thanks for the insight re: the use of an enlarger lens on my Speed.
A cursory look at eBay prices seems to nail it down for my 'budget' criterion.
At any rate--and, assuming that there is no such thing as a free lunch--what are the trade offs vis a vis the resulting portrait image with an enlarger lens? Are they manufactured to (for lack of a better term) looser tolerances that other lenses--hence the lower cost?
thanks, one and all!
ps: re: Speed, will this one do the trick?
If you are interrested, I have an Ilex f4.5/10 inch Portronic lens in barrel I'll let go cheap. These were made for Coleman-Beatty for their long roll portrait cameras.
Thank you for the offer. Please pm with lens price.
Might look for a Kodak Ektar 203mm, excellent lens for portrait and general use plus it will fold up in your Speed. Can usually be had for $150-200.
Those are a good lens. I'd go for the one on the linhof board. It looks much cleaner and well kept.
enlarger lenses are optimized for short distances, but usually work fine at long distances too. If anything, they are usually manufactured to tighter tolerances than taking lenses. The reason they are cheap on ebay, is most people aren't enlarging anymore, so there is a surplus of them. Something in the 135mm+ size would cover 4x5 no problem.
How about a 15" Tele-Optar?
Edit: Or a 10" Tele-Optar? There's one here for $150:
I have a 10" Tele-Optar that I use for portraits on a 4x5 Speed. Mine is a barrel lens (not mounted in a shutter), so with this lens I use the rear FP shutter. Barrel lenses go for much cheaper than lenses mounted in shutters. The subjects like the results -- the lens is softer than modern lenses. Out-of-focus backgrounds look nice too.
A 10" lens on 4x5 is roughly equal to an 80-85mm lens on 35mm.