Recommend A Trashy But Interesting 8x10 Lens?

[Alan Gales]

I think Ari wants a Sally Mann lens!

[Ari]

I think Ari wants a Sally Mann lens!

Does it come in a shutter?

[Alan Gales]

Does it come in a shutter?

I suppose you would have to use a Jim Galli shutter. Of course you could buy a smaller one in the same condition.

Could you imagine sending a lens in the condition of the ones Sally Mann uses to SK Grimes and asking them to mount it in a shutter?

[Brian C. Miller]

Ari, if a lens is, in fact, actually sharp, then it isn't "interesting." In a real print, the differences between various non-pictorial lenses are down in the minutia. My Wollensak 6-1/4" 8x10 lens is my most "interesting" non-pictorial lens, in that it's sharp in the center and goes soft in the edges and corners. I think it's from 1935, approximately. I also have a Busch Rapid Aplanat f/8 No.4 13 inch lens, and that thing is older, and sharp. So no, it's not "interesting."

If the image from an 8x10 negative is reduced to a 640x480 pixel JPEG image, then all differences are lost! (Unless it's a pictorial lens, that is.) So any "trashy" or "interesting" lens that isn't pictorial won't be evident. Now, there's the Wollensak Versar lens, and that only really shows its pictorial characteristics when it the rear is removed, and the front is mounted on the back. Otherwise it will sharpen right up, especially if the groups are loosened from the barrel. (I wonder if Wollensak decided to take one of their normal lenses, put it on a slightly-too-short barrel, and sell it as a portrait lens. Hmmm...)

Anyways, if you don't want a lens that obviously distorts, then you are going to be on a very big search for something that you can't quite define. Sound like a case of equipmentitis to me.

[oysteroid]

You could always try designing and grinding your own lens. Even if you try your best to do it all perfectly, you are sure to get plenty of character in that lens, and you'd have extra bragging rights for having made it yourself! And with a little experience, perhaps you could learn to modify your design to get just what you want! Just watch out for silicosis! And be careful that you don't catch such a lens-making bug that you forget about photography!

[Ari]

Ari, if a lens is, in fact, actually sharp, then it isn't "interesting." In a real print, the differences between various non-pictorial lenses are down in the minutia. My Wollensak 6-1/4" 8x10 lens is my most "interesting" non-pictorial lens, in that it's sharp in the center and goes soft in the edges and corners. I think it's from 1935, approximately. I also have a Busch Rapid Aplanat f/8 No.4 13 inch lens, and that thing is older, and sharp. So no, it's not "interesting."

If the image from an 8x10 negative is reduced to a 640x480 pixel JPEG image, then all differences are lost! (Unless it's a pictorial lens, that is.) So any "trashy" or "interesting" lens that isn't pictorial won't be evident. Now, there's the Wollensak Versar lens, and that only really shows its pictorial characteristics when it the rear is removed, and the front is mounted on the back. Otherwise it will sharpen right up, especially if the groups are loosened from the barrel. (I wonder if Wollensak decided to take one of their normal lenses, put it on a slightly-too-short barrel, and sell it as a portrait lens. Hmmm...)

Anyways, if you don't want a lens that obviously distorts, then you are going to be on a very big search for something that you can't quite define. Sound like a case of equipmentitis to me.

Thanks, Brian.
Yes, it may seem like gear-related obsessiveness, but I'm trying to learn a little bit about older lenses; I know nothing right now, and the 8x10 opens up a lot of possibilities.

You could always try designing and grinding your own lens. Even if you try your best to do it all perfectly, you are sure to get plenty of character in that lens, and you'd have extra bragging rights for having made it yourself! And with a little experience, perhaps you could learn to modify your design to get just what you want! Just watch out for silicosis! And be careful that you don't catch such a lens-making bug that you forget about photography!

Would like to try one day, but as you said, there's no time right now to be anything but a photographer.
It would certainly yield interesting results, maybe not the kind of "interesting" I was after.

[Joe Forks]

Bausch & Lomb 8x10 Tessar IIb, or the IC as Garrett recommended

[Ramiro Elena]

Ari,
I've got a couple lenses mentioned in the thread. Although very common, I've come to love Tessars. I never remember which one I've got IIb or Ic but here are some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabato/tags/bl/

The other lens that's nice and not expensive is the Euryscope RR.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w...ryscope&m=text

Mine is almost 12'' and I find it to be too small. I run out of movements very easily.
Also, a Petzval without swirls and good coverage is very nice too.

[Ari]

Ramiro, thank you.
I love both sets of photos, especially the Euryscope.

I've a lot to consider, and I'll likely start with the aforementioned T-R.
Thanks, everybody.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks, Brian.
Yes, it may seem like gear-related obsessiveness, but I'm trying to learn a little bit about older lenses...

Yup, and then you can learn a little bit about women... In either case, you could spend forever trying to learn one, and it wouldn't necessarily tell you much about all the others...

An uncorked Velostigmat would give you the most flexibility, from the old smooth-but-sharp(-enough) of an uncoated Tessar to a slightly soft portrait lens to a very soft pictorial lens, and (I think) it does them all well.

But right now, I have a B&L Tessar Ic on the studio 8x10. Wonderful lens. But then, aren't they all?