Fisheye for 8x10? What is the widest ever?

[Robert_5479]

Having used roll-film and 35mm gear for decades I've always had a fisheye or 20-21mm (35mm-format equivelent) in my lens arsenal and found these rectalinear and fisheys lenses quite useful in certain situations.

But being new to 8x10, I'm at a loss as to the widest angle available for 8x10 (speed not important but prefer small and light) outside of pinhole cameras that accept 8x10 holders.

I'd be interested, for history's sake at a minimum, as to the widest angle of coverage for current or discontinued lenses; perhaps better expressed as the shortest focal length with an image circle that'll cover 8x10 with a small margin for movements.

Thanks,
Robert

[Marco Annaratone]

Considering only current/modern lenses the shortest focal lens covering 8x10 should be the Super Symmar XL 110mm. But no movements to speak of.

[Jan Van Hove]

Among the widest lenses ever are the Goerz Hypergons, covering 130-140 degrees. Massively expensive now... The Rodenstock Pantogolas also come to mind, with a coverage of 125 degrees...

As far as "Fisheye", as is fisheye distortion, I'm not aware of any lenses made for LF that are not rectilinear wide angles...

PJ

[Marko Trebusak]

Patrick got it right with Hypergon. The widest that cover 8x10 is 75 mm!
Description of Hypergons and photo taken with 90 mm Hypergon.

Marko

[William Mortensen]

Robert- good thing you're not looking for speed if you're considering a Hypergon, as it's brightest aperture is f/22. But it is small and light. I recently posted a little practical info on using a Hypergon over on the APUG forum: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21758&highlight=hypergon

The best "bang for the buck" for a really wide 8x10 lens would be the 121mm Super Angulon; it covers, but just barely, barely, barely...

[Janko Belaj]

...pinhole?



;-))

[John_4185]

Mr. Sawyer The best "bang for the buck" for a really wide 8x10 lens would be the 121mm Super Angulon; it covers, but just barely, barely, barely...

Those 121 S/As were going for near DIRT not long ago. Heck, some went for near what one would pay for a used shutter. I've got one - shutterless. But it sure was cheap. I really screwed myself on that one.

Beware - the 121 uses a 'funny' shutter size, something Schneider calls 0+ (or something), which I still don't understand. Goold old Overpriced Grimes, Inc will happily charge a person $750 to install a 121 in a proper shutter.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I have a 153mm Metrogon. It is about the same as 20mm on 35mm. I have found that it tends to want a shot that is close. Range 3' out to about 50'. For grand landscapes the mountains on a horizon are just too small, and don't look right. It is nice if you want to get in close and push the perspective. I find it's usefulness to be less than I had envisioned. Nice sharp piece of glass though.

[Ole Tjugen]

For a really low price, small and light lens, look for a pre-WWII Angulon 120 f:6.8. It has to be pre-1948, I think - the later ones just cover 5x7". The old version had less overall sharpness, but even greater coverage. My ancient 210mm f:6.8 Angulon covers 12x16", barely.

It cost a lot less than my 121mm f:8 Super-Angulon.

[George Stewart]

I've shot 8x10 with a 90mm XL and gotten vignetted corners. I think that Clyde Butcher has also used this combination. If one is willing to crop a bit on 8x10, this might be the way to go with a lens that you can get.

The widest possible LF is 4x5 with the 38mmXL (which a Schneider Rep. indicated would cover that format). That being said, how about trying 4x5 and a MF fisheye lens to get a round 180+ degree image? With that combination, one would have to mount the lens into some type of shutter or shoot with some other method of esposure control.

The method I'd try however is to use a wide angle 4x5 box-type camera and a panoramic adapter from http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html and shoot mosaiced images. With a half-dozen shots you'd own the world.