210mm / 240mm or 300mm for 5x7

[tenderobject]

hi!!!

mainly for portraiture and portrait landscape.. anyone can give me recommendation as to what lens to get? i'm eyeing on symmar or caltar or sironar 210 or atleast 240. theres a lot to choose from.. i'm looking for sharp lens and atleast new lens for my 5x7... please help me to choose which focal length is better and which brand and model to get. my budget is around $200-$300 only. thats the main problem! but i saw recently some 210mm selling around $200++.. also prefer a much coverage lens etc..

if you can post some image samples that would be great..

and apologies if this kind of thread was posted before..

thank you very much!

[Matt Miller]

You might be able to find a G-Claron in 210 or 240 for that price. It's a sharp lens and will have lots of coverage for 5x7. I don't know how well it would suit portraiture though.

[sanking]

You might be able to find a G-Claron in 210 or 240 for that price. It's a sharp lens and will have lots of coverage for 5x7. I don't know how well it would suit portraiture though.

The G-Claron is a good lens for outdoor landscape work, relatively light and compact and plenty sharp enough enough. However, for portraits and/or interior archictural work I think one would be better off with one of the f/5.6 plasmat lenses in these focal lengths, and there are plenty of 210mm/240mm of these used on the market for not a lot of money. Look for Symmar-S, Nikkor-W, Fujinon-W, or the equivalent Rodnestock type lens. Focusing with an f/5.6 lens in low light is a visual treat compared to focusing with f/9 or f/11.

Sandy King

[jeroldharter]

The 240's and 300's are often in Copal 3 shutters which are relatively expensive. You might check out a Caltar 210 E lens which is a half stop slower than the f5.6 lenses but they are very small and relatively inexpensive. Performance is probably not as good wide open and you should check to see if it covers 5x7. Should be in your budget though.

[venchka]

Last summer I bought a Fujinon-W 250mm/6.3 lens in a Copal #1 shutter at the low end of your budget. The image circle is exactly the same as the diagonal of 8x10. Therefore it covers 5x7 with room to spare.

[drew.saunders]

I have the 250/6.3, which doesn't quite cover 8x10, so can be a lot cheaper than the 6.7, and will still have plenty of movements for 5x7. It's also a fair bit smaller than most 240/250 f5.6 lenses, since it'll just fit into a size 1 shutter, instead of the #3 that the 5.6 lenses plasmats need. It's far from tiny, but if you don't mind the third of a stop loss over a 5.6, it'll save you some weight.

[venchka]

I have the 250/6.3, which doesn't quite cover 8x10, so can be a lot cheaper than the 6.7, and will still have plenty of movements for 5x7. It's also a fair bit smaller than most 240/250 f5.6 lenses, since it'll just fit into a size 1 shutter, instead of the #3 that the 5.6 lenses plasmats need. It's far from tiny, but if you don't mind the third of a stop loss over a 5.6, it'll save you some weight.

My apologies. My lens is the newer 250mm/6.3. Exactly as Drew describes above. The only problem I see is that the lens is quite sharp wide open. Out to the edges even.

[aduncanson]

I have been watching this thread for a while and was happy to see the Fuji W 250/6.3 get a couple of mentions

Christopher Broadbent posted some pithy guidance on the proper focal length for a portrait lens in the following post:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...1&postcount=11

That might lead you to look for a 14" or 360mm lens, but in large format in general, and for 5x7 in particular, there may be reasons to not go quite so long. e.g., 1. You can crop and not lose significant quality. 2. Long LF lenses extend significantly as you focus to a usual portrait distance (unlike for small formats) and 3. You might regularly crop the 5x7 neg to 5x6.25 to achieve the typical portrait aspect ratio. Therefore you may want to look for a 300mm or 12 inch lens, which is a length I find quite suitable for portraits in 5x7.

The bad news is that lenses that long often can cover 8x10 and so command a premium price. A 12 inch commercial Ektar would be great, but is unlikely to be found in the price range you mentioned. An older 300mm/4.5 Schneider Xenar or a 12 inch/6.3 Ilex-Caltar would be a good find. Occasionally a Nikon 300mm/9 "Q" (predecessor to the "M") can be found in decent shape within that price range. At f/9, it won't give ultra shallow depth of field, but I find that a background beyond about twice the distance to the sitter is sufficiently blurred to not be distracting.

[mandoman7]

I was lucky enough to just get a Fuji 250 6.7 off ebay for less than $150 shipped. The seller mentioned cleaning marks which scared people off, but I don't see anything on the surfaces and it has tested beautifully. I took the risk because I needed a copal 1 for another lens anyway if the glass was damaged.

The upshot for this conversation is that I now have a spare lens in that focal length, a Wollensak Raptar 241mm 4.5, which I'd let go for a very reasonable price. The Wolly's don't get a lot of mention but they can get the job done, and for very reasonable prices. I have a fast 190 too, and they give a bright, easy to focus, image on the ground glass. Neither one cost more than $150.

In fact here's a shot taken with the 190 nearly wide open, which I think has pretty nice out-of-focus areas.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Might also look for a Caltar IIN if you're thinking of the 210mm focal length. This is the exact same lens as a Rodenstock APO Sironar N (also f/5.6, 301mm image circle) but these often sell for less than $200 lightly used.