Lens Shopping-Portrait

[dazedgonebye]

Hey, if you thought my getting my first shots through would end the questions...you've got another think coming. :p

Instead of just asking "What lens would be 'best' for portraiture on my crown graphic?" I thought I'd put a little twist on.

What lens currentyl available at KEH would you choose?

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductList.aspx?Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&Size=&BC=&BCC=7&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=

Even in my ignorance, I have some basic criteria:
1) I'm selling gear to buy gear...otherwise, no budget at all. So, I need value!
2) I want torso or perhaps half-torso portraits, so I imagine shorter than 300mm (???).
3) I will also use the lens for landscapes (secondary use, but important as I won't be buying multiple lenses in similar focal lengths).

[Frank Petronio]

What is the matter with the lens you have for half-torso portraits? A 135 will do a nice job, just try to put the person's nose in the center of the frame.

But if you must, usually the best value in large format lenses is the popular 210mm and it is suited for the short bellows of the Crown and sufficiently different from the 135 in that you'll see the difference.

[Vick Vickery]

The 210 Caltars are all reasonable and are known to be consistantly good lenses; the 210/370 Symmar convertible is a good lens at a good price and would give an added bit of versitility when a really tight shot is needed; and, finally, the Horseman Topcor and the other Topcor both seem like a real temptation at the prices they have on them, though I know nothing about their reputation.

[dazedgonebye]

What is the matter with the lens you have for half-torso portraits? A 135 will do a nice job, just try to put the person's nose in the center of the frame.

But if you must, usually the best value in large format lenses is the popular 210mm and it is suited for the short bellows of the Crown and sufficiently different from the 135 in that you'll see the difference.

I guess I was thinking that a mild wide like that would produce distortions if I got too close to the subject.

[Jim Noel]

I guess I was thinking that a mild wide like that would produce distortions if I got too close to the subject.

Yo:) u are correct. If you get too close the 135 will certainly introduce distortions. The previous suggestion of a 210mm lens is a good one. That is probably the best length you can use on the camera for portraits, and it will be useful for general field work as well.

[dazedgonebye]

What about the longer lengths...240-270?
What is the downside to these?

[Frank Petronio]

You have a Crown Graphic, you won't be able to focus them close enough unless you buy a telephoto design that doesn't require as much bellows draw.

And, every lens introduces it's own distortions, the longer lens isn't "more correct" -- it's just customary.

[Michael Graves]

An addendum to Frank's comments. You can get the same "image grouping" from a wide angle lens moved very close to the subject, as you can a telephoto lens moved farther away. It's the perspective that changes, along with apparent depth of field. When you shoot a head and shoulders shot with a moderate telephoto design, such as a 250mm Tele-Optar, you are shooting from a fairly long distance from the subject. Therefore the image "flattens" out. You can get the same head and shoulders composition with a 90mm W/A lens. However, since you have to move in very close to the subject, a variety of things happen. Noses are more obviously closer to the lens than with the 250, so they appear longer. One of the great effects photos of all times was a sixties shot of Jimmy Durante, shot up close with a wide angle lens. The famous schnoz of the great comedian was like looking up a ski slope from the base. The ears drop farther back and overall, the effect can either be disconcerting or, as in Jimmy's case, quite amusing. What you choose to use in entirely dependent on what you're trying to achieve.

[dazedgonebye]

Overall, I'd rather not Jimmy Durante anyone.
250-270mm is a fov I'm used to working with, but I'm unsure of the pitfalls of tele lenses with large format.

[Joe Forks]

check out igor camera. he's got a few listed on the web site under soft focus.

[Steve Hamley]

I looked and my answer would all of them or none of them. Unless you get something really unusual like a real diffused focus lens, noe of the lenses at KEH in the 210mm - 270mm focal length will make as much difference as the lighting.

Hurrell used a Goerz Celor, Karsh a Commercial Ektar, Jock Sturges used to use a Fuji and now used an Apo Sironar-S (I think). There seems to be little in common with the lenses used by many great portrait people, the secret is in the lighting.

Cheers,

Steve

[jnantz]

equinoxphotographic(dot com) has a 10" tele raptar in an alphax shutter.
that is a nice lens for portraits ... and since it is a tele design you don't need
to use all your bellows ... ( was meant for crown/speed graphics and slrs ) .
mine is a barrel, and i have always wished it was shuttered.

between a 10" and your 135 you should be in a pretty good situation for portraits ..

john

[BrianShaw]

If you are not planning on getting a soft-focus lens, consider a high-quality soft-focus filter. I use softar and softar-type filters for women and some older men when not using a genuine soft focus lens - given a sharp and slightly-soft-focused image to choose from, they more often opt for the softer image.

[dazedgonebye]

equinoxphotographic(dot com) has a 10" tele raptar in an alphax shutter.
that is a nice lens for portraits ... and since it is a tele design you don't need
to use all your bellows ... ( was meant for crown/speed graphics and slrs ) .
mine is a barrel, and i have always wished it was shuttered.

between a 10" and your 135 you should be in a pretty good situation for portraits ..

john

Any idea on coverage for this lens?
Any other opinions on it?

[JohnGC]

I don't know if you thought about this yet, but consider also the subject distance for long lenses. If you shoot portraits with too long of a lens, the camera can end up too far from your portrait subject, and that can take some of the intimacy out of a shot.

[jnantz]

Any idea on coverage for this lens?
Any other opinions on it?

i've never used it on anything but a speed graphic
so i don't know much more than it has a large enough image circle
to give me full rise from that camera ....
the guy that runs equinox is very knowledgeable about the things he sells
i am sure he will be able to answer questions you have about his lens.

john

[Jim Galli]

The 180 f4.5 Xenar (http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=LF069991027130&brandcategoryname=Large%20Format&Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&BC=LF&BCC=7&CC=&CCC=&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=f4.5) for $139 bucks. Shoot it wide open.

[Jim Michael]

The 240 tele xenar might be an option. I've used one on my Crown Graphic and IIRC the draw is less than my 210 Schneider.

[dazedgonebye]

I'm going to look at the tele-raptar and tele-xenar options.
At the moment though, I think I'm leaning toward a 210mm. New'ish copies seem to be inexpensive and plentiful.

I'll ask about specific lenses as I get closer.

Thanks

[al olson]

I don't know if you thought about this yet, but consider also the subject distance for long lenses. If you shoot portraits with too long of a lens, the camera can end up too far from your portrait subject, and that can take some of the intimacy out of a shot.

... or if your studio is small you might have to knock out a wall or only do head shots. Before trying too long a lens you need to be sure you have the space to use it the way you intend.

[eddie]

keep your eyes out for the older Rapid Rectilinear lenses. there are a tom out there. most that say 5x7 are about 7 inches in FL. some others are used on 4x5 and are 5 inches or so. very very cheap lenses.....great for portraits.

look for something like this (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8478956) or this (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7738400)

eddie

[Ole Tjugen]

A RR for 5x7" would be 8", and for 4x5", 6". That's the "normal focal length".

Of course if you can find something like this (http://www.casket-set.com/Casket_04.html), you're set for everything. :)

But the few RR's (or Aplanats) in shutters are in very old and generally unreliable shutters, so I wouldn't recommend that unless you have a Speed Graphic, or something else with an integral shutter.