its excellent sharpness and tonal quality. Being slightly long for 8x10, it also has very good coverage. Plus in its silvery Ilex No. 5 Universal Synchro Shutter it looks nice on a mahogany lens board. As a footnote, I once heard it described as "the eye of the eagle."

[Asher Kelman]

I just measured the bellows draw of my Chamonix 8x10. I was amazed to reach 36"! Well the actual base reaches only 20 inches, (508mm0. The Chamonix site gives the bellows draw of just 680 mm or 26.8 inches which as you can see is rather conservative. It might be that the designers want there to be a lot of folds left to prevent internal reflections. Taking that into account, 750mm to 800 mm seems still doable. But what's missing is that there's nothing to screw the front standard into at these lengths!


For that reason, I'm ordering an extension to the base and then I can use even a 750mm lens at infinity and that's amazing. A 600 mm will be no sweat at all except one can't approach 1:1.

The practical matter is that the Chamonix can handle 360 mm and even 450 mm with all the extension needed for portraits full length and headshots to fill the screen.

I'm so much more pleased now that I see how long the bellows really are!

Asher