If you could only have one..

[Vaughn]

Vaughn, I never used the long cell of my Turner-Reich because the experts on here convinced me of what trash it was. That pic of Yosa-might falls has changed my mind. My goodness, 3 useable focal lengths for around a hundred bucks...imagine!...

A couple of 'issues' with using it at 28":

Bellows! On the Zone IV, at infinity, I have to put the front and back standards on the very last tooth of the geared rails. (But my Kodak 2D will allow for closer focus).

I did use an orange filter (taped onto the front of the shutter, cell mounted behind the shutter). The single cells are anti-apochromatic (if that is a word!LOL!) Blue light is focused in a much different plane than the other wavelengths. Eliminate much of the blue light and one eliminates much of the problem (and gain darker skies, if so desired)

It is a contact print -- I suppose using a single cell on a 4x5 and trying to enlarge to 16x20 might show excessive softness...but I did not notice any softening in the platinum/palladium print (which are not the sharpest way to reproduce an image to begin with).

I used the 28" cell to photograph a lunar eclipse (5x7 back on the 2D), no filter used and the cell behind the shutter. An exposure every 10 minutes. On the 5th exposure, the cold night air (just outside Yosa-mighty) froze up the shutter and it did not close, the shutter stayed open for ten minutes -- I discovered it trying to start the next exposure. So, a few images of the moon coming out of totality, then a long white streak! Your Packard shutter could probably handle it. I'll put on a filter just to protect my shutter from the cold and damp next time!

Minimilist is a valid approach. In a universe of infinite possibilities, any 'restrictions' placed upon oneself by limiting one's gear will still result in an infinite number of possible images!

Vaughn

Me waiting to take the photo of the Falls (image from the Fresno Bee):

[David R Munson]

240mm somethingorather

[rkmiec]

I don't mind the high jacks,I like learning and for those that are hard pressed to decided I don't mind a second choice.

[Vaughn]

Without the hijacks, many a thread would be sooooo boring!

For the record, i try not to hijack a thread until the question is well answered or is getting long in the tooth.

[Erik Larsen]

A couple of 'issues' with using it at 28":

Bellows! On the Zone IV, at infinity, I have to put the front and back standards on the very last tooth of the geared rails. (But my Kodak 2D will allow for closer focus).

I did use an orange filter (taped onto the front of the shutter, cell mounted behind the shutter). The single cells are anti-apochromatic (if that is a word!LOL!) Blue light is focused in a much different plane than the other wavelengths. Eliminate much of the blue light and one eliminates much of the problem (and gain darker skies, if so desired)

It is a contact print -- I suppose using a single cell on a 4x5 and trying to enlarge to 16x20 might show excessive softness...but I did not notice any softening in the platinum/palladium print (which are not the sharpest way to reproduce an image to begin with).

I used the 28" cell to photograph a lunar eclipse (5x7 back on the 2D), no filter used and the cell behind the shutter. An exposure every 10 minutes. On the 5th exposure, the cold night air (just outside Yosa-mighty) froze up the shutter and it did not close, the shutter stayed open for ten minutes -- I discovered it trying to start the next exposure. So, a few images of the moon coming out of totality, then a long white streak! Your Packard shutter could probably handle it. I'll put on a filter just to protect my shutter from the cold and damp next time!

Minimilist is a valid approach. In a universe of infinite possibilities, any 'restrictions' placed upon oneself by limiting one's gear will still result in an infinite number of possible images!

Vaughn

Me waiting to take the photo of the Falls (image from the Fresno Bee):

Nice skirt you're wearing there Vaughn

[premortho]

HAH...maybe it's a kilt, or some other Celtic article of clothing.

[Vaughn]

HAH...maybe it's a kilt, or some other Celtic article of clothing.

LOL! Just my usual hiking shorts.

But if it would not be so unusal and stand-outish (and if I was Scottish, and not of half English/half German descent), I would wear a kilt -- seems totally practical to me. As it is I wear shorts about 330 days a year.

[neil poulsen]

Probably a 355 G-Claron. It would be a nice compromise between bellows draw and using a (moderate) wide-angle for all photos.

[SAShruby]

Lens for 8x10 which would you choose. Keep it under $1000 though.
Curiousity has set in after reading what some were saying about the fujinon 250 w 6.7 lens here.

Is it for landscape or portrait work?
For landscape you want wider lens. For portrait you want longer lens, preferably soft focus lens. Aim for two. if you're patient you can by both cheap than averave ebay price. Even Hermagis or Cooke. it's only one odd misplaced Ebay thread on italian Ebay site .

[Arne Croell]

I'd keep the 270mm G-Claron I bought brand new, from Schneider's last stock, a few years ago for just over $700. Since I'm an "everything in sharp focus" person, the G-Claron's reported less than perfect out of focus rendering doesn't impact my work. It has all the coverage I can use when it's stopped down, even for 8x10, and is light weight (in a Copal 1 shutter). I have no idea what the used price would be today; mine's not for sale.

It is unfortunate that there are no other 8x10 lenses, at least that I'm aware of, in this focal length. Just like a 135mm on 4x5, a 270mm on 8x10 is 7/8 of the format's diagonal. That provides the angle of view I like best for rendering space.

Docter Apo-Germinar S 270mm f/11, 75° coverage.