PDA

View Full Version : Wide Angle lens for 8x10?



Asher Kelman
30-Oct-2007, 00:29
I'm getting a new Chamonix 8x10. What lenses would you suggest at the wide end?

Asher

Dave_B
30-Oct-2007, 02:37
The Nikkor 120SW is a fine lens that covers and is reasonably priced. The Schneider Super Angulon 121 will just cover. The Schneider SSXL 110 is reported to cover as well but I have not tried it yet. This last lens is by far the best and most expensive, the Nikkor will be in the middle and the 121 the least expensive. I happen to like the Nikkor and use it a lot both for 8x10 as well as 4x5.
Cheers,
Dave B.

Ole Tjugen
30-Oct-2007, 04:08
I've used the 121mm Super Angulon on 8x10", and concluded that in the future I will only use it on the slightly smaller 18x24cm format. It just barely covers 8x10" if everything is perfectly aligned and centered, which is not how I take most of my pictures.

For less extreme wide angle, the 165mm f:6.8 Angulon (non-super) is a good and reasonably inexpensive alternative.

Hugo Zhang
30-Oct-2007, 06:04
For a modern lens, take a look at Schneider SSXL 150mm. For a classic lens, take a look at this little gem..

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=290174220987&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=019

150mm in a 8x10 will be like a 22mm with a 35mm camera, just to give you an idea.

Michael Graves
30-Oct-2007, 06:43
Thanks, Hugo. Guess I'll cancel my snipe. No chance now.

Jim Galli
30-Oct-2007, 06:46
A 210mm G-Claron will surprise you. At f32 it covers with very modest movements and at f64 a bit more. The 240 G-Claron covers with lots of movements and is a fine lens. Wollensak 159mm Ex WA f12.5 covers nicely and lived into the coating era I believe. Cooke Series VIIb 162mm is the sweetheart lens but hard to find in decent shutters. Hard to find in any form really.

Jan Pedersen
30-Oct-2007, 07:03
Agree with Jim. The 210 and 240 G-Clarons are good on the 8x10 use both.
Funny enough i don't care for the G-Clarons on 4x5 find them harsh but on 8x10 they are different animals.

John Kasaian
30-Oct-2007, 07:27
All the above plus the 165mm Super Angulon if your front standards can take the abuse and you don't plan on going far from the car (they're very heavy chunks of glass) OTOH the Wollensak 159mm WA or EWA are downright dainty and inexpensive alternatives.

Rick Moore
30-Oct-2007, 07:49
Another plug for the Wollensak 159mm Ex WA f12.5. Mine is coated, in an Alphax shutter.

For an extreme wide angle on 8x10, the Berthiot Perigraphe 120mm f14 is tiny and a good performer with enough coverage for reasonable movements. Mine is in a barrel with rotating dial stops, but David Goldfarb has had Grimes put one into a Copal shutter.

Since you did not put a limit on cost, the 6 1/2 inch f8 WA Dagor is another alternative for a small, light 8x10 wide angle. Be prepared to pay a premium, though.

Walter Calahan
30-Oct-2007, 07:59
Asher

It all depends on how you shoot. Are you using a 300 or a 360 as your "normal" focal length?

There are a lot of great lenses suggested here. But not much in the middle wide angle range, such as a 240 or 250mm.

After my 300, I got a 240mm. For my eye it was the right jumping down point. Your eye will tell you what's right for you as you test various wide angle focal lengths.

From the 240, I jumped down to a Fujinon W 180mm. It has only millimeters of movement, but is a nice little lens after the 240. But I found I needed a lens near the 180mm range that had movement, so I got a 165 Super Angulon to fill that need.

After getting use to all that, I knew I wanted something very wide, so I found a used Nikkor 120mm to complete my lens selection. This wasn't done overnight. My choices came from learning while shooting.

So you need to ask yourself how a wide angle will help you make photographs? What does my subject matter need?

There is no one 'best' wide angle lens for everyone. Take your time, and you'll know from shooting what you need.

Brian Ellis
30-Oct-2007, 08:36
I've owned two 159mm f9 Wollensaks, a 210 G Claron, and a 240 G Claron, all used with an 8x10 camera. They all worked well. I got better coverage with the 210 G Claron than Jim's message implies. It's been a while but I don't remember ever running out of room when stopped down to f32 or smaller. The Wollensak's main virtues were it's small size and low cost. I made mostly contact prints with mine and for that it was fine. I don't know how well it would work if the negative was enlarged.

Just curious - how long between the time you placed your order and the time you received or expect to receive your camera?

Ole Tjugen
30-Oct-2007, 11:48
How much coverage is enough depends on your shooting style - I may be the only one to ever run out of coverage with a 210mm f:6.8 Angulon on 8x10", but that is a consequence of living in an area where landscapes are mostly vertical! :)

erie patsellis
30-Oct-2007, 15:39
Ole,
I tried the 210 angulon on the 16x20 last night, I'm surprised to say the least. I doesn't illuminate the long dimension well, but boy that last few inches of circle have a definate look that I'll be working on, very similar to my 90 Super Angulon on 8x10, though not as abrupt of an end to the circle.


erie

Jack Flesher
30-Oct-2007, 18:01
FWIW, the 110 SS XL actually covers --- or at least illuminates to the corners. It definitely needs the center-filter mounted, but it does work.

Asher Kelman
30-Oct-2007, 21:54
Hi Everyone,

What a friendly bunch of guys you are. I appreciate you sharing your experience Where to start? Well Walter asked what was my normal lens as a reference. I do have a 300mm el cheapo, that I just have to save $ for now. I have no particular thoughts of using htat focal length at this time.

My main work is centered on exploiting the Cooke 229mm PS945 lens purchased from Don Hutton (thanks!) in the Chamonix 8x10 from Hugo which I'm reviewing for my website*. Thanks Hugo for showing me the 7"x17" blond beauty and even processing the film! Now I have to make some prints!)

I'll use the Cooke lens with the 4x5 reducing back for portraits and then at 8x10 for full figure and stopped down somewhat, for macro, then stopped down more for architecture and landscape. So I need the wider angle for getting a whole large building or city scape or else landscape along the California Coast, Redwoods and so forth. From Hugo's post, the 150mm corresponds to 22mm in 35mm format. Well that is a fair wide angle and seems a good idea. Still, I'd want to go wider for landscapes and some interiors. Something like 14-16mm

You all suggested 4 ranges of lenses: 110-121, 150-165, B. 150-165 C. 180 :I leave this out since coverage was limited) D. 210 to 240: I have 229 mm Cooke P945, so this is already covered!

A. 110-121

110 SS XL illuminates to the corners. needs the center-filter Jack flesher

Berthiot Perigraphe 120mm tiny (expensive) Rick Moore

Nikkor 120mm Walter, Dave

Nikkor 120SW is a fine lens that covers and is reasonably priced. Dave

Nikkor 121 the least expensive Dave

The Schneider Super Angulon 121 will just cover. Dave, Ole

The Schneider 121mm SSXL Dave


B. 150-165

150mm SSXL 150mm Hugo

Wollensak 159mm Ex WA f12.5 covers ?. Jim Galli, John Kasaian, Rick Moore

Cooke Series VIIb 162mm sweetheart lens, ? Shutter Jim Galli

165mm Super Angulon (very heavy) John Kasaian, Walter, Ole

165mm (6 1/2 inch) f8 WA Dagor small, light 8x10. pricey Rick More

Interesting the the 165mm Wollensak is so popular, next, the 165mm Super Angulon. I have to now to compare image circles and character, flare, distortion, suitablity for color etc. I now consider just two focal lengths about 110mm and about 165mm. I guess the best thing would be to be able to rent lenses to see how vary. I really should move to the warehouse of KEH or some other place like that!! Of course, if there's anyone in the Los Angeles area with a lens in this range to show me I'd love to see what it produces with B&W and color film/trannies.

BTW, if there is any special limitation, such as real distortions that prevent use for architecture or else problems in using the lens for a wide group of people, I'd love to know.

Thanks so much! :)

Asher

I hope I didn't get too many mistakes!

* Chamonix will try to deliver my camera a little earlier hopefully, so that is some advantage in doing a review! I appreciate that courtesy very much, however, I still have to pay for it and that is as it should be!! If anyone is in the los Angeles or S.F. area who would like to shoot with me when I get the camera let me know!

Mark Stahlke
30-Oct-2007, 22:07
There is one lens missing from the 150-165 list: Nikkor SW 150 f/8. With a 400mm image circle it will cover 8x10 handily. It's reputed to be a very nice lens though I have no personal experience with it. I went with the 150mm SSXL and now that I've paid off the credit card I have no regrets.

Ole Tjugen
30-Oct-2007, 23:03
...

165mm Super Angulon (very heavy) John Kasaian, Walter, Ole

...

I hope I didn't get too many mistakes!

...

Only one that I can see straight away: I don't use a 165mm Super Angulon, but a 165mm plain Angulon. To me the difference in weight outweighs the difference in coverage.

BTW I've also used a very old "R.O.J.A. vorm. Emil Busch Weitwinkel Aplanat Ser. C no.2", a 150mm barrel lens. I've even used it on 24x30cm film...

SAShruby
30-Oct-2007, 23:10
Nikkor 120SW (105 degrees) 150SW (95 degrees) is an extreme wide angle. 210-250 range is wide angle. I preffer Fujinon 210WS and 250WS lenses as my wide lenses.

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2007, 10:26
Nikkor 120SW (105 degrees) 150SW (95 degrees) is an extreme wide angle. 210-250 range is wide angle. I preffer Fujinon 210WS and 250WS lenses as my wide lenses.
Thanks,

Now I'm looking at image circles and trying to find out about the lens characteristics!

I'm using each lens with the 8x10 and also with a 4x5 back! So extreme WA becomes WA, so that's why I'm loose in my definitions :)

Any insights to lens look and application for the lenses suggested would be helpful.

Thanks, :)

Asher

Jack Flesher
31-Oct-2007, 11:48
Thanks,

Any insights to lens look and application for the lenses suggested would be helpful.



A 110 is moderately wide on 4x5 and extremely so on 8x10. 35mm film focal equivalents are roughly 32mm on 4x5 and 16mm on 8x10 ;)

Mark Stahlke
31-Oct-2007, 12:18
Another lens specification you may need to consider is the diameter of the rear element. How big is the opening in the front standard of your camera? Will a given lens fit through it?

I came close to buying a Nikkor-SW 150 for my Canham 8x10 Lightweight but I noticed that lens' rear element is 95mm in diameter and would not fit through the front standard. I ended up with a 150 SSXL which has a comparatively small rear element.

BTW, there is yet another lens to consider: 155mm f/6.8 Grandagon.

Dave Wooten
31-Oct-2007, 12:19
113 mm f/18 protar covers 8 x 10... a tiny little lens, don t know about the shutter applications.

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2007, 12:31
Thanks Jack, Mark and Dave for the extra insights.

I'll ask Hugo about the maximum diameter of lens that can be used. How about that it uses a Sinar lens board?

I notice there's an interesting lens for sale.

I'm wondering about the FS Emile Bush Rathenow #4 here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=30003).
What do you know about the lens? Is it worth getting compared to a modern lens?
The image circle seems large 385mm. I'd have to get a shutter somehow.

The thing is I'm not interested in the lens a a collector, since I'm not that! I just want to cover that focal length between ~150-185mm. I also want to know that I could resell the lens some time and not lose everything! Then I still need a lens in the UW region.

Thanks so much,

Asher

John Kasaian
31-Oct-2007, 12:54
Asher,
You might want to check out some recent back isues of View Camera magazine. Kerry Thalmann wrote a series of articles on classic WA lenses for 8x10s and tested many of the lenses on your list.

As for the 159mm WA Wollensak, it covers 8x10, but thats about it, having very little in the way of wiggle room for movements. What is has going for it is that it is little, lightwieght, the coated version gives quite a nice image and they came in Wollensak shutters which are some of the best old timers around (besides that, they're often found dirt cheap!) What it dosen't have is a large image circle and they are slow at f/9.5 and f/12.5. You also probably won't find a mc version if that is important.

Jan Pedersen
31-Oct-2007, 12:57
Asher, you will be fine with the Sinar board and a 95mm rear element diameter, you just can't mount it in a Technica board and use the Sinar to Technica converter board.

Hugo Zhang
31-Oct-2007, 13:01
Asher,

If you really just look for a user lens, the Wallensak 159mm is good choice for around $250-300 in a shutter or a 141mm and 182 Protar V f/18 in barrel for the same price. That Dagor 6 1/2 F/8 I linked to you earlier is very good too in a shutter. You really don't need a shutter with wide lens on your 8x10 as you tends to stop down to f/64 to get the coverage and movement. Unless you are going to get a 8x10 enlarger to blow up your pictures.

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2007, 13:14
Thanks Jon, Jan and Hugo!

I'll be making contact prints but also scanning and mining the image for v large prints nad also new compositons extracted from the captured image.

So I'd like the negative to be finely drawn.

Also, i'd like to be able to raise a standard or Schleimflug without running out of image circle in architectural shots.

BTW, Hugo, what focal length do you guess I'd need for the Walt Disney Concert Hall from that parking lot(in landscape mode) or the inner courtyard of the Colburn Music Conservatory across the road?

Asher

Hugo Zhang
31-Oct-2007, 13:23
Asher,

Take your 35mm and walk around and find your fovorite shots and see what focal length the lens is. I would look at 150mm ssxl if you want tons of movements and want to go beyond contact printing. I myself would not use such a lens much, too modern looking, too sharp and too much contrast. But to shoot WDCH, that's THE lens.

Daniel Unkefer
31-Oct-2007, 14:05
Hi All,

I own a Sinar Norma 121mm f8 Super Angulon w/rabbit ears and Compur shutter. If you hyperfocal-distance focus it, it neatly covers 8x10. I hardly ever use movements with such an extremely wide lens..... Does Anybody out there??

I also have a Sinar Norma 165mm f8 Super Angulon w/rabbit ears and Compur-Special, spring-loaded shutter. It's a boat anchor, but I delight in using it :)

The 165mm f6.8 Angulon I have is also OK (actually a great small lens), it's basically just like a Dagor. Same with my 210mm f6.8 Angulon. Glad I have both of them.

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2007, 14:43
Asher,

Take your 35mm and walk around and find your fovorite shots and see what focal length the lens is. I would look at 150mm ssxl if you want tons of movements and want to go beyond contact printing. I myself would not use such a lens much, too modern looking, too sharp and too much contrast. But to shoot WDCH, that's THE lens.
Hugo, I now we are talking of at least 121mm to get the whole WDCH from down on street level across the road on the steps of the court house.

From the parking lot top level I'd feel for sure that 21mm would cover. But you already know from the lens you had in the 7"x17" Chamonix what gives minimum coverage. I didn't write down the lens!

Asher

Ole Tjugen
31-Oct-2007, 15:12
Hugo, I now we are talking of at least 121mm to get the whole WDCH from down on street level across the road on the steps of the court house. ...

I have no idea what WDCH is or how big it is, but I fear that the only possible lens will be a Hypergon.

The 210mm Angulon covers about 50cm image circle, yet I managed to run out of coverage on this one:

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Senja_2007/Senja01.jpg

The image is slightly cropped due to bellows interference. 8x10" FP4, Angulon 210mm at f:22, on a Gandolfi Traditional 10x8" camera.

buze
31-Oct-2007, 15:22
Anyone has any experience with a Dagor 210mm f6.8 on 8x10 ? How much coverage can I expect ?

Rick Moore
31-Oct-2007, 15:26
I have a gold dot 8 1/4 inch Dagor that I use for 8x10. Stopped down to f45, it covers the corners with about 1/4 to 3/8 inch to spare.

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2007, 15:27
I have no idea what WDCH is or how big it is, but I fear that the only possible lens will be a Hypergon.

The 210mm Angulon covers about 50cm image circle, yet I managed to run out of coverage .......

The image is slightly cropped due to bellows interference. 8x10" FP4, Angulon 210mm at f:22, on a Gandolfi Traditional 10x8" camera.

Now that is a superb view to capture. For sure I'd want to use a larger image circle.

I'd love to have had the ability to add more foreground flowers and get them super sharp. I'd imagine one would want a good chunk of sky too. Looks like you might have chosen a wider lens anyway. Where's that location?

May sound a naive question, but can one add a correction lens so that the lens will be longer and one has to extend the bellow a tad and thus get a larger image circle?

Asher

Jan Pedersen
31-Oct-2007, 16:54
Have an 8 1/4 Dagor believe it to be the last year before the gold dot. It is single coated. I can't tell any difference in image circle between the Dagor and the 210 G-Claron. Would say about 1/2" to spare at infinity and much more stopped down and at closer distance.

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2007, 22:23
Have an 8 1/4 Dagor believe it to be the last year before the gold dot. It is single coated. I can't tell any difference in image circle between the Dagor and the 210 G-Claron. Would say about 1/2" to spare at infinity and much more stopped down and at closer distance.Waht are you using the lens for Jan? What is special about it for your work. What you take a God Dot for it or you are happy?

Asher

Ole Tjugen
1-Nov-2007, 01:13
Now that is a superb view to capture. For sure I'd want to use a larger image circle.

I'd love to have had the ability to add more foreground flowers and get them super sharp. I'd imagine one would want a good chunk of sky too. Looks like you might have chosen a wider lens anyway. Where's that location?


There are very few lenses with larger image circle and wider coverage than this one. Notice the little dark bit at the bottom? That's where the bellows interfered! The axis of the lens was outside the film area, I was shooting uphill too! I posted it here as an illustration that however much coverage you have, it's always possible to find a situation where you want more...

The location? Strandby, Senja, Norway. Access by invitation only. :)

Jan Pedersen
1-Nov-2007, 07:22
Asher, i use my Dagor for landscape/nature on 5x7 but mostly bought it cause it was a good deal :D
Mine is by the way not the Gold Dot but is coated and i don't think much different than the gold dot. Only difference is the price when you want to buy one.

Dagors are classic lenses with good coverage and excellent image quality. They are in addition very small and light weight.

chilihead
1-Nov-2007, 17:21
I have a Zeiss Series V 140mm f18 (mounted in a shutter) that is a great superwide on 8x10 -its for sale

Gene McCluney
1-Nov-2007, 19:36
I have a (not for sale) 150mm Dagor, old uncoated, in shutter, that covers 8x10 stopped down just barely...no movements. I think we can say that 150 is the absolute widest focal length in Dagor that "may" be usable on 8x10, without movements.

Asher Kelman
1-Nov-2007, 23:19
I have a Zeiss Series V 140mm f18 (mounted in a shutter) that is a great superwide on 8x10 -its for sale

Sounds interesting. Is the scale converted to f stops?

I wonder how hard it is to focus at f18?

I worry for my older eyes.

Asher

Asher Kelman
6-Nov-2007, 00:29
Sounds interesting. Is the scale converted to f stops?

I wonder how hard it is to focus at f18?

I worry for my older eyes.

Asher

As a follow up, what are the lighting conditions that allow one to focus easily at f18?

Seems to me that one would be pretty limited!

Asher

Jim Galli
6-Nov-2007, 08:11
As a follow up, what are the lighting conditions that allow one to focus easily at f18?

Seems to me that one would be pretty limited!

Asher
Asher, the best thing to do is put your widest lens on your camera and stop it down to f18. Go out in the sun, have a look, then come back inside and try to do an indoor shot. Beyond being dark, things don't change as much at f18 as they do at 5.6 so it's harder to see the focus snap in. In 1910 it was the only choice.

Asher Kelman
6-Nov-2007, 09:59
Asher, the best thing to do is put your widest lens on your camera and stop it down to f18. Go out in the sun, have a look, then come back inside and try to do an indoor shot. Beyond being dark, things don't change as much at f18 as they do at 5.6 so it's harder to see the focus snap in. In 1910 it was the only choice.
Thanks Jim,

That's exactly what I was thinking!~

Asher