which lens would you choose and why?

[archer]

I'm considering two lenses primarily for 4X5 portraiture and some general still life work. The lenses are 270mm f9 Claron and Fuji 250mm f6.7. I know they are apples and oranges but my primary consideration is sharpness. The lens will be used almost exclusively for BW and light source is not a major consideration. The price for either is close enough to be ignored.
Denise Libby

[MIke Sherck]

I'd go with the Fuji, simply because it has a wider maximum aperture and you may find that useful in portraiture.

[Ken Lee]

I'd take the Fuji.

On 4x5, a 250mm is already fairly long for portraits - I'd take a 210mm Tessar or Heliar, but that's not what you asked.

You'll need lots of light to stop down enough to get enough depth of field to have lots of sharpness. The Fuji is twice as bright for focusing, since each f/stop is 2x the light.

[venchka]

The Fuji 6.7 is an older lens with a large image circle (just shy of 400mm if my memory hasn't failed me) that covers 8x10 and is highly sought after by filks with 8x10 cameras. Translation: Expensive.

For half the price of the 6.7 version I bought the newer Fujinon-W EBC 250mm f/6.3 lens. The 250/6.3 still has more than enough image circle for 4x5 & 5x7. In fact, it covers 8x10 at the corners with no room for movements. 300mm-305mm as I recall.

Just something to think about.

[Robert Fisher]

Ken, will either of the 210's that you mention cover 5x7 (used for portrait work)?

Thanks!

I'd take the Fuji.

On 4x5, a 250mm is already fairly long for portraits - I'd take a 210mm Tessar or Heliar, but that's not what you asked.

You'll need lots of light to stop down enough to get enough depth of field to have lots of sharpness. The Fuji is twice as bright for focusing, since each f/stop is 2x the light.

[neil poulsen]

My thought is get an f5.6 240mm Caltar-S II (Schneider Symmar-S) or a or a more recent Caltar of the same focal length. The latter would be a Rodenstock that's probably a little sharper. There's an advantage of f5.6, at least compared to f9. They' re pretty reasonably priced.

But, if you want to split the duty of this lens between landscape and portraiture, the Fuji lens might be better.

I've seen a few 6.7 Fuji 250 lenses for under $400 in the last few months. You might get lucky. The cost of mine was in the $390s.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, will either of the 210's that you mention cover 5x7 (used for portrait work)?

I don't know the official coverage, but a "normal" lens for 5x7 is roughy 210mm. I'd be surprised if they don't cover a circle equal to their own focal length. Official coverage is always stated for focus at infinity, where the image circle will be smallest. For portrait work, the focus is closer, and coverage increases. How much, depends on the mathematics, which I will gladly leave to the experts.

The Tessar I have is barrel-mounted, and the Heliar is in an antique shutter: both have many-bladed apertures that are essentially circular. They have a smooth blur rendering for which they are well-known, and which I prefer for portraits.

Since you mention sharpness as a priority, I would point out that a more modern design may give better color-correction and wider coverage than the classic designs, but I have found these old lenses to be quite sharp within their limitations. As far as I can tell, optical designers had already mastered a lot of physics - by the start of the 20th century. My vintage 150 Heliar performed just as sharply as my 150 APO Sironar S, in the black and white testing I performed.

I'll put a 5x7 back on my camera and look through these lenses. If I see anything surprising, I'll let you know.

[rdenney]

I would second the use of an old Tessar design. But it doesn't have to be so old, and Tessars hide under many names.

Two examples from my own bag:

1. 8-1/2" (215mm) Ilex Paragon. The weakness of this one is the Ilex shutter--finding a really crisp Ilex No. 4 shutter is more challenging than finding a crisp Copal. The shutter is big because the lens is fast--f/4.5. That is very nice for portraits. And this one is coated and has good contrast, while still maintaining an old-world look. Probably from the 50's--not that old by large-format standards.

2. 240mm Caltar Type Y, if you can find one--I have only seen the one that I own. But it was cheap when I bought it, so uncommon doesn't mean rare collector's item by any means. Close to the same focal length as the 250 that others have mentioned. It's a Rodenstock Ysar or Ysarex behind the label ring (read: classic Tessar design), and excellent by any standard. It's f/6.7 aperture means it fits in a Copal 1, and the modern shutter is also an advantage. Early 70's for this one, coated but not multicoated.

Any Schneider Xenar will also be a Tessar design.

Both have coverage for 5x7, for the person who asked about that.

I have had my eye on 300-360mm lenses for portraiture and distant landscapes, and right now I use the rear cell of my Symmar 180 convertible when I REALLY need a lens that long. But they tend to be normal lenses for 8x10, and they require large shutters, so they tend to attract higher prices. Thought I had a line on a 14" Artar a while back, but not so.

Rick "who uses that Paragon specifically for portraits" Denney

[Lynn Jones]

Since I've worked with both, I'd take the Fuji every time, it is incredibly sharp anc actually covers 10x12. It would have far more market value if you decided to sell it later.

Lynn

[Jim Galli]

Since I've used both, I'd pick the 270 G-Claron hands down any day. And if you wake up some morning with an 11X14, it'll cover that too. One of the great lenses imho.