4x5 lenses: telephoto and portraiture

[Alan Klein]

Which size lens would be good for portraiture and for telephoto (landscape)? What is the difference with the lense physically? I currently have with my Chamonix 4x5 45H-1 camera a 75mm, 90mm, 150mm. Chamonix mentioned the following limits to me:: "The longest lens is 350mm at infinity. Shorter for portrait as it is closer."

Thanks.

[Bob Salomon]

You could use a longer lens by using an extended lens board.

[lassethomas]

You could use a longer lens by using an extended lens board.


The Chamonix 45H-1 and 45Hs-1 has no official extension board since they are non-folding cameras.
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/extensionboards

[lassethomas]

It's one of the disadvantages with the 45H-1, that you can not extend it. It has 350mm of bellows and that's it as far as I know.
So , ordinary lenses perhaps up to about 270mm or thereabout would work for portraits, and perhaps a bit longer for landscapes.
And then there is tele designs that could give you about 100mm more.
I have a Fujinon T 400mm that works on my 45H-1. But there are disadvantages with tele lenses, usually limited movements compared, and problems when tilting and swinging due to the offset nodal point.

[Bob Salomon]

The Chamonix 45H-1 and 45Hs-1 has no official extension board since they are non-folding cameras.
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/extensionboards

But others do make extension lens boards, Wista has a modular one that comes with 2 add on 25mm extensions and adapters for 0, 1 and 3 size shutters. Additional 25mm screw in extenders are available optionally.

[lassethomas]

But others do make extension lens boards, Wista has a modular one that comes with 2 add on 25mm extensions and adapters for 0, 1 and 3 size shutters. Additional 25mm screw in extenders are available optionally.

True, forgot about that. It could give you the extra centimeters you need.
Just watch out with heavy lenses as it makes the front standard a bit unbalanced.

[Bob Salomon]

True, forgot about that. It could give you the extra centimeters you need.
Just watch out with heavy lenses as it makes the front standard a bit unbalanced.

This one will give you about 75mm of extension, more with the 25mm optional rings. They make 2 versions. One specifically for Linhof cameras and the others for non Linhof cameras, like a Wista.
The only caveat is that the rear lens group must be able to fit in the hole in the tube.

[Mark Sampson]

You don't have to worry about movements when making portraits. Your sitter is unlikely to be able to hold still while you fiddle with front swings and tilts.
Years ago I had a 4x5 Tachihara, with only 330mm of extension, and did several successful portraits with that camera. I used a Nikkor-M 300/9 lens. Although those were mostly 3/4 length portraits, not close-ups; if you want tight head & shoulders portraits, that Fuji 400T looks good. And its weight will be centered over the front standard, always a good idea. But I suppose the top-hat board would work too.

[Mark Sawyer]

Just for anyone who doesn't know, a telephoto design gives the angle of view of a longer lens at a shorter focusing range. So a 400mm telephoto might focus at infinity with around 250mm of bellows.

[Ken Lee]

"Which size lens would be good for portraiture and for telephoto (landscape)? What is the difference with the lense physically? I currently have with my Chamonix 4x5 45H-1 camera... The longest lens is 350mm at infinity"

You might find it helpful to read this brief article (http://kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/bellows.php) which gives some helpful formulas: with a given prime lens (not a telephoto design) and available bellows draw, how close can we focus, how much magnification can we get, etc ?

For example...

If we consider a portrait as head and shoulders, that's a box around 20x25 inches, roughly 1/5 or 20% magnification onto 4x5 film.


Given a 210mm lens where the desired magnification is 1:5, how much bellows extension is required ?

M = (B-F) / F
where M = magnification ratio, B = bellows extension, F = focal length

M = 1/5, F = 210mm

1/5 = (B-210) / 210
1/5 * 210 = B - 210
42 = B - 210
Bellows Extension = 252mm

So a 210mm lens will work for a head-and-shoulders portrait on a 4x5 camera, as long as we have at least 252mm of extension. Your camera provides that, with room to spare. You can play with the formulas to find out what is the longest lens you can use with 350mm of bellows draw, to get the magnification you want for portraits.

If my calculations are correct, with a 300mm lens and 350mm of bellows extension, we can get (350-300)/350 or a 1:7 magnification, a rectangle around 28x35 inches. Maybe not an intimate close-up, but a fine portrait can made as such.

[Alan Klein]

Just for anyone who doesn't know, a telephoto design gives the angle of view of a longer lens at a shorter focusing range. So a 400mm telephoto might focus at infinity with around 250mm of bellows.

How do you know which lens is a telephoto design?

[erian]

How do you know which lens is a telephoto design?

It is very often mentioned or indikated in the name. Like Tele Xenar or Nikkor-T.

[lassethomas]

Since I also have the Chamonix 45H-1 I was intrigued.
As mentioned the bellow extension is 360mm, and there are no extension boards.
Today I have the Fujinon T 400mm. It works well and is sharp, but is big and weights a bit. And is cumbersome to use with front tilt and swings because of the Tele design.

What about trying to use my G-Claron 210/9 and G-Claron 240/9 as convertibles (both the modern plasmat version)? They are much smaller and lighter, and easier to use.
Would it be possible? And what would the result be like. Could it be useful?

The common wisdom on the net seems to be that the G-Clarons (both the new and old versions) can be used as convertibles. You get about 1.75 times in focal length and lose 2 stops. There seems to be no big difference in focal length depending if you use the front or rear group. What changes is the bellow draw. With the front group it's about 1,5 times and with the rear group 2 times the original focal length.

So I decided to do a small test.

G-Claron 240mm f9

Using it as a convertible produces a focal length of about 420mm. Exactly what I was looking for.
With the rear group you need a bellow draw around 480mm which doesn't work on the 45H-1.
But with the front group you just need 350mm or thereabout. And after testing I can confirm that you just can reach infinity focus mounted on a normal lens board. I could focus to somewhere around 20 meters. With an extended lens board this could work well. And the lens is small and light and would not be that much unbalanced on the lens board. Not as the Fujinon 400 anyway.

So what did it look like? I took a a test shot on my neighbor's house. Not very exiting but lots of detail.
Focused on the the chain on the wall.
Shoot on FP4+. Scanned on an Imacon Felxtight Precision II. No sharpness added.

G-Claron 240mm @f22
206124
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0151.jpg)

G-Claron 240mm with only front group for about 420mm @f45
206125
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0152.jpg)

G-Claron 210mm f9

Using it as a convertible produces a focal length of about 370mm. Not as good as the 240, but fair.
With the rear group you need a bellow draw around 420mm which doesn't work on the 45H-1.
But with the front group you just need 310mm or thereabout. It should work well for many situations.
So what did it look like?

G-Claron 210mm @f22
206126
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0149.jpg)

G-Claron 240mm with only front group for about 370mm @f45
206127
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0150.jpg)

Make up your own mind if you think it's working.
Me, I'm not going to use it as my first landscape option, corners are not really that good. But it could work as a light weight trek option.
And it's sharp in the center, so for portraits it could work well.

[Hugo Zhang]

Alan,

You have two wide angle lenses and one normal lens of 150mm. So your real question is how to choose a longer lens that is suitable for portraits. It does not have to be a telephoto design. Is that correct?

Your 150mm lens should be a good one if you shoot whole body or environmental portraits and if you don't mind your portraits are as sharp as your landscapes. To get head and shoulder shots, a longer lens in the range of 210mm to 240mm will give a more flattering feel. With 350mm bellows draw, you have plenty of choices.


One point to get started is to spend some time looking at the portrait threads in this forum. There are thousands of wonderful portraits with 45 cameras. Zero in the ones you like and see what lenses were used. There are reasons that some lenses are more favored than others.

[David Schaller]

Since I also have the Chamonix 45H-1 I was intrigued.
As mentioned the bellow extension is 360mm, and there are no extension boards.
Today I have the Fujinon T 400mm. It works well and is sharp, but is big and weights a bit. And is cumbersome to use with front tilt and swings because of the Tele design.

What about trying to use my G-Claron 210/9 and G-Claron 240/9 as convertibles (both the modern plasmat version)? They are much smaller and lighter, and easier to use.
Would it be possible? And what would the result be like. Could it be useful?

The common wisdom on the net seems to be that the G-Clarons (both the new and old versions) can be used as convertibles. You get about 1.75 times in focal length and lose 2 stops. There seems to be no big difference in focal length depending if you use the front or rear group. What changes is the bellow draw. With the front group it's about 1,5 times and with the rear group 2 times the original focal length.

So I decided to do a small test.

G-Claron 240mm f9

Using it as a convertible produces a focal length of about 420mm. Exactly what I was looking for.
With the rear group you need a bellow draw around 480mm which doesn't work on the 45H-1.
But with the front group you just need 350mm or thereabout. And after testing I can confirm that you just can reach infinity focus mounted on a normal lens board. I could focus to somewhere around 20 meters. With an extended lens board this could work well. And the lens is small and light and would not be that much unbalanced on the lens board. Not as the Fujinon 400 anyway.

So what did it look like? I took a a test shot on my neighbor's house. Not very exiting but lots of detail.
Focused on the the chain on the wall.
Shoot on FP4+. Scanned on an Imacon Felxtight Precision II. No sharpness added.

G-Claron 240mm @f22
206124
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0151.jpg)

G-Claron 240mm with only front group for about 420mm @f45
206125
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0152.jpg)

G-Claron 210mm f9

Using it as a convertible produces a focal length of about 370mm. Not as good as the 240, but fair.
With the rear group you need a bellow draw around 420mm which doesn't work on the 45H-1.
But with the front group you just need 310mm or thereabout. It should work well for many situations.
So what did it look like?

G-Claron 210mm @f22
206126
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0149.jpg)

G-Claron 240mm with only front group for about 370mm @f45
206127
Link to full res file (right click to download) (https://scatteredlightblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/sheet0150.jpg)

Make up your own mind if you think it's working.
Me, I'm not going to use it as my first landscape option, corners are not really that good. But it could work as a light weight trek option.
And it's sharp in the center, so for portraits it could work well.
Thank you for posting this informative test. I had forgotten that the G-Claron lenses could be used as convertibles.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

You have two wide angle lenses and one normal lens of 150mm. So your real question is how to choose a longer lens that is suitable for portraits. It does not have to be a telephoto design. Is that correct?

Your 150mm lens should be a good one if you shoot whole body or environmental portraits and if you don't mind your portraits are as sharp as your landscapes. To get head and shoulder shots, a longer lens in the range of 210mm to 240mm will give a more flattering feel. With 350mm bellows draw, you have plenty of choices.


One point to get started is to spend some time looking at the portrait threads in this forum. There are thousands of wonderful portraits with 45 cameras. Zero in the ones you like and see what lenses were used. There are reasons that some lenses are more favored than others.

Hugo, Since I shoot landscapes mainly, I was looking for a medium telephoto. I was thinking I could use that as a fall back for portraits on the rare occasion I would need it for portraits. Based on that, what would be a good one for me? Just to calrify point, are portraits lenses less sharp than telephone and other lenses? Would I use a portrait lens for landscape shots?

[EdSawyer]

Nikkor-T 270/6.3 or the NIkkor-T 360/8 would be good choices for both portrait and landscape. Both would work with the limited bellows length, no problem.

[lassethomas]

Nikkor-T 270/6.3 or the NIkkor-T 360/8 would be good choices for both portrait and landscape. Both would work with the limited bellows length, no problem.

Those are good choices, or the already mentioned Fujinon T 400/8.
Here on the camera focused to infinity.
206152

[Peter De Smidt]

If you get closer than 4 or 5 feet to your subject, elements closer to the camera will grow in size in the picture. That's one of the reasons that many prefer longer lenses for head and shoulders portraits.

[Mark Sampson]

Just so. And most sitters will be more comfortable (leading to better portraits) if the camera (and thus the photographer) is not right on top of them.

[Alan Klein]

Nikkor-T 270/6.3 or the NIkkor-T 360/8 would be good choices for both portrait and landscape. Both would work with the limited bellows length, no problem.

Would the 270 portrait lens be too soft for landscape shots?

[Alan Klein]

Would the 270 portrait lens be too soft for landscape shots?

Oh wait, The T means it's a telephoto. So would it be too sharp for portraits?

[drew.saunders]

How do you know which lens is a telephoto design?

Download this from B&H: https://static.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Pro-Photo-SourceBook.pdf

Scroll to page 228 in the PDF (labeled 230 on the image). You'll see 3 LF lenses. The telephoto one, on the far right, is enormous, and looks almost stretched out, compared to a regular lens. Besides almost every telephoto LF lens having "T" or some other indicator in the name, they really do look different.

Page 232 in the PDF (234 on the page) shows the Nikon T series, which allow you to change the rear lens component to get 2 or 3 lenses from one front lens/shutter setup. Annoyingly, B&H didn't list the bellows draw for these lenses!

From the archive of the Ebony Camera website, https://web.archive.org/web/20170514224819/http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html , you can scroll down to the telephoto lenses and see that they have much shorter flange back (a.k.a. flange focal distance) than regular lenses of the same focal length. The Fuji 300/8 T requires 195.3mm of bellows, while the Fuji 300/8.5 C requires 282.3mm.

[Greg Y]

Oh wait, The T means it's a telephoto. So would it be too sharp for portraits?

It all depends what you're after. Many photographers select older lenses for portraiture. No tool does it all. You can have a pleasing portrait result....or a portrait made with the 'sharpest lens made.' Check out Heliars, & Yousuf Karsh' 14" Commercial Ektar..... & others.

[Bob Salomon]

It all depends what you're after. Many photographers select older lenses for portraiture. No tool does it all. You can have a pleasing portrait result....or a portrait made with the 'sharpest lens made.' Check out Heliars, & Yousuf Karsh' 14" Commercial Ektar..... & others.

Or Al Gilbert, Monte Zucker, etc..

[mdarnton]

There's a lens that hasn't been mentioned that I really think should be in everyone's bag and that's the 15" Tele-Raptar / Tele-Optar. Its an excellent lens with flange focus around 9 inches, so you don't need a lot of bellows. With shutter they often cost $150 on Ebay. If you're into soft focus, and being into portraits, you might eventually go there, the front component by itself is a dandy toy which gives the gentle softness of a Verito used on the back of the shutter and the full-out effect of some of the really pricey c1900 lenses when used on front. Used as a normal tele, it's sharp without the brittleness of some modern lenses.

You can find some examples in my large format Flickr pages. It's well represented there in the various modes, and I have more of these lenses than anyone deserves. :-)

[Peter De Smidt]

I've tried to get one, but the times I looked, there wasn't a good choice. I'll keep at it.

[Alan Klein]

Would this work Nikon Nikkor M 300mm F9 Copal 1? Is the f9 too dark? I sometimes use a reflex viewer with the Chamonix 45H-1? Price right at $590? https://www.ebay.com/itm/TOP-Mint-Nikon-Nikkor-M-300mm-F9-Copal-1-Shutter-Large-Format-Lens-from-JAPAN/373107806405?hash=item56def550c5:g:JoEAAOSwZIBfBTQn#viTabs_0

[blue4130]

Would this work Nikon Nikkor M 300mm F9 Copal 1? Is the f9 too dark? I sometimes use a reflex viewer with the Chamonix 45H-1? Price right at $590? https://www.ebay.com/itm/TOP-Mint-Nikon-Nikkor-M-300mm-F9-Copal-1-Shutter-Large-Format-Lens-from-JAPAN/373107806405?hash=item56def550c5:g:JoEAAOSwZIBfBTQn#viTabs_0

Since it's a 300mm, it will be plenty bright even though it's f9 (I have one, love it) The brightness of a lens on ground glass is more affected by the angle of the light hitting it, so a 75mm f9 will be WAY more dim than a 300mm f9.

With that said, it's not a tele design, so you are not going to be able to focus super close with your limited bellows draw.

[Mark Sampson]

The NIkkor-M 300/9 is a great lens; I will never part with mine. See my first post above... if I wanted to do LF portraits (but I don't), that's the lens I'd use. It will focus close enough on your camera if you don't want a tight close-up.
And as mdarnton has mentioned, the 15" Tele-Optar is a very underrated lens. We had one in the cabinet when I worked for Kodak, and the few times it was called for, it performed very well. An excellent choice for portraits (that's what we mostly used it for on the job.)

[mhayashi]

Alan, I would consider somewhere 240mm focal length esp. for portrait considering the maximum extension of 350mm.

As of the math of the bellows extension, check the site below. Nice explanation from Ken too.
https://ilovetheoutdoors.zenfolio.com/blog/2016/1/derivation-of-mathematical-formulas-for-exposure-compensation-for-close-up-photography

I would consider from the followings.

modern lenses:
Fuji Fujinon A 240mm f9
Fuji Fujinon CM-W 250mm f6.3
Nikon Nikkor W 240mm f5.6
Rodenstock Apo sironar S 240mm f5.6
Rodenstock Apo ronar 240mm f9
Schneider Apo symmar 240mm f5.6

Old lenses with shutters or in barrels and with round apertures:
kodak Commercial ektar 10” or Ilex Caltar/Paragon/Acutar/Acu-tessar 10”
schneider Xenar 240mm f3.5/4.5

old barrel lenses for portrait with fast and round apertures:
dallmeyer 2B 220mm f3
taylor hobson cooke IId f3.5/ IIe f4.5 270mm or 10 1/2”
zeiss jena tessar f3.5/4.5 250mm
voigtlander heliar 240mm f3.5/4.5
hugo meyer trioplan 260mm f3.5/4.5
and so on...

[Alan Klein]

Alan, I would consider somewhere 240mm focal length esp. for portrait considering the maximum extension of 350mm.

As of the math of the bellows extension, check the site below. Nice explanation from Ken too.
https://ilovetheoutdoors.zenfolio.com/blog/2016/1/derivation-of-mathematical-formulas-for-exposure-compensation-for-close-up-photography

I would consider from the followings.

modern lenses:
Fuji Fujinon A 240mm f9
Fuji Fujinon CM-W 250mm f6.3
Nikon Nikkor W 240mm f5.6
Rodenstock Apo sironar S 240mm f5.6
Rodenstock Apo ronar 240mm f9
Schneider Apo symmar 240mm f5.6

Old lenses with shutters or in barrels and with round apertures:
kodak Commercial ektar 10” or Ilex Caltar/Paragon/Acutar/Acu-tessar 10”
schneider Xenar 240mm f3.5/4.5

old barrel lenses for portrait with fast and round apertures:
dallmeyer 2B 220mm f3
taylor hobson cooke IId f3.5/ IIe f4.5 270mm or 10 1/2”
zeiss jena tessar f3.5/4.5 250mm
voigtlander heliar 240mm f3.5/4.5
hugo meyer trioplan 260mm f3.5/4.5
and so on...

Thanks for the list. Just to clarify my needs, my main purpose for this lens is to bring things in closer with landscape shots, not portraits. Portraits are a minor secondary concern. So would the aforementioned Nikon Nikkor M 300mm F9 Copal 1 be better or one of the Modern 240mm lenses you mentioned?

[Bernice Loui]

Example of why print image goals should be the primary consideration, followed by what optics are needed to achieve these print image goals with the camera being at highest third position of the decision tree. Chamonix is a lightweight folder with all the limitations of any field folder. Given this is a light weight folder, any longer than normal focal length lens should be light weight like the Nikor M, in this case Nikor 300mm f6 M. There is not a lot wrong with this lens choice for longer than normal focal length images that would be made using a field folder camera. The f9 full aperture has about zero disadvantages for images made sunny_ish outdoors in the field which is the primary reason to own-use a field folder camera. Lenses with a full aperture of f9 with longer than normal focal lengths is what should be used on lightweight field folder cameras for a long list of reasons.

Portrait speciality lenses like a f4.5, 300mm tessar or BIG soft focus lens will not be the easiest thing to use on a lightweight field folder. This is due to physical size and weight of the lens, there is shutter size, bellows limitations and overall balance of a lightweight camera with a lens that can often equal or exceed the weight of the camera. In cases like this, better to use a different camera.

Ultimately, it IS up to the image maker to decide which lens, film, post process, print making process and all works best for them. There are no absolutes. This process also demands trying stuff out until the items, materials, process and all is figured out as to what works best for their print image goals. Suggestions are OK, but there is no substitute for using the stuff over time to figure it out.


Bernice



Thanks for the list. Just to clarify my needs, my main purpose for this lens is to bring things in closer with landscape shots, not portraits. Portraits are a minor secondary concern. So would the aforementioned Nikon Nikkor M 300mm F9 Copal 1 be better or one of the Modern 240mm lenses you mentioned?

[Hugo Zhang]

Just a note: I set up my 45H1 camera a few minutes ago and put on a 300mm f/9 lens. I was able to focus at something about 5 feet away from the lens with the bellows fully extended. So that is how close you can go without using a top-hat board.

[mhayashi]

Thanks for the list. Just to clarify my needs, my main purpose for this lens is to bring things in closer with landscape shots, not portraits. Portraits are a minor secondary concern. So would the aforementioned Nikon Nikkor M 300mm F9 Copal 1 be better or one of the Modern 240mm lenses you mentioned?

Alan, I think it depends on how close you intend to use the lens to an object.
Do you intend to shoot nearly focused at infinity?

Lightweight with close distance options:
apo ronar 240mm
fujinon a 240mm

The other modern lenses are heavier than the above but tend to have more ICs and faster apertures.
If you don’t plan to move up to 8x10, you wouldn’t need them.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

nikkor m 300mm is also lightweight too as mentioned.
Also you may consider fujinon c 300mm and apo ronar 300mm as a lightweight option if you choose 300mm.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, I think it depends on how close you intend to use the lens to an object.
Do you intend to shoot nearly focused at infinity?



What do you mean nearly focused at infinity?

[Kiwi7475]

What do you mean nearly focused at infinity?

He probably means “close” to infinity. Not focusing near/close subjects.

[Alan Klein]

He probably means “close” to infinity. Not focusing near/close subjects.

What does that mean?

[Bob Salomon]

What does that mean?

It means the camera is focused on an object closer then infinity but less then life size or near life size or ½ life size. Infinity is defined in the dictionary.

[mhayashi]

Kiwi7475 and Bob, thanks for your correction.

[grat]

It means the camera is focused on an object closer then infinity but less then life size or near life size or ½ life size. Infinity is defined in the dictionary.

If you're going to go with the dictionary definition, no subject can ever be "at infinity", so all objects are closer than infinity.

Or, if you believe in a curved universe, everything is already at infinity-- eventually.

:cool:

[Bob Salomon]

If you're going to go with the dictionary definition, no subject can ever be "at infinity", so all objects are closer than infinity.

Or, if you believe in a curved universe, everything is already at infinity-- eventually.

:cool:

Considering the forum we are looking at the photographic definition. Why think anything else?