Portrait Lens for 4X5, 5X7 and 8X10

[RPippin]

Could use some feedback on what is a good standard portrait lens. I can't afford a Cooke or other high end lens, and a Petzval is out of the question. I need a good basic for shots from full body to shoulder up. Hope I'm not being over simple, I have a few lenses already and I'm curious which would be best. Currently I have a Caltar 210, 150 and 135. I also have a Kodak 127 and a Dagor around 120 and a Shnieder 180. These are used on 4X5.

[Warren Clark]

Hi RP,

An excellent all round lens for multi format use is the Fuji 300 A.
I haven't used it for portraits but it should work well. Others on
this format also have wide experience with this lens.

Warren Clark

[Gem Singer]

Nikon/Nikkor f9 300M and Fujinon f8.5 300C.

These lenses are relatively small, and both are mounted in Copal 1 shutters. They are capable of covering 8x10 with minimal movement capability.

They make excellent portrait lenses for 4x5.

[Alan Gales]

Your 135mm is great for portraits when you want to include the environment. A 210mm lens is great for full length shots. A lot of photographers favor a 240mm for portraits but since you all ready own a 210mm I would go with a 300mm like suggested. A great focal length for getting in close.

As you can see there is no actual standard portrait lens for 4x5.

I have no experience with 5x7. Karsh used a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar and I believe that Richard Avedon used a 360mm Schneider for 8x10. These lenses would be equal to a 180mm on a 4x5 camera. Of course you have a lot of room to crop with an 8x10 camera.

Just remember that women over a certain age hate sharp lenses. That's why Hasselblad sold a ton of softar filters!

[Ken Lee]

You might consider trying some lenses which open wide and have circular apertures.

Wide lenses (f/4.5 for example) allow you to focus and shoot in softer light, with less depth of field when you want it.

Circular apertures tend to give pleasing blur rendition.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/tessarX.jpg http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/300mmHeliarFront.jpg

[Ari]

In 4x5, I like a 180 or a 210.
For 5x7, I also liked the 210, sometimes a 250 (but rarely).
I'm not a fan of too much compression in the image for portraits, so a 300 or longer is out of the question in either format.

[Brian C. Miller]

Currently I have a Caltar 210, 150 and 135. I also have a Kodak 127 and a Dagor around 120 and a Shnieder 180. These are used on 4X5.

You have a good range of lenses right now. Are you looking for a lens which has "aura" or "luminescence" to it, or some portraiture-specific quality? There was a recent posting about a home-made meniscus lens (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=72630), which would be excellent for portraiture. There are also some good soft-focus lenses, which had an interesting filter attachment which you could make yourself. The old Wollensak lenses are good, too, and if you watch eBay you can come up with something in good condition at a reasonable price. There's also the home-made lens thread, with lenses made from cheap plastic magnifying glasses.

Depending on what specific effect you want, there's lots of ways to get there.

[jp]

There isn't really a generic "best". I'm speaking B&W shooting here.

For normal non-SF stuff, I think a tessar or clone of a tessar with lots of aperture blades is very nice. The planars are great too. These are the two most common designs in recent history and some of your lenses are these.

For soft focus, it depends on what you are comfortable with, what you can afford or cobble together, and lighting conditions including contrast. Some people have done nice stuff with magnifying glasses in a cardboard tube; other people make great photos with valuable lenses hand made 110 years ago from unobtainium.

I consider X flash sync to be bonus points so I can use the lens with studio flash. Going too old school precludes this option, but packard shutters can have sync sometimes.

[Professional]

I am new here so i was going to ask about lenses, i did ask about wide for landscapes and/or architecture, got answers about that, now i also looking for a lens for portraits, for now i use 4x5, so i was not sure, 210mm was the most i was thinking about, but there are many going with 240 and 300 as well, so i can't tell which FL can be standard for portraits, but it sounds that with LF i need to go with 2 lenses on different purposes, we do that with digital as well, and are there zoom lenses so it can help rather than getting 2-3 primes?!!!

[Brian C. Miller]

There are no zoom lenses for LF. When it comes to portraits, it depends on what you want to do.

There are some "soft focus" lenses which are made to be soft or luminescent at a specific apeture. Take a look at the thread about the home-made meniscus for a good example. Typical soft focus portrait lenses also include the Rodenstock Imagon (http://harrysproshop.com/Imagon/imagon.html), and Fuji Fujinon soft focus. (Looks like Fuji made 180mm and 250mm versions) Note the diffuser disc for the Imagon. The Fuji disc is similar. There are various filters which will also soften an image, but not exactly like a soft-focus lens will.

There is no "standard" in LF for portrait lens length. Also, whether to have a sharp portrait or not is entirely cultural. The Japanese like to have smooth features, while Scandanavian countries like all of the wrinkles.

[Professional]

There are no zoom lenses for LF. When it comes to portraits, it depends on what you want to do.

There are some "soft focus" lenses which are made to be soft or luminescent at a specific apeture. Take a look at the thread about the home-made meniscus for a good example. Typical soft focus portrait lenses also include the Rodenstock Imagon (http://harrysproshop.com/Imagon/imagon.html), and Fuji Fujinon soft focus. (Looks like Fuji made 180mm and 250mm versions) Note the diffuser disc for the Imagon. The Fuji disc is similar. There are various filters which will also soften an image, but not exactly like a soft-focus lens will.

There is no "standard" in LF for portrait lens length. Also, whether to have a sharp portrait or not is entirely cultural. The Japanese like to have smooth features, while Scandanavian countries like all of the wrinkles.

So that is why it seems with LF and no zoom lenses there we are ended up with more than 2 lenses for one subject, i feel that for portraits i will use 2 lenses, one will be main or most used but sure i need another lens, if there is a zoom lens then i will use one lens for portrait.

I will go with sharp lens, but soft focus lens is not a harm as well.

Thanks for your answer.

[eddie]

look out for the imagon lenses. they are an achromat lens with plenty of fuzz and they can be stopped down a bit to sharpen it to your taste. they can be had in the shutter and in shorter focal lengths for a reasonable price usually.

the best sleeper portrait lens is the cooke series II. no sof focus dial or anything just a regular everyday triplet portrait lens. i just sold one in the FS section that needed some aperture repair for $99......even had the flange. so you do not have to buy the 12.5 inch f3.5 that just finished on e bay ....unless you want it bad....:)

[Carsten Wolff]

The 15" (380mm) f5.6 Wollensak-Tele is a gorgeously rendering piece of glass and loves being used wide open. Mine now resides in an Alphax #4 synchro-shutter. I use it for 5x7" and occasionally 4x5" (and 6x17cm), but it is said to cover 8x10, -just-, and perhaps then with softer corners, but for portraits that wouldn't matter much, would it?. Three caveats: Non-standard filter thread (~78.5mm), it isn't exactly small and if you shoot in a studio, you need a bit of space to shoot the focal length esp. in 4x5". But it is very good - and cheap, esp. compared to the likes of other classic workhorses, such as the Kodak 14" f6.3 Commercial Ektar.