PDA

View Full Version : 240mm 8x10 lens: which is best?



chris jordan
16-Nov-2004, 13:11
Hi guys, another lens question: I'm considering buying a used 240 or 300mm lens for 8x10, my criteria being extreme sharpness and enough movement for some substantial front rise. I'm looking at the Nikkor W, Schneider Symmar, and the Rodenstock Sironar N and S series. Does anyone have any opinions as to whether there would be any quality difference between photos taken with these lenses, in any way? I'm scanning at extremely high resolution and making huge prints, so any differences (including at the edges) between the lenses actually will be visible in my prints.

I'd appreciate any suggestions or thoughts (including if there are other lenses of equal or greater quality).

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

Sal Santamaura
16-Nov-2004, 13:38
At 240mm, you definitely want an f/5.6 Apo-Sironar S. Needs 86mm filters, but has enough high-quality image circle (372mm) for your purposes. The only modern, multicoated 75-degree lens I'm aware of in this focal length.

300mm is another story. If you can find a multicoated Fuji A, go for it to minimize size and weight. Should f/9 be too slow for you, take your pick of the multicoated f/5.6 plasmats from major manufacturers.

clay harmon
16-Nov-2004, 13:55
My vote would go for a 240 gold dot dagor, and is still in a modern shutter. It is coated, very, very sharp, has a huge image circle, and is not a big honkin lens to put in your bag. I have one of these that I may be selling soon, because I finally got my mitts on the Zeiss 240/9 dagor which will cover my 7x17 easily, which the gold dot version will only do if I center it up perfectly, and use some hyperfocal shucking and jiving. I just can't justify having two lenses in the same focal length.

Gem Singer
16-Nov-2004, 13:57
Hi Chris,

From my experience, I tried a Fuji 240A (similar to the G-Claron) and a Fuji 300C (similar to the Nikkor 300M) that I had been using on my 4x5 and 5x7 cameras. I thought I would also use both of those lenses on my new 8x10 camera. They are nice and sharp, but I found them lacking in image circle size and brightness. As a result, I purchased a Fuji 300CM-W to use on the 8x10 camera. The 300CM-W is a faster f5.6 lens with a larger image circle. Of course, it is larger in size, heavier in weight with a Copal 3 shutter, and it requires 77mm. screw-in filters. However, the lens is brighter than the 240A and the 300C, and it is blazing sharp.

Jim, at Midwest Photo Exchange (www.mpex.com) is expecting a shipment of several previously owned Fuji 300CM-W lenses in the very near future. I highly recommend it for 8x10. It meets all of the requirements you have laid out.

Stan. Laurenson-Batten
16-Nov-2004, 14:13
Hello Chris.

I recently bought the new Schneider 300/5.6 Symmar 'L' MC in Copal 3.

It is by no means a lightweight but the performance in all respects is outstanding.

As yet, I have only used it on my 5x4 Sinar 'P' but feel sure it would perform just as well on the larger format.

Brian Ellis
16-Nov-2004, 14:20
I use the 240mm G Claron, great lens, small, light weight, light price, very sharp. Stop down to F32 or smaller and you should have plenty of room for movements. However, I've never used it to make what I'd consider "huge" prints. I either contact print in the darkroom or scan and print to roughly 16x20.

Donald Brewster
16-Nov-2004, 14:56
10" WF Ektar? Certainly has the coverage for the movements you intend, it is sharp though I don't know about "extreme" sharpness. I think it is a fabulous lens.

Oren Grad
16-Nov-2004, 15:49
Chris -

I have used both the 240 Apo-Sironar-N and Apo-Sironar-S, and I own the 240 S. For adequate movement on 8x10, you definitely want the S. If you tend to use much front rise, you're likely to run out of coverage frequently with the N.

Although I don't have a 240 G-Claron to compare, I do have the 270, and based on my experience with that I'd say that for the utmost in apparent sharpness and refinement, I'd take an Apo-Sironar-S over a G-Claron any day, particularly if you're going to be shooting at optimal (middle) apertures rather than stopping down to f/64 all the time.

Frank Petronio
16-Nov-2004, 16:16
From a non-4x5 user, as nice and small as the f/9 lenses are, I found going to a 5.6 design made a huge difference in focusing and viewing, especially for portraits or fleeting subjects. I've been watching eBay and the prices for big, ten to twenty year old 8x10 symetrical lenses have never been lower...

Tony Karnezis
16-Nov-2004, 18:01
Consider the 240 f/10 Nikkor Process lens. Upside--inexpensive, very sharp, huge coverage--650mm at f/10 and 720mm at f/22. Downside--rarely in a shutter and difficult/expensive to fit in a Copal 1 based on Grimes. Don't know whether they're better than plasmats near infinity or if they're multicoated, considering you shoot relatively distant subjects in color. I know of someone on this site who's selling one in a Copal 1 shutter (done by Grimes) if you're interested. -Tony

Robert_4191
16-Nov-2004, 20:06
I may not have enough experience with 8x10 to understand what constitutes "extreme" sharpness, but the Fuji 250mm 6.7 I use is pretty amazing -- bright, sharp, and movements possible by the bucketload. It *is* single-coated, and that fact along with the huge image circle means a shade is essential to avoid flare.

But of the 4 8x10 lenses I've used, it's the best, especially for color -- I've only done enlargements to 24x30, but they sure look great. (Yes, I know the question was technically for a 240, but I figured 250 was close enough)

Michael S. Briggs
17-Nov-2004, 01:09
Since you want a 240 mm for 8x10 and want the best imaging possible, even to the edges, for extreme enlargements, using the manufacturer's specs, there seems to be to be a clear choice: the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S. The Apo-Sironar-S uses ED glass to offer slightly more coverage than most of the other plasmat designs. Since you will be using the 240 mm for 8x10, this is a clear reason to choose the Apo-Sironar-S over the Apo-Sironar-N (for 4x5 the extra coverage woudn't make any difference).

Schneider doesn't offer a 240 mm lens in the Apo-Symmar-L series. Fuji has a 250 mm lens in the CMW series, but even with the advantage of the extra 10 mm in focal length, the coverage, as specified by Fuji, isn't as large as the 240 mm Apo-Sironar-S. The older designs don't match the coverag of the Apo-Sironar-S.

This is all based on the manufactuer's specs. Unless someone has done side-by-side comparisons of the results from 240 mm lenses for 8x10 (or 4x5 with extreme movements to probe the same image circle) and extreme enlargements, this is all that we have to go by. Experience with lenses for 8x10 contact prints isn't relevant for your question, nor is comments about extreme coverage obtained by stopping way down -- at small stops diffraction will reduce the sharpness for your extreme enlargements.

giancatarina
17-Nov-2004, 03:26
210/5,6 super symmar Xl has a good reputation,but it's a 210 (ic 500 @f22)

giancatarina
17-Nov-2004, 03:37
210/5,6 super symmar Xl has a good reputation,
but it's a 210 (ic 500 @f22 with filter size 135 and weight 2 kg
240 apo sironar S (ic 372) 240 apo symmar (ic 352@22) 240 apo sironar N (ic 350@22)
have a look at :
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html)

if movements (front rise ) is very important, i will go for a 300 apo sironar S or apo symmar, or the shorter 210 XL.
Even the 240 apo sironar S give you only 43 mm of front rise in landscape, considering the 8x10 format, for me it's not enought !
But you have to consider the limitation of your camera as well !

jonathan smith
17-Nov-2004, 03:47
You mentioned the Nikkor W, I have that and I do like it a lot, although it is quite big and heavy. My camera is pretty solid so it's ok, but each time I get it out I have to say "dammmn!".

It's quite sharp, but I can't prove this. For me, the lens seems to have an intangible quality of richer detail and deeper color compared to the 270mm G-Claron I have. Another upside is the f/5.6 aperture - it's bright viewing and easy to focus.

It seems to lack image circle despite the 70mm angle claim. I have had a couple shots show dark corners, but usually it covers just fine.

Another consideration is it takes very large filters, I think it's 84mm. Each filter usually costs around $90.00. So if you will be using a lot of filters, it could be a considerable investment.

I would agree with the suggestions to try a G-Claron. The G-Claron might be a better overall choice for you, considering the small size, light weight, low cost, and nice coverage. But it might be a slight compromise in the area of intangibles, sharpness, detail, etc. That would be splitting hairs, but important to consider.

So don't sell the Nikkor short. I'm very glad to have mine.

Jeffrey Goggin
17-Nov-2004, 05:08
Assuming it performs similarly to the 260mm/f10 Nikkor process lens, I second the suggestion of a 240mm/f10 Nikkor process lens, provided you can find one already mounted in a shutter or are willing to the pay the cost (~$700) of having one mounted in a shutter. I have the 260mm version and it is, without a doubt, the sharpest, highest resolution lens I've ever seen. I shoot mostly "urban abstracts" -- old buildings, back alleys, and such -- and zooming in on the scan of one particular image taken with it, I'm able to read the ~1/8" tall numbers on a utility meter that was 30' from the camera ... amazing!

adrian tyler
17-Nov-2004, 14:31
add a note to brian ellis post on the 240 g claron.

i've made a large print (160 cm wide) off of a neg made with a 6x7 back with that lens and it is superb.

Dan_4341
20-Nov-2004, 00:21
At one time I ended up owning two 240mm lenses: Fuji A f9 and a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S f5.6. I did some test shots of the same scenes (outdoor landscapes) on provia and velvia (8x10), using up to 1 inch rise and small front tilts. Viewing the results with 4x to 20x magnifiers - at f22-32 the pure sharpness results were virtually the same. At larger and smaller apertures the Rodenstock was better.

The biggest difference in pure on-film results was in the 'look' of the picture - maybe contrast and illumination. The Rodenstock had more even illumination and perhaps a slightly warmer color rendition, and a slightly softer contrast (preferable to me). The Fuji gave a harder contrast feeling to the shots. Possibly nit-picking but I always preferred the Rodenstock shots.

In viewing and focusing, esp. in dimming evening light outdoors it was much easier for me to focus the Rodenstock, as you'd expect due to the widest f-stop difference. I also like the bigger shutter on the Rodenstock - easier for me to see and set the aperture and shutter speed. Many people will find the Fuji more than sufficient and prefer it for it's very low weight and much lower cost. However, I settled on using just two lenses (the other being the Nikkor 450M, which I much prefer to the Fuji 450C), so weight is not such an issue for me, and I find both using the Rodenstock and the images it produces, to be preferable and worth the money and the weight.

For 300mm lenses, I rented a bunch at the same time as I was trying some used lenses on loan from Mpex (this was a few years ago) - including a 300 Nikkor, Rodenstock N, Fuji f8.5c and others. The Fuji was really sharp, but again had that high contrast look, and slightly underexposed at the same markings (aperture/shutter) as the other lenses - maybe the Fuji marking are very slightly optimistic as I noticed this on the 240 lens as well. The Nikkor had better illumination (more even across the image) than Fuji, but maybe wasn't quite as sharp. Again I preferred the Rodenstock, and it was sharper than the Nikkor (f22). Actual differences if prints were made from the color transparencies - I really don't know if they would be significant, as I just looked at the trannies. Like most things in photography it usually boils down to personal preference and various trade-offs.

Ernest Purdum
20-Nov-2004, 06:45
In your question, you are open to a 300 as an alternative to the 240. All else being equal (almost never the case, unfortunately) it should be easier for a lens designer to achieve very high resolution if he doesn't have to provide a wide view at the same time.

marktucker
17-Dec-2012, 11:11
I would like to buy a 240 for use with 8x10, but I heard there is a very fast Schneider, like f3.5 or so. Anyone know that lens or something similar. I don't care about sharpness, I just need coverage, and something modern in a shutter. Thank you.

Mark Tucker, http://www.marktucker.com

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
17-Dec-2012, 13:37
Schneider made a f3.5 240mm Xenar, but it hasn't been made in fifty+ years, so it certainly wouldn't be modern. Finding one in a shutter will be difficult and expensive but not impossible. Your best bet it to look for one in a barrel, and then have the Grimes boys mount it into a Compound or Ilex 5. It should be a direct fit into the shutter from a 300mm f4.5 Xenar.

Jonathan Barlow
17-Dec-2012, 14:31
I have a Fujinon-W S inside lettering 210mm f/5.6 (Yes, considerably wider than a 240mm) with a 350mm image circle. Not a lot of room for movements on 8x10, but a fair amount. A very nice lens that usually sells for $400-500.

Alan Gales
17-Dec-2012, 15:41
I may not have enough experience with 8x10 to understand what constitutes "extreme" sharpness, but the Fuji 250mm 6.7 I use is pretty amazing -- bright, sharp, and movements possible by the bucketload. It *is* single-coated, and that fact along with the huge image circle means a shade is essential to avoid flare.

But of the 4 8x10 lenses I've used, it's the best, especially for color -- I've only done enlargements to 24x30, but they sure look great. (Yes, I know the question was technically for a 240, but I figured 250 was close enough)

+1

I also own and really like this lens. It has a 398mm image circle and fits into a Copal 1 shutter. They usually run around $300.00.

Jock Sturges used a Fujinon 250mm f.6.7 for many of his famous images.

Armin Seeholzer
18-Dec-2012, 04:02
At 240mm, you definitely want an f/5.6 Apo-Sironar S. Needs 86mm filters, but has enough high-quality image circle (372mm) for your purposes.

8+

Bernice Loui
18-Dec-2012, 10:34
Keep in mind all optics are a set of trade-offs. There is no "best lens" only a lens that meet the majority of a given set of requirements. While the group of wide field process lenses (Fuji A, G-Claron, Kowa Graphic, Konica GR and ...) are small and deliver an angle of view of 70+ degrees, there is light fall off to deal with if the total image circle is used. Moving on to a giant lens like a 200mm f6.8 Grandagon, improves the light fall off, but look at the size and cost involved.

At 300mm or about 12", the choices become more reasonable due to the angle of view.

There are many other factors that affect image resolution beyond the lens. Film flatness, F-stop used (smaller than f22, be ready for lower resolution due to diffraction) the ability of the film to resolve, camera vibration or movements during exposure, contrast reduction due to stray light bouncing inside the camera bellows and many other factors figure into the resulting image's resolution and quality.

Yet, I'm not convinced resolution or the technical qualities alone in a given image, "makes the image."


Bernice



Hi guys, another lens question: I'm considering buying a used 240 or 300mm lens for 8x10, my criteria being extreme sharpness and enough movement for some substantial front rise. I'm looking at the Nikkor W, Schneider Symmar, and the Rodenstock Sironar N and S series. Does anyone have any opinions as to whether there would be any quality difference between photos taken with these lenses, in any way? I'm scanning at extremely high resolution and making huge prints, so any differences (including at the edges) between the lenses actually will be visible in my prints.

I'd appreciate any suggestions or thoughts (including if there are other lenses of equal or greater quality).

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

Neal Chaves
18-Dec-2012, 16:49
As has already been suggested, the 250mm F6.7 Fujinon W. I don't see how it could fail to please you, but if it does you can sell it easily to someone it will.

Leigh
18-Dec-2012, 17:34
At 240mm, you definitely want an f/5.6 Apo-Sironar S. Needs 86mm filters, but has enough high-quality image circle (372mm) for your purposes. The only modern, multicoated 75-degree lens I'm aware of in this focal length.
I agree.

I have the Apo-Sironar S, Apo-Sironar N, and Nikkor W in 240/5.6.
I think the Apo-Sironar S is definitely a sharper lens.
That's based on opinion and observation, not on extensive lab-grade testing.

With its 336mm IC, the Nikkor W just barely covers 8x10, with no significant movements available.

- Leigh

marktucker
19-Dec-2012, 15:18
i'm going to shoot wet plate with it. So i'm looking for super fast. I also want zero depth of field. I will only shoot it wide open. if anyone actually has one FOR SALE, let me know. Thank you. MT

Leigh
19-Dec-2012, 15:25
if anyone actually has one FOR SALE, let me know.
Where are you located?

- Leigh

Michael Clark
23-Dec-2012, 13:28
Leigh, is not the IC of the 300mm W Nikkor 420mm, with 70deg. And the filter size is 95mm, which cost a lot!!

Mike

patrickjames
24-Dec-2012, 00:32
What size plate are you shooting Mark?

Andrew Plume
24-Dec-2012, 10:09
240mm f6.8 Goerz Berlin Dagor

andrew

Leigh
24-Dec-2012, 10:57
Leigh, is not the IC of the 300mm W Nikkor 420mm, with 70deg. And the filter size is 95mm, which cost a lot!!
Yep. At least that's true for mine. :D

But I thought we were talking about 240mm lenses???

- Leigh

Leigh
24-Dec-2012, 11:07
I also want zero depth of field. I will only shoot it wide open.
You've picked a tough row to hoe. None of the lenses discussed here will come close to covering 8x10 wide open.

Image circles are normally spec'd at f/16 or f/22, where the angle of coverage is significantly larger than at full aperture.

- Leigh

Michael Clark
24-Dec-2012, 13:38
Reading to fast I guess and lost track!

Mike
Yep. At least that's true for mine. :D

But I thought we were talking about 240mm lenses???

- Leigh

Armin Seeholzer
24-Dec-2012, 13:57
Hi Mark

I have a nice old Zeiss Jena Tessar f3.5 which covers 8x10 full open but 1. I do not sell it 2. It has no shutter I use it with a Sinar behind the lens shutter!

valdormar
26-Jan-2016, 02:58
None of the lenses discussed here will come close to covering 8x10 wide open.
- Leigh

Not true at all. You have not tried have you? I own and use the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N 240 mm f5.6. I use it wide open with a little movement, and it covers all of my Deardorff 8x10 film.

Jim Galli
26-Jan-2016, 16:39
Well, it took 12 years, but the real answer is;

Docter Wetzlar Germinar W240 f9 in Copal 1 shutter

Slightly sharper than 240 f9A Fujinon and covers 10X12. spectacular lens

Dan Fromm
26-Jan-2016, 17:31
Well, it took 12 years, but the real answer is;

Docter Wetzlar Germinar W240 f9 in Copal 1 shutter

Slightly sharper than 240 f9A Fujinon and covers 10X12. spectacular lens

Until you try the next better lens.

Jim Galli
26-Jan-2016, 17:55
Until you try the next better lens.

:raspberrys: I've tried 'em all Dan.

Kevin Crisp
26-Jan-2016, 18:03
Him I believe on this.

valdormar
3-Feb-2016, 02:17
You've picked a tough row to hoe. None of the lenses discussed here will come close to covering 8x10 wide open.

Image circles are normally spec'd at f/16 or f/22, where the angle of coverage is significantly larger than at full aperture.

- Leigh


Camera: Deardorff 8x10
Film: Arista EDU Ultra 100 ISO
Lens: Rodenstock Apo Sironar-N 240mm F/5.6 MC
Shutter: Copal NO.3 at 125/sec
_
Shot wide open @ 5.6
4 foot soft box over head with Einstein™ E640
silver tri grip front - low

http://www.hauslendale.com/deardorffv8_Sironar-N240.jpg

vinny
3-Feb-2016, 05:59
I like that shot, but covering and illuminating are two different things.
Infinity a d portrait distance are two different things when speaking of coverage.

Jim Galli
3-Feb-2016, 07:53
A lovely picture, Valdormar. I take it since you're arguing coverage with leigh that you were focused at infinity when you took it? Or maybe you shot yourself in the foot. I'm guessing your 240mm lens had a bellows draw that effectively made it a 360 + mm lens ;~'))

Sal Santamaura
3-Feb-2016, 09:32
...I take it since you're arguing coverage with leigh...Any such "argument" is probably futile. Leigh's profile shows this:


Last Activity: 24-Jul-2014 04:18

Jim Galli
3-Feb-2016, 09:47
Any such "argument" is probably futile. Leigh's profile shows this:


Last Activity: 24-Jul-2014 04:18

Ha ha ha, the joke is on me. Time to "unsubscribe" from this thread I guess. Silly discussion 12 years ago. Not improved by age.

valdormar
4-Feb-2016, 02:14
I like that shot, but covering and illuminating are two different things.
Infinity a d portrait distance are two different things when speaking of coverage.

This I know, Lens tested for close portrait and infinity landscape. You only have a little movement. Both wide open and closed down. It covers the 8x10 just fine. I scanned this test image first so up it went.

valdormar
4-Feb-2016, 02:15
A lovely picture, Valdormar. I take it since you're arguing coverage with leigh that you were focused at infinity when you took it? Or maybe you shot yourself in the foot. I'm guessing your 240mm lens had a bellows draw that effectively made it a 360 + mm lens ;~'))

Lens tested for close portrait and infinity landscape. You only have a little movement. Both wide open and closed down. It covers the 8x10 just fine. I scanned this test image first so up it went.

valdormar
4-Feb-2016, 02:29
Any such "argument" is probably futile. Leigh's profile shows this:

Last Activity: 24-Jul-2014 04:18

Oh, I have no argument with Leigh, is't just he made a statement in regards to this lens that could lead someone astray. I myself was looking up some info on the Rodenstock Apo Sironar-N 240mm F/5.6 MC and his comment showed up in my search. As we all know the Sironar-S 240mm covers 8x10 with adequate movements, but this Sironar-N seems to be up in the air. So I got the lens in hand and find that it works with the 8x10 just fine, both close up at all stops and at infinity at all stops. Not a lot of movement but enough to make something great.

Paddy McKay
11-Feb-2016, 00:08
While this isn't one of the lenses that was originally asked about, I have to agree with Jim. I picked one of these up from Kerry, back when he originally offered them. As Arne Cröll points out "At f/16, the 240mm Germinar-W was decidedly better than the G-Claron, slightly better than the Apo-Ronar, and on par with the Fujinon (fig. 9). At f/22, the differences were small. Thus the Germinar W series is a worthy contender for the Fujinon-A line. Germinar W lenses have the additional advantage that they cover up to 80° when stopped down to small apertures, whereas the image quality of the Fujinon breaks down fast past the 70° mark even at small apertures." Image circle of Germinar W 240mm at 1:1 - 672mm.

Drew Wiley
12-Feb-2016, 15:48
I judged my own results from 30X40 inch Cibachromes printed from the 8x10. It doesn't get much more nitpicky than that. The three small lenses I have used all
performed very similarly in terms of image circle, color balance, and overall crispness: Fuji 250/6,7, 240A, and 350 G-Claron. Happy with them all. No, they don't fully cover wide open. So what? They have adequate wiggle room stopped down to typical working apertures, though at extreme angles it's helpful to use as much rear tilt as possible versus front. There are subtle differences in contrast due to the different coatings. But if somebody wants to give a Germinar, I'd be happy to
include that in my own opinion list. Don't all rush to offer them at once. Just one or two will do.

Michael Kadillak
12-Feb-2016, 16:29
In the 240mm class I have used the Fuji A and f6.7, the Nikon W, the 10" WF Ektar, the G Claron, and the Schneider and once I shot the Doctor 240mm WA it was absolutely no contest. The Doctor WA is the sharpest, widest coverage and best contrast of the bunch and is minimal in size. Best of breed IMHO

Drew Wiley
12-Feb-2016, 16:40
But did you try it close to macro, which is the home field for the G and A? (though they're wonderful at infinity too). Would be nice to throw in an Apo Nikkor 4-element too, since they seems to exceed every official view camera lens in technical categories, even if their "bokeh" stinks. I think it's spelled Docter Optic;
otherwise all I know is that they are fairly rare.

Michael Kadillak
12-Feb-2016, 19:19
But did you try it close to macro, which is the home field for the G and A? (though they're wonderful at infinity too). Would be nice to throw in an Apo Nikkor 4-element too, since they seems to exceed every official view camera lens in technical categories, even if their "bokeh" stinks. I think it's spelled Docter Optic;
otherwise all I know is that they are fairly rare.

Yes, you are correct in the fact that it is a Docter. Actually I did have an opportunity to use it in a macro setting and it performed flawlessly. The contrast and sharpness is something you have to see to believe. I found a 30" f14.5 Docter in a Copal 3 that exhibits similar character. Too bad there are not more of these around. I should probably sell my other 240mm lenses because they are not going to get much playing time.

Peter De Smidt
12-Feb-2016, 19:42
I prefer my Docter Optic 240mm to my 240mm G-claron. As Michael says, the former is sharper and contrastier.

Michael Kadillak
12-Feb-2016, 19:52
Yes, you are correct in the fact that it is a Docter. Actually I did have an opportunity to use it in a macro setting and it performed flawlessly. The contrast and sharpness is something you have to see to believe. I found a 30" f14.5 Docter in a Copal 3 that exhibits similar character. Too bad there are not more of these around. I should probably sell my other 240mm lenses because they are not going to get much playing time.

I honestly forgot who on this forum sold me the 240mm Docter lens a while back but I owe you big time.