What's a good 16.5 inch lens for 8x10?

[axs810]

Looking to add to my lens collection! What are some good (or popular) 16.5 inch lenses for 8x10 format?


(mostly for portraits/people and landscapes)

[pierre506]

420mm Dagor~

[mdarnton]

For portraits, 42cm Heliar. Good luck finding one.

[Michael Graves]

If you can settle for a 15", here is something I stumbled across. I have the 16" version of the Apo-Raptar and love it.

http://lensn2shutter.com/15inaporaptar.html

[axs810]

Opinions on Goerz Apochromat Artar 16.5" f/9.5? (not the red dot version)

[Mark Sampson]

Very high resolution, no distortion, lower contrast than a more modern lens.

[John Kasaian]

Opinions on Goerz Apochromat Artar 16.5" f/9.5? (not the red dot version)

Excellent!:cool:

[DrTang]

Voigtlaander Portrait

[Corran]

Probably any lens in that focal length area would be more than good enough for most uses, so probably whatever is easily available and in your budget would be fine. Specific lenses, especially those with certain character or strengths, may be more in line with your vision, but we can't determine that.

Personally, I very, very rarely shoot longer than 300mm on my 8x10 for landscape. The times that I do, or want a longer portrait length, I've got a 450mm f/9 Nikkor-M, which is probably one of the best all-round lenses out there (and has a huge IC, way more than stated officially, see my recent portrait on 8x20 film for example).

[MIke Sherck]

My favorite 420mm lens on 8x10 was the Fujinon 420mm L in a Copal 3 shutter. Sharp, contrasty, very sweet lens. Also a very heavy lens. I switched to a much lighter 16 1/2" RD Artar in an Ilex shutter and was happy with the exchange. The Artar was an excellent lens in its own right, in my opinion. I think the Fujinon had slightly harder contrast but that ultimately didn't make up for the sheer weight.

On the other hand, I'd take either one of them if I were still shooting 8x10.

Mike

[jesse]

16" Cooke Portrait Series II

[Jim Noel]

Very high resolution, no distortion, lower contrast than a more modern lens.

Making it an ideal portraits lens for me.

[SergeiR]

Depends what you trying to get to do... These are plentiful and rare at same time.
No such thing as magic lens though.

[Taija71A]

Schneider Xenar 420mm f/4.5 Lens.

[axs810]

Very high resolution, no distortion, lower contrast than a more modern lens.

When you say lower contrast is it a dramatic difference or just very slight?


I'm currently thinking about getting this lens (eBay item number: 121635703834) I've been researching a little on the forums and wanted to ask if anyone knows if this lens is better suited for 1:1 or 1:10. Would that even really make a difference when it'll be used for portraits? Is there a big difference between this one and the red dot version when shooting color neg?



I would love to find a heliar or dagor 420mm but I'm really stubborn and only like to use lenses in Copal shutters. It might take me awhile to find something like that though

[Mark Sawyer]

A Cooke Portrait Lens would be wonderful, but you sure won't find one in a Copal shutter! A 14 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar or its Ilex equivalent would also be a great choice if you don't mind an Ilex Universal shutter, (the Ilex is just as good and has a hardier single coating, and usually goes for a bit less).

If you insist on a Copal, which is pretty small even in the 3 size, you're stuck with slow (f/9-ish) process lenses like the Artar. No way around that...

[Mark Sampson]

Artars, in general, are slightly lower in contrast than contemporary lenses because of the all air-spaced design. This was never an issue in the repro applications the lens was designed for. An uncoated Artar will be lower still in contrast, like any uncoated lens. Easily compensated for in film processing or printing. Not a major issue at all, but do use a lens hood.

[Leonard Robertson]

A few thoughts on that particular Artar on eBay. To my eye, the glass appears to be coated, but it may be worth contacting the seller for his opinion on whether or not it is. If you are looking for a non-RD Artar to get lower contrast, this lens may perform just like a RD. There is an internet rumor that Goerz factory coated some of the last lenses prior to the RD. I don't know if this is true, but sounds possible. I have an old forum printout (2001 rec.photo.LF if anyone remembers that group) that says the first RD Artar was serial #779,612 in Oct. 1953. The eBay lens with #778,670 seems fairly close to that number, but probably no way of knowing if it was factory coated. Or it may have been after-market coated.

Another thing on the eBay lens is the only aperture scale is on the bottom of the shutter. I'm used to using a scale on the front, but maybe this wouldn't be a problem for you.

Len

[jcoldslabs]

Don't forget the 17" f/10 Copying Ektanon. Also a coated dialyte, I believe, and often found for considerably less than an Artar.

Jonathan