Suggest a 12" (300mm) lens for portrait work on 8x10?

[Bernice Loui]

Packard shutters work, can work really GOOD. For BIG lenses, they are often the only solution. Exceptions might be a BIG leaf shutter like the Fairchild K35.

That said, IMO packard shutters should be serious considered. They can be adapted to most any camera and the electric solenoid versions are surprisingly accurate with a good controller. They do not do fast shutter speeds, but work good at shutter speeds not higher than about 1/10 second. They were the standard process camera shutter and a large number of industrial cameras using BIG process lenses back in the day. To this day Packard shutters are not that $ and remain a good value.

IMO, the Kodak 405mm /16" f4.5 Portrait Ektar is GOOD for 8x10 if that is the look of interest. The 305mm / 12" were made in barrel (f4.5) and Ilex# 5 (f4.8) functionally identical other than shutter -vs- no shutter.

All that said, Lighting IS often more significant than just lens personality. Then the objectives of the portraiture begins to creep in.

Photographer using the portrait sitter as a means of their ego and expressive tool?

or..

Photographer does as much as possible to capture some expressive aspect of the portrait sitter in the print image?

or..

Portrait sitter desires their portrait image to be their fantasy of beauty.

As previously mentioned, photographers tend to focus on hardware widgets like camera, lens and such. While lighting, pose, ability of the portrait sitter and all those non-hardware factors are often more significant the the hardware widget aspects. This is the less on lens-camera pitch, more on lighting, pose, composition working with the portrait sitter pitch and related pitch.

Keep in mind, some of the most expressive portrait images were created out of modest hardware widgets with exceptional lighting, pose, composition and knowing what the finished print needs to be.

BTW, 8x10 polaroid was a fun and good way to check out portrait stuff back in the day. Got to a point where strobes for portraits were not an option.

Then there are environmental portrait where the moderate wide angle focal length can work good.


Bernice

So we can assume Packard shutters are not a solution for you?

How were you planning to use the Kodak 405 or 305?

As some point out, strobes and flashbulbs eliminate many shutter problems and can overpower the Sun

I find my biggest problem is sitters

If you want 'sharp' perhaps Digi is best

This is very interesting to me and a good movie

How ‘Mank’ Shot Day for Night, and in Hi-Dynamic Range Black-and-White

[Jim Noel]

I am a Packard user. They are a marvelous answer to a good old lens, like my 12" Velostigmat with the now broken Studio shutter. A wonderful lens for portraits that I also use in photographing nature. The Packard is mounted on a board I attach to the front of this lens, and others, with 3 adjusting screws. If the light is too bright for 1/25-1/30 second I also carry an assortment of neutral density filters.
AN inexpensive way to obtain and use some great old lenses for portraits or otherwise.

[William Whitaker]

A Cooke series XIV (yep, that's 14, not 15) is a great portrait lens IMHO. Mine is sharp, yet has a fullness and roundness to the image that is almost indescribable, except maybe to say "Cooke magic". It's a 330mm, f/6.3 anastigmat.
A series XV is similar in its rendition whilst in the 12-inch configuration. I can't speak for the XVa because I've never used (nor seen) one.
But whatever you choose, you'll do well if you always make the best photograph you can. Thousands of photographers over the last century and a half can't be wrong.
Pay close attention to your lighting as that is everything.
Cheers!

[Ari]

Ari,
You seem to be chasing that elusive dream portrait lens. Been there and done that and found it. :-)

Yes, I found it too, Hugo. It was the Cooke. I had to sell it, there were a few good reasons to sell it, but now I'm trying to find a $300 version of a Cooke.

What was wrong with the other lenses? Depended on the lens, but whatever it was at the time, they were all eclipsed by the Cooke, so I sold them all.
The one I like the best was the 12" Commercial Ektar, but I no longer want to deal with those shutters and the inherent problems.

I think I've settled on the Fujinon-S series for now. A decent, single-coated Tessar in a Copal 3 that won't break the bank. I'm excited to try it and see how it can work for portraits on film.
My other lenses are all barrel lenses, nothing expensive, but all of them serve a purpose.

Thanks again, Bernice. Thanks, Jim for your input as well.
My opinions are based having lighting and everything else where I want it, I'm only isolating the lens' performance in my assessments.

Will, thanks for pulling me back ever so slightly to the Cooke side.

[Tracy Storer]

Another +1 for the Dagor. I don't know what version you had, but if it was too harsh looking perhaps you were stopped down too far? I also enjoy my 11.75" Heliar, but I tend to use it closer to wide open than you might want to (I llke the quick focus fall off.)

When in doubt, a Dagor is always a good choice!

[William Whitaker]

Will, thanks for pulling me back ever so slightly to the Cooke side.

Sure. What's a little more guilt?...

[paulbarden]

Just as a passing mention, the Tessars will mostly have the same look, with the variations being coatings and maximum aperture. So the Zeiss Tessars, Velostigmats, Raptars, Commercial Ektars, Paragons, Fuji-Ls, Xenars, etc., fall into the same category.

That said, the Kodak f/4.5 Ektar, also a Tessar and often single coated, is a fine choice most people overlook. But an f/4.5 of any design is going to require a big shutter, which can be worth as much or more than the lens.

I have the 12” f4.5 Ektar and I love it. It can be exquisitely soft if I want it to be, or sharp as a knife (but never harsh contrast).

[Corran]

Neil mentioned it, I'll mention it too: older Symmar or Symmar-S lens in Compur shutter?

The Compur will have the circular diaphragm opening which will give OOF rendering a better look than the newer Copals when stopped down. I think the older Symmars that I've used check your boxes...

Alternatively, not in your budget, 30cm APO Lanthar .

[Vaidotas]

I remember your portrait and interior shots with Bausch Lomb Tessar (8x10?) which I liked.
And reducing your format to your comfort zone expands your search to significant degree.

[Ari]

Thanks, guys.
Tracy, the Dagor didn't work for me, could've been a dud. It was very contrasty, but not in a good way.
Paul, you turned me on to the Kodak Anastigmats for wet plate, and I still have one for 4x5.
Bryan, I considered the Symmar and nearly bought one. I think I'll try the Fuji S or L first, since I've never used either before.
Thank you Valdotas. I liked them too, but the post-processing with the B&L was a lot of work.

This is always fun to do everyone in a while, see what others use, what they recommend, and maybe get some fresh ideas. Thanks, everybody.

EDIT: I bought a Fujinon L 300mm lens in the end.
I like what I read about it: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...on-L-300mm-5-6
And it's in an older Copal 3 shutter with 10 blades, so it has a nice round aperture.
Single-coated Tessar-type, but not much coverage (don't need a whole lot for portraits). Should be interesting, I look forward to trying it out.
Thanks again