Lens Recommendation for circa 1905 Korona 8 x 10

[Jim Galli]

Yes, it's a fine old lens, but I think what the OP is saying is, you don't rely on an Autex shutter with $30 ea. exposures. Nor would I. And the Ilex shutters with commercial Ektars are only slightly better. A Copal is a good solution. Studio flash even better. Or a working Compur Electronic also a rock solid choice. The glass is just secondary.

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, it's a fine old lens, but I think what the OP is saying is, you don't rely on an Autex shutter with $30 ea. exposures. Nor would I. And the Ilex shutters with commercial Ektars are only slightly better. A Copal is a good solution. Studio flash even better. Or a working Compur Electronic also a rock solid choice. The glass is just secondary.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the Autex.... Those old Compounds have spoiled me.

[John Kasaian]

Your Wolly is a prize lens!
I agree with Mr. Galli about the shutter & expensive 8x10 color negatives, but IMHO, an Ilex #5 thats been freshly cla'd is as good as any, however I suspect you'll probably want a multicoated lens anyway for those expensive negatives---take a gander at Fuji. I don't know if you'll find any that will cover 8x10 for under $500 though.

[E. von Hoegh]

Your Wolly is a prize lens!
I agree with Mr. Galli about the shutter & expensive 8x10 color negatives, but IMHO, an Ilex #5 thats been freshly cla'd is as good as any, however I suspect you'll probably want a multicoated lens anyway for those expensive negatives---take a gander at Fuji. I don't know if you'll find any that will cover 8x10 for under $500 though.

Jesus, John! Don't tell him that! He'll want more for it! (shaking head smiley)

[Jim Galli]

Your Wolly is a prize lens!

I wrote up this page some years ago done with an identical lens, which btw, I still have, also in an Autex, and so pocked up with chips etc and the Autex not working at all, it truely is worthless, except for the fact that it makes killer images.

[desertrat]

Jim, I bookmarked that page because it truly is an inspiration. I recently bought a similar series I Wolly, a little older and slower, convertible but not triple. I think your shots prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that most of the complaints about poor contrast in old uncoated 4-group lenses are due mostly to haze between the groups that is often invisible unless the shutter is held open and the lens sighted through at a strong light source. I admit that flare and ghost images would be a problem in these lenses if the light source or large specular reflections are in or near the scene, but I seldom photograph anything like that. Right now, the ancient Royal Anastigmat rebadged Velostigmat is my most used lens.

[Corran]

Just want to say that indeed, a 210mm Symmar-S DOES COVER 8x10.

This has been well documented. You can find many shots with one on 8x10 on my blog linked below. I don't use it anymore because I got a 210mm with more coverage though, because the Symmar-S has no movements to speak of.

[John Kasaian]

Not multi coated, but G Clarons are always a good choice. The 240mm is one of my most used 8x10 lenses.

[E. von Hoegh]

Just want to say that indeed, a 210mm Symmar-S DOES COVER 8x10.

This has been well documented. You can find many shots with one on 8x10 on my blog linked below. I don't use it anymore because I got a 210mm with more coverage though, because the Symmar-S has no movements to speak of.

294mm image circle. That's nearly an inch shy, the corners are soft on the examples I have seen. Of course, if your standards are low enough.....

http://schneideroptics.com/info/vint...5,6-210mm.html

[Corran]

Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

Check out the lower-left corner in this photo (it's the only one in focus) and tell me it's soft:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hv7jVJhCDX...1600/0041s.jpg