155mm Grandagon N more then covers 810 at infinity.Originally Posted by tgtaylor
155mm Grandagon N more then covers 810 at infinity.
But a 155 is approximately a 75mm equivalent in 4x5 terms which is wider and not as useful as the 90 which most modern manufacturers market their version of. I know because I have both the 90mm and 75mm f4.5 Grandagons and I find myself reaching for the 90mm far more often than I do for the 75mm. A 90mm equivalent for the 8x10 would be a 180mm version which the majority of lens manufactures do not produce. Why is that?
Thomas
My guess is because 8x10 was primarily used in the studio over the last years of commercial film use. For example, the studio I worked for used 8x10 for high end product shots. A wide lens isn't usually useful for that. Look at the 210s that cover 8x10: g-clarons and similar. These were process lenses. I bet 240s, 300s, 360s, and 480s were the main lenses ordered new during the 70s, 80s, and 90s by commercial studios. Sure, there were some wider lenses for architecture, but they were extremely expensive, and wider than 180. I bet there weren't all that many people shooting 8x10 for architectural clients. That's just a guess, of course.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Peter, your idea seems reasonable. In all my years at Kodak we rarely used 8x10 (but when we needed it it was ready). I'll say that most of the work we did with it was done with a 300mm Symmar-S and a 14" Caltar. I can only remember using the 165/8 Super-Angulon once or twice, when shooting large things in small spaces. All that gear was purchased long before my time in the department; early '70s at the latest, I would think. Most of our work into the '90s was on 4x5, and the 90mm lens was a standard part of the kit, so I'll admit Mr. Taylor's question is valid. There's probably no one answer, though; perhaps a 180mm S-A (if there had been such thing) wouldn't have fit in a standard shutter.
There was a 210/8 Super-Angulon in #3 shutter. You can see Schneider's data here (note the size and weight of the MC version - almost double the weight of the 165/8 MC): https://www.schneideroptics.com/info...a/8-210mm.html
The 120/121 - 165 - 210 spread of the bigger Super-Angulons seems to be carried over from the earlier Angulon line. Probably the demand for wide angles beyond 120mm was low enough that they didn't see the need to rethink/diversify the lineup there – unlike the 4x5/6x9 (ultra)wide line that got many tweaks and additions over the years.
Top IC picks for me would be the Computar f9, the Super-Angulon f8, the Angulon f6.8 (I think), and the Rodenstock 200mm SW.
I got interested in this earlier in the year and had the Graphic Kowa f9 and the Computar f9 side-by-side. Consistent with a previous thread that included Sandy King and Kerry Thalmann, the Computar has significantly greater coverage. One nice thing, both of these examples were multi-coated.
For me, a 250ish mm image circle for 8x10 just isn't sufficient, unless I'm photographing straight-on, where minimum movements are all that's needed. Even the Computar f9 (which I kept) is a bit of a compromise. But, the price difference between that and a Super Angulon/Grandagon can be substantial. (Ditto the weight!) The Angulons would be a decent choice, but appear to be pretty rare.
There has never been a Sironar SW or an Apo Sironar SW. you are using Rodenstock’s name with Sinar’s private label designation.
It was a Sironar W and Apo Sironar W that were the Rodenstock branded lenses. And they were 210 not 200mm.
Unless you were referring to a Grandagon N.
8x10 has a history with portrait photographs, landscape photographers and some with architectural photographers. During my tenure with 8x10 some decades ago it was simply optics limited in many ways due to the demands on lens image circle and a host of other problems.
Where 8x10 really shines is 8x10 contact prints with soft focus lenses and similar.
Images made during the tenure with 8x10 was with focal lengths between 24" (APO artar) to 155mm (Grandagon), majority being in the 300mm to 480mm range.
As for wide angle lenses the choices are essentially between 210mm ( Graphic Kowa, Computar, Angulon, Super Angulon, Schneider SSXL), 200mm Grandagon (excellent but HUGE), 165mm Super Angulon, 6-1/2" Wide angle Dagor, 155mm Grandagon, 150mm Schneider SSXL, 150mm SW Nikkor. 120mm Nikkor and Super Angulon does not cover 8x10 properly as the edges of the image circle is pressed to it's limits.
If one wanted something in the 180mm focal length better to crop the 8x10 image.
Adding a crowing out about 5x7 again, all those lenses above easily covers 5x7 with additional lenses being:
125mm SW Fujinon, 120mm SW Fujinon, 115mm Grandagon, 110mm Schneider SSXL, 105mm SW Fujinon, 90mm (Fujinon, Nikkor, Schneider, Rodenstock and ..) 80mm Schneider SSXL (at it's image circle limit) 75mm f4.5 Nikkor, Rodenstock, and others at it's image circle stopped down to f22 and smaller, 72mm Schneider Super Angulon XL.
*5mm focal length increments:
125mm
120mm
115mm
110mm
105mm
then to:
90mm
80mm
75mm
72mm
These are small changes in focal lengths.
The above focal lengths allow small increments in focal length changes not possible with 8x10. Adding to the problem with using wide angles on 8x10 is film flatness, bellows compression ability on camera and dealing with the wide angle image on the GG.
Bernice
Art that will pass through a smaller sieve than Coarse Art?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Who is allowed to decide the size of any art sieve?
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks