Kodak 305mm F4.8 Portrait lens on 8x10

[wuckyboy]

Hey everyone - I was wondering if anyone has had any luck using this lens on 8x10. I ask because I'm finding some mixed information out there. Kodak says in some of its literature that it was originally intended for 5x7. Is that true? I know that the 405mm version is great for 8x10, but how about this smaller 305mm version?

Any tips if I'm intending on utilizing it on 8x10 instead of 5x7?

Also feel free to post some samples taken on 8x10 if you have them readily available!

Thank you all!

- mb

[Tin Can]

KODAK was truthful

[Bernice Loui]

What are your image goals with 8x10 and Portrait Ektar?

History to what is likely the Kodak recommendation comes from the time when studio portrait photography with sorta-focus (soft focus) was often Head-Shoulder portraits. The commonly preferred focal length would be longer than normal for a given film format. This was often about 12" or ~300mm for 5x7, 14" to 16" for 8x10.

Does the 12" Portrait Ektar cover 8x10 essentially yes, can it be used on 8x10 yes.

Question is... what are your image goals? Fact is both the 12" and 16" Kodak Portrait Ektar (barrel only, can be used with Sinar shutter or similar) can be great for 8x10 or 5x7 or 4x5... question remains, what is kind of images are to be achieved? This is a focal length -vs- film format size -vs- what you're trying to achieve question.

BTW, been using a 12" Kodak Portrait Ektar since the late 1980's on 5x7 and still have it. Used the 16" Portrait Ektar on 8x10... which is long gone now.

~It should be noted 12" Kodak Portrait Ektar lenses in Ilex# 5 shutter were very plentiful back in the day. Typically sold for $50 if that. Large numbers of them were scrapped (glass-lens was tossed in the trash or similar) then the Ilex# 5 shutter was used to for remounting lenses. Similar was true for soft focus lenses back then as the market for soft focus lenses was nil. Then soft focus lenses became a desirable fashion item... which drove their market value up and up and up.


Bernice



Hey everyone - I was wondering if anyone has had any luck using this lens on 8x10. I ask because I'm finding some mixed information out there. Kodak says in some of its literature that it was originally intended for 5x7. Is that true? I know that the 405mm version is great for 8x10, but how about this smaller 305mm version?

Any tips if I'm intending on utilizing it on 8x10 instead of 5x7?

Also feel free to post some samples taken on 8x10 if you have them readily available!

Thank you all!

- mb

[wuckyboy]

Thank you for the information you all! I really appreciate it.

I'm planning on using the 305mm in the traditional way, head and shoulders and closer. Might also experiment with some at a little farther distance. I understand the lens's out-of-focus characteristics, and pearl highlights, and focusing techniques from reading up on it. I'm really just curious on what your all's experience with it is on 8x10.

How do you all like using this lens on 8x10? Do you like the results?

Feel free to post an image! I'm just trying to feel out how people are going about actually using this on 8x10 (event though Kodak would rather you use the 405mm)

Thank you! :)

[Bernice Loui]

Strictly related to focal length for head-shoulder portraits on 8x10.. 12" is IMO too short.

Min of 14" is needed. That 2" difference in focal length does not appear to be that much on paper.. on the ground glass, it is not.
IMO, there are very real and technology realities that drive this and why the folks at Kodak and else where designed what they did along with their recommendations.

If the 12" portrait Ektar is in hand and to be used, suggest going down to 5x7 and use it for head-shoulder portraits. Alternative would be to obtain a 16" Portrait Ektar and used it as this lens demands.

IMO, more important than just lens is lighting and developing the skills and ability to capture the portrait sitters expression best via lighting and related.

Know "hard" lighting properly applied works best with soft focus lenses.

Of all the soft focus lenses tried-used from the late 1980's.. Kodak's Portrait Ektar remains the favorite of them all.


Bernice





Thank you for the information you all! I really appreciate it.

I'm planning on using the 305mm in the traditional way, head and shoulders and closer. Might also experiment with some at a little farther distance. I understand the lens's out-of-focus characteristics, and pearl highlights, and focusing techniques from reading up on it. I'm really just curious on what your all's experience with it is on 8x10.

How do you all like using this lens on 8x10? Do you like the results?

Feel free to post an image! I'm just trying to feel out how people are going about actually using this on 8x10 (event though Kodak would rather you use the 405mm)

Thank you! :)

[dap]

I unfortunately do not own a kodak 305mm portrait, but based on the images produced by this lens that can be found on the internet, it looks like the 305 can get a bit smeary on the edges of 8x10 film. In this respect it is kind of like using smaller format petzvals on larger film - it may cover, but the edges can get a bit wild. I would imagine that some people might prefer this look to the 405mm portrait lens on 8x10 for just this reason (others not so much).

Hopefully some more people with actual experience with the lens will share their experiences.

[Bernice Loui]

At head-shoulder imaging distances the 12" portrait Ektar is ok on 8x10. At distances greater than typical head-shoulder taking distances to infinity, the image results will be different.

IMO, best taking aperture for the Portrait Ektar is f8.

Again, this brings up the difficulties and challenges with lenses for 8x10.


Bernice



I unfortunately do not own a kodak 305mm portrait, but based on the images produced by this lens that can be found on the internet, it looks like the 305 can get a bit smeary on the edges of 8x10 film. In this respect it is kind of like using smaller format petzvals on larger film - it may cover, but the edges can get a bit wild. I would imagine that some people might prefer this look to the 405mm portrait lens on 8x10 for just this reason.

[wuckyboy]

Totally hear you all on the esthetic choice of using a 14 or 16 inch lens for portraits. And I completely respect, and sort of agree, with that opinion.

That being said, I am really just wondering if anyone out there is actively and currently using this specific lens, the 305mm F4.8 Kodak Portrait Lens, on their 8x10 system.

If so, how do you like it? Any thoughts or opinions? Image examples?

Much appreciated everyone!!

- mb

[Tin Can]

Today I am restoring an 8X10 Rembrandt and will be trying a variety of SF lenses on it

The 305 is on the list, but not first

and I have no sitters for the foreseeable future

I have shot the 405 on 8X10 and it tough for me to focus on an eyeball, aperture wide open

The King of SF Jim Galli has retired, try looking him up here and Google

[wuckyboy]

Thank you for that! I'll definitely check out Jim's work. I appreciate the info!

If anyone out there has any thoughts on their personal experience specifically using the 305mm Kodak Portrait F4.8 lens on an 8x10 system please feel free to share them.

I'm just trying to see how people are utilizing this particular lens out in the wild, and if they are enjoying it.

Many thanks!

[Tin Can]

Read this while you wait

KODAK instructions for using the 305

https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/kodak_1.pdf

[wuckyboy]

Thank you for that! Yeah that piece of lit is actually one of the first things I read on the lens when I got it.
Very informative and some really great tips on achieving focus with this particular lens.

I'm still so curious to hear from anyone who currently uses this lens on an 8x10 system though. Would love to hear how, and if, they are liking it :)

[jp]

I've only used it on 8x10.
It gets interesting in the corners in a way I like, but it covers.

https://flic.kr/p/efLRTV
https://flic.kr/p/jBkuTV
https://flic.kr/p/DGE5NY
https://flic.kr/p/HfxtYA
https://flic.kr/p/oHbAbU
https://flic.kr/p/jBoyDf

I've done quite a bit with it, but not using it currently as the ilex5 doesn't like the cold. Need to send it in.

[Kiwi7475]

I've only used it on 8x10.
It gets interesting in the corners in a way I like, but it covers.

https://flic.kr/p/efLRTV
https://flic.kr/p/jBkuTV
https://flic.kr/p/DGE5NY
https://flic.kr/p/HfxtYA
https://flic.kr/p/oHbAbU
https://flic.kr/p/jBoyDf

I've done quite a bit with it, but not using it currently as the ilex5 doesn't like the cold. Need to send it in.

Wow, gets really dreamy around the edges. Good for portraits!

[jp]

And ALL depth of field is behind the point of focus. None of this 1/3, 2/3 theory. You'd do well to focus on the nose for a seated portrait, or if it's environmental, a few inches ahead of the person.

[wuckyboy]

JP! - Thank you for sharing those examples. This is such an interesting lens, I really love it. Great images you posted as well!

JP do you remember what F-stop you were at when you shot the one I put below? Also that specific shooting distance seems to be a sweet spot with this lens.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/27075201014/

[jp]

Thanks, I'd guess probably f6.3 (between 5.6 and 8) for that, I don't move the aperture much. That closer distance means more bellows which means longer actual focal length and more coverage.

[russyoung]

I shoot both the 12 and 16 inch Kodak Portrait lenses. As JP points out above, focus the way Kodak states in the instructions! You'll be much happier with the effect.

The 12" provides lovely perspective and depth for portraits on a 5x7 negative. I must agree with Bernice that its too short to do so on an 8x10 negative. I've used it at closer distances than a portrait when shooting table top still lifes and yes, it covers 8x10 when the lens is racked out a fair amount; when the focus is beyond about 6 feet, the corners become too weird for me.

[Tracy Storer]

I have shot this lens just a little bit on 8x10, full length studio nudes, probably around f/5.6 / halfway between f/5.6 and f/8. It's fuzzy (in a way that I kind of like) used this way.

2 images posted just now to the "Nude" thread elsewhere on the forum. Post 3925
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?69594-Nude&p=1598540#post1598540

[Tin Can]

Up

As I trust you, those images look like tiny plaster casts, yet I know better!


I have shot this lens just a little bit on 8x10, full length studio nudes, probably around f/5.6 / halfway between f/5.6 and f/8. It's fuzzy (in a way that I kind of like) used this way.

2 images posted just now to the "Nude" thread elsewhere on the forum. Post 3925
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?69594-Nude&p=1598540#post1598540