8x10 lenses, 150-165mm

[Mark Sawyer]

This question is a spin-off from the recent GRII thread, in my continuing search for a lens in the 150-165mm (6-6 1/2") focal length for an 8x10 that I might reasonably expect to find for $250-300 or less. I'll give the info I have on the lenses I know about, and hope someone knows of a lens I haven't thought of, or corrects me on something I have wrong.

Wollensak 159mm EWA f/12.5: I have a very early uncoated one which I like very much. Unfortunately, while it's contact prints are lovely, negatives made with it don't hold up to enlarging to more than 11x14. Coverage is reportedly 379mm (8x10 needs 312mm), which seems about right as mine allows "reasonable" movements. Anyone ever enlarge from a later version and have the negative hold up well?

Konica GRII 150mm: I bought one recently, and while it's a nice macro lens, mine illuminates maybe 300-305mm at infinity, and only about a 270mm circle is sharp. Some people claim more, but I know what mine does...

165mm Angulon: What I've read indicates 320mm of coverage, (slight movements), but I've heard the corners get soft well inside the 312mm circle. Then again, that's what I hear about the 90mm on 4x5, and mine stays sharp to the corners. Still, I'd like a little more coverage even if it was sharp...

165mm Super-Angulon: Out of the price range but slowly coming down with the intro of Schnieder XL's and Nikkor SW's. Sharp with big coverage, but bigger and heavier than I'd like to carry around. By the time I can afford it, I'll be too old to lift it. (Whine, whimper...) (BTW, I have a 121mm SA that barely covers 8x10 stopped way down with NO (!) movements and significant fall-off without a center filter.)

6½" WA Dagor: Covers 8x10, but again doesn't allow much for movements, and all you Dagor-cultists have driven the price way high...

158mm f6.5 Cooke Series VIIb: Kerry Thalmann suggested this and it really caught my interest, but it sounds like they're pretty rare. Might be expensive too, but it's usually in a barrel, so maybe not...

Any other possibilities I haven't thought of? Any comments on these? As usual, thanks muchly for your collective and individual wisdom!

[Vick Vickery]

I used a Wollensak EWA 159mm f-12.5 extensively a few years ago as a normal lens on a 4x5 Graphic View II...it enlarged quite well, but for the most part I was using only the central portion of the extensive (for 4x5) image available. If your problem enlarging from 8x10 is on the edges, a newer coated lens might help since I never had any problem going to 20x24 from my 4x5 negatives. I was always very impressed with these lenses.

[Ole Tjugen]

"Soft" is a relative term. The only one of these I have is the 165 Angulon, and the largest film I have used it on is 18x24cm (slightly smaller than 8x10"). It is plenty sharp for contact prints. I see a decrease in sharpness in the corners on the one big enlargement I have made from this lens, which was shot on 5x7" Ektachrome. But you still have to use a loupe to see the softness on a 50x70cm print (20x27"). The center is still incredibly sharp, beyond the resolution of the scanner used.

[John Kasaian]

M ark,

My Wolly 159mm is a f/9.5 WA "yellow dot" single coated. They aren't much more costly than the EWA f/12.5 and IMHO a tremendous improvement, though I imagine that is a matter of personal taste.YMMV, but I think short of going to the expense of a 165mm f/8 SA it is a very acceptable option. Not much wiggle room---thats the name of the game with using less costly lenses in this focal length on 8x10s. Good Luck!

[Brian Ellis]

I don't think the lens you want - which sounds like a very wide angle lens for 8x10 with lots of room for movements and an exremely low price (for such a lens) exists. And if it did no one would be selling theirs so you still wouldn't be able to buy one.

I've used two of the Wollensak 159 f9.5s and both did very well but I only contact printed with them and scanned for prints of roughly 11x14 maximum, nothing beyond that. I'd suggest setting your sights on something a little longer if you want to stay within your price range. A 210 G Claron comes to mind as a moderate wide angle lens that should be available very close to your price range and that has at least a moderate amount of room for movements on 8x10 when stopped down. I used one of those for several years and was pleased with it though I didn't enlarge beyond about 11x14 so I can't speak from experience with enlargements greater than that..

[David A. Goldfarb]

Somewhat wider there is also the Berthiot 120mm/f:14 Perigraphe. It usually comes in barrel with wheel stops, just covers 8x10". I've had mine mounted in an Ilex #3 shutter and usually use it stopped down all the way for the best coverage. It's surprisingly sharp out to the corners.

[Oren Grad]

Mark - I have to second Brian's point, I don't think a lens exists that meets all of your criteria. If you come around to being willing to consider a big lens like the 165 SA, you should also watch for a 155 Grandagon - prices have been starting to slip on that as well. (BTW, the 150 Nikkor SW is not a new design - I wouldn't be surprised to see that one follow the 165 SA and 155 Grandagon and also be discontinued before too much longer.) In the department of tiny classic lenses with just enough coverage, you might be able to find a 14cm Series V Protar in barrel within your price range. Don't know how well the pictures would hold up to enlargement, though.

[Jim Galli]

You've pretty well covered the available field. The Cooke is hands down winner in my book with one caveat. I've made some remarkable negatives with that tiny lens on 8X10 in certain conditions (flat even illumination). It REALLY has a "look" to it. Like the negs were chiseled out of stone. But unfortunately I've lost an equal amount to really unusual center flare. Bad enough to make me wonder if there was a pinhole in one of the shutter blades or something. Bad enough that the negs are un-printable. Anyone else experience this? The WA dagor is the old faithful. Prices are high because they're tiny and they get the job done. I've not kept either of the 2 165 6.8 Angulons I've owned because in a word, they don't get the job done on 8X10. I've got a yellow dot 159 f9.5 I've never made a photo with! How dumb is that.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

My Wolly 159mm is a f/9.5 WA "yellow dot" single coated. They aren't much more costly than the EWA f/12.5 and IMHO a tremendous improvement

John,

"Tremendous improvement" in what way? I'm not disputing your claim. I haven't shot with the f9.5 version of the Wolly. It is definitely a more complex design, but supposedly the f12.5 has more coverage. In theory, I can see how the f9.5 version could be sharper, especially in the corners. There must be some reason why they offered a more expensive lens with twice as many elements. However (also "in theory"), twice as many elements with comparable coatings would mean slightly reduced contrast.

Anybody out there have one of each (6¼" f9.5 and f12.5 Wolly Ext. WA)? I'd love to see the results of a head-to-head shoot out (same camera, same scene, same film, same development, etc.). I'd be happy to bring my f12.5 Wolly to the large format conference if anyone wants to bring their f9.5 (and an 8x10 camera).

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

But unfortunately I've lost an equal amount to really unusual center flare. Bad enough to make me wonder if there was a pinhole in one of the shutter blades or something. Bad enough that the negs are un-printable. Anyone else experience this?

Jim,

That's a new one on me. Hopefully, a new multicoated Series VIIc in a modern Copal shutter wouldn't have that problem. However, it would definitely not be anywhere near the OP's $250 - $300 budget.

Kerry