So what are the Ansel Adams lenses(for 8x10 anyway?)

[Jim_3565]

The continued appeal for me is the iridescent sheen off the prints I make from negatives shot with my old uncoated Dagor or my Red Dot Artar.

[Jim_3565]

"I wonder if the early scenic photographs look different because they were shot in cleaner air."

I think there's a lot to that. When my Dad was learning to fly in the mid 50's, he could take off from Bowman Field in Louisville, Ky. and most days see the smokestacks at the power plant in Madison, Ind. 30 miles away upon reaching pattern altitude (about 1000 ft. above the ground.). It was an unusually hazy day when he couldn't see them.

When I learned to fly 20 years later, I only saw them upon reaching pattern altitude one time. Every time I go back to Kentucky I'm just amazed at how polluted that place has become..

[Jim Rhoades]

I'm happy to see Dagor 77 backing the Wolly. I've just finished printing up a bunch of stuff taken in the Smokies with a Wollensak 1A 13-20-25 triple. The contrast and detail, even in the corners, have made me a happy camper.

Of course, I may have much lower standards than you. The appeal is that I did not pay the price of a good used car for the lens.

I'm still waiting to see some prints from a Super Cosmic XLCH that are better than Weston or Adams.

O. Winston Link did a lot of his train photo's with a Optar.

[jantman]

Wollensak: We who are about to photograph salute you!

My first lens for 8x10 was an Apochromatic Raptar of 21 1/4". Great lens. A bit long, but great. Would be even nicer with a shutter.

Somewhere I have the list of some of his lenses, which I took from Examples. That's probably the best-bet source. BTW, I only wrote down the 8x10 lenses.

My "good" lens is a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar. I shoot B&W and transparency. I was talking with a friend who worked as a New York fashion photog for many years, and he tols me that he'd only buy a Schneider or Rodenstock LF lens, that he didn't even think Fuji or Nikkor was good enough. Well, my response was simple. If it was good enough for Adams, it's good enough for me.

[Jim Chinn]

After skimming through "Examples: The making of 40 Photographs" 2 things jump out. In the examples in the book the majority were not made with an 8x10 camera, but for the ones that were the majority were made with either a goerz dagor or the Cooke Triple Covertible. For wide lenses he used Commercial Ektars.

[Mark Sawyer]

Being fortunate enough to have met the grand old man a couple of times in his later years, I'll note two things: he was quite fond of the dagors, and he preferred using a butt-ugly aluminum 8x10 that I think was originally custom-made for some obscure polar expedition. Also, while most of his prints are technically outstanding, I've seen a few from the height of his career (original prints at the Center for Creative Photography, Tucson) which are simply not very sharp, (though otherwise beautifully seen and realized). It's possible there was shake in the tripod or enlarger or some other gremlin at work, but to my eye, it mostly seemed like the culprit was the lens.

-Mark Sawyer

[David Richhart]

I remember reading a quote from AA that said he preferred to only carry one lens at a time. If he was carrying two or more lenses he had a difficult time deciding which one to use. I can certainly relate to that thought!!!