Does an affordable, available, non-plasmat 300mm-ish lens that covers 8x10 exist?

[williaty]

Aside from the shutter issue, how do you like that 305 Tessar? They do occasionally show up in a shutter (Betax usually).

It seems great, honestly. I've only used it wide open (wet plates) but the sharpness is very good, the coverage of the plate is very good, and the way it draws doesn't bother me. About the only thing I could say as a downside is that, being uncoated, it's a bit flare prone if I can't shade the lens. Even then, it's not absurd flare, just a mild contrast reduction.

I have the regular (not Commercial) 12” Ektar, and it’s ridiculously sharp when you want it to be, and has glorious out of focus softness. For all practical purposes there’s no difference between the Commercial Ektars and the regular Ektars. (Quality control for the Commercial Ektars was a bit tighter, tolerances more strict)
I could make 4x5 foot posters from my Ektar negatives if I wanted to. If you want to make contact prints (which is exactly what I do), any Ektar 12” will more than deliver. I’ve seen regular Ektar 12” lenses on fleabay for as little as $250. recently.

I assumed there had to be a non-Commercial version but I haven't seen one yet so I wasn't sure if they transitioned to Commerical-only above 10" or something.

[Oren Grad]

I am also not a fan of the way plasmat lenses tend to draw the transition from in focus to out of focus areas. They make me feel jittery and anxious.

Which plasmats have you used, and can you be more specific about what bothers you about the rendering? The reason for asking is that plasmats vary quite a bit in their rendering - there's no one "plasmat look". So if you are ruling out plasmats as a class you may be unnecessarily excluding affordable lenses that would serve your purposes.

[mdarnton]

It's already been mentioned, but I want to reinforce that my 12" 6.8 Paragon is my favorite lens I own, for the reasons you want. When I am looking for something like that I set up an ebay search link for it, newest first, and punch the link every time I pass my computer. When they show up at decent prices, and they do, they don't hang around long. Mine cost me $200, worth every cent.

Looks unsharp in this size, click through for larger:



Eric
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr

[Bernice Loui]

Good choices, except for the Nikkor M which is a sought after lens due to it's popularity with field camera folks who want a smallish long focal length lens. IMO, too small a full aperture for a Tessar design as these are typically used near full aperture, about f8-f16 and not smaller.

Notable would be the "modern shutter". Typical Copal# 3 does not have a round iris and this can affect out of focus rendition at the larger apertures. This is where an older Ilex or Compound or Compur (one of my fav large shutters) does better. At taking apertured of say f22 and smaller, the non-round iris might not make a difference. Know most modern lenses (Plasmats, Biogon_ish and similar) have been optimized for f16 to f45. This assumption common in these designs is taking aperture to be f22 ish and all areas of the image to be "sharp". This differers from previous generations of design where in the case of say a Xenar with a full aperture of f4.5, very good image results happen at f8.

The real bargains in Tessars are ones in barrel. Offerings like Kodak Ektar, Xenar and similar in barrel have a nice round iris, significant lower cost than it's twin in shutter and does not develop problems associated with shutters. There is also a full aperture advantage, 300mm Xenar in barrel has a full aperture of f4.5, in shutter it will be smaller.

I'm curious as to why Kodak Ektars have suddenly increased in market value. For the longest time they were considered not that desirable. For decades nice 12" f6.3 in shutter can be had in their original black box for $300 or so. In barrel just over $100.

Don't discount older non coated Teasars like Zeiss, as they continue with the ability to produce excellent images. There are numerous very good reasons why the Tessar design has endured for so long in imaging optics design.


Bernice

OK, summary:

1) Commercial Ektar: already watching. Prices have basically doubled, working on tripling, in the last 2-3 months. All the reasonably priced ones have sold and the only ones left are either damaged or what used to be the "gee that's a silly price" listings that are now the new normal. So far I've bought 2 that the seller said were ok and then I had to return them because either the glass is a train wreck or the shutter doesn't run (and no, I'm not being super picky at this pricepoint).

2) Ilex Paragon Anastigmat: already watching, just haven't seen anything longer than 10" pop up.

3) Ilex-Calument Caltar: new to me, sounds cool, watching for one now.

4) Fujinon-L 300mm f/5.6: new to me, sounds cool, watching for one now.

5) Nikkor-M 300mm f/9: Not wild about f/9 but sounds workable, watching for one now.

[williaty]

Which plasmats have you used, and can you be more specific about what bothers you about the rendering? The reason for asking is that plasmats vary quite a bit in their rendering - there's no one "plasmat look". So if you are ruling out plasmats as a class you may be unnecessarily excluding affordable lenses that would serve your purposes.

I think they've all been either Symmar-S, Super Angulon, or Topcor lenses.

First of all, I tend to shoot wide open on LF. I think I actually haven't stopped down a lens since university when I was assigned table top homework. That's on 4x5, though, maybe I'll find on 8x10 I need to stop down a little even to do a portrait. So the lenses I do like just tend to smoothly get more and more unsharp as you move away from focus until they're clearly out of focus in a nice, gentle, homogeneous blur. They draw the way I would with charcoal on paper, smudging and blurring the shapes of the things outside of the subject. There's no visible division where you can say "ok, THIS is in focus and THAT is out of focus).

In contrast, the modern lenses I've worked with go through this awkward disjointed region that looks like a bad video game render where they can't decide if they're supposed to draw this thing sharp or blurred. Fully out of focus, it almost feels like there's echoes that jitter back and forth rather than smooth blur. The nearly-but-not-quite in focus areas almost seem like the lens cracked the image apart, melted it a little, and shoved it back together. The net result is that the transition area feels disjointed and the fully out of focus area feels like it moves constantly, or wants to move maybe.

[williaty]

Notable would be the "modern shutter". Typical Copal# 3 does not have a round iris and this can affect out of focus rendition at the larger apertures. This is where an older Ilex or Compound or Compur (one of my fav large shutters) does better.

The very early Copal shutters (chrome ring with fine milled edge serrations) had a lot more blades than the later Copals (chrome or black ring, chunky edge notches). I've been wondering if the increase is enough to make a difference.

The real bargains in Tessars are ones in barrel. Offerings like Kodak Ektar, Xenar and similar in barrel have a nice round iris, significant lower cost than it's twin in shutter and does not develop problems associated with shutters. There is also a full aperture advantage, 300mm Xenar in barrel has a full aperture of f4.5, in shutter it will be smaller.

I've got a B&L Tessar 300mm f/4.5 in barrel and I like it but I want a clockwork shutter.

I'm curious as to why Kodak Ektars have suddenly increased in market value. For the longest time they were considered not that desirable. For decades nice 12" f6.3 in shutter can be had in their original black box for $300 or so. In barrel just over $100.

The 12" in shutter with a box is now going for $800-$900. My bet would be that with 8x10 becoming trendy someone who has a lot of social media followers mentioned how much they like their Commercial Ektar.

[Bernice Loui]

Much the same why there are no modern Plasmats in the lens library. I'm one of those who have settled on using full to no smaller than f16 on many 5x7 images. It is a personal style thing and then choosing the tools that meet this need. When there is a need for taking apertures f16 and smaller a Dagor will be applied as needed.


Bernice

In contrast, the modern lenses I've worked with go through this awkward disjointed region that looks like a bad video game render where they can't decide if they're supposed to draw this thing sharp or blurred. Fully out of focus, it almost feels like there's echoes that jitter back and forth rather than smooth blur. The nearly-but-not-quite in focus areas almost seem like the lens cracked the image apart, melted it a little, and shoved it back together. The net result is that the transition area feels disjointed and the fully out of focus area feels like it moves constantly, or wants to move maybe.

[Bernice Loui]

Wonder if this 8x10 fad will endure or fade away in time like many other fads. There are other excellent Tessar design lenses available outside of the Kodak box. That B&L Tessar noted is just one of many. If the 8x10 fad continues on these lesser known Tessar designs might go up in market value much like lesser known non Biogon_ish wide angles for 8x10.

Got to wonder, in the lens library lives a 480mm f4.5 Xenar. This was purchased decades ago for less then $200. It was at a Foto Swap month after month with zero interest. Eventually out of impulse, made the purchase then used it on the 8x10 Sinar with Sinar shutter. Got to wonder where where have these largest of Xenars gone? This is what the 480mm f4.5 Xenar looks like next to a 300mm f4.5 Xenar with a box of 35mm Kodachrome.

The 12" in shutter with a box is now going for $800-$900. My bet would be that with 8x10 becoming trendy someone who has a lot of social media followers mentioned how much they like their Commercial Ektar.

[Corran]

Commercial Ektars have been praised here for years. I used to have an 8 1/2" and a 12," but sold them about 4 years ago. They made nice images with a bit softer contrast than my modern lenses but I don't shoot a lot of portrait work so never really did much with OOF stuff.

I have heard similar comments about Plasmats but I've never found the transition to be too jarring. Personally I would consider stopping down at least a little bit to get a tad more DOF that will give a more concrete definition to the sharp/unsharp portions of the image.

Another consideration might be an APO Ronar or other dialyte design, or a Dagor of some stripe. You'll still have the issue of max aperture limited to f/9 on some of these. It's not as bad as you might think.

[Bernice Loui]

No real proper or not proper, correct_not correct to this, modern lenses tend to have higher and harder contrast rendition. I'm reminded of this each and every time the Schneider SSXL and other modern wide angles are used. Yet, the lower contrast rendition of lenses like Kodak Ektar, Xenar and similar remains the personal choice.


Bernice

Commercial Ektars have been praised here for years. I used to have an 8 1/2" and a 12," but sold them about 4 years ago. They made nice images with a bit softer contrast than my modern lenses but I don't shoot a lot of portrait work so never really did much with OOF stuff.

I have heard similar comments about Plasmats but I've never found the transition to be too jarring. Personally I would consider stopping down at least a little bit to get a tad more DOF that will give a more concrete definition to the sharp/unsharp portions of the image.

Another consideration might be an APO Ronar or other dialyte design, or a Dagor of some stripe. You'll still have the issue of max aperture limited to f/9. It's not as bad as you might think.