Lenses for 8x20

[DrTang]

when I had one...I used a 14" dagor with a backmounted shutter

(backmounted?? the shutter was mounted on the front of the lens...it looked weird but worked okay)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

My go to lens for my 8x20 is a Rodenstock 360 mm Gerogon barrel lens. It is sharp and contrasty and covers. I also us a 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon and a 19" Artar.

[William Whitaker]

... I also use a 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon and a 19" Artar.

Jim beat me to it. The Kodak 21 1/4" Copying Ektanon seems to get passed over, but it is a good solution for ULF. They most frequently show up in a barrel configuration. But barrel isn't so bad. This lens wide open is f/11, so especially with a slower film, a lens cap makes a good shutter. Mine covers my 12x20 well, so 8x20 should be generously covered.

[Andrew Plume]

The late William Corey used a Copying Ektanon for his Japanese work:-

http://williamcorey.com/the-camera/

Andrew

[neil poulsen]

The following is Michael Kadillak's response to a question that I asked him in a private message. My question follows his response below . . .

As per your question of field curvature via the 305mm Computar on 8x20, I wanted to let you know that the tendency of the optic to exhibit this characteristic is only a concern to a discerning architectural photographer under unique circumstances. I was photographing the Denver City and County Building close ( like shooting the inside half of a basketball) and could have avoided the curvature issues by stepping a few steps back and shooting the image with the 355 G Claron. Never experienced this with landscape photography which is why it surprised me when it happened.

One of the two benefits of such an optic as the 305mm Computar really is with macro photography where improved DOF is a substantive plus. The obvious other benefit is covering more than 8x20 with a 12" lens (i.e. angle of coverage over 90 degrees), is a game changer when it is needed.

The Computar series of lenses I believe are multi coated (the infamous purple hue from an angle) and I have truly enjoyed using the 240mm Computer on 8x10 because its coverage is far beyond 8x10 and it comes in handy when using movements albeit modest ones. Have a 240mm Doctor and it has vignetted on 8x10 that surprised me. Stay with the Computar as they re fabulous optics.

Michael,

Hi. I saw your comment regarding wide-field curvature issues of f9 Computar's in the current 8x20 thread. QUESTION: I was wondering, how does this curvature manifest itself on prints?

I recently went on a two lens buying spree and now have both a 210mm Kowa Graphic (MC) f9 and a 210mm Computar (not MC?) f9. With all that I've heard, and I've compared them on my 8x10, I was going to keep the Computar and sell the Graphic Kowa. But after seeing your comment, I'm wondering.

Comparing them on my 8x10, the Computar clearly has the larger image circle. There's an old thread in which Kerry Thallman and Sandy King discuss f9 Computars that they have, and Kerry confirms this observation. QUESTION: Does the curvature problem that you mention reduce the effective image circle?

The Thallman/King thread mentions the "huge" image circle of Computar f9 lenses. But, this is for formats that would typically be contact printed. But, I'd like to be able to enlarge 8x10 up to 2x or 3x the size of the negative. So as I indicated above, now I'm kind of wondering?

Any comments that you might offer on this would sure be appreciated.

Neil

[Eric Leppanen]

I recently went on a two lens buying spree and now have both a 210mm Kowa Graphic (MC) f9 and a 210mm Computar (not MC?) f9...

Comparing them on my 8x10, the Computar clearly has the larger image circle. There's an old thread in which Kerry Thallman and Sandy King discuss f9 Computars that they have, and Kerry confirms this observation. QUESTION: Does the curvature problem that you mention reduce the effective image circle?

The Thallman/King thread mentions the "huge" image circle of Computar f9 lenses. But, this is for formats that would typically be contact printed. But, I'd like to be able to enlarge 8x10 up to 2x or 3x the size of the negative.

Some years back I also owned a 210 Kowa Graphic and 210 Computar (both purchased from Kerry Thallman BTW) and compared them to a massive 200 Grandagon on 8x10 from the perspective of making enlargements. I ended up keeping the Computar as well as the Grandagon.

When compared within the Kowa's image circle, the Kowa and Computar performed similarly (I thought the Computar was a smidge sharper but probably not enough to make a difference in enlargements). The Computar clearly had a larger image circle so I sold the Kowa. But when I started testing the boundaries of the Computar's image circle, and compared it to the Grandagon (495mm IC @ f/22), I noticed a couple of things. The tests were done using real world architecture and landscape subjects, not resolution targets.

Near image circle extremes, I had to stop down the Computar more than the Grandagon in order to get everything in sharp focus. This I presume was the result of field curvature by the Computar. I don't remember whether I saw evidence of curvature when centered on the IC, if any it was likely minimal. Also at the edge of the image circle, I saw a tremendous amount of light falloff with the Computar (although otherwise the image seemed reasonably sharp). Thus I decided to retain the Computar for backpacking, and the Grandagon for everything else. I remember concluding that if I wanted to use the Computar as a large image circle lens, that I would have to fit a center filter for it. I shot exclusively chrome at the time, I don't know how much negative film would have improved the situation. I had previously successfully fitted a Schneider CF to my 240 Germinar W (I've posted about that either here or at APUG), so I assume finding a reasonably good match for the Computar is possible.

I believe both my Kowa and Computar were single coated, but when centered my Computar produced an image whose sharpness and contrast compared favorably (and may have even slightly exceeded) that of my multi-coated Grandagon. None were as sharp as a 210 Sironar W.

[Corran]

I missed this thread.

If you keep your eyes open, you can find a 305mm G-Claron of the older Dagor type (Google search 305mm G-Claron Dagor and you'll find a thread that I made on this topic). The older Dagor model is hard to find and hard to identify by laymen, so it goes cheap when you find it. Mine cost $150. This covers 8x20 nicely, with even a little bit of wiggle room.

Personally I also have a Nikkor 450mm, which I've used a couple of times. I usually only bring one lens or the other.

[Michael Kadillak]

The late William Corey used a Copying Ektanon for his Japanese work:-

http://williamcorey.com/the-camera/

Andrew

I responded to an add for a Durst 184 enlarger for sale a number of years ago and drove up to Boulder to meet William Corey and spend several hours looking at his enlarger but mostly talking to him about about photography. What was surprising to me was the several hundred negatives that he said he had exposed and had yet found time to process and print. He truly was the epitome of an artist that had found a unique niche in the oriental culture and was masterfully exploiting it. I can remember feeling tremendously invigorated about photography after the experience and hoped to spend more time with him. Unfortunately, William passed far too soon and I was saddened when I learned of the event. Sometimes life is neither fair or easy. I hope his wife finds continues to share the work William created so others can experience his vision.

[8x20_Pano_Shooter]

For my Horizontal 8x20, I use a 355 G Claron, 24" Artar and a 30" Artar. For my vertical 8x20, I have a 14" Dagor and 19" Dagor that gets added to the mix because I need a little more image circle if I use front or rear tilt.

[Michael Kadillak]

For my Horizontal 8x20, I use a 355 G Claron, 24" Artar and a 30" Artar. For my vertical 8x20, I have a 14" Dagor and 19" Dagor that gets added to the mix because I need a little more image circle if I use front or rear tilt.

Confused.

Why would you need a separate set of lenses for vertical 8x20? The film plane does not change and I have never run out of coverage with the 355 G Claron in either orientation. This is because the hyperfocal distance of the 355 G Claron as an extreme wide angle on the 8x20 is very shallow requiring minor front tilt (horizontal) and swing (vertical). Ditto for the Fuji 600C.