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

[Bernice Loui]

Modern Plasmats are NOT undesirable in any way, they have a different image result than the family of vintage lenses being discussed here. Lens choice is very much an individual image maker's preference nothing more, nothing less. There are those who have chosen a modern plasmat as their primary image making tool, others have chosen non modern vintage lenses as their primary image making tool. It is not a competition or right-vs-wrong or good-vs-bad.... it is trying to decide what tool meets a given need best.

Paul Rudolph originated the Plasmat design at Hugo Meyer Optical.. Paul Rudolph originated an entire series of lens designs.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Plasmat%20lens

Optics design often goes far beyond calculations and idealized optics-lens behavior, there are many, many factors that contribute to the overall personality of any given lens in much the same way as differences in artistic expression.


Bernice

I still don't understand the aversion to plasmats. Is there really something inherent in the way all plasmats present an image? I have an old Hugo Meyer plasmat that came with a vintage Ansco 5x7 that had clearly been a working photographer's kit. That lens is very pleasing in its rendition in focus, in front of focus, behind focus and everywhere in-between.

So, my curiosity is piqued. I am not being critical of anyone's preference, but merely curious. Does the OP have any representative images which could illustrate the undesired qualities?

[LabRat]

I think most of the modern lenses were designed for pro use first, especially where something being shot in a studio depending on the object can have a different rendition, such as a ceramic figure an a hot white background, could photograph unsharp, so the lenses were tweaked to produce a harder, contrast effect to provide a slightly "sharpened" look that would match the look of different objects under a variety of pro conditions...

Older lenses have smoother transitions, but under studio conditions, different objects can photograph very differently, so the post 1960 lenses tended to have much higher contrast, greater apparent contrast, and more color saturation (but a way different look than older lenses)...

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Richard Avedon's hard look, simplified images comes to mind. This was also the era of simplified near cubist visual design for many items. Think cubic, straight edge, chrome-glass look.

Marketing folks discovered visual presentations that grabbed the viewers attention made a difference. Noting this ability for hard hitting visual images, producers of marketing material gradated towards this look and visual presentation. Which in turn prompted the image makers (photographers) to produce works meeting this demand-need. In turn, lens makers and film producers met this need-demand with products that will produce this coveted result.

It is fashion, nothing more, nothing less.


Bernice

I think most of the modern lenses were designed for pro use first, especially where something being shot in a studio depending on the object can have a different rendition, such as a ceramic figure an a hot white background, could photograph unsharp, so the lenses were tweaked to produce a harder, contrast effect to provide a slightly "sharpened" look that would match the look of different objects under a variety of pro conditions...

Older lenses have smoother transitions, but under studio conditions, different objects can photograph very differently, so the post 1960 lenses tended to have much higher contrast, greater apparent contrast, and more color saturation (but a way different look than older lenses)...

Steve K

[Jim Galli]

In the mid 20th century, color had everything to do with lens design. It was a new world and the lens designers went to work on a problem that didn't matter much in a pre-kodachrome world. The commercial ektar's were Kodak's answer to Kodak's film. They didn't advertise APO because their audience in the mid fifties weren't scientists, but the Commercial Ektars were the best of two worlds. The pleasing out of focus rendition of a simple design + a new level of apochromatic correction.

A plasmat is just a Dagor with an air space that made it half a stop faster. I know I'll get crucified for saying that, but in essence, it's true.

All of them are just tools in the tool box. It's funny that Dagor's and Plasmat's never stay around too long in my tool box. So many lenses, so little time. I don't analyze the minutiae. I just look at the pictures the different lenses make and I either like them . . or not. Color these days is for Galaxy 8's and I-Phones. Thus the resurgence of interest in lenses with a bit of personality. Kodak Commercial Ektar's are for Kodachrome. If they please you, by all means, use them. But again, they don't last long in my cupboard. That's just me. Give me a Dallmeyer Stigmatic and I'm happy as a clam.

[Greg]

Highly recommend the 12" f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat Series II (without the front "soft focus" ring). It was my first lens for my 8x10 back in the 1970s. Was in a in a Betax #5 that more than once had to repaire it in the field. Had the "soft focus" ring, but I never used it. Sold the camera and lens back when. Recently acquired the same lens in a Betax #5 for my current 8x10 Chamonix. Wide open aperture of f/4.5 is a pleasure to focus. Is very prone to flare, but a lens shade usually takes care of that.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem with most modern 360 plasmats is that they're big and heavy studio-oriented items, usually f/5.6 in a no. 3 shutter. A conspicuous exception would be the stunning 300 Fuji A in no.1 shutter - has generous coverage and otherwise outperforms general-purpose plasmats, but fails the poster's request for affordability. Cheap it ain't, if you're lucky enough to find one. 300 G-Clarons are similar and more common, but single-coated; they also offered a 270.
I don't understand the stipulation for non-plasmats; but if sheer portability is the priority, there is that Fujinon C. I collect old photographs once made with
lenses with a lot of "character", presumably using glass from whiskey bottles they just drank, and which they apparently fabricated while still under a state of inebriation; but I don't use those kinds of lenses myself. There are probably still a lot of old bottles in the Tonopah dump, which might explain Jim's real
secret in how he keeps coming up with so many vintage lenses.