300mm-360mm f/9 lenses, OK for portraits?

[Keith Tapscott.]

Are any of the f/9 lenses of around 300mm to 360mm any good for portraiture for use with 8x10? There are a couple of APO-Ronar`s for sale on ebay, but don`t look like they have shutters and look a bit on the rough side.

http://search.ebay.co.uk/apo-ronar_W0QQfkrZ1QQfnuZ1QQfromZR8

[John O'Connell]

A 355 G-Claron is my standard portrait lens on 8x10. Great for head-and-shoulders setups, and still good closer up.

The boat anchor taking plasmats are a particularly good deal right now in those lengths if you want a shutter.

[MIke Sherck]

I don't think that a 300mm Apo-Ronar will quite cover 8x10, Keith. On the other hand, an f/9 lens is plenty bright enough for 8x10 portraiture in most circumstances. The 360mm Apo-Ronar should cover. The last 360mm lens I had was a Red Dot Artar and it was a very nice lens for 8x10. I prefer my 420mm Fuji, so don't have the shorter lens any more.

A 305mm G-Clarion will cover 8x10, as will the little Nikon and (if memory serves,) Fuji also has an f/9-ish lens at that focal length as well. All should work fine, so far as I know.

[John Kasaian]

G-Clarons & Nikor "M"s if you want a "sharp" lens, would fill the bill. or a smoother look you could look for a Protar. If you don't mind a faster lens in those lengths I'd suggest either a Commercial Ektar or a Wollensak Velostigmat---both lenses IMHO are superb for both portraiture and landscapes.

[Nick_3536]

You might find the big fast lenses cheaper then you think right now. If you don't have to walk very far with the thing. Plus they'll cover 11x14 for the most part to.

[Jon Wilson]

Here is an example taken with my 45cm Zeiss f9 in a compound shutter.
J&C Photo Pro 100, developed in Ilford DD-X 1:1 13.5 minutes in Jobo.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5704591

[Peter K]

The image circle of the Apo-Ronar 300mm ist too small for 8x10, also 300mm is too short for portraits. There is a 480mm Apo-Ronar in Copal 3, this is a good focal-lenght for heads. For lenses without shutter you will need a Sinar Auto shutter or so behind the lens. Of course the auto aperture works only, when the lens is mounted in a DB-mount.

Peter K

[Mark Sawyer]

Depending on your style of portraiture, a wide-open f/9 lens may have a little more depth of field than you'll sometimes want. Faster 300mm plasmats are about the same price as 300mm process lenses in shutters, but 360mm plasmats tend to soar in price, while a 360/480mm Ronar might still be affordable in a shutter. A coated tessar might also be a nice affordable option. All three would give similar results at similar f/stops.

Kinda depends on the combination of what you want and what you find...

[Nick_3536]

If you take your time even the 360mm plasmats aren't too bad. I paid less then $500 for mine. I doubt you could get a 3 shutter and have a barrel lens mounted for much less then that.

[Keith Tapscott.]

It`s also been suggested to me to consider a Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar lens, but these are quite old and come in a #5 shutter. They might be an inexpensive option though if I could find a fine example and get a suitable Sinar lensboard. I didn`t see much on fee-bay today.

[Nick_3536]

If you want a more modern shutter the Fuji L might fit.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003CE1

Not always easy to find. Choices would be the 300 or 420mm

[Ole Tjugen]

The boat anchor taking plasmats are a particularly good deal right now in those lengths if you want a shutter.

They are "boat anchors", and good - if your camera can handle the size and weight of them. The 300mm f:5.6 Symmar is marginal for some cameras, what with the weight and the #3 Compound shutter. The 360mm f:5.6 Symmar is way too much for some cameras, even if they can take the #5 Compound!

I use either a 355mm f:9 G-Claron and a 360mm f:5.6 Symmar, depending on the camera and the distance from the car. :)

[Mark Sawyer]

It`s also been suggested to me to consider a Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar lens, but these are quite old and come in a #5 shutter. They might be an inexpensive option though if I could find a fine example and get a suitable Sinar lensboard. I didn`t see much on fee-bay today.

Old, but much appreciated and seldom cheap. Even empty #5 shutters go for quite a bit, as large shutters are in demand for various remountings.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Mike and Peter
"I don't think that a 300mm Apo-Ronar will quite cover 8x10"
Mine does it very easy even at infinity at f22 so it will cover at Portrait distances but I did not test at what f stop till now!
Because I prever longer lenses for 8x10 head and shoulder I love my Universal Heliar!
And also my Sironar N 360 works perfect!
Armin

[Peter K]

Hi Mike and Peter
"I don't think that a 300mm Apo-Ronar will quite cover 8x10"
Mine does it very easy even at infinity at f22 so it will cover at Portrait distances but I did not test at what f stop till now!
Because I prever longer lenses for 8x10 head and shoulder I love my Universal Heliar!
And also my Sironar N 360 works perfect!
Armin
Hi Armin,
of course the Sironar N 360 fills 8x10 (312mm diagonal) with it's image circle of 435mm compared with the Apo-Ronar 300mm and 264mm. But IMO 360mm is a little short for heads, only one prefers long noses. :D

Peter K

[John O'Connell]

I find that 360mm is the longest practical lens for headshots on my 8x10, with a 32" bellows. Given the constraints of bellows length on 8x10 cameras, I think it's fair to say that we'd all like to use 600mm lenses for headshots, but don't have 8x10 Sinar P cameras with extra format frames and bellows.

[LFdelux]

depends how you want the portrait to look. August Sander used a standard lens from what I can discern. 300-360mm on 8x10 would not get a tight shot. Meyerowitz got some great portraits using a 240 wide field ektar. whatever works for you.

[Keith Tapscott.]

depends how you want the portrait to look. August Sander used a standard lens from what I can discern. 300-360mm on 8x10 would not get a tight shot. Meyerowitz got some great portraits using a 240 wide field ektar. whatever works for you.
Interesting, is there a link to any of these images on the web? I am informed by a former Calumet employee that Yousuf Karsh favoured a 14 inch Commercial Ektar for many of his portraits on 8x10, hence my interest in a lens of up to 360mm.

[Peter K]

[/B]
Interesting, is there a link to any of these images on the web? I am informed by a former Calumet employee that Yousuf Karsh favoured a 14 inch Commercial Ektar for many of his portraits on 8x10, hence my interest in a lens of up to 360mm.
Hi Keith,
possible you remember the portrait of Winston Churchill, taken 1941 in Canada's Parliament. Karsh stepped up to remove a freshly lighted cigar from Churchill's lips. "By the time I was back at my camera, he was looking as belligerently at me as if he could have devoured me," wrote Karsh, who took the picture anyhow. So a good portrait isn't a question of the focal-lenght but the art of the photographer.

http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/KarshShmith/Detail.cfm?IRN=49449

Peter K

[Keith Tapscott.]

So a good portrait isn't a question of the focal-lenght but the art of the photographer.

Peter KVery true Peter. The lower part of the image in the link looks odd though, a bit like dodging at the enlarging stage when the actual negative is a bit underexposed.:)

[Peter K]

Very true Peter. The lower part of the image in the link looks odd though, a bit like dodging at the enlarging stage when the actual negative is a bit underexposed.:)
In the book "Celebrating the Negative" by John Loengard one can see the negative of Chrurchill's portrait, also the negative of the portrait of George Bernard Shaw taken 1943 by Karsh. In deed Mr. Churchill's pants are underexposed.

Peter K

[Jim Noel]

It`s also been suggested to me to consider a Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar lens, but these are quite old and come in a #5 shutter. They might be an inexpensive option though if I could find a fine example and get a suitable Sinar lensboard. I didn`t see much on fee-bay today.

The Commercial Ektar may be old, but it is still hard to beat.

The shortest lens I use for portraits with 8x10 is 450mm. Anything shorter tends to alter the features of the sitter too much for my taste.

[Henry Carter]

Richard Avedon's "In the American West" was shot using a 360 mm lens on an 8X10 Deardorf. In my opinion this was his best body of work.