Wide Angle Lenses for 5x8

[Bruce Watson]

The thread on 8x10 wide angle lenses got me thinking.

I'm becoming ever more interested in the 5x8 (not 5x7) format. It takes at least 231mm to cover (diagonal of 4.75 x 7.75 is 9.1 inches, or 231 mm). A lens that will just barely cover 8x10 will probably work just find for me with nice movements.

I've got the mid-long end of the range covered already with a Fuji-A 240mm and 14" R. D. Artar. Both overkill from a coverage standpoint. But I already own them for 4x5! A bird in hand...

So I'm looking for lenses in the range of 135 - 180 mm. I also want them to be light weight so I can hike with them. I've been searching around for days and find that there's not a lot out there that will cover at all, much less be light weight.

What little I've found, including the 8x10 thread, is pointing me towards a 6 1/4 inch Wolly. But I'm finding it very difficult to find information on Wollensak lenses. They apparently produced a large variety of lenses and I can't tell one lens line from another. Yet. I guess I need a scorecard (sorry -- it's world series season, I couldn't resist). Any idea where I can learn more about the old Wolly lens lineups?

Any suggestions of other lenses in the 135-180mm range with an image circle greater than, say, 250mm would also be appreciated.

[Walter Calahan]

The Fujinon-W 180 mm f/5.6 barely reaches the corners of 8x10. 305 or 306 image circle.

It is very light-weight, very bright, and would work with your 5x8 needs.

My two cents.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I use a Nikkor W 180mm on 5x7 which has plenty of movements. I also have a 125 (1st version) Fujinon W that may cover it but my guess is the 135 or 150 (1st version w/ writing on the inner front retaining ring) Fujinon W should cover with movements. These are small lenses and would be very good for hiking. For my 8x10 I have a WA Dagor 165mm that would be great as would the 165mm Angulon. Plenty of movement with about a 300mm image circle with both.

[Drew Wiley]

Ditto. The Fuji 180A should also moderate movement. The illumination circle will actually cover 8X10 without movement, but with severe degredation of quality at the
corners. For closeup work, the acceptable image circle grows, and the Fuji A's are
excellent from macro clear to infinity.

[Jiri Vasina]

Bruce, I can tell you something from my search. I was (and still am) looking for a good light WA lens for my 5x8 Chamonix. I don't want those new "tight-waist-lenses" in #1 shutter, but with large front and rear elements, instead I want something smaller.

This is the account of what I have tried:

* Ilex Paragon Anastigmat 165mm f:4.5 - a good and small one, but allows for no movements at all. Has to be precisely centered and stopped down. So not a good choice (it was my first LF lens I had for a long time, so naturally, I tried it).

* Schneider G-Claron 150m f:9 - much better. Has around 2-3cm of rise for horizontal image when stopped down. Not a bad choice, but still, I'm looking further.

* Hugo Meyer Wide Angle Aristostigmat 160mm f:6.3 - (I have it in barrel) even better. I have not yet made a shot where I'd run out of coverage (but have made only few). So I'd say 3-5cm of rise for horizontal image are granted. The image is sharp, smooth. The lens is small, but has one serious drawback - it fits the rare Compound #2 shutter.

* Dagor 6 1/2" f:6.8 - this one is still on the way, I'm looking forward to try it out.

* I'd also look for the Wollensak WA 159mm that should cover the 8x10. As of late, I think this one is the ultimate choice (for me, my budget and my camera - if I'm not happy with either the Aristostigmat, or the Dagor).

Hope this helps

Jiri

[John O'Connell]

Wollensak made essentially two different wide angle lenses in 6.25" (159mm), over a long period of time. They generally come in American press shutters. Both of these lenses are tiny and small, but none that I've seen have filter threads.

The first is an f/9.5 lens. It barely covers 8x10 and shows fall-off at infinity on 8x10.

The second is an f/12.5 lens, and covers 100 degrees at small stops. Lots of coverage on 8x10.

Also worth looking at is the 6.5x8.5 (140mm) Protar V, either by Zeiss or Bausch & Lomb. Generally no shutter, but extremely small and very usable on the smaller format.

[Bruce Watson]

The Fujinon-W 180 mm f/5.6 barely reaches the corners of 8x10. 305 or 306 image circle.

It is very light-weight, very bright, and would work with your 5x8 needs.

My two cents.

Holy cats! How did I miss that one?!?! Many thanks Mr. Calahan.

[Steve Goldstein]

135mm f/5.6 Fujinon-W (the old single-coated one with the "inside lettering") - 228mm IC @ f/22, Seiko 0

135 f/6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar - 229mm, Supermatic

150mm f/5.6 Fujinon-W (again, the inside lettering version) - 245mm, Seiko 0

150mm f/9 Graphic-Kowa (the one that fits a Copal 1) - 290mm?

180mm Fujinon-W (inside lettering) 305mm, Copal 1 (I think this is the one Walter meant)

180mm Fujinon-A, 252mm, Copal 0

[Scott Davis]

Another plug for the Wolly 159mm f12.5. I use it on 5x12 and it works with limited movement when stopped down. As previously mentioned, they made them for a LONG period of time, in different configurations. Watch out for one with the (usually) purple WC logo (a C with a W inside it, standing for WoCoated - these are the late model lenses with single coating, and are quite good).

[Mark Tweed]

At the low end of your scale is the diminutive lens (but tough to find) Rodenstock 130mm f12 Perigon. These coated lenses have 110 degrees of coverage and screw directly into a Copal 0 shutter. The 130mm covers the 8X10 format with room to spare (380mm to 400mm IC). I have one of the 110mm Perigons which I use for my 5X7. Its physical size is comparable to the small 90mm f6.8 Angulon. And yes, they are very sharp lenses.

There's also the pricey 165mm Wide Angle Dagor, but the similar 159mm ExWA Wollensak would be easier to locate. I have a late version of these Wollys and it's a fine lens. Wollensak also made a 135mm version of these (f12 6 1/2 X 8 1/2 was the designation) which I was told would also cover the 8X10 format. I had one (uncoated) but sold it in favor of my 135mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar was a better lens for 5X7 simply because it's brighter to focus.

Mark