360, 450 Portrait Lenses for 8x10 - Recommendations!

[xvelids]

Hi Large Format Community!

I've been testing focal lengths for a portrait documentary series I've been working on - 300mm Fuji W, 360 Sinaron-S, 450 Nikor M and 600 Fuji C so far. I've also built a small outdoor portrait studio for my series (12x12 sun-bounce cage on a 16x16 stage with a set-wall as a backdrop.) My set-up and consideration: Calumet C1 on a Gitzo R4 Head with Gitzo 504R Tele Studex Giant Tripod. Weight is not an issue. Bellow extension doesn't seem to be an issue either because the 8x10 C1 has generous and rigid bellow extensions. I'm really aiming for three types of portraits:

a. 3/4 Body Portraits --> to see a similar composition:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hBqdPD_7M_Y/S60rcWnuTiI/AAAAAAAAKCE/6cUkpfc_3ns/s800/avedon3.jpg

b. Head & Shoulders --> to see a similar composition:

http://www.fazalsheikh.org/images/acamelfortheson.jpg

c. Macro Work - Abstracts on Hands. It turns out that the compositionally my photographs of 'hands' are similarly set-up to Head & Shoulders shots. Similar bellow extensions etc...--> to see a similar composition:

http://www.artnouveau.com.gr/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/irving-penn-exhibit04.jpg

I decided that I like two focal lengths so far: 360mm & 450mm. Both seemed appropriate for both types of portraits as well. Now I'm interested in purchasing lenses. What would you guys recommend? I've been renting so far and have read lots of literature pertaining to large format lenses, but much of it related more so to 4x5.

My thoughts:

Will the 360mm Sinaron S be sharp/have good contrast at both 3/4 Body Portraits and Head Shot portraits? How about the 450mm Nikon M? I will test more, but did not have time to finish. Furthermore, what other lenses at similar focal lengths would be suitable for these types of portraits? I am asking because I'd like to purchase lenses ASAP, but may not find the lenses I've tested due to scarcity.

Thanks for reading. Hope to hear back from you all!

[David Karp]

I will leave the advice on selection to the portraitists. However, if you decide to go with the 360mm Sinaron S, that lens is available under other names and may be less expensive. The lens is made by Rodenstock and is identical to the 360mm Sironar-N or 360mm APO-Sironar-N. The lens was also sold under the Caltar brand, so a 360mm Caltar II-N will be the same as the Sinaron S you are using. Caltar II-N versions of these Rodenstock lenses often sell at a significantly lower price than the Rodenstock or Sinaron branded versions.

[Luis-F-S]

The 360 Plasmats are beasts! I'd be looking at 1 14" & 16 1/2 Artars...............L

[xvelids]

Thanks for getting back to me. Just to confirm - the 360mm Sinaron S = 360mm Sironar - N = 360mm APO-Sironar-N = 360 Caltar II-N.

However, the Caltar II-S = Schneider Symmar? Also, how is the 360 Symmar then? Would suitable alternatives include:

1. FUJIFILM FUJINON W 360mm F6.3 COPAL
2. Nikon Nikkor W 360mm F/6.5 Lens
3. Fujifilm CM Fujinon W 360mm f/6.5
4. Schneider lens APO SYMMAR 360mm f6.8
5. Schneider APO-ARTAR 360mm F/9.0

Also, what would be considered market prices for these lenses? How would you rate a Tessar or a Plasmat at both infinity work and close-up/macro work? Thanks!

[David Karp]

"Just to confirm - the 360mm Sinaron S = 360mm Sironar - N = 360mm APO-Sironar-N = 360 Caltar II-N." - Yes.

"However, the Caltar II-S = Schneider Symmar?" No. The Caltar II-S is a Symmar-S. The Symmar was an older design.

[neil poulsen]

Isn't it the Caltar-S II?

[David Karp]

Actually, yes!

[Peter De Smidt]

Here are some lens comparisons, including a 360 Symmars-shttp://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?129912-Lens-Comparison-on-4x5-Symmar-Imagon-Aviar&highlight=Veritar

[asf]

I've found the Symmar S to be nicer for portraits than the equivalent Sironar N series (including Apo Sironar N) in any length including 360

The Apo Sironar S is a different story but for portraits I still think the Symmar S is friendlier and a lot cheaper

[Drew Wiley]

If you're after plastmats and don't care about weight but do care about price, I too would concur the old Symmar S lenses render a bit gentler look in portraits than the newer ultra-sharp Fujis and Rodenstocks. Nikkor M's are multicoated tessars, so exceptionally good with microtonality in black and white work, or very accurate hue rendition in color. Only the 14 inch multicoated Kern Dagors are better in the latter respect, though in my opinion way too contrasty for typical portrait duty (I prefer the single-coated version for that). None of these lenses have good "bokeh", so work best with the sitter in front of a blended background, rather than one with a visible linear detail. Old Fuji single-coated L series tessars are affordable yet prized by portrait photographers, and are in older multi-bladed Copal 3S apertures which give rounder out-of-focus highlights than newer lenses. Heavy. Soft-focus lenses are a completely different category.

[Greg]

Personally own and use a 508mm f/7 Caltar. Even covers 11x14 at infinity. Only modern lens I have that comes close to the 508mm focal length is a 355 G-Claron. For contact prints from negatives shot at f/45, you can not tell the difference in sharpness or contrast. Came in a #5 Ilex and the f/7 aperture is a pleasure to focus. Angle of view is something like using a 75mm lens on a full frame 35mm/FX camera... very slightly telephoto.

[Dan Dozer]

The 360 mm plus or minus range is a good one for portrait work on 8 x 10 as there are a lot of options available to use. For my taste, overall sharp focus images sometimes look a little flat and 2 dimensional. When I want the very sharp look I use the G-Claron, but it is really the only sharp focus lens that I have. Normally, I like to have some varying level of softness to my images. Unless you want the sharp look to all of your images, you probably want to look at other options and I think that the Heliar is a great lens for that - just a little softness with beautiful bokeh. Beyond that, I have a lot of "softer" focus type of lenses that I use - including using half of an old Ilex projection lens (one of my favorite for portaits).

[Greg]

The 360 mm plus or minus range is a good one for portrait work on 8 x 10 as there are a lot of options available to use. For my taste, overall sharp focus images sometimes look a little flat and 2 dimensional. When I want the very sharp look I use the G-Claron, but it is really the only sharp focus lens that I have. Normally, I like to have some varying level of softness to my images. Unless you want the sharp look to all of your images, you probably want to look at other options and I think that the Heliar is a great lens for that - just a little softness with beautiful bokeh. Beyond that, I have a lot of "softer" focus type of lenses that I use - including using half of an old Ilex projection lens (one of my favorite for portaits).

Buhl projector lenses also to be considered. They are always available at the auction site for minimal $$$. Have corresponded with another LF photographer who had one mounted in a #5 Ilex shutter and now has an excellent optic with being able to stop the lens down. Was told that the max aperture was a dream to focus.

[xvelids]

If you're after plastmats and don't care about weight but do care about price, I too would concur the old Symmar S lenses render a bit gentler look in portraits than the newer ultra-sharp Fujis and Rodenstocks. Nikkor M's are multicoated tessars, so exceptionally good with microtonality in black and white work, or very accurate hue rendition in color. Only the 14 inch multicoated Kern Dagors are better in the latter respect, though in my opinion way too contrasty for typical portrait duty (I prefer the single-coated version for that). None of these lenses have good "bokeh", so work best with the sitter in front of a blended background, rather than one with a visible linear detail. Old Fuji single-coated L series tessars are affordable yet prized by portrait photographers, and are in older multi-bladed Copal 3S apertures which give rounder out-of-focus highlights than newer lenses. Heavy. Soft-focus lenses are a completely different category.

Thanks for getting back to me!

How would you say the Tessars do in general with both H&S photographs versus a 3/4 body portrait? Another way of phrasing this question would be, is it suitably sharp at various magnifications? Also, is it safe to assume that when photographing a head & shoulders portrait on a 8x10...that this would qualify as a macro photograph? At that size, it's basically 1:1 is it not?

Also, for my purposes - I photograph strictly in black and white. I'm ok as for color rendition.

Furthermore, what do you mean by blended background as opposed to visible linear detail? Is that like seamless vs environmental portraits? How would you sum up the differences between the plasmats and tessars for 8x10 portrait work?

Lastly - what's the market value of the 360 Symmar-S?

[John Kasaian]

14" Commercial Ektar is a classic.

[xvelids]

14" Commercial Ektar is a classic.

Regarding the 14inch commercial ektar, you would have to mount your own shutter usually right? Sounds like a great lens and it fits the focal length I like, but mounting on your shutter might put me off considering my time frame.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Regarding the 14inch commercial ektar, you would have to mount your own shutter usually right? Sounds like a great lens and it fits the focal length I like, but mounting on your shutter might put me off considering my time frame.

The 14" Ektar is often found in shutter. You just have to look.


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Armin Seeholzer]

450 mm APO Skopar is my bokeh fav. and very sharp even at f9 fully open!
360 mm Universal Heliar f 4,5 is my 3D fav. starts to get really sharp at around f11
480 mm Xenar f 4,5 very good 3D look nice bokeh and wonderfull rendering from sharp to unsharp!

But for all you need a Sinar behind the lens shutter or your hat!

[Alan Gales]

I really like my 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar.

A 14" Dagor or Heliar would be nice too. I wish I could afford all three. They each give a different look.

Once you start buying portrait lenses you don't want to stop! ;)

[Alan Gales]

Regarding the 14inch commercial ektar, you would have to mount your own shutter usually right? Sounds like a great lens and it fits the focal length I like, but mounting on your shutter might put me off considering my time frame.

Mine is in an Ilex #5. It's easy to find them in the Ilex shutter or barrel.

[xvelids]

Thanks for all the positive responses! It's been very helpful to me as I sort through all the information available to me on the internet. For my series - I know I'll be making contact prints and enlargements. As of right now, I'm likely to be printing up to 30" x 40", but a crazy part of me wants to try for a few 50" x 60"s. Would the vintage lenses (in particular softer ones) still work for enlargers for 30" x 40"?

Looking forward to hearing from you all!

[Tin Can]

That depends as it is subject to opinion and viewing distance.

Artistic choice is your answer.

[Drew Wiley]

Your uphill battle is more likely going to be with darkroom equipment itself. But a forty inch print from 8x10 film is only a modest enlargement anyway. Vintage lenses can be plenty adequate, but what kind of look they render all depends. Don't confuse lenses intended for soft-focus with regular but simply older lenses.
And you need to be more cognizant of reliability issues with older shutters.

[xvelids]

Thanks for your advice. It's always tricky to sort through all the information on the Internet as much of the user experience is conflicting. Of course, it's best to try and see for yourself/myself, but the scarcity and cost of the vintage lenses prevents it from being an easy exercise.

So far, the 14 inch Artar and the 14 inch Ektar sound like great lenses for me to test for my portrait series. Just hoping to get my hands on some when they come available!

Lastly, reading the lens manufacturer histories have new extremely helpful.

[jnantz]

if you can find one you might also search for a 15" tele optar, they sometimes
come factory mounted in a alphax shutter. it has a beautiful way of rendering,
and unlike regular 14-15" lenses the optar is a telephoto design so you won't be racking
out your bellows as much. i am not exactly sure as i write this if it covers a 8x10 sheet
i've heard it has huge image circle, and i know from using it on a 4x5 it has a monster of an image circle.

[docw]

If I am not mistaken, Karsh used a 14" Commercial Ektar. I have one (and a backup) but my portraits are not quite as good as his. Go figure.

They are pretty easy to find in a shutter.

[xvelids]

From numerous sources, it's my understanding that Karsh did use a 14" Commerical Ektar. However, more than anything his direction, lighting and printing are world class. I saw his prints at the Swann Auction in NY and more than anyone there (Avedon, Penn, Gowin, Callahan, Evans) they really took my breath away. Wynn Bullock was another that was so impressive, which is a shame because the books that feature Karsh/Bullock that I've seen are inadequate low reproductions.

I'm hoping to test the the commercial ektar once it comes available on the market. At the moment, I'm using rentals (which on production is inconvenient because of my studio location and the shoe-leather cost.) Nonetheless, it's exciting to test/use any of the vintage lenses...I'm entirely thrilled to see for myself the various "personalities" behind a Ektar, Artar, Dagor etc...

[Alan Gales]

I'm a big Karsh fan so I bought the 14" Commercial Ektar. No, my portraits don't look like his but I do really like the lens. It's sharp but not clinically so. Great for portraits of course but I like it for everything. You mentioned Artar. I own a 19" Artar. It is sharp as a modern lens.

[Drew Wiley]

Commercial Ektars render a different look that the faster, less common tessar Ektars. If the subject warranted it, Karsh could make very sharp contrasty portraits
on rich cold-toned silver papers. He relied a lot on artificial lighting. But it would be interesting to know if some of his softer portraits involved the kind of pencil-smudge retouching typical of that era. I've never personally seen anything of his involving soft-focus lenses per se. Not his style.

[John Kasaian]

IIRC, Karsh also used a 375mm 15" Ilex later in his career. Not as commonplace as the 14" Commercial Ektar, but usually not as costly either.

[Alan Gales]

IIRC, Karsh also used a 375mm 15" Ilex later in his career. Not as commonplace as the 14" Commercial Ektar, but usually not as costly either.

I've read that quite a few photographers like Ilex Paragons for portraiture. I don't know about the 15" but I have seen shorter focal lengths for 4x5 pretty reasonably priced on Ebay.

[rdenney]

Paragons (or Ilex-Caltars), Ektars (including Commercial), Tessars, Xenars, and so on are all variations on the 4-element Tessar design. While those variations give different renderings that aficionados love to discuss, they are all approximately the same. The bokeh is a bit clumpy but these lenses have a very nice transition from focused to unfocused, which is not so much the case with later plasmats, in my experience.

An older Symmar is sort of a compromise, in that it is not quite as brittly sharp as newer plasmats.

All of these lenses will appear very sharp in the focus plane with a 4x enlargement. Unlike soft-focus lenses, all were designed to make sharp photos, even at wider apertures, by the standards of the day.

I would choose any available tessar -type lens in a good shutter with these specifications.

Rick "who uses an 8-1/2" Paragon or a 12" Ilex-Caltar for portraits on 4x5" Denney