Lenses - who's least expensive and still good?

[bill_1041]

As the proud owner of a very green 8x10 Calumet C-1 through unusual circumstance (too many details to bore you with), I am now in need a lens or two for this be ast. I plan to do B/W scenery - probably looking for a modest wide angle and a n ormal focal length.

As I research the different lens makers, could I call on the list's collective w isdom to help rank various lens makers by quality and price? Who's overpriced? W ho's least expensive and still good?

Your experience and insight will be very welcome - Bill

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I have the exact camera and a pretty interesting story about acquiring it as well. For lenses, I picked up an uncoated 19" Apo Artar in a Copal 3 shutter for under $500 and a Fujinon A 240mm in a Copal 1. This would be the rough equivalent of a 210mm and 120mm for a 4x5. Both these lenses have excellent coverage and a as sharp as I could desire.

[Dave Schneidr]

You may want to look at the 305mm G-Claron from Schneider. Image circle of ample size for 8x10, excellent quality. This lens was discontinued recently by Schneider. As a result prices have dropped. Badger Graphics has brand new ones for $689.00. Of course I think it is safe to say that the Schneider lenses are simply the best, or is that just a family prejudice.

[Larry Sandt]

I own a Calumet or (Caltar) 180 5.6 lens which is manufactured by Rodenstock. A ccording to Calumet it is the second sharpest lens they sell, the 210 5.6 is the sharpest.

[Dave Willison]

Bill:

I bought my C-1 about 7 years ago for a little over $600. The camera came with a 300mm/500mm Schneider Convertible Symmar. It also has a 4x5 reduction back. The Schneider is fairly sharp although I rarely use the 500mm option. It also works well on 4x5 closeup work in conjunction with the reduction back. In addition, the lens actually covers 11x14! The 300mm Convertible Symmar is heavy and, thus, might not make an ideal choice for scenery. Of course, if you have the stamina to carry the C-1 and a tripod into the field, the size of the lens probably won't bother you.

If you are looking for a moderate wide angle, I would vote for a 210mm. I use a Fujinon 210W which was purchased used several years ago for about $500. Obviously, many other manufacturers make 210mm lenses and a Nikon, Rodenstock, or Schneider would give good quality results.

There are several keys to picking up good, inexpensive lenses. First, buy used. Second, don't be afraid of older lenses provided that they are coated and have minimal damage. There are all kinds of older, post-WW II lenses that would meet your needs including the Kodak Commercial Ektar and the Goerz Red Dot Artar. Third, look for bargains where the same basic lens is cheaper in a larger minimum aperture (an f8 Super Angulon is normally less than a f5.6 Super Angulon). The image on the ground glass will be darker, but you will save money in the short run. Fourth, consider a barrel lens. You will need to shoot longer exposures (2 plus seconds) and use a lenscap/hat, but the inconveneince could save you $100-200.

If you buy new, consider a lens optimized for closeup work such as the G-Claron. These lenses work well as lanscape lenses. In addition, many individuals on this forum have purchsed new lenses from overseas dealers at a considerable cost savings. Take a look at Robert White's site for example.

I hope this helps and good luck with the C-1.

..........................

[Alec Jones]

Hey, guys, come on, don't tease us. I [for one] would love to hear your acquisition stories. Gives us all hope!

[David A. Goldfarb]

For an affordable modest wideangle, I really like the 10" Kodak Wide-Field Ektar. It has a smooth look and a huge coverage circle with plenty of room for movements. In a working Ilex #5 shutter, it should run $450-550.

[Bruce Wehman]

If your exposure times tend to be a bit on the long side, an enlarger lens would be an excellent choice. With labs going out of business they are going dirt cheap. Simply use the lens cap for a shutter. With your dark slide and a little practice you can get 1 / 15 sec.

Ditto on the 240 Fujinon A. There is one going on EBAY now. http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1296616679

[Jim Galli]

Schneider G-Claron 240mm 270mm 305mm all in Copal 1!! and 355mm Copal 3.

210mm G-Claron will cover 8X10 at f22 and smaller in spite of what Schneider's page says. Yes MTF degrades some way in the corners but at least your sky won't vignette.

I'll admit to a little heavy breathing last nite over a NIKKOR 300mm M that has a fair price on Ebay but then I checked Chris Perez and Kerry Thalmann's lens test data page and there's the Nikkor with way lower numbers and way smaller circle than the G-Claron 305 I already have. That's a great resource, and I am much appreciative. J

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Not to dispute Jim's recommendation of the G Claron. He's right on the mark Th ey are great lenses at truly bargain prices.

However, WRT to the 300mm Nikkor M I offer the following opinion...

At f22, the first 300mm Nikkor we tested (my personal lens bought new several ye ars ago) was almost identical in resolution to the one 305mm G Claron tested (54 , 54, 54 vs. 54, 60, 54). By f32, resolution of either lens will pretty much ma tch the diffraction limit. Most 8x10 shooters I know rarely shoot any wider tha n f22 (f454 seems to be quite common), and even at f16 the Nikkor is 48 lp/mm co rner to corner. I consider that plenty sharp enough for critical enlargement of at least 6x (a 48" x 60" print from 8x10). So, in terms of practical use, I co nsider the two to be pretty equal in terms of resolution at normal working apert ures.

The Nikkor, however, is slightly higher in contrast, being a multicoated 4/3 des ign (6 air:glass interfaces) vs. the single coated 6/4 G Claron (8 air:glass int erfaces). The Nikkor is also considerably smaller and lighter than the G Claron (52mm filters, 270g vs. 67mm filters 460g).

In the end, they are both great lenses. I just didn't want to see the Nikkor ge t unfairly criticized based on the results of our tests. As a 4x5 color landsca pe shooter, I prefer the smaller, lighter, multicoated Nikkor. I generally shoo t it at f22 or there abouts, and have found the results to be wonderful - both i n terms of sharpness and contrast. If I was an 8x10 black and white shooter, I may indeed prefer the G Claron. Like I said, they are both outstanding lenses a nd I think most users would be happy with either.

Finally, I must point out that our tests results are not meant to be universal. We tested a VERY limited number of samples of any lens (in this case 2 Nikkors and one G Claron). Many were older, used lenses with unknown histories. In the end, our results are really only valid for the EXACT lenses we tested. There c an be sample to sample variations between even relatively new lenses, but especi ally between older used samples. We post our results to share what we've learne d, but mostly as fodder to inspire other people to test their own lenses. How g ood, or bad our lenses are, is really only applicable to OUR lenses. Testing a lens (or a camera for ground glass alignment, or a film holder for proper film p osition) is a simple excercise that requires just a little time and effort. Rat her than take our word as gospel, we encourage everyone to test their own equipm ent. We learned a lot in the process, and wouldn't want to deprive anyone else of a similar educational opportunity.

Kerry