The 250mm 10" Wide Field Ektar thread.

[John Kasaian]

When I started shooting 8x10, after getting a camera, some film holders and a tripod that could actually hold the thing up, I needed a lens that would cover the format.
I suspect other new 8x10 shooters have found themselves in the same boat.
The big money question of course is, "which lens?"
There are (or were) plenty of fine ex commercial studio lenses such as Symmars and Commercial Ektars, which, not that long ago, were considered "state of the art" for product shots and when the format passed from common usage these lenses could be had very reasonably. I don't know what the prices are like now but few things equating with large format are "cheap" and the larger the format, the more costly the gear tends to become.
There are certainly newer designs from Congo, Fuji, and Nikkor to tempt you and I think any of the better known 8x10 lens are worthy contenders, and some classic lenses like Dagors, Cooks, Wollensak and Artars have deservedly (IMHO) achieved a cult status but none of them are, or have ever been magic bullets.
I think that probably one of the most important considerations when evaluating which lenses you decide to put on your shopping list to buy is by looking at the photographs other photographers have taken with the same lens.
Does the image strike a chord with you sensibilities? Not the subject, but rather how it records the subject? I prefer to look at examples used to photograph subjects I don't appreciate as much as I should just so I'm not swayed by dramatic mountains or heavily filtered Wagnerian cloud phenomenon.
I'm also not that fond of the way photographs appear on computer screens. I'm of the opinion (maybe wrongfully) that I can get more out of an original print---or failing that a carefully printed book--than I could looking at the same image on a screen.
So I was thinking about one of my favorite lens, the 10" 250mm Wide Field Ektar.
Ansel Adams has four examples of photographs taken with this lens in The Making of 40 Photographs

Edward Weston, Carmel Highlands, CA 1940
Merced River Cliffs, Autumn, Yosemite National Park circa 1939
Silverton, Colorado, 1951
Early Morning, Merced River, Autumn, Yosemite National Park circa 1950

Another published portfolio featuring the 10" 250mm Wide Field Ektar exclusively is The Mad Broom of Life by
Takahashi, Kyoji


I'm sure there are many other photographers who shoot with the 10" 250mm Wide Field Ektar and who have published portfolios using the lens.
If you know of any please post them here for the edification of any newbie 8x10 shooters trying to decide on which glass to invest in.

It might be interesting to have other threads cataloging published examples of other commonly found lenses as well since we have links to excellent lens tests, but little to correspond the data with actual images.

[Drew Wiley]

It was the lens Meyerowitz claims to have used exclusively on his Dorff for the Cape Light project. I've seen many of the prints, not just the book.

[Michael Graves]

It was the lens Meyerowitz claims to have used exclusively on his Dorff for the Cape Light project. I've seen many of the prints, not just the book.

Back in the day, I saw the exhibition of dye transfers of that project that circulated the country. I remember being in total awe of the quality of those images. I loved the simplicity, but the actual image quality would take your breath away.

[ic-racer]

I highly doubt anyone can pick out a photograph shot with an Ektar 250mm compared to any other modern design 250/240mm lens. That is among large format photographers. In terms of a potential viewing audience, the don't give a rats ass what lens you use; use any lens you like.

[John Kasaian]

I highly doubt anyone can pick out a photograph shot with an Ektar 250mm compared to any other modern design 250/240mm lens. That is among large format photographers. In terms of a potential viewing audience, the don't give a rats ass what lens you use; use any lens you like.
Perhaps, but this is for new guys who will be shelling out hard earned $$ for a piece of glass. I think they deserve to see what a given design can potentially add to the broth, so to speak. Certainly Yousef Karsh had an appreciation for what the 14" Commercial Ektar adds to the party. Others swear by Dagors.
My premise is to provide a list of examples a lens buyer con go to to see what a print from a given lens(this thread focusing in on the 10" WF Ektar) actually looks like in addition to the data inked to on the Large Format Home Page. :)

[goamules]

Interesting talk, thanks for starting it. I started out liking the older lenses, just because I am a history buff. With Petzvals being my main lens, the speed useful for wetplate, I got the contrast I wanted. But when I moved to the anastigmats, some uncoated lenses were not contrasty enough. Though I learned I could fix that in printing, of course. I gravitated to Dagors, for their higher contrast.

I haven't shot the Commerical Ekatars much, but do have a 12" I'm selling now on this forum, because I got a 14" this weekend. I look forward to trying it.

[Drew Wiley]

Ice-racer - the WF Ektar handles out-of-focus issues, and has relatively low color saturation, which renders a look somewhat different than modern more contrasty lenses, but certain not as smooth as certain other older lenses. Of course, these had multi-bladed shutters like other lenses of that vintage, so this helped to some extent. But certain people did choose them for a particular "look". Maybe this distinction is more conspicuous in color than black and white.

[Alan Gales]

Perhaps, but this is for new guys who will be shelling out hard earned $$ for a piece of glass. I think they deserve to see what a given design can potentially add to the broth, so to speak. Certainly Yousef Karsh had an appreciation for what the 14" Commercial Ektar adds to the party. Others swear by Dagors.
My premise is to provide a list of examples a lens buyer con go to to see what a print from a given lens(this thread focusing in on the 10" WF Ektar) actually looks like in addition to the data inked to on the Large Format Home Page. :)

John, I bought a nice example Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 lens for $300 including shipping and I have seen them go for less money. It's single coated and in a Copal 1 shutter. The wide field Ektar has a little more coverage but the Fuji is said to be a little sharper. For examples, Jock Sturges used the Fujinon on his early work. It's a cheaper alternative to the 250mm Wide Field Ektar which may appeal to a newbie on a budget.

[John Kasaian]

John, I bought a nice example Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 lens for $300 including shipping and I have seen them go for less money. It's single coated and in a Copal 1 shutter. The wide field Ektar has a little more coverage but the Fuji is said to be a little sharper. For examples, Jock Sturges used the Fujinon on his early work. It's a cheaper alternative to the 250mm Wide Field Ektar which may appeal to a newbie on a budget.

Alan, that's a great point! If you know of examples of other prints taken with the Fujinon W 250mm people can see, please post the where they can be found as well as where Sturges' early work can be seen in a new thread dedicated to the Fujinon W 250, so this thread doesn't get derailed.
I'd like people to actually see examples of prints, rather than having to rely solely on test data. The more different lenses represented, the better.
Anybody want to start a thread on 12" Dagors? 14" Artars? 240mm G Clarons? Convertible Symmars or Turner-Reichs?
All were employed by respected and published photographers (who could use them to their advantage) at one time or another.

[David Lindquist]

Does anyone know for certain when the Wide Field Ektar series was introduced? My _Kodak Reference Handbook_, copyright 1945, shows for Eastman Kodak large format lenses the f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmats in several focal lengths, the No. 70 8 inch f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat, and the f/6.3 Eastman Ektars in focal lengths of 8 1/2, 10, 12 and 14 inches. The Eastman Ektars are described as having the inner air-glass surfaces "treated by a special process which reduces reflections." Not mentioned anywhere are the Wide Field Ektars nor is anything shown under another name that looks like this lens series. All of which makes me think that the Wide Field Ektars didn't come out until after World War II. Which also makes me think every time I see those dates for "Edward Weston, Carmel Highlands" and "Merced River Cliffs" that those dates are, well, wrong. (Or maybe the dates are right and the lens given is wrong). (Or I'm wrong and there's more information that I don't have). I know Ansel Adams himself has said he did not always keep the best of records.

David

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji 250 6.7 is a hard-sharp quite contrasty lens, despite being single-coated, more contrasty in fact than some multicoated plasmats. Must have been a special glass type. Very different look than the various Ektars.

[John Kasaian]

Does anyone know for certain when the Wide Field Ektar series was introduced? My _Kodak Reference Handbook_, copyright 1945, shows for Eastman Kodak large format lenses the f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmats in several focal lengths, the No. 70 8 inch f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat, and the f/6.3 Eastman Ektars in focal lengths of 8 1/2, 10, 12 and 14 inches. The Eastman Ektars are described as having the inner air-glass surfaces "treated by a special process which reduces reflections." Not mentioned anywhere are the Wide Field Ektars nor is anything shown under another name that looks like this lens series. All of which makes me think that the Wide Field Ektars didn't come out until after World War II. Which also makes me think every time I see those dates for "Edward Weston, Carmel Highlands" and "Merced River Cliffs" that those dates are, well, wrong. (Or maybe the dates are right and the lens given is wrong). (Or I'm wrong and there's more information that I don't have). I know Ansel Adams himself has said he did not always keep the best of records.

David

Ansel probably had a Tardis! :)

[Alan Gales]

Alan, that's a great point! If you know of examples of other prints taken with the Fujinon W 250mm people can see, please post the where they can be found as well as where Sturges' early work can be seen in a new thread dedicated to the Fujinon W 250, so this thread doesn't get derailed.
I'd like people to actually see examples of prints, rather than having to rely solely on test data. The more different lenses represented, the better.
Anybody want to start a thread on 12" Dagors? 14" Artars? 240mm G Clarons? Convertible Symmars or Turner-Reichs?
All were employed by respected and published photographers (who could use them to their advantage) at one time or another.

I'm sorry, John. I wasn't trying to derail your thread.

It would be cool if we had threads on here showing examples of various lenses. Actual prints of course would be better to look at but you can learn some things from web pictures.

[Alan Gales]

The Fuji 250 6.7 is a hard-sharp quite contrasty lens, despite being single-coated, more contrasty in fact than some multicoated plasmats. Must have been a special glass type. Very different look than the various Ektars.

I've never shot a 250mm Wide Field Ektar but Im guessing that it's probably similar to my 14" Commercial Ektar. I agree with you that my Fujinon has a different "look" to it than my Commercial Ektar but someone new on a budget might not care so much.

Enough about the Fuji. My mistake of mentioning it. I don't want to derail John's thread.

[TrentM]

What makes a wide field different from a commercial Ektar? Is it the image circle? I have a 135mm WF Ektar that I love. The Supermatic shutter is getting a bit erratic. Any advice on who to do a CLA?
Don't want to derail this thread, but there is something sharp but 'creamy' about the images from these lenses. Maybe it's the slightly lower contrast than modern glass.

[Drew Wiley]

You'd have to look up specific details, but many commercial Ektars were 4-element airspaced dialyte design, typically f/6.3, while certain other Ektars were faster
tessar design, typically f/4.5. Widefields were obviously engineered for a wider angle of view in the shorter focal lengths. I'm referring just to view camera lenses, of course, since the Ektar name went on all kind of camera lenses of the period. Since these were made over quite a span of time, it would take some homework
to get beyond these generalities, or else someone who has worked with a number of such lenses.

[Mark Sampson]

The 'Ektar' trademark just signified Kodak's highest-quality optics. However:
- f/6.3 Commercial Ektars are 4-element Tessar type lenses. cover about 60 degrees'
- f/4.5 Ektars are Tessars as well. So is the 127/4.7 Ektar that was my first LF lens.
- f/6.3 Wide Field Ektars are 4-element Gauss-type lenses and cover about 80 degrees, thus the name.
- the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar is a 4-element dialyte formula, meant for a normal lens on 5x7.
- uncoated versions of these are often called 'Kodak Anastigmats'.
- the earliest versions were called 'Eastman Ektars' in 1940-41- uncoated.
- the WF Ektars may have been made in small numbers before WW2, but I've never seen or heard of one except for a mention in Adams' book "Examples". I think production got rolling on those c.1946 and continued until 1966 or so, when Kodak quit making LF lenses.
Don't think of this info as definitive- but as I've mentioned, I worked for 25 years in the building where all those lenses were made- and used a 10" WF Ektar on the job occasionally. I still cherish my 1948 135/6.3 WF Ektar and regret selling my 10" version. Without posting any pictures, I will say that all these lenses are quite sharp but are not as contrasty as modern multicoated lenses. I do like the way they render images... just don't ask me about out-of-focus rendition because I don't see or shoot that way.

[Bernice Loui]

Of all the various lens that has passed my way over the decades, Kodak Ektars remain among my favorites for their color rendition, contrast balance, sharpness-resolution, out of focus rendition. They will all be with me until I'm no longer able to make images with sheet film.

More than a few have been fooled into believing a higher contrast, more color saturated, harder hitting the eye image is a better lens, that look might not be for everyone.

Choice in optics are very much a personal choice. The only way to really know if a particular lens is best for images to be made by an individual, it test and used a specific lens for some time. IMO, this is the only real way to understand the personality and limitations and strengths of a particular lens.

Most important, is to severely discount the brand names and generalized reputations of a specific lens-brand and evaluate each lens based on the image makers terms. What is absolutely fab for one can be absolutely awful for another.


Bernice




The 'Ektar' trademark just signified Kodak's highest-quality optics.

I still cherish my 1948 135/6.3 WF Ektar and regret selling my 10" version. Without posting any pictures, I will say that all these lenses are quite sharp but are not as contrasty as modern multicoated lenses. I do like the way they render images... just don't ask me about out-of-focus rendition because I don't see or shoot that way.

[John Kasaian]

Of all the various lens that has passed my way over the decades, Kodak Ektars remain among my favorites for their color rendition, contrast balance, sharpness-resolution, out of focus rendition. They will all be with me until I'm no longer able to make images with sheet film.

More than a few have been fooled into believing a higher contrast, more color saturated, harder hitting the eye image is a better lens, that look might not be for everyone.

Choice in optics are very much a personal choice. The only way to really know if a particular lens is best for images to be made by an individual, it test and used a specific lens for some time. IMO, this is the only real way to understand the personality and limitations and strengths of a particular lens.

Most important, is to severely discount the brand names and generalized reputations of a specific lens-brand and evaluate each lens based on the image makers terms. What is absolutely fab for one can be absolutely awful for another.


Bernice
Thank you for the wonderful observations!:D
Bernice, could you recommend any published portfolios or links where people can actually see how a 10" 250mm WF Ektar was successfully used?

It would be useful to have other threads covering similar focal length lenses such as the 250 W Fuji, 240 G-Claron, etc....so people can compare what looks are possible in the hands of talented photographers.

[Drew Wiley]

That would be almost futile over the web, John. Even looking at prints might fool you. For example, a Cibachrome printed from a large format Commercial Ektar
image would be far more contrasty than a modern print taken from a modern multicoated lens using a soft color negative film, printed on RA4 paper. But I'd again
suggest a master of that lens, Joel Meyerowitz, where both the 8x10 contact prints and 30x40 enlargements relied upon both the characteristics of the 10" Widefield and he preferred Vericolor L, printed on soft Kodak paper. Cape Light seems to have been his first classic in that respect (he had bellyflops too); and a
more recent project is an affordable book called Tuscany. Not my style of printing at all; but I enjoy looking at these images nonetheless. Otherwise, back when
my brother sold a lot of LF Ektars etc, he always claimed even the commercial ones had presorted grades of quality control, some better than others, esp with
color repro. I don't know if this affected any of the private label ones like Caltar, which still sell for less.

[Bernice Loui]

Hello John,

There are numerous individuals who have posted sample images and such on the web. They can and should be used only as a very rough guide to actual lens performance.

There are also many myths and mis-information about lenses and most anything on the web as well as good information, problem is sorting out what is good and factual from fiction and hype.

The only real way to know a specific lens is to own it, burn LOTS of film with that particular lens and evaluate the results over a long period of time based on one's own expectations and criteria. This is one of the most difficult, challenging, resource intensive endeavor for any image maker starting out in LF or most any image making endeavor. In the world of smaller formats and digital, lens flavors are one of the primary means of marketing efforts to sell more lenses. This tends to be less true with LF optics in general as there are many who are still using optics that are past one century old to this day to produce outstanding and excellent expressive images.

Know each individual lens even if it is of the same brand, focal length and all involved will have variations.

Once one is happy with a particular lens, keep it until such time comes where there is a truly good rational-logical reason to pass it on.



Bernice



Thank you for the wonderful observations!:D
Bernice, could you recommend any published portfolios or links where people can actually see how a 10" 250mm WF Ektar was successfully used?

It would be useful to have other threads covering similar focal length lenses such as the 250 W Fuji, 240 G-Claron, etc....so people can compare what looks are possible in the hands of talented photographers.

[Mark Sampson]

Joel Meyerowitz' "Cape Light" is the most famous example of a body of work made with the 10" WF Ektar. I would imagine that his later color work in 8x10 would use the same lens- only because much of what I've seen has a similar semi-wide perspective. See also his "St. Louis and the Arch" series. But Bernice is right- if we all shot color transparencies we could compare images from different lenses on the light table. But once you make prints from the negs, convert for the web, many small differences (that only we might appreciate) will go by the board.
Some non-image reasons the 10" has been popular might be:
- moderate wide-angle lens, a useful f.l. with few competitors. Remember for the 10 years after WW2 the German optical industry was recovering from being bombed out.
- availability. In production in the USA for around 20 years.
- thus relatively affordable.
- not disproportionately huge (I've also used a 165/8 Super-Angulon, now that's a real howitzer.)
I remember, in about 1987, asking a Kodak optical engineer (who I'd gone to grade school with) why EK couldn't re-introduce the WF Ektars in a modern shutter. His answer was esentially 'too expensive, tiny market, no way to make a profit'. But at least I tried!

[Bernice Loui]

This video was posted before...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpziDTklPs0

Gives an idea of how Kodak Ektar optics were produced.



Bernice



Joel Meyerowitz' "Cape Light" is the most famous example of a body of work made with the 10" WF Ektar. I would imagine that his later color work in 8x10 would use the same lens- only because much of what I've seen has a similar semi-wide perspective. See also his "St. Louis and the Arch" series. But Bernice is right- if we all shot color transparencies we could compare images from different lenses on the light table. But once you make prints from the negs, convert for the web, many small differences (that only we might appreciate) will go by the board.
Some non-image reasons the 10" has been popular might be:
- moderate wide-angle lens, a useful f.l. with few competitors. Remember for the 10 years after WW2 the German optical industry was recovering from being bombed out.
- availability. In production in the USA for around 20 years.
- thus relatively affordable.
- not disproportionately huge (I've also used a 165/8 Super-Angulon, now that's a real howitzer.)
I remember, in about 1987, asking a Kodak optical engineer (who I'd gone to grade school with) why EK couldn't re-introduce the WF Ektars in a modern shutter. His answer was esentially 'too expensive, tiny market, no way to make a profit'. But at least I tried!

[David Lindquist]

Thank you for reminding me of this video. I wonder if the lens designer at about 2:10 is Dr. Kingslake. And I like how their calculator can accomplish in a mere several weeks what would have taken a year to work out by hand. Also liked the bits from their machine shop; nifty (and large) SIP jig bore machine at about 19 minutes.
David

[knjkrock]

As the OP intended I would appreciate seeing examples of what this lens is capable. As a newbie would like to know more if this lens shines as a portrait or still life lens or in some other usage.

Also some practical information such as:
Front and rear cap size,
Flange size,
Filter options,
Special cable release needs,
Size and weight considerations,
Mounting issues,
Sharpness issues(optimal f stop),
Coverage concerns?

Thanks

Ken

[John Kasaian]

As the OP intended I would appreciate seeing examples of what this lens is capable. As a newbie would like to know more if this lens shines as a portrait or still life lens or in some other usage.

Also some practical information such as:
Front and rear cap size,
Flange size,
Filter options,
Special cable release needs,
Size and weight considerations,
Mounting issues,
Sharpness issues(optimal f stop),
Coverage concerns?

Thanks

Ken

I may be able to answer a few of your questions.
For filtering I use Lee Polyesters in a Lee Gel-snap plastic thingy (4"x4" size) that attaches with a heavy rubber band(for replacement, the rubber bands that hold bunches of asparagus in the produce section at the local market work well.) Attach this behind the lens as is obstructs the settings on the shutter. Better than that is a series VIII (or is it IX?) press on which will permit the use of threaded filters. I've yet to be able to find one (I'm still looking though!)
Re: cable releases. If your lens is in an Ilex #5 Universal shutter, it likely requires a longer "throw" being a double action shutter (cocking and firing in one depression) so I have found the Gepe Pro cable release works just fine. I prefer the ones with the Zeiss locking disc. Other cable releases may or may not work reliably---I know my Minette refuses.
Size & wieght considerations---this is a big, heavy lens. Not as big or heavy as many of the antique brassies, but big and heavy none the less. At f6.3 it is also fast and easy to focus in dim light. It is not so heavy that it taxes the front standard on my geriatric 'dorff like, say a 165mm Super Angulon, which is far bigger and heavier. Even so, this, IMHO, is not a lens for back packing.
The optimal apertures, IMHO are f45 and f32 but it does pretty well at f6.3 if you have the need for speed(this is with B&W film---color 8x10 is above my pay grade:o )
I find the WF useful for landscape, portraiture, night photography and architecture.
No coverage concerns. Coverge for this lens might be measured in acreage.:rolleyes:
My opinions so they probably aren't worth much, but I hope they help.

[William Whitaker]

The front of the lens is series 9. So series 9 drop-in filters work and can be held with a retaining ring. There are lens shades which will do the same thing. Kodak made a series 9 gel filter holder and they show up frequently on the used market.

[knjkrock]

So a regular old series 9 retaining ring or screw in hood will fit?

[Mark Sampson]

knjkrock,
you're right. Kodak supplied these lenses with the Series retaining ring; some lenses, surprisingly, still have them.

[Taija71A]

Still no examples from these lenses? I would love to see some, particularly in color!

A complete read of this thread and very 'quick' Google Search...

Will provide you with numerous (Color) examples + pretty much tell you 'All That You Need to Know' -- About this Lens.
--
If I shot 8x10 (Color) Landscape Photography... I would 'Definitely Own It!!!'
Enough said...

Best regards, -Tim.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Joel+meyerowitz+cape+cod+light&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CBwQsARqFQoTCO7pvKGj4cgCFUk5PgodlocMoQ&biw=1280&bih=608#tbm=isch&q=Joel+Meyerowitz+Cape+Light

[Mark Sampson]

Hmm... 10" focal length wouldn't be my first (or second) choice for an 8x10 portrait lens, in color or b/w. So there may not be many to find. But (once again) Joel Meyerowitz has done some fine portraiture; see his "Redheads" series. Quite possibly made with a 10" WF Ektar.

[Taija71A]

Hmm... 10" focal length wouldn't be my first (or second) choice for an 8x10 portrait lens, in color or b/w. So there may not be many to find. But (once again) Joel Meyerowitz has done some fine portraiture; see his "Redheads" series. Quite possibly made with a 10" WF Ektar.

'Good Call' Mark and also very well stated!

Yes, that too was my understanding for the Joel Meyerowitz series
"REDHEADS" (Kodak 10" WF Ektar).
--
Of course...
The Lens does not know what you are planning to shoot (Landscape or say even an 'Enviromental' Portrait).

Its 'Characteristics', such as (Color Rendition, Macro Contrast, Micro Contrast, Tonality and Resistance to Lens Flare et al.)... Will all remain the same over these 'respective' types of Image Magnifications.
--
*I know of course... That you already understand all of this! :D

Very best regards, -Tim.

[Ari]

No colour, but here are two B&W shots taken with the 10" WF Ektar; it's quite a sharp lens.
I've also owned the Fuji 250 f6.7 and I find that the Fuji has more contrast, the Kodak a smoother look.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3741/12628731284_7607afecbb_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/keXxQh)

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7206/14077679293_bb3aa4c1a7_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nrZMAv)

[DrTang]

Still no examples from these lenses? I would love to see some, particularly in color!

just messin around:


https://flic.kr/p/vzk1Q5

[Drew Wiley]

I saw a number of those Redhead images up close in actual 30x40 C-print fashion well before the book came out. It's a tad difficult to describe, but gave me a
distinct impression of the rendering of this particular lens. There is a very soft quality yet with an embedded sharpness, like Meyerowitz liked; but the out
of focus blur (often the case, since he tended to use the ocean as a backdrop and only focus on the people themselves) was itself so-so. Not double-lined and obnoxious like many super-sharp modern lenses, but not exactly buttery like certain other classic lenses.

[ic-racer]

Lots of chatter but still no images showing how this lens differs from anything else out there.

[Drew Wiley]

What's chatter? You can simply go out and buy a famous book or two and get a better impression than any web image. Meyerowitz has his own site if you must
do so. Duuh. What I found interesting was how on his early interior shots, he routinely stopped the lens down to f/90 for depth of field, but eventually acquired
a taste for the soft edges of deliberate diffraction.

[Drew Wiley]

All I had to do is type in "250 widefield ektar images" and a whole page of them popped up. Of course, you gotta read the legend attached to each image after
you click on it, cause search engines tend to mix in related things; but this works for all kinds of lenses, regardless of format.

[DrTang]

here's a shot I recently took with a 250wfe / f16

http://www.government-traveler.com/examples/250wfe.jpg

[Tin Can]

here's a shot I recently took with a 250wfe / f16

http://www.government-traveler.com/examples/250wfe.jpg



What format is that?

[DrTang]

What format is that?


8x10

[Tin Can]

8x10

Thanks. Hard to tell.

20 years ago I was nearly run through when I refused to yield at a performance of http://babeswithblades.org/

[Michael Roberts]

here's a shot I recently took with a 250wfe / f16

http://www.government-traveler.com/examples/250wfe.jpg

Love this, Dr. T!

Would love to see this done with Emil's (gandolfi) painting with light technique, as well....and I think the characteristics of the 250wfe would be a very good fit with those conditions.

Keep up the great work you are doing with your portraits.