Fashion lens?

[peter bainbridge]

Guys Its doing my head in deciding which lens to choose, i'm thinking 240 F5.6 0r 300?
(for my 4x5 linhof) the 300's a serious piece O glass, but i believe it might have more coverage than a 240? on a 4x5? re; rise and easier focus? my problem is, i need to get that slightly stretched body look for full length and 3/4 crop, Im thinking i should use a longer lens? using less rise than say a 210? fashions all about speed where possible, so Im trying to avoid as much head-fuckery where possible, any thoughts out there? ..in the words of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now ''He hates all this'' with all those cameras round my neck...help.!...peter

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Peter,

150 is standard for 4x5 so they should all have enough coverage. All things being equal, FL = distance, 150 = 15', 180 = 18', 210 = 21', 240 = 24', 300 = 30' for the same framing, they will each have a different perspective and 300mm may get you into telephoto compression range. How large is the studio and how loud can you yell?

[peter bainbridge]

thanks Paul, i guess I'll need to test both before buying, i wish you could post pix here, so i could show what Im basically looking for in these lens, Im swinging towards a 240, (more compact ect) i went to a friends last night and couldn't believe the 300's size, it looked like a see through brick.! as for coverage i know the lens you mentioned will all cover, ahh..my kingdom for a picture to post.!

[Frank Petronio]

A 300/5.6 on a Technika handheld is pretty hard to use for any extended time because it is so heavy! Even thought the Tech is very strong, you'd also find some of the front movements shifting from the weight of the lens, especially if you are swinging things around.

You might consider one of the telephoto lenses unless you want to use movements, as they have less coverage and actually strange things will happen when you make moves with them because of the lens design. But maybe you want funkiness anyway? What you see is what you get after all, and it wouldn't hurt to experiment.

There are vintage Rodenstock Rotelar and Schneider Tele-Arton and Tele-Xenar 270/5.5 lenses in older Compur shutters that have a very nice bokeh while still being sharp, they will just have lower contrast than modern lenses and require a lenshade... they are also relatively inexpensive. But they would only use 6-8 inches of bellows and make the camera much more usable.

Personally I like shorter lenses for portraits but I know where you're coming from. 300mm on a 4x5 makes an elegant formal portrait with nice fall-off even at f/16.

[Jim Galli]

My 240 f4.5 Heliar in shutter is actually compact next to a 300 f5.6 Symmar. Depth on these two wide open would be about the same. Just another thought.

[Doremus Scudder]

Just a thought from me too...

Any compact 300mm lens (the Nikkor M 300mm f.9 comes to mind) has more than enough coverage for 4x5, as does the Fuji A 240 f.9 and the G-Clarons in the focal lengths you are considering. Do you need the f.5.6 aperture, or could you live with a slower lens as a trade-off for light weight?

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[John Kasaian]

Guys Its doing my head in deciding which lens to choose, i'm thinking 240 F5.6 0r 300?
(for my 4x5 linhof) the 300's a serious piece O glass, but i believe it might have more coverage than a 240? on a 4x5? re; rise and easier focus? my problem is, i need to get that slightly stretched body look for full length and 3/4 crop, Im thinking i should use a longer lens? using less rise than say a 210? fashions all about speed where possible, so Im trying to avoid as much head-fuckery where possible, any thoughts out there? ..in the words of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now ''He hates all this'' with all those cameras round my neck...help.!...peter

I find the stretched look, in 8x10 & medium formats anyway (think of Paula Abdul morphing into Bridget Nelson) is quite nice with a wider lens with the subject of center. What that would equate to in 4x5 I wouldn't know but a 10" on an 8x10 would do it (I don't remember what I've seen used on an RB66, but it I recollect it being even wider)

[peter bainbridge]

Thanks guys its appreciated www.peterbainbridge.com

[Don Dudenbostel]

If I read your post correctly you want to stretch perspective. If this is correct then you're going the wrong direction in focal length. A longer lens like a 240 or 300 on 4x5 will compress the perspective. If I wanted a slightly exagerated perspective without distorting the subject too much I would use a 135 or 125mm. For more extreme exagsration I would use a 90mm. I shot fashion for two large retail chains and would never have considered using a 4x5 other than specialty shots. Medium format an 35mm allow the models to move freely where LF requires a much more structured setup and is reflected in the final image. Some shots required LF due to repro size but generally MF gave plenty of quality vs flexibility in shooting.

[Vick Vickery]

Keep in mind that long lenses used in a fashion shoot that includes full length shots of the model dictate that you must have a lot of space to shoot in...not a problem outdoors most of the time, but a serious problem if you're planning to work in a studio where you can fully control your lighting.