WA suggestions for 8x10

[Ari]

Hi,
I'm leaning towards getting a Grandagon 155 for 8x10, but I'm not too fond of the look of modern lenses for portraits.
Can anyone recommend a similar FL but of older vintage?

Thanks in advance, and happy holidays.

[karl french]

6.5 inch Wide Angle Dagor is a fine choice. Though I can't imagine using such a wide lens for 8x10 inch portraits.

[Ed Bray]

The Wollensak WA Velostigmat 6.25" f9.5 Series III is a good value wide angle lens, but not really suitable for portraits unless you are planning to do environmental portraits as it gives an AOV similar to a 22mm lens on 35mm.

The image below was shot on mine:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/11015766044_387196f8e9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbray/11015766044/)
5x7 Ernesettle & Tamar Valley @ 2100 dpi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbray/11015766044/) by Ed Bray (http://www.flickr.com/people/edbray/), on Flickr

[Ari]

Very nice, Ed, and thanks to both of you.

[James Morris]

The 180mm Dagor is a nice lens with room for movements on 8x10.

[Dan Fromm]

The 180mm Dagor is a nice lens with room for movements on 8x10.

Interesting idea, not everyone agrees. For a good laugh, search for the thread titled Lousy Dagor.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

The Wollensak WA Velostigmat 6.25" f9.5 Series III is a good value wide angle lens, but not really suitable for portraits unless you are planning to do environmental portraits as it gives an AOV similar to a 22mm lens on 35mm.

The image below was shot on mine:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/11015766044_387196f8e9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbray/11015766044/)
5x7 Ernesettle & Tamar Valley @ 2100 dpi (http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbray/11015766044/) by Ed Bray (http://www.flickr.com/people/edbray/), on Flickr

Beautiful image Ed, is that lens a double gauss 4/4 type?

[Jim Andrada]

Wollensak 159mm is rather nice. Tiny lens. I've had quite good luck with mine.

[Ed Bray]

Very nice, Ed, and thanks to both of you.


Beautiful image Ed, is that lens a double gauss 4/4 type?

Thanks Gents.

Ian, I have absolutely no idea what a double gauss 4/4 type means I'm afraid, I do not know very much about lens designs and implementations.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

No problem Ed, as long as you know how to use it! :)

[andreios]

Thanks for sone useful tips in this thread. Is there any source where I could find information about the coverage of these older lenses? My main use for a wide angle lens would be architectural work and every inch of available rise or fall is useful when photographing tall medieval churches.

[Andrew Plume]

this should help:

http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/Wide%20Angle.html

regards

andrew

[John Kasaian]

There are lots of links to lens information on The Large Format Home Page! Just click on it on the blue banner at the top of this page.

[andreios]

Thanks, Andrew, that link looks really interesting.
John, I'm aware of those links, I somehow remembered that there were mostly modern lenses.

[Ed Bray]

Wow, Wide Angles with movements for 8x10, you are talking serious size, weight and money.

150mm f8 Nikkor SW & 165mm Super Angulon spring to mind, but I would probably look for a Grandagon N 200mm f6.8 with its 500mm image circle.

[andreios]

Wow, Wide Angles with movements for 8x10, you are talking serious size, weight and money.

150mm f8 Nikkor SW & 165mm Super Angulon spring to mind, but I would probably look for a Grandagon N 200mm f6.8 with its 500mm image circle.

Ah, that's exactly what I was afraid of. But I was recently literally locked in a church tower and a super angulon was just the lens I was pining for. :)

[Nicolasllasera]

I own a 165mm SA and its big but great. They dont sell for too much but they are not the cheapest. Lots of room so thats not a problem. The 200mm was or is at keh.com.

[Dan Dozer]

For portrait work with the 8 x 10, why don't you consider something a little off the wall. These were shot with the front half element of an old Ilex projection petzval lens. Focal length is about 8" and these type of lenses are not hard to find and generally not all that expensive.

[Roger Hesketh]

Beautiful image Ed, is that lens a double gauss 4/4 type?

Ian It has a similar layout to your Cooke Series XV.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Cheers Roger.

[benrains]

I'd add the older Schneider Angulon 165/6.8 (not the Super Angulon) to the list. I've used mine for landscape work and it nearly covers 8x10 at infinity when shot dead center and stopped down a bit. It may very well cover at portrait distances. For something not quite as wide--the older Fujinon-W 210/5.6, with the lettering on the face of the lens, will cover 8x10. Both can be had for reasonable prices in slightly more modern shutters with flash sync (if that's important).

[Mark Sawyer]

The Cooke VIIb 158mm is a lovely lens, as are both the f/9.5 and f/12.5 Wollensak EWA's. (Both the Wollensaks open to about f/6, despite their designations.) The 6.5-inch f/8 Dagor would also be a good choice. All of these would offer only slight movements though.

Some of the older Wide Angle Rectilinears cover 8x10 at around a 5-inch focal length, so if you found one around 6.5 or a little longer, it might have more movements than the others, and the performance is pretty impressive. For maximum movements, you might search for a 150mm Hypergon, which covers 16x20.

[Dan Fromm]

The 6.5-inch f/8 Dagor would also be a good choice. All of these would offer only slight movements though.

Hmm. So far two posts in this discussion have suggested 6.5" Dagors and one has suggested a 7" Dagor. The original poster wanted a short lens to use for portraits, and a 6.5" Dagor might (great stress might) have the coverage needed for that application, especially for conventional portraits where image quality in the corners doesn't matter. Environmental portraits, whatever they are, may need good image quality in the corners.

With that in mind, and understanding that coverage concepts are slippery, that what's needed depends on how much the negatives are to be enlarged, and that coverage claims for the same designs often shrink over time (newer versions of the lens cover less, according to the maker, than older ones), the OP might want to read this discussion http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?13109-Lousy-Dagor&highlight=lousy+dagor before shopping for a Dagor. There's reason to doubt that a 7" Dagor, not to mention a 6.5 incher, is a good general purpose lens on 8x10.

[Ari]

Dan, I tried getting through that entire article, but failed. :) Still interesting, though, as I learn more about older lenses.

Since posting, I've searched and researched, and I think I will try to find a cheap SA 165 and go from there; I may find that it's just what I need.

Since coverage is an issue for me, I'll start off with a lens of known quantity.

Thanks for all your suggestions and helpful advice.