Portrait lens suggestions? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

SoulfulRecover

7-Dec-2016, 11:39

Hello all!

I am interested in getting a nice portrait lens for my 4x5 but I'm not sure exactly where to start looking. I have a couple lenses but they are pretty standard in focal length (135mm, 180mm and a barrel lens at 210mm) so I am looking for something a bit longer and higher quality than the "off brands" that I currently have. I'll probably have ~500 US to spend.

Thoughts and suggestions?

seezee

7-Dec-2016, 11:52

If you're working in the studio, you might consider a no-name 9" Petzval with a no. 6. Packard shutter with sync. A bit of work to cobble together, but the images won't look like anything else out there.

SoulfulRecover

7-Dec-2016, 11:57

That sounds interesting for sure. I tend to shoot more location than studio due to a lack of space. My "studio" is a 10x10 room which my desk, computer and photo printer take up the majority of space. I can do headshots but that's really about it.

seezee

7-Dec-2016, 12:04

This setup would be difficult to use in natural light unless you find a lens with an internal iris (they exist) or you obtain the Waterhouse stops with the lens (or have SK Grimes make them, which would put you over your budget). Unless you're doing wet-plate or similar; then you're golden.

Peter De Smidt

7-Dec-2016, 12:08

What type of portraits? What type of camera? In a studio with flash, or....?The more specific you can be, the better we can help you. For instance, suppose you want sharp pictures ala Karsh, Penn.....and you have a Sinar. In that case, something like a 300 Symmar-S, a Commercial Ektar..... would be terrific, but the first suggestion wouldn't work well on a small field camera, as a 300mm f/5.6 plasmat is a huge lens. Or perhaps the out-of-focus area rendition is important to you, and then a Tessar, whether an older one or, say, a Fuji 420L might be a better fit. Or perhaps you love glow, and so a SF lens would be better.

Just as an aside, SF lenses and razor thin dept-of-field are much harder to do well than having most things sharp. SF lenses are very challenging to focus, especially at first, and any sitter movement will wreak havoc with a super narrow depth of field. Thus from a focusing and sitter standpoint, using a sharp lens at f/16 or f/22 will be easier to work with than f/5.6 or a SF lens, but you will need more light. All of these things can be overcome, of course.

SoulfulRecover

7-Dec-2016, 14:08

I use a Calumet 540 Series, would rather shoot location than studio but enjoy both.

I use a lot of tilt for location and am not a fan of soft focus lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/coltonstark/

My favorite 4x5 'tog is Polly Chandler.

Peter De Smidt

7-Dec-2016, 14:53

Good stuff. That helps. I would look for a 10-12 inch lens, perhaps a Commercial Ektar, Ilex Paragon, a Fuji L, or a Zeiss Tessar. You can see some portrait lens tests, complete with downloadable high-res files at: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?129912-Lens-Comparison-on-4x5-Symmar-Imagon-Aviar&highlight=Lens+Tests+Aviar

xkaes

7-Dec-2016, 15:02

Check out http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm

Alan Gales

7-Dec-2016, 15:52

I really like my 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar for 8x10. It was a favorite of Yousuf Karsh. It's sharp but not clinically sharp. The 12" or 305mm will fit your budget. Just make sure you can fit the large Ilex shutter on your camera.

SoulfulRecover

7-Dec-2016, 16:07

Thank you all for the help! I will start my hunt this weekend

EdSawyer

8-Dec-2016, 07:22

I have a nice Nikkor-T 360/500mm combo that would fit in your budget, be sharper than many of the things discussed here, and give you 2 focal lengths to work with... Just a thought.

Tobias Key

8-Dec-2016, 07:38

I bought a 360mm 5.5 Tele-Xenar (early 70's vintage) in a Compur 3 shutter to shoot 4x5 portraits. I haven't tested it properly yet so can't give firm conclusions, but I saved a lot of money compared to any equivalents that cover 10x8 (it only covers 5x7) and the idiosyncracies of tilting a telephoto lens won't matter as I generally only use a little shift in portraits.

Ken Lee

8-Dec-2016, 09:15

Although portraits come in all shapes and sizes, there is a classic rule of thumb for determining focal length for portraits: film height + film width.

For 4x5, that's 4+5 = 9 inches or 225mm. For example, the sublime Cooke portrait lens is 225mm.

If we consider the actual size of the film used, we can subtract roughly 1/2 inch for the blank film edge. That gives us an 8 1/2 inch lens... 210mm. There are many available in shutter: many were manufactured.

If you want something longer, consider a 240mm or 250mm lens. Keep in mind that depth of field starts to disappear as focal length increases, unless we stop down considerably, which means longer shutter speeds or lots of light are required.

Once we get up into this length, lenses with wide apertures (4.5 for example) start to get large and heavy, exceeding the capacity of many 4x5 cameras and the size of their lens boards.

Alan Gales

8-Dec-2016, 10:27

Although portraits come in all shapes and sizes, there is a classic rule of thumb for determining focal length for portraits: film height + film width.

For 4x5, that's 4+5 = 9 inches or 225mm. For example, the sublime Cooke portrait lens is 225mm.

If we consider the actual size of the film used, we can subtract roughly 1/2 inch for the blank film edge. That gives us an 8 1/2 inch lens... 210mm. There are many available in shutter: many were manufactured.

If you want something longer, consider a 240mm or 250mm lens. Keep in mind that depth of field starts to disappear as focal length increases, unless we stop down considerably, which means longer shutter speeds or lots of light are required.

Intereresting! I've never heard that before.

I always figured a normal focal length for full length to waist up shots and a longer length for waist up to head shots. How long determined by how much compression the photographer wanted.

dpn

8-Dec-2016, 10:35

I'm curious why no one has mentioned the article on the front page of the site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

SoulfulRecover

8-Dec-2016, 10:55

I did read through the front page article :)

docw

8-Dec-2016, 11:00

Is a Kodak Commercial Ektar going to fit on a 4x5? I have a 14" on my 8x10 but that shutter is BIG.

Alan Gales

8-Dec-2016, 11:16

Is a Kodak Commercial Ektar going to fit on a 4x5? I have a 14" on my 8x10 but that shutter is BIG.

The 12" is in an Ilex #4 shutter which is smaller than the #5 shutter your 14" is in.

Besides size there is also weight. I put my 250mm F/6.7 Fujinon on a 4x5 Tachihara that I had and I felt that it was too heavy for the front standard. It depends upon the camera that the OP owns.

jnantz

8-Dec-2016, 11:26

SoulfulRecover:

a couple of things to keep in mind...
even if you get a modern sharp vivid &c lens
there are ways to use those lenses to make them
less vivid &c ( usually involves obstructing your field of focus
or changing where your focus point is ). older lenses while they tend to be sharp stopped down
sometimes have a way about them that wide open or less stopped down
there is still some sharpness, but the out of focus areas have a different feel to them
than modern lenses. some older lenses to think about might be symmar convertibles
as well as rapid rectilinear lenses ( some say boring brass lens ). unless it is a fast rapid rectilinear lens, like a verito or simlilar
hollywood type portrait lens, it won't be as slow but it will still have smooth out of focus areas.
you might also look for the ilex seminat lens if you can find one cheap. it was used in the fillm industry
as well as with still cameras, it was super fast ( f3.5 ) and not really very soft, except the out of focus areas
have a look to them that is beautiful. ive had one for a long time and it is one of my favorite lenses to use.

good luck!
john

Tobias Key

8-Dec-2016, 14:35

Although portraits come in all shapes and sizes, there is a classic rule of thumb for determining focal length for portraits: film height + film width.

If you want something longer, consider a 240mm or 250mm lens. Keep in mind that depth of field starts to disappear as focal length increases, unless we stop down considerably, which means longer shutter speeds or lots of light are required.

.

Depth of field for any lens is actually the more or less the same if the framing of the image is the same, because as you use longer lenses you move further back.

calculations from dof master (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) all lenses at F16

210mm lens focused @ 210 inches DOF 80.9 inches

360mm lens focused @ 360 inches DOF 79 inches

150mm lens focused @ 150 inches DOF 83.8 inches

So yes, longer lenses do have less depth of field but not hugely so. It's really a myth that has built up because no one in their right mind makes head shots with a wide angle lens.

8-Dec-2016, 16:17

I'm a fan of the Fujinar SC 210/4.5 - a tessar in a modernish shutter with X-sync and lots of iris blades. Should be around $200. There is a 250mm variant I have not tried.

John Kasaian

8-Dec-2016, 21:46

You might consider a Wollensak Velostigmat series II 9-1/2"---nice effects wide open yet sharp when stopped down. Also a 215mm Ilex in one of it's many incarnations (Paragon/Acugon etc...)
Happy hunting!

Ken Lee

9-Dec-2016, 05:53

Depth of field for any lens is actually the more or less the same if the framing of the image is the same, because as you use longer lenses you move further back.

calculations from dof master (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) all lenses at F16

210mm lens focused @ 210 inches DOF 80.9 inches

360mm lens focused @ 360 inches DOF 79 inches

150mm lens focused @ 150 inches DOF 83.8 inches

So yes, longer lenses do have less depth of field but not hugely so. It's really a myth that has built up because no one in their right mind makes head shots with a wide angle lens.

In practice I have found that even a 210mm has limited depth of field. Here's an example (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/porchportrait.html), not made especially close-up, with a 210mm lens at f/11. One shoulder is in focus, the other is not. In fact, the rear of the subject's head is slightly out of focus. It's not blatant on a small monitor, but on a 16x20 print it's visible.

Here's another example (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/heliarportrait.html) made at around the same aperture, shot a bit closer but still at reasonable distance. It's fairly easy to gauge the depth of field, which appears to be somewhere around 8 inches deep.

Because subjects move, it's often helpful to sit them down or have them lean against something. With longer lenses, this approach becomes even more helpful.

Tobias Key

9-Dec-2016, 06:25

In practice I have found that even a 210mm has limited depth of field. Here's an example (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/porchportrait.html), not made especially close-up, with a 210mm lens at f/11. One shoulder is in focus, the other is not. In fact, the rear of the subject's head is slightly out of focus. It's not blatant on a small monitor, but on a 16x20 print it's visible.

Here's another example (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/heliarportrait.html) made at around the same aperture, shot a bit closer but still at reasonable distance. It's fairly easy to gauge the depth of field, which appears to be somewhere around 8 inches deep.

Because subjects move, it's often helpful to sit them down or have them lean against something. With longer lenses, this approach becomes even more helpful.

I totally agree with all of this Ken, in fact a tall kitchen stool has probably the most difference in the number of portrait keepers I have than anything else! I have become over time an F22 guy for portraits, and a user of studio strobes dialled up to 11. I have been using a 210 also, here's my example, with my subject firmly planted on a tall stool.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7738/27032545632_9e1f828fbd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HbLS1Y)Mell Alternative Frame (https://flic.kr/p/HbLS1Y) by Toby Key (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tobykey/), on Flickr

I need that small stop to prevent the far eye going out of focus, but that background, which is 3-4 feet away is still pretty much totally blurred. This is a good thing as that background is pretty horrible if it's in focus!

Ken Lee

9-Dec-2016, 07:52

Excellent - And that's a magnificent portrait !

SoulfulRecover

9-Dec-2016, 10:32

MAubrey

9-Dec-2016, 11:19

Will Frostmill

9-Dec-2016, 14:49

That's because the nature of the fall off changes with the change in focal length, but the amount of the image within the circle of confusion still stays the same.

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-0.29x-150mm-f16-and-0.29x-210mm-f16-and-0.29x-360mm-f16-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

So the DOF math holds in practice and in theory because, well, more math.

That's a fantastic little demonstration! I've tried to calculate that sort of thing myself, but this is a much better representation than I've ever seen. Do you think they did the math correctly?

Tobias Key

9-Dec-2016, 15:53

Great examples! I haven't shot enough to figure out how far to stop down in order to keep the subjects eyes both in focus if he/she is turned like that and with being that close in.

I shoot with an Alien Bee 1600 and 800

That shot is F22, closer in F32 might be necessary. You can get a lot of info by googling the right photographer. There is a decent amount of stuff online about Gregory Heisler and Dan Winters, two photographers who were working in large format until quite recently, and so have a bigger internet footprint than more eminent older guys. Heisler's book, 50 portraits, contains a lot of useful information even though I actively hate a fair proportion of the images.

SoulfulRecover

9-Dec-2016, 16:33

That shot is F22, closer in F32 might be necessary. You can get a lot of info by googling the right photographer. There is a decent amount of stuff online about Gregory Heisler and Dan Winters, two photographers who were working in large format until quite recently, and so have a bigger internet footprint than more eminent older guys. Heisler's book, 50 portraits, contains a lot of useful information even though I actively hate a fair proportion of the images.

Dan Winters is up the street from me :)

Always enjoyed his work. Ill look into Mr. Heisler's book

Will Frostmill

9-Dec-2016, 17:44

As I recall, Karsh shot a number of his head-and-shoulders portraits (like the Humphrey Bogart one) with a 14" Commercial Ektar at f/22. I saw a print of that in person, probably no bigger than 11x14, and he'd very skillfully manipulated Bogart's position to draw attention away from the out of focus parts. In that case, the more distant shoulder is obstructed by Bogart's face, and his hands are not only in the same plane as his face, but the palms appear to be touching near the wrist, even though the fingers are fanned apart from each other. The near shoulder is printed way down near zone II, and a raking light, a hard light, is picking up the texture of his tweed jacket, though in some prints, most of the shoulder is cropped out!

For example:
158521
158522

SoulfulRecover

22-Dec-2016, 11:46

Thank you everyone for the suggestions!

Turns out my wife is pregnant soooooo no more lens haha :o

Luis-F-S

22-Dec-2016, 11:58

I'd use what you have, see how they function and that should give you a better idea of what to get. L

dpn

22-Dec-2016, 12:24

Thank you everyone for the suggestions!

Turns out my wife is pregnant soooooo no more lens haha :o

Taking wonderful pictures of my children has led to my wife encouraging my photography and getting her to agree to expensive purchases. *grin* And don't forget the maternity shots!

Roger Thoms

22-Dec-2016, 18:09

Maybe you should ask the mods to change the title of your thread to Best Portrait Lens for Newborns. :) Congratulations!!!

Roger

stawastawa

22-Dec-2016, 18:11

I second the book "50 Portraits". neat info on how it happened.

That shot is F22, closer in F32 might be necessary. You can get a lot of info by googling the right photographer. There is a decent amount of stuff online about Gregory Heisler and Dan Winters, two photographers who were working in large format until quite recently, and so have a bigger internet footprint than more eminent older guys. Heisler's book, 50 portraits, contains a lot of useful information even though I actively hate a fair proportion of the images.