Advice on focal length and lens for 4x5 environmental portraits

[wiltw]

What do you like to use, to fit things into the small dimension of the 135 format frame at the standard working distance which you enjoy? Simply use the same multiplier, except use 90mm rather than 24mm frame short dimension. For example, if you like using 75mm for environmental portraiture on 135, 75/24 = 3.125; 3.125 * 90mm = 281mm on 4x5 format.

[juan]

With the Super Speed, you need to stick to the lenses that were made for it and have the cams if you want to use the rangefinder. Those are not necessarily the same lenses and cams made for the Pacemaker series. If not interested in the rangefinder, have at it. I made a lot of environmental portraits on 4x5 with a 210.

[Sirius Glass]

Hold it! I am confused! Are portraits taken outside of an environment on planet Earth? Please clarify because I must be doing something wrong!

[E. von Hoegh]

Although I do use 5x4 I don't use it as often I would like, doesn't the same rule apply, about double the standard focal length?

Yes and no. A 300mm lens won't work on the OP's camera, anyway. I like 210 on 4x5, 420 on 8x10. And 105 on the Nikons.

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd second the recommendation of an 8-10" Commercial Ektar (although the shutters are somewhat limited and decidedly not modern), or a 210-240mm Heliar (although you'll have a tough time finding a Heliar longer than 210 in a shutter to begin with, and definitely NOT in your budget range). I know you said that you were concerned about tele-lens' limited image circle, but if you're using them for portraits, it's unlikely that you'll need movements in the first place, and if you use them for tighter compositions (3/4 length, head & shoulders, head only) they'll have more than enough image circle to cover your film. I used to have a Fuji 300T which covered 5x7 with a tiny bit of movement - more than enough for portraiture purposes. Unlike a standard 300mm lens where the falloff from sharp to illumination to end of coverage is gradual, the transition from useable image circle to no image was fairly abrupt. Here's an example where I shot a triptych of 5x7 negatives with that lens - http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...imageuser=6785 . You can see clearly the effect at the edges of the image circle. Also, there's something funky that happens with movements with tele- lenses because their true nodal point is not at the iris/lensboard where the movements are happening but somewhere actually in front of the lens. With rise/fall/shift this is not an issue at all, but with swings and tilts it may be. But when you're using a telephoto lens, it would be unusual to apply much of anything other than a little shift or rise anyway.

[rich815]

For environmental portraits the lens you're using should be fine. For longer there are so many choices in the 180-250 ranges its overwhelming. I have 180/5,6 and 210/5,6 Fujinons but they are quite sharp and may not be what you want. The longer Ektars might work, get one and try, worse case you sell for about what you paid.

I like your Flickr stuff and added you as a contact.

[E. von Hoegh]

Hold it! I am confused! Are portraits taken outside of an environment on planet Earth? Please clarify because I must be doing something wrong!

I always step outside the local time/space continua to make portrats, don't you??

[rich815]

Likely you're all being tongue-in-cheek but just in case,

From Wikipedia:

"An environmental portrait is a portrait executed in the subject's usual environment, such as in their home or workplace, and typically illuminates the subject's life and surroundings. By photographing a person in their natural surroundings, it is thought that you will be able to better illuminate their character, and therefore portray the essence of their personality, rather than merely a likeness of their physical features. It is also thought that by photographing a person in their natural surroundings, the subject will be more at ease, and so be more conducive to expressing themselves, as opposed to in a studio, which can be a rather intimidating and artificial experience."

[E. von Hoegh]

Likely you're all being tongue-in-cheek but just in case,

From Wikipedia:

"An environmental portrait is a portrait executed in the subject's usual environment, such as in their home or workplace, and typically illuminates the subject's life and surroundings. By photographing a person in their natural surroundings, it is thought that you will be able to better illuminate their character, and therefore portray the essence of their personality, rather than merely a likeness of their physical features. It is also thought that by photographing a person in their natural surroundings, the subject will be more at ease, and so be more conducive to expressing themselves, as opposed to in a studio, which can be a rather intimidating and artificial experience."

I much prefer an almost "abstract" setting of careful lighting and featureless neutral background for a portrait, but that's just me.

[rich815]

Two of my all-time favorite environmental portraits: