PDA

View Full Version : What lenses for an 8x10 for Landscapes and Portraits



D. Bryant
11-Jun-2008, 12:03
Hi Folks,

What are your recommended lenses for landscape and portrait photography with an 8x10?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Ole Tjugen
11-Jun-2008, 12:07
That depends on the landscape...

I've used everything from 121mm to 600mm so far, and sometimes only the 210mm Angulon will do since I need all the movements the camera can give. But that's my landscapes, most other places are different.

For portraits anything from 300mm to about 420mm is a good starting point. My 640mm is definitely too long for this. ;)

climbabout
11-Jun-2008, 12:14
I do mostly landscape type work in b&w and carry with me a 159mm wollensak/240a fujinon/300mm nikkor/14" artar/450c fujinon. The MAJORITY of the time I end up using either the 240(slightly wide) or the 450(moderately long). Distant third place would go to the 300.
Hope this helps.
Tim

Walter Calahan
11-Jun-2008, 14:25
Any lens is good for landscapes or portraits if the lens works with your personal vision.

It's all up to how YOU use them, which is different than how I might use them.

My favorite portrait lens is a Nikkor 240 mm for full length portraits. For landscapes I use a Nikkor 120; Super Angulon 165; Fujinon 180; Nikkor 240, Cooke XVa in all three configurations; a Rodenstock 360; and a Nikkor 600 / 800 / 1200 mm in all three configurations.

If I were to use a lens for a head and shoulders portrait style, it probably be the Rodenstock 360 mm. I tend to do this style of portraiture on 4x5 instead.

Happy shooting.

Steve Sherman
11-Jun-2008, 19:19
Several more things to consider... Especially for head shots, you should use the longest lens available as you will experience for shortening of facial features closest to the lens. These same longer lens compress the landscape, i.e. make mountains bigger in relation to the rest of the scene. Anything longer than normal 300mm should yield acceptable portraits.

Also, older uncoated lens or lens which have noticeable air bubbles in the glass (front element only) will increase internal lens flare which has the effect of making facial highlights glow. So long as you keep a direct light source from hitting the lens surface lens flare should not be a problem. With portraits try and use the widest aperture while still carrying acceptable focus.

Jim Galli
11-Jun-2008, 19:43
240mm - 420mm Convertible Symmar.

Those are excellent lengths for me. But I can't seem to do it with one lens. or 10. or 100 :o

John Kasaian
11-Jun-2008, 19:48
For landscape and portraits I've gotten along for years with a single lens, a 14" Commercial Ektar. When I finally needed something wider I found a 10" Wide Field Ektar which also serves nicely for portraiture. When I needed a longer lens I got a 19" Artar (IMHO a superb lens!) All these are single coated and proudly ride aboard older Ilex UNiversal and Acme shutters (for Universals you'll need a 'long throw' cable release to operate them--I like Gepes.) That said, a very nice all around lens for an 8x10 is the 240 (or 270 or 305) G-Claron especially if you're going to pack it any distance from the car as these are lightwieght little lenses.

OTOH is what you're looking for in portraits is a soft lens, that is a study in itself. Jim Galli would be the man to speak with (or at least take a gander at his website!)

Based on my experience, I'd recommend starting out with a 14" Commercial Ektar and see for yourself ifandwhen you have a need for something wider and/or longer. YMMV of course. FWIW you might happen upon a Wollensak Triple Convertable or one of the Schneider double convertable Symmars which are certainly nice lenses with a lot more flexibility in focal lengths than my Ektar.
Happy Hunting! :)

Daniel_Buck
11-Jun-2008, 20:35
I like my 240 g-claron for a mild-wide on 8x10 for landscapes, it's nice and light, and doubles as a mild-long on 4x5 :)

Darryl Baird
12-Jun-2008, 05:07
Jim, what are your thoughts about the Symmar used at 420? Is the lens decent wide open? (I'm still looking for a shutter for the 305 G-Claron and have settled on this strategy for the moment)


240mm - 420mm Convertible Symmar.

Those are excellent lengths for me. But I can't seem to do it with one lens. or 10. or 100 :o

Jim Galli
12-Jun-2008, 06:29
Jim, what are your thoughts about the Symmar used at 420? Is the lens decent wide open? (I'm still looking for a shutter for the 305 G-Claron and have settled on this strategy for the moment)

Doh! Got me. I never made a picture that way. Kerry got 48 lines from a single Symmar in one of his tests with an orange filter iirc.

cjbroadbent
12-Jun-2008, 08:11
In my very humble opinion you should stick to one lens, a 240, and work within the limits. You get to become prety sure of what you are at.

D. Bryant
12-Jun-2008, 10:46
In my very humble opinion you should stick to one lens, a 240, and work within the limits. You get to become prety sure of what you are at.
That's a pretty humble opinion that I will have to disagree with, thanks for the input.

Using lenses of different focal lengths gives one some options, at least that's been my experience shooting 8x10.

Don

John Kasaian
12-Jun-2008, 15:52
A few more thoughts on focal lengths for 8x10 landscapes---
12"/300mm, 10"/250mm, and 9-1/2"/240mm appear (to me anyway) so wide that while you can get beautiful "intimate" landscapes like a tree, rock, or creek/cascades I find that the details in larger, grander landscapes become lost---natural elements often appear to be too far away to look interesting. A 19" or longer lens can bring what is distant more closer---the imposing peak or thundering waterfall at the head of the canyon will look more natural rather than like a distant speck or spurt.
Most of the time with landscapes, you'll have the luxury of setting up very close or at a distance, unless some barrier (a cliff, fence, highway, white water rapids, angry buffallo, quicksand, snake with big sharp teeth etc...) limits you. This is why a
14-1/2"-16-1/2" really shine for landscapes IMHO since having one lens simplifies life and if your 8x10 lenses are huge beasts like Symmars and Ektars then only having to carry one lens rather than a 'set' is much easier in the ol' back. YMMV. While they won't take the place of a longer or wider lens in every situation, it is something to think about when logistical or financial considerations merit it.

Mike Castles
12-Jun-2008, 15:55
Been considering portraits and have been wondering the same thing Don, good question. Currently I have a 240,300 and 450 (which is on lone at the moment), the there is a 150-160mm (not marked), and 375mm Ilex Caltar that need more use. If I can find one of the wide 162-180 Wollensak or Ektar will replace the older wide lens (the regno shutter is a bit of a pain).

John Kasaian
12-Jun-2008, 16:34
Mike,
Which 162-180 wide Wolley will cover 8x10? I've got a 159 wide Wolley, but I've never considered using it for portraits---- I'm going to have to try it out! :D

Mike Castles
12-Jun-2008, 18:08
Mike,
Which 162-180 wide Wolley will cover 8x10? I've got a 159 wide Wolley, but I've never considered using it for portraits---- I'm going to have to try it out! :D

John, oppsssss it would be the 159 wide Wolley I was thinking aobut :o
Of course was thinking about it more as a landscape lens than portrait, but hey want to try some 7x11 portraits anyhow, more environmental portraits though so wide would work with a small group.

John Kasaian
12-Jun-2008, 21:26
John, oppsssss it would be the 159 wide Wolley I was thinking aobut :o
Of course was thinking about it more as a landscape lens than portrait, but hey want to try some 7x11 portraits anyhow, more environmental portraits though so wide would work with a small group.

7x11 would tax the coverage of my 159mm Wolly WA but it might provide an interesting soft vignette. I'm kind of excited by the idea of using it for portraits though. I'll have to get the kids to sit still long enough to make some pictures:)

E. von Hoegh
13-Jun-2008, 11:54
Lately I've been using a 9 1/2" for landscapes. Second, a 14". When I want to carry only one lens, I use the tried and true 300.


For portraits (head & shoulders, and a bit of background to frame) I use a 16 1/2" process lens.

Ole Tjugen
13-Jun-2008, 12:14
Jim, what are your thoughts about the Symmar used at 420? Is the lens decent wide open? (I'm still looking for a shutter for the 305 G-Claron and have settled on this strategy for the moment)

I haven't used the 240mm converted, but my experience with the 150mm on 4x5" indicates that the 240/420 as 420 might be a bit too soft in the corners on 8x10". The 150/256mm shows visible degradation in the corners of a 4x5", primarily from chromatic aberration. Extrapolating that to 240mm on 8x10" is a long stretch, but at least I wouldn't expect it to give critical resolution all the way into the corners.

come to think of it - I've used a 240mm converted to 420mm once - on 5x7". But at that occasion I shot 5x7" black and white, which it did spectacularly well despite my using full front drop (!) on a Linhof Technica 13x18, in portrait orientation. Picture enclosed - that's the one. :)