is there a "best" 210 portrait lens?

[sun of sand]

not to take off but 210 seems short
but as you ask about 210's maybe 210 is what you want

Don't do portraiture but am beginning to move to a longer 270mm from 210 -which I don't find worth the weight over 150 and really enjoy it
much better compression in the landscape
enough room for infinity with most 4x5 and pleasing fl for shallow dof/facial rendering etc
270mm gives the same look as the classic rangefinder 90mm "portrait" lenses

Don't know if 270mm is a common modern fl, though

You do a lot of color if not only color so coatings/lens design/flare will probably matter
seems like any coated specifically made portrait lens will be a great and expensive one

[Ken Lee]

A longer-than-normal lens allows you to shoot from a slight distance, where people look flatter. (They look flatter, because from far away, the length of their nose and other facial features become comparatively smaller.) For many people, it's an improvement to look a bit flatter.

Shooting from a slight distance also prevents you from invading the personal space of the subject. Many people get nervous when having their photo taken, and pushing the equipment too close to them can make matters worse.

The longer the lens, and the wider the aperture, the greater will be the blurring effect in out-of-focus background or foreground areas. This helps to set the subject apart from the rest of the scene, even when lighting, tones, or other visual cues do not.

I like vintage Heliar and Tessar lenses for portraits. If you stop them down as much as you might stop down a modern lens - to get everything in focus - they are just as sharp. If you open them up a bit wider than modern designs can go, you get qualities that are can be very flattering. Because they open to wider apertures, you can also shoot in softer light, which is often more suitable for portraits than harsh bright sun.

Most modern designs improve on the older ones, by virtue of their smaller size, lighter weight, wider circle of coverage, and better correction for colors. These are welcome features for landscape photographers who trek with their gear, but less important for portrait work.

Here is a 4x5 image made with a vintage 210mm Heliar, at f/8 if my recollection serves me. Note that the depth of field is pretty shallow, but where the subjects are in focus, it's quite sharp. And the out of focus rendition was intentionally designed, by the optical engineers of the day, to be especially smooth.

[Frank Petronio]

However boobs look bigger and rounder with a shorter lens! Who cares about their nose?

[colker]

However boobs look bigger and rounder with a shorter lens! Who cares about their nose?

you mean ... nude portraits? wouldn't boobs be more of a still life thing?

[Ari]

I had a Wollensack Raptar 203mm, but found the results to be too soft, not to mention lacking in contrast.
I have since bought an older Fujinon-W 210 and haven't looked back. They are very reasonably priced, and deliver a lot of sharpness and contrast.
I hope that helps.

[jnantz]

21cm tessars are nice for portraits
they offer a nice smooth look - open,
and stopped down can be sharp .. that is
if you like sharp

[Kirk Fry]

An old 8 1/4 Commercial Ektar ain't bad either in one those wonderful Ilex shutters.

KFry

[John Kasaian]

I'd say it is the lens you have on your camera when your subject shows up with an interesting expression. There are banana boats full of soft lenses and sharp lenses, but the lens dosen't make the portrait nearly as interesting as someone who is inteesting to look at.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"is there a "best" 210 portrait lens?"

Yes, a 240/4.5 Heliar, pre-war, uncoated.

You could try TTH Cooke, Steinheil Cassar, Wollensak Varium (classic Cooke triplets)
Voigtlander Heliar (modified Cooke triplet)
Tessar, Xenar, Ysar, Ektar, Raptar, ect. (modified Cooke triplets)

There seems to be a thread here, all are wonderfully soft/sharp, great OOF rendition, fine color rendition and large aperture for narrow DOF.

Have fun with the hunt.