Does It Really Matter?

[macmaster77]

Great to know. Thanks!

[Pere Casals]

Epson 11000XL. This is a journey, we'll see where it goes! Thanks.

One thing... the 11000XL makes A3 size you don't need for 8x10...


Happy journey !!!

[Leigh]

(still want a Nikkor SW 120mm, that covers 8x10)

I have that lens. It really does not cover 8x10. Its image circle is 312mm, while the diagonal of 8x10 is 325mm.

If you really want to shoehorn an image onto 8x10 it may work with zero movements, but you'll likely get some light fall-off in the corners.

Field Camera:

Tachihara 8x10

I have that camera (double rail) with a 5x7 reducing back.

This is a beautiful piece of work, made from 300-year-old cherry.

Unfortunately, Mr. Tachihara retired a few years ago with nobody to take over the company, so no longer available.

Tripod!!

Also you need a very good tripod, a really sturdy one, it is as important as the camera...

I use a Majestic. Rather old, American made, also supports my car for an oil change.

Seriously, this is one of the most stable tripods I've ever used, and I have several professional brands/models.

Glass

You'll not find many lenses that cover 8x10 well. Those that do are large, heavy, and expensive.

I have the Nikkor SW in 120mm/8 and 150mm/8,
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar W 210mm/5.6 and Apo-Sironar S 240mm/5.6,
Nikkor W in 240mm/5.6, 300mm/5.6, 360mm/6.5, and
Nikkor M 450mm/9.

If you want shift, the Nikkor W 360mm/6.5 is the winner at 110mm narrow/98mm wide.
It's also large enough to anchor the Queen Mary, at 108mm long and 1420grams (50 ounces = over 3 pounds)
The flange focal length (FFL) of 345.8mm requires a pretty long bellows.

And then of course you have to buy filters and other lens accessories.
Most of these lenses take 90mm or larger attachments ($$$).

Darkroom

Also you may want a scanner, EPSON V850 to start with, in the future you may spend in other scanners, V850 is ideal to start and it covers 8x10.

A scanner is almost a necessity in the modern computer age.
Even if you wet-process entirely, you still must scan to post your favorites here. ;-)

I have its predecessor, the V750. It works very well.

Anyhow, just some observations from a guy who's spent far too many hours with this stuff. YMMV

- Leigh

[Corran]

I have that lens. It really does not cover 8x10. Its image circle is 312mm, while the diagonal of 8x10 is 325mm.

Yes it does, regardless of what the specs say, and anyone who has actually used it on 8x10 knows this. There's even some wiggle room.

[Leigh]

Yes it does, regardless of what the specs say, and anyone who has actually used it on 8x10 knows this.
There's even some wiggle room.

It all depends on your expectations regarding light fall-off at the edges.

With any lens the light does not just stop at any particular circle diameter.
It falls off as you get farther from the optical axis.

I prefer to use coverage as defined by the manufacturer, with zero fall-off.

And yes I have used it, on numerous occasions.

- Leigh

[Corran]

Well by your definition, no wide-angle lenses even "cover" the formats people use them on. Does a Schneider 90mm f/8 Super Angulon cover 4x5? Of course it does. Does it have fall-off? Yes...but what it doesn't do (and neither does the 120mm Nikkor on 8x10) is hard vignette at a certain point on the film. More relevant (similar angle of view on the respective format), the 58mm Schneider XL definitely covers 4x5, with fall-off. So your statement doesn't really make any sense - 100% even illumination is not going to happen with a wide-angle lens with a tight image circle. Just recently Bob Salomon mentioned it starts at 30% of the image circle, which means by your definition the 120mm Nikkor doesn't even cover 4x5!

[FredrickSummers]

-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

I have that lens. It really does not cover 8x10. Its image circle is 312mm, while the diagonal of 8x10 is 325mm.

Hello Leigh,

8x10" diagonal is 312.5mm = sqr(8*8+10*10) * 25.4, so sw 120 does not cover by 0.5mm

http://www.largeformatphotography.in.../LF8x10in.html

I agree with the rest !

Regards

[Leigh]

8x10" diagonal is 312.5mm = sqr(8*8+10*10) * 25.4

Sorry, Pere,

but sqrt(164) = 12.806" = 325.28mm, not 312.5mm.

312.5mm = 12.303". 12.303^2 = 151.37, not 164.

- Leigh

[Corran]

There's only so much one can know by assuming and looking at spec sheets.

8x10 inch film is not 8 inches by 10 inches. It's about 1/8th of an inch shorter in both directions. You also lose some rebate from the film holder, which varies by type. If you plug in exactly 7.875 x 9.875 and calculate to the appropriate significant digits and don't round anywhere, you get 320.816429 millimeters (so not only are you technically wrong on the film dimensions, but your math appears to have been wrong anyway). Considering the typical film holder eats into the image, I believe that the "normal" film diagonal that has been used is 312mm.

Regardless of all that, I'll state once more that the Nikkor 120mm f/8 covers 8x10 perfectly fine. And not just "covers" with poor edge definition as may be the case with some lenses, but is perfectly sharp/usable in the corners of 8x10 and even has a bit more to give if you want to use movements, at least at typical shooting apertures. I would guess the 312mm specs from Nikon is conservative estimates given to match the accepted 8x10 diagonal after the film holder cuts in a bit. Fall-off inherent in symmetrical wide-angle designs is an irrelevant point. Buy a CF with a 77mm attachment thread if you need it - didn't Heliopan make one?

Unless you've got a broken lens, the Nikkor 120mm f/8 covers 8x10. Just ask everyone who is using it frequently on 8x10.

I guess this isn't the purpose of the thread though so I hope this clears everything up.