kodak portrait lens 305

[armentor1@mac.com]

I've been using the 305 kodak portrait lens on an 8x10 for a while now and really love the aesthetic. Its great for soft portraits but it is also pretty sharp when closed down. I'm hoping that you guys can help me find a similar lens for my 4x5 - (normal 4x5 focal length).

thanks -

dave

[davehyams]

I know that there are smaller Spencer Port-Land (portland) lenses out there in the 7 to 9" focal length that would work on 4X5 really well. They might be a little hard to find. I have an 11" that i use on 6.5X8.5 and 8X10 that is exactly the characteristics you describe. Soft and diffuse wide open (Port) and nice and sharp stopped down (land). Lenses like these exist, but finding anything soft focus at a reasonable price is the real problem. You could always buy a cheap WAR lens and remove the wheel stops. It would be cheaper to buy 2 WAR lenses and remove the wheel stops from one and keep the other as a landscape lens, than finding something that was designed as a soft focus lens.

[Jim Galli]

You might look through this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?67483-Antique-4X5-Achromatic-Meniscus-Lens-in-modern-Copal-Shutter!&highlight=achromatic+meniscus). I've sold several of these. Doesn't come with a romantic name on it, but acts just like the Kodak, with a better shutter.

[Larry H-L]

Congo / Yamasaki made 150mm and 210mm soft-focus lenses.

I think they were triplets, soft wide open and sharper stopped down. No "sink strainer" in these.

Somewhat difficult to find, but they turn up now and then.

[jp]

The kodak is a good combination of lens and shutter. I wish they had a 4x5 version as well. Not many sf lens have x flash sync much less a shutter.

For 4x5 I am liking Reinhold's wallaston lens; a simple lens like the kodak, but it's not for everyone as it lacks a shutter. I use it with a speed graphic so I get 1/10-1/1000. Someone handy could attach a ilex5 or copal 3 shutter or sinar shutter to it for 4x5. You could also use a 4x5 back on your 8x10 if you're simply trying to use smaller film rather than a physically smaller and more portable system.

The conservative option is a Imagon without the strainer. Various focal lengths and shutters.

Jim Galli's got the experience and trust you should consider as well.

[DrTang]

For 4x5 I am liking Reinhold's wallaston lens; a simple lens like the kodak, but it's not for everyone as it lacks a shutter. I use it with a speed graphic so I get 1/10-1/1000. Someone handy could attach a ilex5 or copal 3

I have the 285 version of that and glued a 55? 56? filter on the bottom that kinda goes into my Copal #3.. I shot with it once.. like f4 or 5.6 and found it too soft for me..but I need to try it at 8 or 11. I think that may be just right

[Jim Noel]

NOt to try to turn this thread a different direction, but I have both the 335 and 500mm Wallaston Meniscus lenses by Reinhold.
Wide open they are too soft for most uses, but at f 11- f 16 they are wonderful for portraits.

[armentor1@mac.com]

thanks for the response guys, I'll do a little research on the lenses listed above. I'm kind of leaning towards just getting a proper 8x10 camera.

[Mark Sawyer]

For 4x5, I'd suggest Jim's lens or an Imagon 200mm/250mm, and use the conventional iris built into the shutter rather than the perforated discs.

But yeah, a 4x5 just isn't an 8x10... :)

[Don Dudenbostel]

For 4x5, I'd suggest Jim's lens or an Imagon 200mm/250mm, and use the conventional iris built into the shutter rather than the perforated discs.

But yeah, a 4x5 just isn't an 8x10... :)

I use a 200 imagon without the strainer and love the results. Its a very versatile and beautiful lens I had a 305 Kodak years ago but like the imagon better.

Any experience with the Fuji SF without the grid?