240mm 8x10 lens: which is best?

[Robert_4191]

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]

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]

210/5,6 super symmar Xl has a good reputation,but it's a 210 (ic 500 @f22)

[giancatarina]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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