What "Modern" FL's Are You Missing?

[John Layton]

For me its 165mm (a reasonably compact one, so no S.A.) - for 4x5 and especially 5x7 formats. Would fit perfectly between my 120 and 210. Yes, I know that there are some fine older lenses of this FL, with wonderful and unique signatures. But frankly I'm more after something consistent with my other, more "modern" lenses, to facilitate equal consistency in my overall visualization/processing protocol. And no, a 150 or 180 will not cut it. I really need a 165!

So I'm curious...if anyone else faces this dilemma - of having a pressing need for a particular focal length (or lengths) of modern vintage, which simply does not exist.

[vinny]

Nope. I've got every focal length I need including the 165mm super angulon. I either pull it in my sled (winter) or it stays in the car. Also doubles as a great boat anchor.

[welly]

Bugger me, I just googled the 165mm super angulon. Why is it so big? It's a beast.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Perhaps a 165mm Symmar will serve your needs.

[Vaughn]

A nice 210mm in a shutter for 8x10. I have a 250mm/6.7 that is a beautiful lens, and also a 210mm in a barrel if I am in a low-light situation. But a 210mm in a shutter would be nice. Shorter than that is not easy with the Zone VI 8x10, tho I have used the 6.25"(159mm)/12.5.

[BrianShaw]

I'm not missing any; I have all the lenses I need and plan on using (about 4 "modern" lenses)... and maybe even one too many.

[BrianShaw]

But now that I reflect, I keep wondering if I really could use a "modern" 300 mm lens to replace my "old fashioned" 12 inch lens. :rolleyes:

[welly]

Something wide for my 8x10 and something long(er) for my 8x10. My 8x10 lens collection consists of a solitary 300mm Fuji.

[Oren Grad]

I would be thrilled to have a 270mm Apo-Sironar-S. But of course, it's never going to happen. (Yes, I have a 270 G-Claron, and a Graphic Kowa too, though the latter only in barrel.)

[John Kasaian]

For 8x10 and 5x7 I've got just what I need. Some of my lenses are useful on both formats which is a nice extra. For 4x5 I'm much more limited but since I don't shoot 4x5 anymore, there just isn't any motivation to run out and buy more lenses speculating that I'll actually have a use for them.

[Alan Gales]

Nope. I've got every focal length I need including the 165mm super angulon. I either pull it in my sled (winter) or it stays in the car. Also doubles as a great boat anchor.

It's expensive too. I think they charge by the pound! ;)

[David Karp]

I would be thrilled to have a 270mm Apo-Sironar-S. But of course, it's never going to happen. (Yes, I have a 270 G-Claron, and a Graphic Kowa too, though the latter only in barrel.)

Normal lens for your WP camera? Nice. I was looking for a 270mm G-Claron for a while, but now have that focal length bracketed with a 250mm and a 300mm.

I probably have everything I need and more. But that doesn't stop me from testing the truth of that statement from time to time. :-)

[Oren Grad]

Normal lens for your WP camera?

Nah, it would be my normal for 8x10, where "normal" is defined as most comfortable/most used focal length rather than as the format diagonal. I tend to see semiwide - something around 7/8 of the format diagonal is ideal. Although it's an eensy bit wide by that standard, the 210 Apo-Sironar-S serves admirably as my normal for WP.

[Luis-F-S]

None.

L

[evan clarke]

None

[Jac@stafford.net]

None what so ever.

What continues to be mystery, discovery, are the old lenses and I have not enough time left in life to know them.

A person cannot know how a lens performs unless he uses it. Modern lenses are too predictable to be interesting.
.

[Robert Opheim]

a 165mm to 180mm lens that would cover 8x10 and not weight 10 pounds would be very nice. I have a Nikkor 240mm W, and a late Goerz American dagor 210mm barrel lens that covers with slight movement. Most wide angles that cover 8x10 are HUGE. These include: 165mm Super Angulon, 155mm Grandagon, Nikkor 150mm SW, Schneider 150mm XL. I like my lenses to work for all cameras - in my case 4x5 and 8x10. Except for a Wollensak 12 inch Velostigmat that broke the front standard of an old wood 8x10 all of my lenses are smaller. I don't know what these newer big cannons were designed for exactly - I would guess architectural and advertising color work.

[David Karp]

Nah, it would be my normal for 8x10 . . . .

Still nice. I like 210 on WP. Going to try a 215 Ilex for a while. I have been using a Caltar II-N, but I got the bug to try a convertible (hence the Ilex). I have a feeling that the 250 might become my most used lens on WP. Time will tell.

[DG 3313]

+1 except my solitary 300mm is a Nikon M...
Something wide for my 8x10 and something long(er) for my 8x10. My 8x10 lens collection consists of a solitary 300mm Fuji.

[Oren Grad]

Still nice. I like 210 on WP. Going to try a 215 Ilex for a while. I have been using a Caltar II-N, but I got the bug to try a convertible (hence the Ilex). I have a feeling that the 250 might become my most used lens on WP. Time will tell.

Very occasionally I'll use a 240 on WP, and long ago I even exposed a few sheets with a 300.

Anyway, happy tinkering with the Ilex!

[StoneNYC]

As others mentioned and the OP understands exactness, I wish I could find a 200mm not 180, not 210, but 200mm that is not giant and in shutter.

I am happy enough on 8x10 with the 210 Graphic-Kowa I have as it's as small as my fujinon 300 C and both cover 8x10 with movements.

I wish the 210 GK were a 200mm and that it were sharper at wider apertures, but it's fuzzy wide open. I can deal with that since I got it for landscape work, but if we are talking about ideal, I wish fuji made a 200 C that covered 8x10, the Nikkor 200 M only covers 4x5 so that won't work.

My 210 GK is at least an option for those looking for a wide on 8x10 that's ultra light.

The 150 SS XL is way too heavy, if I could find a 150mm or 165mm that were ultra light and sharp in a modern Copal I would take it over the 150 SS XL

I know that there are optical limitations etc, but if the 210 GK made 30+ years ago could be made so small, there must be a way to make other lenses smaller.

[Alan Gales]

a 165mm to 180mm lens that would cover 8x10 and not weight 10 pounds would be very nice. I have a Nikkor 240mm W, and a late Goerz American dagor 210mm barrel lens that covers with slight movement. Most wide angles that cover 8x10 are HUGE. These include: 165mm Super Angulon, 155mm Grandagon, Nikkor 150mm SW, Schneider 150mm XL. I like my lenses to work for all cameras - in my case 4x5 and 8x10. Except for a Wollensak 12 inch Velostigmat that broke the front standard of an old wood 8x10 all of my lenses are smaller. I don't know what these newer big cannons were designed for exactly - I would guess architectural and advertising color work.

I have read that the 165mm Angulon and the single coated (letters on the inside) Fujinon 180mm lenses will cover 8x10 stopped down and with little to no movements. I have never tried them though. It's just what I have read on the internet.

[John Kasaian]

a 165mm to 180mm lens that would cover 8x10 and not weight 10 pounds would be very nice. I have a Nikkor 240mm W, and a late Goerz American dagor 210mm barrel lens that covers with slight movement. Most wide angles that cover 8x10 are HUGE. These include: 165mm Super Angulon, 155mm Grandagon, Nikkor 150mm SW, Schneider 150mm XL. I like my lenses to work for all cameras - in my case 4x5 and 8x10. Except for a Wollensak 12 inch Velostigmat that broke the front standard of an old wood 8x10 all of my lenses are smaller. I don't know what these newer big cannons were designed for exactly - I would guess architectural and advertising color work.
How about a 159mm Wollensak EWA, 165mm Cooke, 6-1/4" Dagor or a 190mm WF Ektar? Cute lil' things they are!

[Robert Opheim]

How about a 159mm Wollensak EWA, 165mm Cooke, 6-1/4" Dagor or a 190mm WF Ektar? Cute lil' things they are!

I have been researching the 159mm (6 1/4 inch) Eltra Wide Wollensak, I am very aware of the 6 1/2 inch WA Dagor, and the 190mm Wide Field Ektar. I didn't know about the 165mm Cooke lens. One of these lenses will meet my needs I am sure.

[angusparker]

As others mentioned and the OP understands exactness, I wish I could find a 200mm not 180, not 210, but 200mm that is not giant and in shutter.

I am happy enough on 8x10 with the 210 Graphic-Kowa I have as it's as small as my fujinon 300 C and both cover 8x10 with movements.

I wish the 210 GK were a 200mm and that it were sharper at wider apertures, but it's fuzzy wide open. I can deal with that since I got it for landscape work, but if we are talking about ideal, I wish fuji made a 200 C that covered 8x10, the Nikkor 200 M only covers 4x5 so that won't work.

My 210 GK is at least an option for those looking for a wide on 8x10 that's ultra light.

The 150 SS XL is way too heavy, if I could find a 150mm or 165mm that were ultra light and sharp in a modern Copal I would take it over the 150 SS XL

I know that there are optical limitations etc, but if the 210 GK made 30+ years ago could be made so small, there must be a way to make other lenses smaller.

For 4x5 there is the Nikkor M 200mm f8. Very small compact and a sweet performer.

[StoneNYC]

For 4x5 there is the Nikkor M 200mm f8. Very small compact and a sweet performer.

Yes I'm aware, and I want one, but that doesn't help for 8x10, and since I'm shooting 8x10 and 4x5 only on my 8x10 with a reducing back, so I won't be purchasing the Nikkor 200 M for a long while I suspect...

For now I'm using the 210 GK, really want to put my money into the holders right now. But thanks for the suggestion.

[Arne Croell]

As others mentioned and the OP understands exactness, I wish I could find a 200mm not 180, not 210, but 200mm that is not giant and in shutter.

One needs to take into account that the nominal focal length and the real one can differ when being that exact. I remember when I looked at buying a small 210mm for 4x5 in the 1990's I compared Schneiders G-Claron and their f/6.3 Xenar in that focal length. They were about 10mm apart according to Schneiders technical documentation. If I remember right, the G-Claron was around 205mm and the Xenar 215mm. The fact that post-WWII lenses had their focal length in mm(with the exception of Voigtländers LF lenses) tends to give the impression that the accuracy is in the mm range, but in reality companies always round the exact number to the next common focal length.

[StoneNYC]

One needs to take into account that the nominal focal length and the real one can differ when being that exact. I remember when I looked at buying a small 210mm for 4x5 in the 1990's I compared Schneiders G-Claron and their f/6.3 Xenar in that focal length. They were about 10mm apart according to Schneiders technical documentation. If I remember right, the G-Claron was around 205mm and the Xenar 215mm. The fact that post-WWII lenses had their focal length in mm(with the exception of Voigtländers LF lenses) tends to give the impression that the accuracy is in the mm range, but in reality companies always round the exact number to the next common focal length.

I never understood why they would do that, and then in other circumstances they would be very exacting, like I think there's a Kodak 203mm lens? And I certainly own a few odd sizes like 21mm and 43mm so why the inconsistency? Dunno...

[Corran]

What does "modern" FL mean? Multi-coated plasmats or super angulon derivatives? APO?

I love lenses more than cameras so I have too many, though I do use all of them at one point or another. I seem to be getting more into "character" lenses than modern ultra-sharp, overly-contrasty lenses. I am more than covered with those "modern" lenses, from 38mm to 720mm, but my favorite lenses would be instead ones like my 75mm Biogon, 150mm Xenotar or APO Lanthar, or older lenses like my 12" Gundlach Radar and some older Tessars and Heliars.

[Dan Fromm]

But Bryan, Biogons, Xenotars and even Apo Lanthars are all ultra-sharp and very contrasty.

[Daniel Unkefer]

None I am aware of. Certainly not any I need for any reason I can think of.
47mm to 800mm LF

[Corran]

But Bryan, Biogons, Xenotars and even Apo Lanthars are all ultra-sharp and very contrasty.

Well, sure, but not necessarily in the same way (look). There was an interesting thread recently about image contrast vs. micro-contrast. I don't photograph test charts, so I can't really quantify some things, but while the 150mm APO Symmar I have is certainly a nice sharp lens, it doesn't quite look the same as the Lanthar, even if the Lanthar is just as sharp. Certainly a big difference in the out-of-focus rendering but also the actual in-focus stuff as well. The most obvious example though is the 75mm Biogon which is sharp but has what I guess is stupendous micro-contrast giving, in my opinion, a completely different look to the sharpness itself.

I guess the traditional plasmat is a bit sterile for me, which I think is a common opinion. Though I never got along with the soft-focus thing - had a Verito but sold it.