portrait lenses for LF?

[dh003i]

Hi all,

I have been reading up on equivalency between LF and my current 4/3rds system, assuming same angle of view and distance to subject and no cropping.

Right now, for Olympus 4/3rds, I use the Minolta Rokkor 58mm/f=1:1.2 lens, usually at ISO100. According to my calculations* (ignoring digital vs. film for ISO differences), the following would be equivalent in 4x5 and 8x10 LF:

4/3rds: 58mm / f1.2 / ISO-100 (116mm / f2.4 / ISO-400 35mm equivalent)
4x5: 436mm / f9 / ISO-5737
8x10: 872mm / f18 / ISO-22,949

Yet, I don't see lenses like that being used for portraiture. The biggest I see is the 480mm Dallmeyer Stigmatic on eBay (unknown f-number). This would work for the 4x5, but on a 8x10 would be equivalent to about 34mm in 4/3rds.

It seems like for 8x10, and also even 4x5, one requires very long lenses (400+ and 800+ mm, respectively), to obtain normal portraiture shots (I'm thinking of head & shoulders portraits here), to avoid distorted perspective.

Yet, I see that Allen in Montreal shot a nice pleasing portrait with a 210 mm lens (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41259&highlight=portrait), which would be equivalent to 28mm 4/3rds lens (or 56mm film-35mm format) if he was using 4x5, or a 14mm 4/3rds lens (or 28mm film-35mm format) if he was using 8x10. Either way, to me, it seems like a wide-angle to maybe normal angle of view, but not what I'd consider nice for head and shoulders. So what gives?

* Four-thirds has a 15x crop-factor relative to 8x10 and a 7.5x crop-factor relative to 4x5. The area of the 8x10 is 229.5 times larger than the 4/3rds, the area of 4x5 is 57.4 times larger than that of 4/3rds...so those are the numbers I used for figuring out equivalent focal length, f-number, and ISO, assuming same angle of view and distance to subject.

[Frank Petronio]

LOL I shot most of my 4x5 portraits with a 135mm. 150mm when I felt like going long.

You have to do it to understand, just get a normal camera and normal lens and chuck the theory. The rules for smaller formats do not apply.

[Joe Forks]

Yet, I see that Allen in Montreal shot a nice pleasing portrait with a 210 mm lens (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41259&highlight=portrait), which would be equivalent to 28mm 4/3rds lens (or 56mm film-35mm format) if he was using 4x5, or a 14mm 4/3rds lens (or 28mm film-35mm format) if he was using 8x10. Either way, to me, it seems like a wide-angle to maybe normal angle of view, but not what I'd consider nice for head and shoulders. So what gives?

He racked out the bellows a little ways. Some 6x7 shooters will use 210mm with an extension tube, same principle. Listen to Frank, he knows portraits. I like a 250mm on 8x10.

[dh003i]

LOL I shot most of my 4x5 portraits with a 135mm. 150mm when I felt like going long.

You have to do it to understand, just get a normal camera and normal lens and chuck the theory. The rules for smaller formats do not apply.

Huh? Angle of view rules do not apply? A 135mm on a 4x5 would seem to have the same AOV as a 18mm in four-thirds, which from my experience is getting towards wide-angle. 100mm on 35mm is considered ideal for portraits, with a vertical angle of view of 13.7 degrees; 58mm on 4/3rds (equivalent to 116mm on 35mm) is very close to this, with 11.8 degrees vertical. But 135mm on 4x5 has a vertical AOV of 37 degrees, quite a bit more than 13.7.

I'm very confused by your statement.

[jnantz]

4 thirds ?
i have shot portraits with everything from a 3.5" to 10" on a 4x5.
no idea what the degrees are, angle of view ...
it looks good, so i use the lens ..

[dh003i]

jnanian,

Four-thirds is the sensor-size standard for the Olympus DSLRs. It is about half the area of 35mm film.

[wfwhitaker]

View cameras have a ground glass for a reason. Use it.

[dh003i]

View cameras have a ground glass for a reason. Use it.

I'm getting into LF and don't have a LF camera right now (that is, doing the research before plunge into a 4x5 or 8x10). So I can't look through the ground glass of a LF and see what looks good; even if I could, it would require comparing various focal-lengths, which would be expensive to do. (unless i could find a LF user in Rochester, NY).

So I'm trying to figure things out before I buy.

[wfwhitaker]

...unless i could find a LF user in Rochester, NY...


Nah, there're no cameras in Rochester...;)

You'll probably be surprised with what you find. My experience has been that my subjective response to lens focal lengths as the format size increases changes and that a direct correlation to smaller formats doesn't really hold. Effective portraits can be made with almost any lens within reason. The photographer ultimately holds the key. That said, a 210mm on a 4x5 or a 16" on 8x10 would probably be "standard" and get you going. Above all, YMMV.

[jnantz]

jnanian,

Four-thirds is the sensor-size standard for the Olympus DSLRs. It is about half the area of 35mm film.



i am clueless, but now have more of a clue

thanks :)

[Vick Vickery]

Large format is kind of a different world from smaller formats; while most folks use lenses of around 2x normal for portraits with 35mm and 6x6 (say, 100mm and 150mm respectively) very few insist on a 320mm with a 4x5 or a 6oomm on an 8x10. The most popular portrait length for 4x5 seem to run in the 200mm to 250mm area (I find my 215mm and my 240mm equally useful); these length give you adequate length for good modeling yet don't make you need a 50 foot long room in which to shoot.

[Frank Petronio]

Sorry to beat you up, if you had shot large format before you would quickly understand....

If the only quality is angle of view, yes you are correct, use a 480mm on a 4x5. However there are practical and aesthetic reasons not to. True the relationship to foreground (or the subject's nose) to background (shape of head) depends on angle of view, but as you go up in format size, the more it seems that just being slightly longer than "normal" gives you the sort of relationship you want from a long lens on a small format camera. Still you can make a good argument for using your 480mm... until you try to actually use it. The hassles and hardships of using such a long lens on 4x5 discourage most people... first the camera's bellows needs to extra long, which makes the mount and exposure less stable and more prone to shake, which would be magnified by the longer focal length. Second the depth of field of a 480mm at portrait distances, even stopped down, is razor thin... which makes it really hard for you to hold focus on a living subject during the 10-30 second "blind" period between focusing and exposure. Put it this way: Most photographers have a hard time using a 480 for still life and getting good results. With people you have to be a lucky expert.

So traditional and practicality win out. With 4x5 a 300mm lens is great for head and shoulders, f/16, strobe-lit commercial portraiture. With 8x10 a lot of people favor 360mm or maybe (rarely) the 480mm, and they need bright light or lots of strobe power to pull it off.

Many of the most famous (and interesting) portraits break the rules.... Avedon and others often used a "normal" 80mm on their 6x6 Rolleiflexes. Even going slightly wide as I have done can work, especially if you avoid having people near the corners of the frame.

[jnantz]

I'm getting into LF and don't have a LF camera right now (that is, doing the research before plunge into a 4x5 or 8x10). So I can't look through the ground glass of a LF and see what looks good; even if I could, it would require comparing various focal-lengths, which would be expensive to do. (unless i could find a LF user in Rochester, NY).

So I'm trying to figure things out before I buy.

look for a pro shop and rent one for a weekend :)
i am sure a camera and a few lenses wouldn't cost too much to rent
for few days.

good luck!

john

[Frank Petronio]

Community Darkroom or Visual Studies Workshop often have rentals and inexpensive short workshops on large format.

[Steve Hamley]

Study the LF portrait masters and you will find the way, rather than trying to extrapolate from other formats.

Karsh, Hurrell, Bull, Weston, and so on.

The "standard" (if there is one) portrait lens is 229mm (9") on 4x5 and 360mm (14") on 8x10. Hurrell used a 16-1/2" (420mm) Goerz Celor on 8x10 but had a rather large studio. Karsh used a 14" Commercial Ektar on 8x10. 9" to 10-1/2" lengths are common on 4x5, and 14" -18" lengths are common on 8x10.

I've taken memorable portraits on 4x5 with a 7-1/2" (190mm) f:3.5 Cooke triplet, and got a smile from my Dad because the camera was so close.

Cheers,

Steve

[Nathan Potter]

Frank nicely summarized the tradeoffs involved with large format. The depth of field limitations are for me most critical in portraits. In 4X5 I stick generally with 210 to 240 mm. lenses and even there I stop down substantially to obtain nose/eyes and some hair sharpness. Substantial stopping down also requires hefty lighting in order to shoot at reasonable shutter speeds unless you dump a lot of strobe light (preferred for me).

But ultimately creative portraiture has no rules and that's where you find the interesting and compelling stuff. You'll have to work into it with experience.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I once did a B&W 8x10 portrait with my Zeiss 59cm Apo-Planar, and the results were astounding. I had a commercial lab make a 16x20 fibre print for me. The camera was my 8x10 Sinar Norma with Norma shutter,

[dh003i]

Thank you all for your very helpful responses; I think I'm understanding more now, and will try to find places in rochester where there might be LF equipment (oddly enough, despite being one of the homes of photography, there's little here in the way of vintage shops, to my knowledge).

A few more questions:

(1) Several of you mentioned light issues with stopping down. However, it is my impression that in terms of the final result, you can use a much higher f-number (e.g., f/9) on LF, and it provides equal brightness / quality to say an f/2 on 35mm.

(2) Are these issues with brightness on the ground-glass? How does it handle low-light situations? In my DSLR, it uses LiveView boost (high ISO display on LCD), to amplify things being shot in low light, for focusing purposes. How does the ground-glass handle low-light shooting? Since it would seem to me that a limited amount of light comes in through say a 2" (3.14 sqin) to 3" (7 sqin) aperture, and it's being spread out over a large 4x5 (20 sqin) or 8x10 (80 sqin) ground glass. Does that mean it will be much dimmer than the view through a view-finder on a DSLR for the same sized aperture (assuming wide open in both cases)?

(3) For the loupe, is there any reason I can't simply look through the rear element of a 35mm lens (my 50/1.4 seems to produce about 5x magnification when inverted and held about an inch over text). I suppose I would probably have to make some kind of "tubing" to put on the front, to keep it always at the right distance from the ground-glass.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

dh003i,

"(1) Several of you mentioned light issues with stopping down. However, it is my impression that in terms of the final result, you can use a much higher f-number (e.g., f/9) on LF, and it provides equal brightness / quality to say an f/2 on 35mm."

you use a much higher f/stop to get equal depth of focus, the light drops off quickly. f/11 is f/11 no matter which focal length.

"(2) Are these issues with brightness on the ground-glass? How does it handle low-light situations? In my DSLR, it uses LiveView boost (high ISO display on LCD), to amplify things being shot in low light, for focusing purposes. How does the ground-glass handle low-light shooting? Since it would seem to me that a limited amount of light comes in through say a 2" (3.14 sqin) to 3" (7 sqin) aperture, and it's being spread out over a large 4x5 (20 sqin) or 8x10 (80 sqin) ground glass. Does that mean it will be much dimmer than the view through a view-finder on a DSLR for the same sized aperture (assuming wide open in both cases)?"

Yes the GG will be very much dimmer, that's why you use a focus cloth. Longer lens appear brighter than wide lens because the light is not spreading out.

"(3) For the loupe, is there any reason I can't simply look through the rear element of a 35mm lens (my 50/1.4 seems to produce about 5x magnification when inverted and held about an inch over text). I suppose I would probably have to make some kind of "tubing" to put on the front, to keep it always at the right distance from the ground-glass."

A normal loupe would be much easier to use and keep in focus.

have fun with it.

[Ken Lee]

"Are these issues with brightness on the ground-glass? How does it handle low-light situations? In my DSLR, it uses LiveView boost (high ISO display on LCD), to amplify things being shot in low light, for focusing purposes. How does the ground-glass handle low-light shooting? "

A very 21st Century question. :cool:

The ground-glass is just a flat piece of glass, one side of which, has been ground down, or "frosted", so that an image will focus on it. What the film sees, you see.

With the view camera, we are dealing with the very latest in technology from the... 19th Century. ;)

[dh003i]

"Are these issues with brightness on the ground-glass? How does it handle low-light situations? In my DSLR, it uses LiveView boost (high ISO display on LCD), to amplify things being shot in low light, for focusing purposes. How does the ground-glass handle low-light shooting? "

A very 21st Century question. :cool:

The ground-glass is just a flat piece of glass, one side of which, has been ground down, or "frosted", so that an image will focus on it. What the film sees, you see.

With the view camera, we are dealing with the very latest in technology from the... 19th Century. ;)

Hmmn, I realize that the composition of what the film sees, the resolution, the focus, is what I would see through the ground glass. But my understanding of it is that because it's ground, it diffuses the light, thus reduces the brightness of what you see relative to what the film sees. Is this right?

[Allen in Montreal]

.....

4/3rds: 58mm (116mm 35mm equivalent)
4x5: 436mm
8x10: 872mm


Yet, I see that Allen in Montreal shot a nice pleasing portrait with a 210 mm lens (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41259&highlight=portrait), which would be equivalent to 28mm 4/3rds lens (or 56mm film-35mm format) if he was using 4x5........ but not what I'd consider nice for head and shoulders. So what gives?

.

Dear DH,

Thank you for your kinds words regarding Nancy's picture.
Nancy made that picture work, not I! :)

I barely know the rules, let alone follow them. When I was much younger I visited a studio photographer friend of my father. He shot beautiful (albeit static) black and white portraits and used a 135 Plannar for 3/4 to full lengths and a 180 Sonnar for tighter H+S. I have his old Plannar now.

I tend to shoot people with either 135 or 210 and yet the 135 length does not often please me when shooting city scenes or landscapes, there, I prefer the 120.

It is a "feel" issue more than a rule issue. Just use what feels best and pleases your eye and do not allow yourself to be overly influenced by others. The old saying, ask 10 photographers and you will get 12 opinions rings true!

Another friend of my dad's was a master with a 20 on his 35mm. I once tried and tried to replicate his look and feel with a 20mm and fell hard on my face every time. No one I have ever seen could use a 20 like that man could. Some people love a 150 on 4x5, I dumped mine years ago.

The advice to rent for a day was very solid advice. $75.00 in rentals is nothing compared to buying one or two items that do not do what you want from them.
Rent three lenses, shoot the same subject in the same setting, make a print from each focal length and stick it to the wall with blue studio tack for a week or two and digest the image until you decide what you would like to purchase.

Since you stated H+S as your main interest, rent a 150 and 210 and 300 and then fine tune from there. I have a 300 and rarely use it for portraits on 4x5. I have tried my 400 T also, not a big fan of it in that application, even when used with a 6x9 roll back which is "sort of nice" when shooting people in an outdoor setting.

On 6x4.5, my favorite lens is a 105.
My buddy Pierre thinks I am crazy and uses a 165 on the same camera.

Please post a few images as you experiment!

[jnantz]

Hmmn, I realize that the composition of what the film sees, the resolution, the focus, is what I would see through the ground glass. But my understanding of it is that because it's ground, it diffuses the light, thus reduces the brightness of what you see relative to what the film sees. Is this right?

the image on the ground glass can seem dim at times, especially if you have a slow lens ... a fresnel lens work well to spread out the brightness onto the ground glass.

and when the time comes ... you don't need to buy and expensive dark cloth,
just a dark piece of cloth ( i use a piece of 4$ fabric ) works well ...
once under the cloth, your eyes will get used to the "darkness" and you will be able to see on the image on the ground glass better...

have fun!

john

[drew.saunders]

Another thing to consider when thinking about portraiture with larger formats is that, as the format increases, portrait work enters the realm of macro work. People tend to use shorter lenses for macro work than they do for regular work, which might have something to do with why relatively shorter lenses are preferred for portrait work as the format increases.

Talking about Head 'n' Shoulders shots, I took a quick measure of the distance between my mid-sternum to a wee above my head and got 24", which is probably a good enough number to play with. For a 20" x 24" camera, a H&S portrait is about 1:1. For an 8x10, you're at around 1:2.5 and for 4x5, you're around 1:5, both would be considered macro-ish. For a 56x84mm (6x9cm), you're at 1:7.25, for 24x36mm, 1:17 and for 13x17.3mm (your Olympus 4/3rds sensor size), a 24" subject along the long dimension is 1:35, and neither of the small formats are anywhere near macro.

Is that making any sense to anyone? I didn't think so. Anyway, rent a few lenses, and you'll probably find yourself liking something in the 180-360mm length for your intended work. You also might find yourself not wanting to use 4x5, but a roll film holder for 6x9cm, which will still give you a plenty huge enough piece of film.

Drew

[Dan Schmidt]

You can almost never go wrong with the normal lens for the format 150mm for 4x5 or 300mm for 8x10. There are plentiful and reasonably priced and often quite compact.

You can add other focal lengths as you go. One thing I do is use an 8x10 and change formats to change view, it I want to go tighter i'll use a 5x7 or 4x5 reducing back. If you do think you want to use long lenses an 8x10 camera provides ample bellows for smaller formats.

[wfwhitaker]

Is that making any sense to anyone? I didn't think so...
Drew

Made sense to me. Actually, I thought it was rather insightful.

[Gordon Moat]

If it was only headshots that you wanted to do for portraits, then shorter focal lengths mean that the camera to subject distance is closer. So the reaction or expression of your subject could change due to the camera being much closer. A 300mm on 4x5 would give you more working room than a 180mm on a 4x5, considering the same framing of the subject.

Using a 135mm gets you even closer. Under low light, your exposure would be longer, based upon aperture. Your aperture choice would be more to control depth of field (DoF), and not brightness as you were trying to compare. An extreme example is a two second exposure (http://www.gordonmoat.com/life_20.html) I did using a very old HB&H lens of about 135mm, and a fixed aperture of f3.6 due to this lens being made prior to apertures being invented. The camera was very close to the subject, who also needed to be still for the two seconds exposure, with a very short depth of field (DoF). Camera to subject was about 0.5m and DoF was about 9mm. Using a 28mm or 35mm on a 35mm camera (or D-SLR) would get you about 34mm to 54mm DoF. If you had a 35mm f1.4 lens on a 35mm camera (or D-SLR full frame) at the same camera to subject distance, then the DoF would be about 13mm, which gets close to what I did with that old HB&H on my 4x5 camera.

The image brightness on the ground glass is slightly different than what the final result will be on film. However, when you let your eyes adjust to the ground glass in a dark environment, you might find that the image is quite vibrant. The ground glass is your preview, much like Live View on an LCD. The main difference is that you want to look through a 4x5 lens when the aperture is wide open, yet you would not often want to take a photo wide open. If you stop the aperture down to f8, f11, f16, or f22, the image on the ground glass will become much darker; then the image on the ground glass is not much like what the final result will appear on film; in other words, when you stop down the aperture smaller, then the preview on the ground glass is darker than the final film. Hopefully that makes sense.

So using a longer focal length allows you more camera to subject distance. That extra distance will give you slightly more DoF, meaning you can get away with a larger aperture setting. Using a larger aperture means less need for extra light.

A 200mm or 210mm would allow a little more room to work than a 135mm. Going up to a 300mm, especially if you just wanted to do head shots, allows a good amount of work room, and a reasonable DoF when stopped down. There is so much detail in 4x5 images that I would hesitate to suggest using it only for headshots, because the results might not be so flattering to the subject. I think full body portraits make more sense with 4x5, though that is more a personal preference of mine. To do full body portraits, you could use a 90mm up to a 135mm or 150mm, and have reasonable working room of camera to subject distance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Frank Petronio]

Chill guys, I had him over and showed him a real camera ;-) I'm sure he'll have more questions but seeing a large format camera can do greatly accelerated his learning process!

[aduncanson]

Another thing to consider when thinking about portraiture with larger formats is that, as the format increases, portrait work enters the realm of macro work...

Talking about Head 'n' Shoulders shots, I took a quick measure of the distance between my mid-sternum to a wee above my head and got 24", which is probably a good enough number to play with. For a 20" x 24" camera, a H&S portrait is about 1:1. For an 8x10, you're at around 1:2.5 and for 4x5, you're around 1:5,... for 13x17.3mm (your Olympus 4/3rds sensor size), a 24" subject along the long dimension is 1:35, and neither of the small formats are anywhere near macro.

Is that making any sense to anyone?

Drew

I would not refer to portraiture as macro work exactly but Drew is absolutely onto something here. Obviously as you get closer to 1:1 due to the larger format, the image distance (the distance from the lens to the film plane which -Not the focal length, actually determines the angle of view) begins to become significantly greater than than the focal length. For a 1:1 shot, the image distance is twice the focal length, for the 1:35 magnification ratio on 4/3, the image distance is barely more than the focal length at all. So the upshot is that as you get to higher magnifications (toward 1:1) the angle of view narrows because the image distance increases.

However keep in mind that it is the camera (lens) position which determines perspective. Using your 58mm on the 4/3 camera (a pretty long choice) you would be at more than 6 feet to make the H/S shot with the 24 inch span referred to above. If you are seeking that perspective, then you should put the lens of your 4x5 camera at that same distance. When I do the math for the case of the 24 inch H/S shot mentioned above, taking into consideration how the the image distance lengthens as you focus closer, I get a focal length of 330mm as the equivalent to your 58. Because you can afford to crop your 4x5 neg some, many would go even shorter. If your preferred portrait crop is tighter, then the nonlinearity is greater and the 4x5 equivalent would be even more disproportionately shorter.

The larger format should also assure the shallow depth of field that you may be striving for with your choice of such a long portrait length lens on the 4/3 camera.

On the basis of the ability to crop in particular, I would, like others, recommend that you experiment with a traditional 210 to 240mm portrait length for 4x5.

Good Luck

[Nathan Potter]

Thanks Frank, a bit of hands on can be a great benefit to someone who over imagines the complexities of the task.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Allen in Montreal]

Chill guys, I had him over and showed him a real camera ;-) I'm sure he'll have more questions but seeing a large format camera can do greatly accelerated his learning process!

That must have a been a fun experience for him!
Frank, if you could only pick one lens to shoot portraits on 4x5 with, what length would it be?

[Frank Petronio]

That 210/3.5 Xenar that Paddy posted in the For Sale listings is awfully tempting...

Most of the photos you've seen me do in 4x5 are with wide-normals 135-150 but I do mostly torsos or further away, more environmental type stuff. But I used to use a 300 w 4x5 for really traditional head and shoulders commercial stuff. A 210 is a nice length to compromise on.

[Gordon Moat]

I was glancing through New York magazine recently, and admiring many of the images shot by Dan Winters (http://danwintersphotography.com/). If the OP is near a bookseller or magazine stand, it was the 40th Anniversary issue. I think it would be worth a look, especially as there are many headshots in there. I didn't always like the ringlight effect on the eyeballs, though mostly the images were very interesting.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Allen in Montreal]

Great link, thank you.
There are some really nice images there!

Any references to what he shoots with and why?



I was glancing through New York magazine recently, and admiring many of the images shot by Dan Winters (http://danwintersphotography.com/). If the OP is near a bookseller or magazine stand, it was the 40th Anniversary issue. I think it would be worth a look, especially as there are many headshots in there. I didn't always like the ringlight effect on the eyeballs, though mostly the images were very interesting.

Ciao!

[Gordon Moat]

About all I can see from what Dan Winters uses is that it is definitely 4x5, not Readyloads, and mostly Kodak Portra 160VC. Beyond the his shots are largely one to three lights, often including a ringlight. In the context of this thread, knowing the focal length might be helpful, though the small size of the ringlight reflection in the eyes indicates to me a long normal or long focal lens, rather than a short normal to wide lens. When you are going to use multiple lights, getting the camera closer to your subject could cause trouble with shadows or reflections, as well as making the working distance not as comfortable for the subject.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Allen in Montreal]

..... getting the camera closer to your subject could cause trouble with shadows or reflections, as well as making the working distance not as comfortable for the subject.

Ciao!



This is something I do intentionally at times, break that comfort zone.
A 35mm (on dslr) or a 105 on 6x4.5 at the closest focus possible, right in their face.
Some subjects just fall apart, but sometimes, it really works!

[dh003i]

Thank you all for your awesome replies! I just got my 4x5 camera last Friday, and it is awesome! Very solid, all metal, in great condition -- beautiful. Now I

[Mike Stewart]

A 105mm lens (close to your stated "ideal" lens for 35mm portraits) has an angle of view of 19 degrees. An "equivilent" focal length and angle of view for large format, based on a chart from an old Calumet catalog would be:
360mm on a 4 x 5 which also has a 19 degree angle of view
480mm on a 5 x 7 which has a 20 degree angle of view
480mm on an 8 x 10 which has a 29 degree angle of view

That said, for 4 x 5 most photographers use a lens between 150mm (i.e. normal) to 300mm which is 2x normal for close ups such as head & shoulder portraits. This would equate to the 50mm to 100mm recommendations you're apprently seen when trying to select lenses for 35mm portraits.