Help With Lens for 8x10 Portraits

[phfitz]

Michael,

with 17" of bellows you would normally be limited to 14'/360mm Ektar, Heliar, Dogmar, Verito, Vitax, ect. BUT when you get to lenses this large the front node is far enough forward of the lens board that it is possible to get a 16"/420mm down to 18'. The problem is the size of lens board and the sheer weight of the lens.

have fun with the GAS attack.

[Michael Finder]

My lens board is five and three-eighths by five and seven eighths. The camera is a light weight wooden field and would probably struggle under the burden.

[doughowk]

With portraits I'd get the brightest lens your camera can handle. Was using a nice 305mm Nikor but its f9 aperature was a pain to focus. Switched to an older 12" around f5, and its far more pleasureable to use.

[Paddy]

A concern, that hasn't been mentioned, is how far away from your subjects, do you want to be? I like to shoot very tight head shots, and with a 300mm lens, the front of the camera ends up just a few feet away from my sitter's face. This is quite close, and can sometimes feel intimidating for the subject. That's why I'm hunting for a 19" lens.

[dpurdy]

yet one more fan of a 14 inch lens. I used to you a 14 inch gold dot dagor, but now my favorite lens for all and especially waist up portraits is my 14 inch Red Dot Artar.
Dennis

[JosBurke]

Try a 300 mm if you have one already or try to beg or borrow one anywhere from 300-ish to 480 --ish......or longer or shorter !! I tend to prefer a longer lens for MF but in 8x10 I think a normal lens may please you....I use a Fuji 420 L f/8 as it is what I have.....though not the fastest it is incredibly sharp and the perspective is very pleasing to me! I agree that a faster lens is a big plus in 8x10 portraiture regarding focus.

[df cardwell]

Michael

Technique is more important than size. Learn to use what you've got.

What camera do you have ? More important, really, than maximum extension, is how secure the camera is. For instance, compare a 10" lens, a 12", an a 14".

A 10" lens, from 2 meters, needs 11 1/2" extension, and makes a full head (12") about 1.8" high on the film.

A 12" lens, from 2 meters, needs 13.8", and the head size is about 2 ".

A 14" lens, from 2 meters, needs 17.3", and you can't do it.
From 2.5 meters, you need 16 .5", and you get about a 2" head size.

I'd use the 12" in this case, for it would surely be more stable than the 14".

Whatever the choice, practise before loading up on gear.
8x10 portraiture is a different world than 120 portraiture.

s

[Michael Finder]

Thanks all for your comments. Much appreciated. My camera is a vintage Vageeswari teak 8x10 folding field camera with an 8x10 double plate holder and old wooden tripod and mount similar to Thornton Pickard. Seems it holds glass plate, metal plate and normal emulsions with a backing board. I have begun repairing and restoring the bellows. They will be sound enough. I have acquired an antique brass symmetrical lens which is due in a few days. Once I mount it I'll try it out first using photo paper. Here is a link: http://cgi.ebay.fr/15-x-6-5-Ultra-La...742.m153.l1262 - to a similar camera from the same maker: mine is identical apart from the format.