Jody & ronish1, thank you, i'm looking forward to your observations!
I already have a 210mm/9 Apo-Gerogon as my moderate wide for 8x10" which was salvaged from some kind of process- or repro-camera. This is also a tack sharp lens at all distances and naturally shines as a close up lens in the 5:1-1:5 magnification range.Originally Posted by Jody_S
Matthias
I have several of the Repromaster lenses: an 80mm (covers 4x5 on my Omega D2V), a 135mm (covers 5x7 on my 5x7 Elwood enlarger) and a 180mm (covers 8x10 on my 8x10 Elwood enlarger). I have a 210mm that just misses covering 11x14 (by about 1/2" in each corner). I also have 240mm and 305mm Repromasters that I plan to try on my 11x14 Seneca view camera. I'm sure they'll both cover. I've tried the 150mm on my 8x10 Century Universal. I have a Graflex 8x10 focal plane shutter unit on the back of the Century, and it added enough thickness that I couldn't get the 150mm to focus. I didn't try removing the focal plane shutter unit. Similarly, I tried the 150mm on my 8x10 Elwood. It wouldn't focus because the bellows wouldn't collapse enough. I wasn't ambitious enough to make a counter-sunk lensboard for it.
Most 150mm process lenses cover 8x10 at 1:1, perhaps that is the source of confusion.
Agreed, but i read two posts in forums from people claiming that their 150mm Repromaster does cover 8x10" at infinity with just some vignetting in the outmost corners. If this would proof to be true, i would be interested in the amount of vignetting and also the edge and corner-sharpness @f/22 and smaller apertures.
Matthias
Ooh, interesting, I've never seen 80 or 135 ones, I have only seen the 9/150, 9/210 and 9/240 for sale and a couple of others like the huge 9.25/210 and an 8/150.
Would you be able to post a picture of your lenses? I confess to being intrigued to see them.
I have an Eskofot Ultragon 150/9 which someone gave me once. I've never used it, actually forgot all about it until just now, having a 150 G-Claron in Copal 0. I've used my Agfa Super-Intergon 210/9 on 8x10, and it covers and is quite sharp - not too much movement though from what I remember (I havent used it in a while, and at that it was on a 2-D which has little movement). I'll try the Eskofot tomorrow if I get a chance.
Dan
The 150mm Repromaster 1:9/150mm will definitely cover 8x10 on a camera as well as an enlarger. I have just tried mine on an Eastman Commercial View and the image on the ground glass screen appears to be even and with full coverage into the corners at maximum aperture. One problem is that the ground glass does not extend into the corners, so one has to guess using the aerial image, which is very difficult to see. The only way of really knowing is to make a photograph.
As I have not yet made a test exposure I have not been able to gauge fall-off. I will make some test exposures on Ilford MCIV RC paper with various apertures to see whether fall-off is present and if so, to what extent.
ronish, falloff is easily calculated. If a 150 mm lens is focused at infinity, on 8x10 the angle covered is 90 degrees. Cos(90/2)^4 is .25. The corners will be two stops down from the center.
ronish1 , thank you very much for your tests and observations!
Sounds like a cheap wide-angle option for 8x10 is coming close. I can get the lens including flange for 10 Euros, and - given mine will be of the same type as yours - this would make the decision a no-brainer.
Are you able to see the whole aperture in the corners when stopping down? Then any vignetting should be almost gone.
Matthias
Mathias
If you can get the lens for 10 euros with its flange, then there is really no choice to make! Buy it. If you find its no good for your camera, it will be great on your enlarger.
A 150mm Repromaster will give similar coverage on 10x8 to a 75mm on 5x4, indeed a fraction wider, more like a 72mm lens. And it will probably have corner fall-off that is similar to the Super-Angulon and Biogons. Whether that is of the order of two full stops will depend on the actual lens design, but as these lenses were made to be used on graphic reproduction machines, no doubt they have been designed to have less fall-off than a "pictorial" lens.
Lens designers used many tricks to get around the inverse square law, none more interesting than the Hypergon. But that is another story.
The only thing you must remember is that fitting barrel lenses into shutters is very expensive, and probably a complete waste of time and money. If - like me - you are happy to use your lens by simply capping and uncapping it for exposures counted in half-seconds, then you will not have a big problem. I make a lot of negatives using printing paper -Ilford MG-IV RC gloss paper is ideal - so I'm exposing in multiples of seconds rather than fractions of them. But there plenty of situations in 8x10 photography where the same is true if you are using slower films like FP4.
Good luck
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks