Modest wide for 8X10...?

[MMELVIS]

3 that I use
Eskofot Ultragon 210mm F9
Gundlach Radar Extreme Wide Angle Anast. 6 1/4 inch (159mm)
BERTHIOT (Paris) 120mm F14 Perigraphe No.3 Series VIa Brass lens

[Ari]

A 135mm on 4x5 (270mm on 8x10) is a near-exact match to 35mm on 135 based on the equivalence of the angle of view along the film's short side. (Others may disagree, I happen to think that considering the film's shorter edge makes more sense than its diagonal, but for some this borders on a religious argument.) Following this model the less-common 270mm G-Claron might be just the ticket, or the 250 f/6.7 Fujinon-W, or 250mm Wide-Field Ektar, or any of the many 240s that'll cover 8x10. There's also a 10-3/4" (273mm) Apo-Artar, but I don't think that'll cover at infinity.

It really comes down to your definition of "modest", as in "Modest wide for 8x10...?"

Yes, that's certainly valid.
My thinking was if a 50mm is normal on 135 format, and a 300mm is normal on 8x10, to get the equivalent FLs you either divide or multiply by 6.
So 35mm lens on 135 format is (35 x 6) equal to 210mm.
That, and the 210 looks roughly the same on 8x10 as did the 35mm on 135, i.e. modestly wide.

[StoneNYC]

Here guys...

[IanG]

My choice for a modest wide angle for my 10x8 cameras is a 240mm f5.6 Nikon it fits nicely between my 12" Dagor (coated) and 165mm Super Angulon. I have 210mm lenses but none fully cover 10x8 although the 210mm Symmar is close, although thinking about it I have a 210mm Hexanon GRII but it's a barrel lens so I'd need to add a shutter.

Ian

[Alan Gales]

Yes, that's certainly valid.
My thinking was if a 50mm is normal on 135 format, and a 300mm is normal on 8x10, to get the equivalent FLs you either divide or multiply by 6.
So 35mm lens on 135 format is (35 x 6) equal to 210mm.
That, and the 210 looks roughly the same on 8x10 as did the 35mm on 135, i.e. modestly wide.

The problem is that 8x10 is a squarer format than 135mm. To me my 250mm on my 8x10 looks like my old 35mm lens on my 35mm camera. I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying that a person has to see decide for themselves. It's just not a clear cut comparison.

[jumanji]

Thank you. I guess i will have to practice more.

This is a picture of the enlarger just after printing the image of the bridge. Negative from a Symmar-S 210mm on 8x10 with no movements (camera pointed upward).
Of note, the original negative is horizontal, but the print becomes vertical. There is no light falloff, as the camera lens was centered on the negative at the time of film exposure. In fact the sky needed a little burn, as it is farther from the negative when enlarging. The image and grain are in perfect focus on the baseboard and razor sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner. This is the 'poor man's' Super Angulon 210.
Attachment 138583
Attachment 138584

The Dagor is nice for portrait but my 210, even at f45 has fall off (this can be solved when printing or scanning) and soft at corners (impossible to solve).

[John Kasaian]

I used two "modestly wide" on my 8x10. Both are very fine lenses,
A 10"/250mm WF Ektar, which is fast and has----seemingly----acres of coverage and is my "go to" for architecture.
A 240mm G Claron which is small and lightweight and wonderfully sharp, which is the lens I always take when hiking or backpacking.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I have a 210mm Hexanon GRII but it's a barrel lens so I'd need to add a shutter.
Ian

Me to I use it with the Sinar behind the lens shutter! It is really sharp and a lot of covering power!

[IanG]

Me to I use it with the Sinar behind the lens shutter! It is really sharp and a lot of covering power!

I also have a 150mm Hexanon GRII as well and that covers 10x8 with a little room for movements. I have Thornton Pickard shutters I can use with them so must get around to trying them.

Ian