210mm Lens for 8x10: Spotters Guide

[John NYC]

I hesitate to post this, for a couple of reasons. nevertheless, I think you should know that the reason I was willing to pay the asking price for Kerry Thalman's 210mm f5.6 APO Sironar was .......

Steve, I really appreciate your sharing that info!

[bwlf]

Image circle data comes from this website: http://brucebarrett.com/large_format..._Coverage.html

Synopsis:

1. Computar F9 = 325mm

I sent an email to Bruce today and got feedback from him (note that "This table was originally compiled by Michael Gudzinowicz (ab366@osfn.rhilinet.gov)." -- email address no longer valid), please note that I found many references to the 210mm f9 Computar having an image circle (at f/22) of around 460mm instead of 325mm. This website was the only reference to the 325mm measurement I could find, and the source publication was not listed for this entry, however Bruce noted it was the "#2 is a list published in Petersen's in 1984 (list prices)."

mm AP Brand Model Coverage E/G Flange Price Yr
210 9 Computar F9 325 6/4 192 456

Alternative proponents of the ~460mm image circle:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...d-ULF-coverage
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...p/t-10255.html
"measurements were made on the ground glass of my 7X17 and 12X20 cameras with the lenses focused at 50 feet and could be off by a few mm"
210mm Computar, 456mm

Kerry L. Thalmann @ 4-Jun-2004, 16:02
The... 460mm for the 210mm focal length are from an article ("Test Report: Semi Wide Lenses for View Cameras") Gordon Hutchings did many years ago for View Camera. I believe that article is also the source of your quote above about Burleigh-Brooks and the lineage of the Computar/Kowa/Kyvytar lenses.
I believe it was in the 1992 - 1994 time frame, possibly Nov/Dec 1993.
sanking @ 4-Jun-2004, 17:32
My god, you were right. The article is in the Nov/Dec 1993 issue.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...r-lens-quality
My 210/9 Computar is a great 8x10 lens. I will just cover 11x14 if you remove the hood and the spacer ring
(comment: 11 x14 needs about 450 mm of coverage.)

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...2-210-for-8x10
Computar f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, reportedly around 460mm IC)

.... Unless the coverage really is 325mm and everyone was reading this "price = $456" and assuming it was 456mm???
.... The first article had actual manual measurements taken though, "could be off by a few mm." -- hopefully not off by 130mm though!?

[Dan Fromm]

bwlf, the first two links you posted are to the same discussion. It repays reading all the way to the end. Short version, there's a lot of blather and confusion about what coverage means. It ends by concluding that coverages claimed in the first few posts aren't real.

There is a little hard data in it. Post #97 contains four .pdfs of Burleigh Brooks' brochure for f/9 Apo-Computars. This link http://www.largeformatphotography.in...overage/page10 goes to the page with post #97. The lenses are plasmat types, claimed coverage is 76 degrees.

[John Kasaian]

While it doesn't look like it using Schneider's specs, a plain Jane 210 G Claron will cover 8x10 with a wee amount of wiggle room. IIRC quite awhile ago Mr. Jim Galli posted some 8x10s taken with the plucky little 210 G Claron, both here and on his website

[Chauncey Walden]

Yes, my 210 G-Claron clears the corners on 8x10 beginning at f/22 but wee is correct.

[Greg]

I settled on an 8 inch f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT Series VIIB. It is listed as covering the 12x10 format at f/16, so at f/16 there is even some room for movement with it on the 8x10 format. When I was looking for a 200-210mm lens for my 8x10, I also wanted top use it on my 11x14. A Grandson-N or a Super Angulon were beyond my wallet and physically just too large. I had considered an Angulon but read in multiple places that some did indeed cover 11x14 and some didn't..."Test before you purchase". After almost 2 years of looking for one, had yet to find one at a reasonable price and one that I could also test before purchasing. I had kept on coming across references to the 8 inch TAYLOR-HOBSON so also pursued finding one. Found one (I believe on the FORUM) a year ago that the seller said that it did indeed cover 11x14 stopped down and it was at a reasonable price so took the plunge. Took an 11x14 test negative and indeed it did actually cover 11x14 on center when stopped down. So had S K Grimes mount it in a Copal No. 3 shutter that I had found at a bargain price years ago. In practice in the field, the optic performs outstanding on my 8x10 allowing a good deal of movement. Again, in practice in the field, the optic (on center) gives me a wonderfully sharp image at f/64 (I contact print, so diffraction not a problem with stoping down this much) on my 11x14. I actually think it's coverage might allow for some movement on my 11x14. One time I mistakenly introduced about 10mm of movement, yet the negative was totally sharp, even in 2 the corners of the negative that record an image (my mistaken 10mm of movement would have affected coverage in those 2 corners). I had considered going the Kowa, Computer, etc. route but kept on finding conflicting coverage measurements posted.