10x8 Newbie - LOTS of info please!

[John Kasaian]

Paul,

I don't know anything about the lenses you've mentioned, but I do have a 240 G-Claron and it is one sweet lens on an 8x10. Another lens worth considering right now is the recently discontinued Nikkor 450 M. If Robert White or Badger closes them out at great prices (like they did with the G-Claron) you might get a real deal on one and while not "wide" I think a long lens is a useful addition to any 8x10 kit and the 450 M has acres of wiggle room(mine lives aboard a 12x20) Also with 8x10 I think it isn't very cost effective to have focal lengths so close together---YMMV of course---but a 100mm difference between focal lenghts is what it takes for me to see any worthwhile difference on the gg. Less lenses means less wieght and less to carry around. My kit is roughly 159, 240/250, 360 , 450, 19" If you wanted to limit yourself to wide angles then really only two lenses, say a 155/165 and a 240 /270 would have you well covered and you could spend the rest of your money on chemicals, film and paper.

Cheers!

[tim atherton]

Paul,

The G-Claron 210mm is an excellent budget lens for 8x10 (especially at that price, even when you have forked out for a shutter - new or used). As mentioned, I think the barrel size of some of the earlier versions can vbe a bit quirky, but the later ones seem to fit right into a Copal #1 (for which you will need to get an aperture scale made for that lens - check out lens mounting to shutters at SK Grimes website)

I can't find my old email right now, but I think the 210mm G-Claron gave around 1.25" to 1.5" rise/fall when closed down to f22 or f32. Not much, but enough for many landscapes, and it's hard to find much elses at 210mm in that price range.

It is also an excellent all round lens, not at all limited to close up use only. I used one for a while for cityscape work until I found a lovely little Kowa Graphic 210mm. It produced excellent images (recently enlarged one to 40"x50" for a show and the detail and sharpness is excellent). There is also a bit of a myth about "flat field lenses"" and such

In the 240/50mm range I really like the Fuji 250mm 6.7 (no 6.3) which seems to have about the listed amount of coverage. and is an extremely nice lens that can usually ve found for an okay price (as far as lenses go anyway. Fuji's are often a touch cheaper than Nikkor and the German lenses).

Going wider (which I do a bit, but not that often) I have a later. single coated Wollensak 159mm 12.5 WA which is not too bad (and light an small) and an old Technika/Schneider 165mm Super Angulon which has tons of coverage, produces great images (despite a chip in the back element...) but is huge and weighs a ton so doesn't get used nearly as much.

Longer than 250mm there are lots of older (Ektar etc) and newer lenses to chose from at all sorts of different prices. (the first lens I got for 8x10 was an old battered 12" (300mm ish) Commercial Ektar which was pretty cheap. I don't use the 300mm range much, but I still have the Ektar because it gives really nice images in both BW and colour.)

[Ernest Purdum]

Tim, if you can manage to dab that rear element chip with india ink or similar, the chip will have no optical effect at all, except blocking an infinitesmal amount of light. This works for scratches, too, but I can visualize myself getting goo all over the lens when trying to fill a scratch.

[Ralph Barker]

Although I love the 110 SS XL as a sorta wide on 4x5, on 8x10 I much prefer the added coverage afforded by the 150mm SS XL. It's pretty big (95mm filter size) and a bit heavy (740 grams or so), but it's a sweet lens.

[Tim Stahl]

I don’t know much about the other lenses you have listed, however, the 300mm 5.6 Symmar S is a nice lens. On an 8x10 I have not run out of room for movements due to the lens; both color and B&W are even across the negative; and there is no distortion. The only drawback to this lens is its weight, apx 4 pounds with the lens board.