Mike,
You left out some very important information that would have a big influence on what lenses make the most sense for you. First, what do you plan to shoot? Landcapes, portraits, architecture, studio still lifes. etc? The "best" lenses for one application may be totally different than the "best" lenses for another. What is your price range? There are some great deals out there right now on previous generation, but still modern lenses. These are lenses that were made within the last 25 -30 years that are multticoated and come in reliable modern (usually Copal) shutters. Prices for these lenses have dropped dramatically in the last few years, but it's pointless to recommend anything specific until we know what you will be shooting and how much you expect to spend.
1) What lenses are best/should I avoid?
Depends (see above)
2) How much movement does an "average" (say 450mm) lens allow for (ie, is it worth the extra $/searching to find 11x14 lenses, and will there be much difference)?
There's really no such thing as an "average" 450mm lens. Among current lenses, there are three 450mm models available - all are very different (but will have more than enough coverage for 8x10). They are the 450mm f9 Nikkor M which is a tessar type (4/3) that takes 67mm filters, is in a Copal No. 3 shutter, has a 440mm image circle and weighs 640g; 450mm f12.5 Fujinon C (4/4) 52mm filters, Copal No. 1 shutter, 486mm image circle, 270g; 450mm f8 Fujinon CM-W (6/6), 86mm filters, Copal No. 3, 520mm image circle, 1140g. If you include the more common 480m focal length, the number of options goes up considerably - and that' just lenses that are currently available new. Include recently discontinued and "classic" lenses, and the choices go up by an order of magnitude. In just the three current 450mm lenses, you see a huge variation in some parameters (including price). Which is best for you will depend on what you're shooting and your budget. In the 300mm and 360mm focal lengths, there are mny more options (both modern and classic).
3) I've read that newer 8x10 and larger lenses are of lower quality than older lenses because of less demand for such lenses, and they remain "softer" than older lenses. True/false?
I've read a lot of nonsense on the internet, but this one takes the cake. It is true that there are some very sharp "classic" lenses, and classic lenses may offer other advantages in some cases (more coverage, smaller size, lower cost), but to say that newer lenses are soft is ridiculous. Newer lenses benefit from better coatings and far better manufacturing techniques and quality control. Better coatings provided a couple of benefits. First, an increase in contrast (a reduction of non-image forming light - aka flare). This alone will make images appear sharper even if the resolution is the same. Second, it allows the lens designers more freedom in incorporating more air spaces in their designs that can result in a better corrected lens (which leads to better sharpness over a wider range of apertures). Most of the best selling modern lenses are based on designs (plasmat for standard lenses and biogon derivatives for wide angles) that weren't practical until coatings became commercially viable. Add in multicoatings and the designer has ever more freedom to pursue more complex, better corrected designs.
4) Is it difficult to mount barrel lenses w/shutter (ie, worth the time, effort)?
It's not difficult for a competent machinist. However, that machinist will want to be compensated for his time and skill - and every lens is unique, which requires a different set-up, which adds to the time involved and the cost of the work. This can add up in a hurry. And then you have the cost of the barrel lens and the new shutter to consider. With used shutter mounted lenses selling at very reasonable prices, it can be hard to justify the cost involved - unless you have some very unique barrel mounted lens that doesn't have a shutter-mounted alternative (or you yourself are a competent machinist).
5) What is your preference in lens focal lengths (ie, your 2 favorite)?
Without knowing what you're shooting, my preference may or may not be relevent. And even if we shot the same types of subjects, our personal vision and preferences may be totally different. For example, I'm a landscape shooter, but I'm not a big user of wide angle lenses. I prefer slightly wide to slightly long lenses for most of my work, and tend to use long lenses more than wide angles. This is the direct opposite to many other landscape shooters I know who shoot almost 100% with wide angles and don't own any lenses longer than "normal". As I have to carry them aound on my back, I tend to prefer lighter lenses. I also prefer lenses with smaller filter sizes as this save space in my pack and money in my wallet. For you, this may be totally irrelevent (or maybe not).
I'll refrain from specific recommendaions until I know more about you intended subjects, your goals and your personal preferences.
Kerry
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks