Lenses for 8x10 (again)

[ditkoofseppala]

Senior members of this forum must get tired of hearing this topic hashed over and over again, but the fact remains that noobs continue to succumb to the siren song of the 8x10 format. I guess I'm one, although in some ways not quite a noob. Nevertheless, it has been thirty years since I did much with large format, and even then it was mostly 4x5; I only ever exposed just a few sheets of 8x10 cutfilm before life's sweeping little changes took me in other directions. Now in my dotage I find myself going back to things I didn't get anough of 'way back when, and LF is one of them. And despite the warnings in the "no, I mustn't" thread, I gone and done it -- I bought a second-hand 8x10 Toyo. Now I'm brooding over the question of optics for the beast. Funny, it just isn't that hard a decision in 4x5, where it all seems logical, easy even. But somehow in 8x10 the stakes are higher (and not only the stakes, but other things like the prices and the weight).

Guys, I just watched a 240mm f9 Schneider G-Claron knocked down on eBay for USD664, which I believe is more than the darned things sold for brand new. I see what they mean about a "cult lens." Standard listings indicate an image circle of 298mm for that focal length, a bit skimpy for 8x10's 325mm image diagonal; yet one hears claims that it will "cover 11x14" --well, maybe it will (at 1:1?). And yes, I've read all the hooha about the "biting sharpness" and the "rendering" et patati et patata. Definitely some signs of true-believerism here and there; cult lens, yeah.

Well, I didn't bid on it. I think I know hype when I smell it, and I can definitely spot a bidding war in the making when the thunderheads gather on eBay. But darn it all, the choices here are neither easy nor satisfactory. I don't think a 240/9 G-Claron would be a sensible choice for 8x10 if I could only afford one or two lenses for the format. And at the prices these chunky optics with 300+ image circles command, you have to be rather well off to consider MORE than that.

If I want something wide-angle-ish, the main contender is the Schneider Super-Angulon 165/8 with its 390-395mm image circle, assuming you want to use any movements at all. It cost $2400-3300 when it was new a decade or two ago (no, I haven't dared look at the new price today, I don't want to stress my heart like that). And there's a late-model example going right now that's already bid up to USD985 with 22 hours yet to run on the auction. Ouch.

For a "normal" there are just two choices of focal length generally available: 300mm and 360. The better 300's cover a 400-420mm image circle mostly, unless you're looking at something like an APO-Ronar (which only covers 264mm). The 360's give you more room for movements with their 500mm image circle for Symmars and such (and if you don't use movements then why use a view camera?); but apparently at a fairly hefty weight penalty, not to mention the limited top speeds of those big leaf shutters and the enormous cost of the lens/shutter combination.

Finally there are the longer options, like the Caltar 508/7 and the various 19 inch process lenses (usually in barrel mounts). These are sometimes a lot cheaper than a 360mm Symmar. But would you really want your main lens to lack a shutter, since nobody seems interested in building an affordable behind-the-lens shutter for 8x10 aficionados?

Maybe I've just got my knickers in a twist from looking at too many secondhand lens listings online, but I just can't seem to see a really attractive and viable (let alone affordable) solution to the dilemma of optics for the 8x10.

You good people out there who have been shooting 8x10 for decades, now. What do you do? Once the new has worn off it all, and things have settled down to the point that you've evolved a personal style with 8x10 format and a personal *way of working* with the big camera -- how does the optics question actually shake down? Leaving aside the various cults and manias, and the compulsion to fiddle with antique brassies -- if you are going to have ONE lens for your 8x10, what's it to be? And if you are going to have just TWO, what should they be? And is it a better idea just to forget about process lenses, or are they serious contenders as lenses for everyday work in 8x10?

???

[Brian C. Miller]

The only special thing about the G-Claron is that it can be used for multiple purposes, like doing double duty as an enlarger lens and a taking lens. I have used a G-Claron on my 8x10, and its a very good lens.

Recommendation: Just get a lens! You need something on the front of the camera, unless you have the patience for pinhole photography.

I have a couple of Wollensaks for my camera. One is wide, the other is long. Is the name on them important, or is it what I do with them that makes the picture?

Buy according to your tastes and budget, but get something on the camera and then go make photographs!

[ditkoofseppala]

Of course I forgot to mention the obvious: what I intend to DO with the 8x10!!! My main interests for 8x10 would be landscape and architecture (mostly in the sense of exterior views of old abandoned structures, with some interiors and detail shots), and static nature (mostly flora, but also things like wildfowl gathering for migration, etc.); maybe the odd character portrait. Since I'm going to be moving into a different part of Canada at the same time I'm resuming my long-neglected LF interests, I'm not yet entirely sure about everything I might wind up photographing, but certainly the above areas are where I intend to start.

[Jim Galli]

I have probably over 40 lenses I could use on an 8X10. If someone held a gun to my head perhaps that same old Cooke that Adams used so much would be the one I'd keep. 8X10 is very different from 4X5. You've graduated to contact prints and after a bit you'll discover 68 line pairs / mm just doesn't matter much. What matters is tonality and smoothness. The guys in 1915 knew a lot more about that than we do today. Wade through some of the pages on my little web site. Like the one that says an old Conley anastigmat can out muscle a MC Symmar. You'll be more confounded than ever BTW a 240 G-Claron will cover 410mm regardless of what Schneider says. I measured.

[ditkoofseppala]

Recommendation: Just get a lens! You need something on the front of the camera, unless you have the patience for pinhole photography.

I have a couple of Wollensaks for my camera. One is wide, the other is long. Is the name on them important, or is it what I do with them that makes the picture?

Buy according to your tastes and budget, but get something on the camera and then go make photographs!

I don't know if I really deserved that, or not, Brian! Perhaps I did. Yes, of course, the end in view is to get an optic of some sort on the front end, with a view to getting out and exposing some film. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my first post. Although, come to that, I would be perfectly amenable to exploring the possibilities of a pinhole. Optics don't make great photographs; great photographs are made THROUGH optics, not by them.

But given the lack of clarity of the 8x10 lens scene (at least by comparison with 4x5, at least in MY mind), coupled with the COST of big lenses with big coverage, it seemed sensible to enquire concerning what others have done, in the end, after their own years of experimentation and learning. Isn't that what a forum of this kind is intended for -- the exchange of knowledge gained through experience?

At this point the camera itself hasn't even been delivered yet, I'm still trying to buy a few decent film holders, and having a darkroom is probably three to six months in the future, at best. So while I'm as yet unable to "go make photographs" I'm trying to gain just enough perspective on the lens question to perhaps avoid making an expensive mistake.

As for Wollensaks, I have unhappy memories from the late 1950s of the mushy negs produced by certain Optars and Raptars . . . not sure I'd care to repeat that experience.

[Brian C. Miller]

I don't know if I really deserved that, or not, Brian! Perhaps I did. Yes, of course, the end in view is to get an optic of some sort on the front end, with a view to getting out and exposing some film.

The reason that I said what I said is due to how I started. Camera, lens, figure out what fits. I started with a P&S, then went to a Pentax 6x7 w/90mm LS and spotmeter. With just one lens, I worked to find the best in a scene that fit with what equipment I had. My Super Graphic came with its original Wollensak 135mm. Same thing, work to find the image that fits the best. Is that such a bad thing?

That's why I recommend just getting A lens. Its going to have to be a really bad lens to not give any sort of decent performance. Midwest Photo has a really good selection. Find something in your budget, buy it, and work with it. Expose at least 500 sheets through it before selling it.

Me, I'm saving up for a Cooke convertible. $3000 new, and I get three lenses in one.

[Vaughn]

Just to throw in my 2 cents.

If I only had one lens, I would stick with my first lens I got for 8x10 -- a Fuji W f5.6 300mm.

Biggest reason: I shoot under the redwoods -- relatively low light, and I greatly appreciate the f5.6. I am always surprised how bright even my f11 lens is out in the sunlight.

Second reason, I find it a nice general focal length, not too short, not too long.

Its got more movent than I need for landscape work. Copol 3 shutter that is a workhorse. And weight is not that big of a factor, considering the weight of everything else I carry.

[ditkoofseppala]

The 8x10 lens saga continues -- progress report.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about, but evermore
Came out the same door where in I went.

(Fitzgerald, The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam)

Myself when old is having similar experiences. I've listened to quite a variety of opinions here, some of them with a good deal of apparent experience and wisdom behind them. Some light is emerging through the murky gloom, but it still is NOT easy. Of course, there is no "magic bullet" -- I don't recall asking for one. All I'm trying to do is to make moderately intelligent decisions at the outset, realising that time and many boxes of exposed sheetfilm may well modify those decisions -- or could even confirm them, if I'm exceptionally lucky! And some things fit in with intuitive logic, like the observation that 210 and 360 isn't working, neither 240 and 300, but 210 and 300 or 240 and 360 will both work fairly well.

At this point, though, questions like dollar prices and sheer availability weigh heavily. With all due respect to Hizzoner the moderator, do I detect a note of hostility to eBay? Like any busy marketplace, it has its pitfalls and its drawbacks, but for somebody stuck in an out-of-the-way location (as I have been for most of my life), it may actually be the most practical choice, if not the only game in town. And caveat emptor!

Immediately upon being advised to check out Midwest Photo Exchange by two responsible people, I hustled butt to Google the name, and promptly got their website with its Inventory List. At this moment, under the heading of Lenses - 8x10 and larger, I find:

150/8 Nikkor-SW (used, for $1,295)
210/5.6 Super Symmar XL (new for $2,995)
240/5.6 Nikkor W (qty. 3, used, $469-689)
240/9 Apo-Ronar (used, $589)
240/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S (new, $1,789)
240/5.6 Symmar-S (used, $449)
250/5.6 Fuji-Soft Focus (qty. 2, used, $469-495)
300/5.6 Nikkor-W (qty. 2, used $695-795)
305/9 Apo-Artar (used, $695)
450/12.5 Fujinon-C (new, $895)
480/9 Goerz Apo-Artar ctd. (condition unspecified, $695)
600/11.5 Fuji-C (new, $1,425)
600/9 Nikkor Tele ED (used, $1,595)
1100/22 Schneider Fine Art XXL (new for a modest $4,499)

Much to my disappointment, only one of the listings actually specified the presence of a shutter, and all the rest could well have been barrel mounted as far as anyone could tell. Perhaps one is expected to know this by instinct, but given the presence of so many process lenses I don't think shutters can quite be taken for granted in all of these listings.

Only two 300 mm. lenses, and one of the two a process lens. NO 360's whatsoever! I don't mind saying that I was underwhelmed by the above list, not to say disappointed. Leaving aside everything priced <$1000 (as I absolutely must), there were one dozen lenses to choose from, seven of which were 240/250 focal length.

I won't wear out my fingers and test the patience of this forum by making an exhaustive list of all the lenses usable for 8x10 that presently appear in a thorough eBay search of active listings. But I will say that there is a great deal more variety and depth of offerings. Price, of course, can only be judged roughly by those offerings graced with a "Buy It Now" option; otherwise you don't know the price till the auction's over. But based on a week of close watching, I would say that there are many more budget-priced opportunities on eBay. Midwest didn't offer a single lens under $449 in price.

Having nothing else to do on Sunday afternoon, I sat down at the computer, called up my laboriously-assembled watch list, and did a little cautious bidding. I didn't win anything, but the results were interesting and educational:

I bid &#163;280 ($560 roughly) on a 360/6.8 Symmar-S that sold at &#163;320 ($640).
I bid $235 on a Wollensak 12" Velostigmat in 'studio shutter' that sold at $271.
I bid &#163;275 ($550) on a Super Angulon 165/8 that finally sold at &#163;510 ($1020).
I bid $360 on a B&L Protar 165/18 bbl. mt. that sold at $365.
I bid up to $623 on a Nikkor-W 360/6.3 (B.I.N. $669) - and didn't meet the reserve!
I didn't bid on a Kodak Comm. Ektar 254/6.3 started at $298; nobody bid on it.

My bidding may appear eccentric, but I had my reasons. The Symmar 360 could have been a good buy, but it IS a huge beast of a lens to lug around; I was ambivalent about it. I think that had I kept bidding it would have sold at a higher price, anyway. At the moment I'm operating on the principle that I would like to buy a GOOD normal lens for less than $600, and by normal I mean a 300 or 360. And a secondary principle is that I would not be willing to spend more than $300 on a vintage lens or a barrel mount unless it was something terribly special.

I made an exception for the 165mm Protar because it DOES cover 8x10 just as well as a Super-Angulon without all that size and weight, and has an awfully good reputation; but had I kept bidding, it would have gone MUCH higher, as the other main bidder was obviously quite determined to have it. Probably I should have bought the Commercial Ektar that went begging, but the 254 just covers 8x10 decently and I really wanted the 14" version, so I let it pass. I might live to regret that.

I think I could have any number of 300's, though, both vintage and modern; several are upcoming in the next day or two. And I think some of them could be had for $400-500, though not all. Lenses in shutters, I'm talking about, not process lenses.

I'll freely admit that there would be much less risk in buying from a trusted dealer such as Jim at Midwest Photo. But I would suspect you pay for that in drastically limited choice and generally higher prices. So, despite the additional risk factor, from where I sit it looks like eBay is where I'll probably find my 8x10 lenses. If I get one I don't like, I can always put it back on eBay, can't I! And from some of the listings I've seen, there are quite a few EXCITING offerings there. Like the Protar and the Commercial Ektar. I don't see those on Midwest's list.

Time was when people in my position either went without, or took their chances with Wall Street Camera Exchange. Now there's eBay. Riskier? Doubtless. But if you don't have money and mobility, the only way to compensate is by accepting risk. Sour deals in used photo equipment happened regularly long before PCs and eBay appeared on the scene. The overwhelming majority of buyers on eBay must be satisfied with their purchases, or they wouldn't keep buying that way. I guess if I'm wrong about that, I'll appear on the forum here in a month or two, dressed in sackcloth and ashes.

[Nick_3536]

With all due respect to Hizzoner the moderator, do I detect a note of hostility to eBay?


Immediately upon being advised to check out Midwest Photo Exchange by two responsible people, I hustled butt to Google the name, and promptly got their website with its Inventory List. At this moment, under the heading of Lenses - 8x10 and larger, I find:

150/8 Nikkor-SW (used, for $1,295)
210/5.6 Super Symmar XL (new for $2,995)
240/5.6 Nikkor W (qty. 3, used, $469-689)
240/9 Apo-Ronar (used, $589)
240/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S (new, $1,789)
240/5.6 Symmar-S (used, $449)
250/5.6 Fuji-Soft Focus (qty. 2, used, $469-495)
300/5.6 Nikkor-W (qty. 2, used $695-795)
305/9 Apo-Artar (used, $695)
450/12.5 Fujinon-C (new, $895)
480/9 Goerz Apo-Artar ctd. (condition unspecified, $695)
600/11.5 Fuji-C (new, $1,425)
600/9 Nikkor Tele ED (used, $1,595)
1100/22 Schneider Fine Art XXL (new for a modest $4,499)

Much to my disappointment, only one of the listings actually specified the presence of a shutter,

Of those the Ronar and the Artar would be the only ones I'd question if a shutter was included. All the rest left the factory mounted only. I think the XXL might come in a barrel to but I think it's faster without the shutter.

Ebay tends to be fairly expensive IMHO. Too many of the bidding wars you mentioned often for lower grade product. Gems do get bought on Ebay for pennies but often the prices make no sense to me.

[tim atherton]

There have been 4 or so Fujinon 250mm 6.7 lenses (NOT the 6.3) on ebay in the last week or so for between $340.00 and $390.00 - a fantastic 8x10 mid wide angle lens.

It was the second 8x10 lens I got. The first was a 12" Commercial Ektar - which you should be able to find for between 250.00 and 375.00 (if you are lucky on the lower end). A little large, but a fantastic lens.

I still have and use both (though I have a small/light Fuji 300mm that gets carried more often than the Ektar these days)

I've used both for architecture and landscape. Until recently I probably used a 210mm (the getting hard to find fantastic Kowa Graphic) and the fuji 250mm more than any other lenses.

A 210mm G-Claron will also do with an inch or so of movement

Goign wider, the cheapest option is probably the 159mm Wollensak Wide Angle. Again, an inch or so of movement at f32/45

I've missed a few, but after that the prices and/or weight generally start to go up.

But for ages, the only two 8x10 lens I had were the first two I mentioned.

And it's kinda weird - 250mm seems wider on 8x10 than 125mm is on 4x5

I often used a 90mm for landscapes on 4x5. In 8x10 I often found the 210mm too wide...