8x10 Advice Needed - Wide-Open 240 at f/5.6 coverage, Chamonix Rationalization

[Walter Calahan]

I accidentally shot a portrait (full length of two people) at f/5.6 on my Nikkor 240 mm using 8x10 Fuji 160S. Loved the results.

The lens fully covered the film. The area of focus was sharp, with a wonderful fall off.

Can't speak to all the other lenses mentioned here. The Nikon works for me.

[Walter Calahan]

If you need to know, the images was made on a light-weight KB Canham using a bag bellows, on a Ries tripod. Not that any of that matters. What matters is the Nikkor 240 mm f/5.6 performed very very well.

[BennehBoy]

Ben, a 300mm lens on a 10x8 is equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, while a 240mm is more like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera, that's a bit of a rough analogy.

Coverage can mean two things, first the angle of view, and secondly the size of the usable image circle.

Ian

I understand this Ian, my question was more why the insistence on a 240mm angle of view when a 300mm lens will typically provide a greater image circle. ie. why not compromise on the focal length.

[Frank Petronio]

Thanks guys. It's not like you can saddle up to the neighborhood bar and get the same discussion.

I like the 135mm lens in 4x5 so I figure the 240 is the closest in 8x10, although I think lenses feel a bit "longer" the larger you go. But using a 300 is probably a better price/performance ratio.

I will mostly shoot Tri-X for as long as they make it. Maybe a little 400NC.

[IanG]

If you go back to the original post Frank mentions he shoots environmental portraits at full aperture, it's more usual to use a slight wide angle lens for images like this, shooting with a 300mm would give a different perspective and be a little more difficult.

Ian

[BennehBoy]

Yeah I guess so, obviously the limiting factor will be working distance.

[Jim Galli]

I have never found any of the 5.6 240 lenses usable on 8X10. That 1 inch to move in just gets used up too quick and too often. That was why I threw the Ektar out there. Now if you got even luckier and found a 270mm Computar, but now we're playing the sacrificial max aperture game again. Probably why Dagor's were so well loved. One of the better cake and eat it too compromises. 5.6 240's cover 336 mm of 310 needed.

Just thought of your dream lens Frank! 9 inch Pinkham & Smith in Copal 3. Hey dreams are free.

[aduncanson]

I like the 135mm lens in 4x5 so I figure the 240 is the closest in 8x10, although I think lenses feel a bit "longer" the larger you go. But using a 300 is probably a better price/performance ratio.

Frank,

I have a spreadsheet that takes into account the way that the lens appears to lengthen as the magnification goes up, as you alluded to. Looking at just a couple of portraits that you have posted recently and estimating the magnifications you use, I concur that the 8x10 equivalent of your 135mm is 240-254mm.

Also, for the larger format, you should find that an 240/f9 lens like the Fuji A or a G-Claron will give depth of field very close to that of your 135mm/f5.6 - in a 16x20 print.

Along that line, I am a bit surprised that there has been no mention of the 240mm/9.5 inch Dagor in the discussion above. (Did I miss it?) It has coverage galore, is fast enough to limit depth of field, famous bokeh or jen es sai qua, and offers investment potential. What more could you want? Affordability - pshaw.

Good Luck - Alan

[Joel Brown]

Frank, I hope you will reconsider the 8x10 Deardorff. Yes they feel a little sloppy especially the rear standard, but the one you used was probably worn out. I fell in love with the 250 Fujinon-W 6.7 and shoot it wide open often.

www.joelbrownphotography.com

[Frank Petronio]

Oh the Kodak Deardorffs were beaters, I am sure that a properly taken care of Deardorff is quite nice -- so many great photos have been made with them.