4x5 Portrait lens & Chamonix F2

[Neal Chaves]

Your camera does not have a very long bellows and for portraits you don't need a lot of covering power, so consider a telephoto in the 240mm to 270mm range. Some are both quite sharp and quite inexpensive. I used a 270mm 6.6 TeleRotelar made originally for the 6X9 Graphic XL for a long time. It covered 4X5 with room to spare at portrait distances. You should be able to find a good one in Compur for not much more than $100. Today I have 270mm 5.6 TeleArton, made for 4X5 in a recent Copal, almost like new except for some minor coating marks. Paid about $200 at Robert's two years ago. Some of those teles are mounted in a Compur 1 that does not have a press focus. To focus on the ground glass you have to open the lens on B or T. Somewhat inconvenient, on the other hand, in a dim studio with flash, where you don't need a fast sync speed, you can use bulb without having to cock the shutter. You can work without having to touch the lens, just change your film holder (or have an assistant do it) and give your attention to the subject. You can use the money you saved by not buying a cult lens to hire some nice ones.

[Tin Can]

For the record, I am not selling any Rembrandts or lenses here or eBay

I got lucky and found a 'KEH UGLY' for a very low price

I have wanted one for years

It is a genius design made for one purpose

[Hugo Zhang]

John,

If you don't like Heliar, apo-lanthar or soft focus lenses, why not just pick up a dagor lens of 8 1/4 or 9 1/2 inches. Wide open at F/6.8, it has a nice glow for portraits. Stopped down, it is very sharp, but not that clinical sharpness of Ronar or Artar lenses. Look at Paul Strand's portraits, many of them were made with a 12 inch dagor with a 57 Graflax SLR camera. A Tessar lens in 250mm with F/4.5 or 3.5 is quite nice too.

I can use modern MC lenses like Sironar S for landscapes, but not for portraits. Way too sharp.

Your F2 camera has a 495mm bellows draw with an extension rack and 360mm without. It is long enough for portraits. If you looks at monthly portrait postings in this forum, many wonderful portraits were made with F2 camera.

[Mark Sawyer]

A second for Hugo's suggestion of a Dagor; nice for portraits wide open and sharp with lots of movements closed down. And you can probably find a newer one in a decent shutter.

If it weren't for the complications of using a barrel lens (no shutter) for a relative beginner, I'd suggest a Cooke 10 1/2-inch f/4.5 Portrait Lens or Aviar.

[johnj88]

Awesome! Thank you for the recommendations. I’ll look into a Dagor.

I’ve been looking at the 210mm Rodenstock apo Sironar S, but is that really “too” sharp for portraits?
I shot digital first then transitioned to 35mm/MF. So I’m used to as sharp as I can get for my lens.

Also, Ive only just started my research in lenses, and didn’t know heliar and lanthars were soft focus like the Cooke PS945. For some reason the images of the Cooke looked different than the heliar, but that may be due to what aperture they were shot with.

[johnj88]

The F2 is a backpacking camera. It has to be opened and setup. Is this what you need in a portrait camera?

Although I mainly intend to shoot portraits, I do like the idea of taking it out on a trail whenever I hike.
I also love shooting environmental portraits, or just outside of the home studio.

So the portability of the F2 still appeals to me.
However I’m not too huge on weight and take a tripod and a RZ67 with me easily no matter where I go.

Ideally I’d want one 4x5 that does it all.
Would the chamonix F2 not be able to handle lenses with a compound 3 shutter?

[Greg]

Consider a Wollensak 9 1/2inch f/4.5 Velostigmat Series II soft focus (adjustable front element(s?)) lens in Betax No.4. Can be had for a reasonable price, and my experiences with Betax shutters is that they are very simple and reliable. Plus when stopped down are really sharp lenses for landscape and similar photography.

[Hugo Zhang]

Heliar and Apo-Lanthar are not soft focus lenses. Wide open at 4.5, Lanthar is bit sharper. Both have low contrast and that changes when you shop down. I tested my apo-lanthar 21cm against my sironar s 210mm the other day, they are at least equally sharp. I have used the Sironar S lens for portrait just once because I didn't have other lenses in my bag. Didn't like it, way too sharp. If you are from digital background, maybe your taste is different.

If money is not an issue, I will grab a 210mm lanthar for 45 portraits. There are two of them on ebay under 2k. I have made hundreds of WP size portraits with a 30cm Lanthar. Just love that lens.

Yes 45F2 can handle a compound 3 shutter.

[Larry H-L]

You might take a look at plain vanilla Schneider Symmar-S lenses in 210mm or 240mm, f5.6. The 210 is relatively light, in Copal 1. These were pro lens back in the 70s and 80s. Still solid performers today.

[Serge S]

I use fuji 210L (single coated lens/tessar) & 12" commercial ektar.
Both wonderful for portraits
and all around use.