240.
240.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
I've used my 210 fujinar (tessar) on my speed graphic and kodak 305 portrait on my 8x10 camera with a 4x5 back.
A more modern and very sharp 300mm/5.6 Schneider Symmar-S or Rodenstock Sironar-N (or later) is very nice used wide open for traditional portraits in 4x5. Stop it down for non-human work. These are heavier but faster, and in more recent Copal 3 shutters, which are a lot nicer than the old ACMEs on the Commercial Ektars (which are great lens). You get a modern, easily fixable shutter with a higher speed, a ~1/125th (maybe 1/80th in reality). I like it because I can do both really sharp and then a shallow depth of field that retains a lot of integrity where it's in focus.
You can always diffuse the enlarger if you wet print, otherwise a 0.5 Gaussian Blur in Photoshop will make it look like the other lenses ;-)
It's nice to have the option and control, versus (suckers!) buying a dedicated portrait lens that is only going to be soft or moderately soft or not really all that sharp or flare resistant.
Of course if you are a backpacker and gram-shaver, this wouldn't be the right lens for you.
I apologize for selling that one Brass lens for $2000, it was an exploitive thing to do haha....
10" Tele-Rapter. Excellent, low size/weight, CHEAP! The only disadvantage is...wait...I can't think of any!
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
I was bidding on one of those 10' Tele Raptars on ebay a short time ago. It was a beauty in the original wooden box. I really like that one. I was at my cottage in the mountains when the auction ended. No computer up there.
I was thinking about my 4x5 portrait lens today. I happen to be reading one of my books on Bill Brandt. Brandt is one of my favorite photographers and his portrait work has always amazed me, especially the later stuff that he did with a Hassy super wide.
The only downside to using a lens with coverage for 8x10 is that it will either be slow or heavy. But even at 300mm, most substantial 4x5 view cameras can handle the weight. But f/9 seems rather slow for a portrait lens.
When used wide open, the rendering of the lens comes into play. There are a zillion lenses that provide soft focus of various types at wide apertures. But if you want a lens that can go sharp, or reasonably sharp, without becoming crispy-fried, then consider a tessar design. All the manufacturers have made these, and they are often quite cheap. Their coverage is a little limited compared to the plasmats, but they are still abundant for 4x5.
The two that I have that seem to work pretty well in this application are the Calumet Caltar Type Y 240mm, and the Ilex-Calumet Caltar 12" (there was also a 10" lens in this line--also appropriate). The Type Y is a Rodenstock Ysarex and is limited to a maximum aperture of f/6.8 so that it will fit in a Copal No. 1. The 12" Caltar mounts in an Ilex No. 4 shutter that was easy to mount on a Sinar board (it's about the size of a Copal No. 3). The Caltar was Ilex's homage to the Kodak Commercial Ektar, when Kodak stopped producing same and Calumet needed an affordable line of lenses for their view camera. Both are tessar designs, and cheap when you can find them.
If you want a faster lens, look around for an Ilex Paragon, which in 8-1/2" (210mm) has a maximum aperture of f/4.5. I don't recall--maybe the 10" is as fast, though a 10" lens at f/4.5 will be mounted in an Ilex No. 5 if it exists. That's still easy to mount on a Sinar board but might be more interesting on smaller boards. It is not super sharp at that aperture, but it's sharp enough for most portraits. It will really smooth out the background, too. I'm thinking all the Wollensak and Graflex lenses in that size range are telephoto designs.
For me, the tessar designs give a clean vintage look, while I find that some more modern plasmats give a busy out-of-focus background and a modern rendering. But you may want that crispiness.
Rick "who likes portraits with a sharp face and a broad, smooth brush of a background" Denney
You know, I have a Ilex Paragon 8 1/2 6.3 (215). Actually, I have two of them. They are on a camera that I just recently purchased, a Keith 4x5 twin lens camera. It neede a little clean up but she's almost ready.
On those 300mm lenses that cover 8x10,the fact that the image circle is so big does not create a problem on 4x5?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks