help choosing portrait lens?

[gnd2]

I know this type of question has been asked quite a bit, I've been searching and reading but still having a hard time getting a clear idea in my head. Hoping some of you wouldn't mind helping me try and sort it out.

Shooting 4x5 (Toyo 45E). I have a Nikkor W 210mm f/5.6, want to try something more "vintage", around 240mm f/4.5. I'd like to have a shutter with sync port for strobes.

I've read the article on the main page and the Heliar sounds appealing, but above 210 seems to be only barrel (or barrel adapted to a shutter). I've found out about the Packard shutters (never heard of them till I started researching this), that's an option but would prefer something more convenient if possible (though being able to use the Packard with a variety of barrel lenses might be nice for future flexibility.

This also lead me to the question of aperture. As I understand it, part of the appeal of the Heliar is the round aperture achieved with a high number of curved blades. The aperture is obviously implemented in the barrel lens, but what about the lenses that are normally mounted in a shutter? Is the aperture part of the lens or part of the shutter? If I find one in a shutter, how can I be assured that it will have the same round aperture as the barrel version?

Tessars seem to be another option in the realm of what I'm looking for, though I've read they have a more abrupt transition to OOF whereas the Heliar is more gentle, I thought this would make the Heliar a little more appealing to me.

Hope that's enough information to get some useful feedback. Appreciate your thoughts.

[Two23]

My favorites, in order: 150mm heliar, 240mm Dagor, 165mm Tessar. On 5x7 it's 300mm Velostigmat. All uncoated of course. The Velostigmat is a very underrated portrait lens and performs a lot t like a wide open Tessar. Add those to your short list.


Kent in SD

[Mark Sawyer]

The Velostigmat Series II is a fast (f/4.5) Tessar. I'd recommend a 9.5-inch with the soft focus uncorked. For use with strobes, either a Packard shutter, or look for one in a Betax and switch the elements to the more modern Alphax shutter. The 9.5-inch Raptar would be the same lens, but coated and without the soft-focus option.

[DrTang]

get the heliar..you will not be disappointed... I've seen them in shutters too

I shoot a 240 and 300 (in shutter) on my 5x7...never a bad rendition!

[robshepherd]

Kent and Mark mention the Velostigmat. I love my Series II with the soft focus control. It's 12" and I've currently got it on the front of a 4x5 Graflex SLR. Great for portraits, as well as still life.

[jp]

You won't go wrong with a tessar or heliar in shutter. The Copal 3/3s shutter and similar (Shanel) have plenty of nice blades for a pleasing background. There are currently some Fujinar 210mm f4.5 on the ebay right now and if the shutters are OK, they will be awesome value lens for portraits.

[Peter De Smidt]

A 254mm Ilex Paragon is a fine lens. Two came on a Keith Camera Twin Lens 4x5 I once had.

[William Whitaker]

For a lens mounted in a shutter, the aperture or iris is part of the shutter. For an idea about what makes a good portrait lens, take a look at the ongoing portrait thread on this forum. And don't shy away from an old Tessar. They're great old lenses. And wonderful for portraits.

[Dan Dozer]

This all depends on what image look you are going after - sharp and higher contrast (from newer lenses) or the more "dreamy vintage" softer focus look (from typically older barrel type lenses). There is a wide variety of looks you can get. I have schneiders for super sharp images and also some barrel, meniscus, and petzvals for softer looks. What area in San Diego are you at. I'm in Carlsbad nearly every week if you want to get together and see some examples.

Dan

[gnd2]

Thanks for all the replies. I found a Heliar in a Compound shutter online that looks pretty nice, may spring for that. Would put a bit of a dent in the bank account but it's the only one I've found longer than 210mm that isn't a barrel lens.

The other suggestions are interesting too. I tend not to favor shorter focal lengths but may try something out since they're more affordable and could be a good experience.

Dan, I'm in Rancho Penasquitos, about 30 min from Carlsbad (in light traffic). Do you use your barrel lenses with a shutter of some sort?

[Dan Dozer]

Thanks for all the replies. I found a Heliar in a Compound shutter online that looks pretty nice, may spring for that. Would put a bit of a dent in the bank account but it's the only one I've found longer than 210mm that isn't a barrel lens.

The other suggestions are interesting too. I tend not to favor shorter focal lengths but may try something out since they're more affordable and could be a good experience.

Dan, I'm in Rancho Penasquitos, about 30 min from Carlsbad (in light traffic). Do you use your barrel lenses with a shutter of some sort?


For my barrel lenses (mainly for the 8 x 10), I put together a packard shutter that I can slip on to the front of them when I want to use it. It gives me about 1/20 sec exposure time. A lot of my images are done with a slow enough shutter speed that I can just do it with a lens cap. I also do the Gallli shutter approach many times when out in the field. If you don't know what that is, search on this site and you'll find out.

The heliar is a real nice lens and I use mine a lot (it doesn't have shutter). You might also look for a Schneider G-Claron - very sharp lens. I'm pretty sure that they make one at about 240 mm, and those many times are in shutter. Mine is for my 8 x 10 (355 mm).

If you are interested in making the drive up to Carlsbad after work some time and meet for dinner, let me know and we can see if we can coordinate a day when I'm in town. I'm always interested in meeting other LF photogs and talking shop. James Mickelson also lives in that area. He is a very good bromoil printer.

[Leszek Vogt]

I've seen some nice images from Heliar, but the Fuji 240A delivers as well, not to mention several variations of Fuji 250. Don't have any info on the F4.5, but the F6.3 and F6.7 will cover 5x7 and 8x10 respectively.

Les

[Jody_S]

If you can find (and afford) a Heliar in shutter, go for it, you won't be disappointed and if you are you can simply re-sell it whenever you want. Personally I prefer Tessar formulations for portraits, I'm very fond of the Bausch & Lomb Tessars but they don't normally come in shutters. There are however many modern coated Tessars in modern shutters available on fleabay or wherever you buy your lenses, and for a fraction of the cost of a Heliar. Just figure out what each lens manufacturer called their Tessars.

There may be a few uncoated Tessars in working shutters from Wollensak and Kodak's pre-WWII period kicking around for very little money, as well as German Tessars in better shutters. The uncoated ones tend to be softer (from flare) wide open, which I find pleasing. Longer focal lengths ideal for portraiture are harder to find from that period. Kodak's Commercial Ektar and Wolly's Velostigmat II are still very much in demand as a portrait lenses; the Ilex version is comparable and cheaper.

[Willie]

Don't know how you feel about sharpness but a 10 inch Commercial Ektar is a good lens.

[jesse]

Heliar is one of the best lens for portrait.

[Bernice Loui]

"I know this type of question has been asked quite a bit, I've been searching and reading but still having a hard time getting a clear idea in my head. Hoping some of you wouldn't mind helping me try and sort it out."

*Spend some time, do some study of what portrait photographers and portrait painters have done in the past and in the here and now. This can go a long ways to helping sort out what tools could work best for your print making goals.*

Deciding on a "Portrait Lens"...

~There is NO ideal "Best" portrait lens~

Define the specifics of what the portrait print should be. This can be environmental where a medium wide "sharp" everything appears in focus print to head shot with diffusion soft nothing in "sharp" focus with a longer than normal focal length lens.

Lens itself is only the beginning of the makings of a portrait image. While there are differences in lens rendering, this is greatly affected by lighting-shadows, pose, location, props (if used) and a LOT more.

There is NO such thing as a magical-special Portrait lens, only what the portrait image maker and the portrait sitter would like to convey as a moment in time of their human condition, of their emotional expression.

Suggest deciding what the finished and mounted print might be, then decide on how to achieve it which includes possible lenses-lighting-pose-film-processing and all related to achieve the print with portrait sitter in mind then proceed to sort out how best to achieve this.


Bernice

[Mark Sawyer]

~There is NO ideal "Best" portrait lens~

Yes, there is. I'm sure of it. And maybe if I buy just one more, I might find it... :rolleyes:

[Bernice Loui]

Only to end up with G.A.S. :eek:


Bernice


Yes, there is. I'm sure of it. And maybe if I buy just one more, I might find it... :rolleyes:

[Tin Can]

The most rare and most expensive is always the 'best' anything...

Fame also counts, in all kinds of acquisitions...

Notice the Bullitt Mustang sale

LOL

[Bernice Loui]

Most expensive does not imply best, it simply means some individual or group with excessive monetary means will willing to trade to gain their desired item.

That Bullitt Mustang has zero value to me, for another it has value.

Analogy is easily applied to image making. Story is told, the Heliar was coveted as "The Best" portrait lens (Rooted in Japanese Emperor words). These were easily purchased back in the day (majority were purchased for $50 to $150 tops) . Ended up with several focal lengths including the sought after Universal Heliar... Plenty of film was burned and more..

Most ended with another owner except the 215mm f3.5 which was aftermarket coated by Burke & James. Not used this lens in decades, it sits as a novelty (it was not expensive to purchase back then) more than a print making lens. Yes, get the thing about roundness of focus transitions from sharp to our of focus, contrast renditions and all that. Yet these coveted qualities are lesser relative to the expression of print, emotional expression of the portrait sitter and how this is conveyed to the mind of the portrait print observer.

Goal of a print is to communicate with content.

Then came a long list of soft focus lenses from Imagon to Verito-Veritar and a LOT more. What was learned, lighting-shadow, pose, environment and print making were much more of the greater whole.. It all goes back to content rather than lens or any single article of the print making process alone.

Bottom line, work on how best to communicate and work with any given portrait sitter to help them say what they need to say in a print. Again, the tools to achieve this is secondary.


Bernice



The most rare and most expensive is always the 'best' anything...

Fame also counts, in all kinds of acquisitions...

Notice the Bullitt Mustang sale

LOL

[Tin Can]

Bernice, I agree.

I am an old man hobbyist, just turned 69, started shooting formal portraits with DSLR D70 15 years ago. Mostly Punk Rockers.

I shot snapshot Pentax H3 from 1957, until D70, good travel pics. Sunny 16, never a meter.

Now 12 years retired from my automotive career.

LF gets me up in morning. But sometimes I lose steam.

I shot a woman friend 2 months ago with 11x14 HP5 in studio, the 5X7's were bad, so I didn't develop the 11X14 as I figured i blew focus on them also. My D750 shots were good of course. Backup...

2 days ago I processed the 11X14 and was greatly surprised how good they are. Scanned on V700, copied on light panel with iPhone.

The head shots will be contact printed this week.

However the sitter wants all Digi destroyed and prints only for her. I will keep negs and 2 prints. No showing them here.

As I am sure some have noticed, I have posted some real bad outside 5X7 images lately. So be it, I will work on that.

I like studio work, by myself and one sitter. I also like still life with made up sets.

Not a hiker. Last year was my last motorcycle ride after 55 years. I do not want a final fall. The bike will be a photo prop...

It occurs to me, some of us are 'reenactors' of old photography. I am a docent at a Historical Village, my self defined task is shooting old time style group images, in 1890 costume and camera gear.

I used to shoot events, such as documentary movie openings now I am convinced there is never a need for 99% of those paparazzi shots. Just pop the flash a 100 times and leave. Shot 8 years of a big Chicago Film Fest.

They deleted it all.

[gnd2]

Suggest deciding what the finished and mounted print might be, then decide on how to achieve it which includes possible lenses-lighting-pose-film-processing and all related to achieve the print with portrait sitter in mind then proceed to sort out how best to achieve this.


Bernice

I fully agree with your post, that's exactly what I've been doing. I realize there is no single "best" lens, you'll notice I never asked for such. But the lens is currently the piece I could use a little help with. I've never been interested in the wide angle everything sharp environmental portraits (though that seems to be the popular trend lately). My Nikkor 210mm works very well for 3/4 length sharp studio work, but I want something a little closer with a nice soft out of focus area which is why I mentioned 240mm. My research lead me to the Heliar but I still had questions which was one reason my original post.

If I just wanted the rarest, most expensive lens, I'd just look for a Petzval or Lanthar. I'm not looking for the mythical silver bullet, even though many seem to think of Heliars as that, I really just feel it best suits the look I want. But I'm open to lesser known alternatives which is the other reason I posted. There have been some really interesting suggestions, but so far I haven't seen anything that keeps me from wanting the Heliar. I'd be really happy if there was something cheaper and easier to find that did.

[Bernice Loui]

Suggest starting with virtually any good Tessar formulation from 240mm to 300mm with a taking aperture about f8. Reasons for suggesting a Tessar, these are common, not expensive and will have enough lens personality to allow evaluation images to be made. From there, variations like a Heliar to the entire world of soft focus lenses can be considered.

Personal preference for head/shoulder and similar Portraits would be a Kodak f4.5 Ektar (12" for 5x7, Tessar made with Lanthium low dispersion glass) or f4.5 Schneider Xenar (300mm for 5x7) with a typical aperture of f8. The text book and what is considered "classic" portrait image of this type would have the plane_point of focus at the portrait sitter's eye (eye lashes are good to focus on) with the focus falling off rapidly and almost entirely out of focus by the portrait sitter's ears. This is camera/lens only and does not even begin considering how lighting, pose, portrait expression capture and more would be done.

IMO, Lanthar is overrated having owned and used them in the past. This is another one of those "cult" lenses similar to the Heilar. Not a fan of the swirly OOF produced by a Petzval, this is an opinion and nothing more or less.

Realistically, need to start some where. This is were reading about and looking at web transmitted images is not the same as real world, real time experience with image making. It may be you're a serious Heliar or Petzval fan and nothing else will do.. Maybe you'll discover the Lanthar just does not work for you at all. Difficulty can be obtaining a good representative sample and using the target lens under your image making conditions and print expectations.

This is where sharing and generosity of other LF folks can really help. Loaner lenses will also give a modest point of reference as to what a given target lens should do as there are often optical performance variations in vintage lenses. Performance variations with modern lenses tends to be less.

Regardless, always test the lens extensively, burn LOTs of film then sleep in the choice of owning or returning any potential target lens.


Bernice







I want something a little closer with a nice soft out of focus area which is why I mentioned 240mm. My research lead me to the Heliar but I still had questions which was one reason my original post.

If I just wanted the rarest, most expensive lens, I'd just look for a Petzval or Lanthar. I'm not looking for the mythical silver bullet, even though many seem to think of Heliars as that, I really just feel it best suits the look I want. But I'm open to lesser known alternatives which is the other reason I posted. There have been some really interesting suggestions, but so far I haven't seen anything that keeps me from wanting the Heliar. I'd be really happy if there was something cheaper and easier to find that did.

[gnd2]

Thanks Bernice, I appreciate your input. Heliar seems to have approached cult status a little more recently than the others, I didn't realize this when I started searching for one. I like to "buy smart, buy once" when possible, but like you've said, lens selection is a personal choice that requires experience and you have to start somewhere. At least I should be able to recoup a good deal of the cost if I buy something I don't like, but I hate selling things and usually just end up keeping too much.

[Bernice Loui]

Can be difficult to not possible when shopping for vintage lenses. Think of this being similar to shopping for clothes, where ya really don'l and will not know how that appealing item of clothing looks on you or fits until ya try it on and have a good long look in the mirror.

~Ya just gonna need to purchase some vintage lenses and try them on for size to see how they look and fit for you.~

Over the decades, I've cycled over more lenses than is worth mentioning. There is zero attachment initially during the trail, much like dating. It is not until that date (lens in this case) has proven to be OK and good for both before the date (lens in this case, again) can proceed with a longer term relationship and/or commitment. With that, the collection of present VC lenses and related are all HARD earned and fought for. They have been selected out of more than a few replicas, tested to extremes during a time when lens testing was easy using color transparency film, highly controlled studio condition, high volume_high quality E6 lab processing and all that. The good dates (lenses) ended in a stable long term relationship, the not so good dates (lenses) had to find another.


Such is the way of shopping for vintage lenses,
Bernice





I like to "buy smart, buy once" when possible, but like you've said, lens selection is a personal choice that requires experience and you have to start somewhere. At least I should be able to recoup a good deal of the cost if I buy something I don't like, but I hate selling things and usually just end up keeping too much.

[Mark Sawyer]

If you buy reasonably smart, you can probably afford several nice yet substantially different portrait lenses. Half the fun is exploring and learning...

[Sanford]

I think you should consider a Goerz Dogmar as a more than adequate stand in for a Heliar. It will certainly save some money and they can usually be found in shutter up to about 14"