Long focal lengths on 8x10 recommendations?

[AlexGard]

[deleted per guidelines]

[AlexGard]

As it stands the longest lens I have is a 420mm f/8 fujinon L which is a great lens in itself but I'm thinking of something a little longer. My camera is a tachihara triple extension so plenty of bellows draw to play with.

[Alan Gales]

Read carefully through this old thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-84317.html

[Ari]

You could try some of the cheap process lenses in the 500mm-700mm range (20"-28") for real compression of the field of view. The bellows draw needed for head & shoulders will be significant, but you want full body, so you should be fine.
If you like it, spend more on a Dagor in shutter or something like that.
There are a few such lenses for sale right now on the forum.

[Corran]

Well, a 400mm lens on 35mm would equate roughly to a 2500mm + lens on 8x10, so you probably aren't going to be doing that. Of course, the distance to the subject / background from the camera is what gives the compressed perspective.

I prefer a 300mm lens for full-body 8x10 portraiture myself, but it's definitely not a compressed viewpoint. Here's some examples (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2012/09/8x10-portraiture-with-gundlach-radar.html).

So maybe a 35" Artar or something would be more up your alley? Here's one that went for $500 sans shutter (http://www.ebay.com/itm/231579803730).

[AlexGard]

I made this thread last night but it got deleted because I was asking in post if anyone had any they wanted to get rid of. So I didn't see any of your replies sorry fellas
Anyway, so I've been thinking about doing some long-focal length portraits on 8x10. I've shot full-body portraits with 300mm on 4x5 and was pleased with the results. I saw a video many moons ago of a fellow shooting full-body portrait shots with a 400mm lens on a FF-DSLR and I liked the super-compacted field of view. I've been thinking about something like say 600mm on the 8x10 but was wondering in all seriousness what the practicality of that is. Currently my longest focal length is a 420mm f/8 Fujinon-L, which I really like. That lens probably gets more use than any of the others I have for that format (300mm f/5.6 and 360mm f/6.5) especially for landscapes. Is 600mm really going to be practical, I'd rather not spend a lot of money but if it was something I would get more use out of than a wide angle lens then I may just sell off some WA 4x5 lenses and go this route.

The camera I have is a triple-extension tachi so bellows draw isn't too much of an issue.

Any thoughts or image examples of a long focal length lens used in portrait scenario would be great. Keep in mind I have full body shots in mind, not head&shoulders shots, as I understand the DOF would be very shallow.

Cheers

[Corran]

I wrote a long reply before on that thread, wish it wasn't deleted.

Note that 400mm on a FF DSLR is "equivalent" to roughly a 2500mm+ lens on 8x10. So that is probably out of the question.

I have used and like the 300mm lens perspective for full-body 8x10 portraits myself.

[Ari]

I wrote that you should explore some cheap process lenses, in the neighbourhood of 21"-35", for a compressing effect on 8x10.

[Oren Grad]

Merged/reconstructed, sort of, with apologies for any inconvenience. Please do keep FS/WTB activity out of the main forums - thanks!

[Drew Wiley]

If Larmarck was correct, all your progeny will be born with very long arms.

[John Jarosz]

A 600mm gets pretty long at portrait distances. There are (a few) Tele-Nikkors at 600mm that will take much less camera draw. But very pricey.

[StoneNYC]

I just bought into the 600mm focal range for my 8x10, definitely pricy. Even the telephoto 600's are in the $600-$700 range. Not sure your exact bellows draw but guessing for a serious portrait, that you would need over 750mm of bellows fadeaway easily for 8x10, probably honestly 900mm if you're doing head only (just a guess but if a head is like 12 inches long, plus some space around the head, let's say 16" or so, which is 400mm that's 1:1 at 400mm so 600 is almost 1:2 so half 600mm is 300mm plus 600mm = 900mm hence my conclusion unless my brain is totally fried and I'm doing that guesstimation totally wrong) so a telephoto would be best for close head shots.

You could also look at cheaper barrel and process lenses, but those are still going to be $400-$500 for 8x10 coverage so you might as well just get a telephoto for $600 and call it a day, or forget it altogether and stick with your 420mm. They do make a few 480mm's if you want just a bit more reach and swap out your 420mm?

All I can say is you're approaching $$$ when you want a long 8x10 lens.

[Corran]

Thanks Oren!

Stone, he mentioned full-body portraits, so, a little less bellows draw.

Alex, perhaps an example of what you are looking for would help?

[Doug Howk]

For inexpensive and flexible, I'd suggest a triple convertible. I use a Turner-Reich (12,21,29) with a Packard shutter on my studio 8X10. Their optics should be more than adequate for full-body portraits.

[StoneNYC]

Thanks Oren!

Stone, he mentioned full-body portraits, so, a little less bellows draw.

Alex, perhaps an example of what you are looking for would help?

Oops, must have missed that in the recombined thread info or just really illiterate (possibly the latter).

[Drew Wiley]

I will admit a preference for the good ole 14" dagor on 8x10 for that kind of use, well, not entirely old; it's a late Kern version.

[Alan Gales]

You could try some of the cheap process lenses in the 500mm-700mm range (20"-28") for real compression of the field of view. The bellows draw needed for head & shoulders will be significant, but you want full body, so you should be fine.
If you like it, spend more on a Dagor in shutter or something like that.
There are a few such lenses for sale right now on the forum.

Ari, you forgot to mention your Cooke Triple Convertible. :cool: http://www.cookeoptics.com/l/xva.html

Yeah, it's pricey but it is a brand new lens and you are getting three focal lengths.

[axs810]

Goerz Artar 16.5 f/9.5

[IanG]

What about a convertible Symmar 30mm or 360mm, my 12" Dagor can be used split but I've not tried it. They are supposed to OK for portraits not sharp enough split for critical landscape etc.

I have a 17" Telephoto that might cover 10x8, it definitely covers whole plate but I've not tried it on one of my 10x8 or 18x24 (cm) cameras yet.

Another alternative is a converter lens, I have a 1.5x Tele Rodenstock push on filter (a cemented doublet) that I can use with my UK made 203mm f7.7 Ektar (mount 370), I could probably get one for my Dagor, a 300mm Symmar is too large a filter size for something like this.

I have experimented in the past with the Fish Eye, WA & Tele attachments for Yashica's 35mm and the Yashicamats and still have a few, they will work with LF lenses. There were dedicated LF Tele-extenders rear mounted from memory, Horseman I think, early 80's, what lenses etc I can't remember off hand.

The major problem past 360mm is very few lenses are in shutters, I'm OK as I have an arsenal of TP roller blind shutters from small to large, unlike Packards they have speed controls, plus other types if needs be.

I should try my Yashica Tele extender on my Dagor (which is coated) and about the right filter size, I have bunch of adaptors. I did try the Fish Eye adaptor and it was very funky, excessive chromatic aberations but it focussed so close you could make some surreal images - I was very pleased with the results but I was experimenting and went in another direction so have kept it in mind for possible future use.

I'm not advocating the additional glass approach, just saying as well as th convertible lenses there's other possible approaches many not really tried with LF in recent years, Dallmeyer used to sell the Addon over 100 years ago.

Ian

[Oren Grad]

There were dedicated LF Tele-extenders rear mounted from memory, Horseman I think, early 80's, what lenses etc I can't remember off hand.

The Horseman 2x converter is for 150mm lenses, in #0 shutter, only.

[Alan Gales]

The major problem past 360mm is very few lenses are in shutters,

Ian


My 19" (482.6mm) Red Dot Artar is in an Ilex #4 shutter. The 24" (609.6mm) Red Dot Artar is available in an Ilex #5.

You are correct though, Ian. You get too long and most lenses become too large to fit in a shutter.

[Ari]

Ari, you forgot to mention your Cooke Triple Convertible. :cool: http://www.cookeoptics.com/l/xva.html

Yeah, it's pricey but it is a brand new lens and you are getting three focal lengths.

Well, Alex shouldn't have to be forced to sell his car or something just to make some 8x10 portraits.
I think the process lenses are a good option.
I recently bought a 21" Copying Ektanon for $200; I'm excited to try it out, and I will as soon as I can get it mounted to a board.

[Alan Gales]

Well, Alex shouldn't have to be forced to sell his car or something just to make some 8x10 portraits.
I think the process lenses are a good option.
I recently bought a 21" Copying Ektanon for $200; I'm excited to try it out, and I will as soon as I can get it mounted to a board.

I figured that but then I saw Drew post about his 14" Kern Dagor and thought what the heck! ;)

Maybe I should mention my 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar. Great portrait lens at an affordable price for most of us.

[John Kasaian]

The 14" Commercial Ektar was a favorite of Karsh. I have a copy as well as a 19" Artar, which is my longest 8x10 lens.
Both lenses have given my excellent service providing that I do my part ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Believe me, I've never paid anything for a fine Dagor even resembling the kinds of wild prices one encounters on the auction site these days!

[Alan Gales]

Believe me, I've never paid anything for a fine Dagor even resembling the kinds of wild prices one encounters on the auction site these days!

Yeah, we believe you but if Alex wants one he will have to pay today's inflated prices.

It's funny how some items have gone way up and others way down.

[StoneNYC]

Yeah, we believe you but if Alex wants one he will have to pay today's inflated prices.

It's funny how some items have gone way up and others way down.

True, Fuji C's way up, Nikkor M's way down. Crazy times, I can literally buy THREE 450 M's for the price of just one 450 C

I think $400-$500 for a 400mm-500mm lens is what you should expect, $1 per 1mm hah!

[Drew Wiley]

Ergonomics is driving demand even more than cult status these days. Guess more and more of us covet high performance at lighter weight. Hence it seems 450C
Fujinons would be logically more in demand than the much heavier 450 M's. Still, the 450 is the only M I don't own, and I wouldn't mind adding one to my set.
But frankly, I'd rather have a 420 Fuji L for its specific look if I'm going to own a heavy lens in that kind of length. I've already got "hard-sharp" with the 450C.
What has really plummeted in price are general purpose plasmats. They're abundant in general, and in longer focal lengths and 5.6 apertures, damn heavy and
bulky too. So nobody seems to want them. Fine for studios. But if you're a non-hiker and have an 8x10 built like a draft horse, why not?

[Luis-F-S]

Interesting, there's been a 355/600 Convertible Symmar on the list for some time quite reasonably priced! A whole lot less than I paid for my 19 or 24 Artars in Copal 3's.

[Alan Gales]

Interesting, there's been a 355/600 Convertible Symmar on the list for some time quite reasonably priced! A whole lot less than I paid for my 19 or 24 Artars in Copal 3's.

I saw that and wondered why no one was biting. I own a 14" Commercial Ektar and a 19" Artar. So roughly 360 and 480mm. I'm not interested in anything longer myself.

Artars in Copals. That would be nice!