View Full Version : 240 options for 8x10

Robert Skeoch
8-Apr-2005, 21:41
I own a 300 c Fuji and a 450 c Fuji that I use on my 8x10. I also use a Schnieder 210 that doesn't actually cover 8x10 I've found. So I'm considering a 240 mm. It appears Fuji makes one and Schnieder has the G-Claron. If you're familiar with either of these lens tell me what you think.

Eric Leppanen
8-Apr-2005, 22:23
I own a Fuji 240A which I use for both 4x5 and 8x10. It is an excellent lens, although 8x10 coverage is tight.

This thread might help:
www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/500080.html (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/500080.html)

Jim Galli
8-Apr-2005, 22:26
Loved them both! Sorry, that didn't help much. Fuji 240 f9A is brutally sharp. Schneider G-Claron is plenty sharp and allows more movements but is not quite as brutal in the shadows because it is single coated.

Roger Hein
9-Apr-2005, 04:59
I'll second what Jim said. When I had the Fuji 240A I often found I 'hit the wall' in terms of coverage. The Schneider 240G coverage is huge AND usable.

Ted Harris
9-Apr-2005, 07:01
Fuji 240A. Not much room to move at 8x10 but wonderfully small and lightweight, it is in a #0 shutter. I used to own a Symmar-S MC 240 as well mounted in a Prontor Pro shutter. It was a great lens and I held on to it for several years after I got the Fuji 240 A but it never got taken out of the studio and I finally let it go.....just no reason at that focal length to haul around monster glass.

Gem Singer
9-Apr-2005, 07:31
Hi Rob,

One other lens to consider that will go along very nicely with the Fuji's that you already have is the Fujinon 250 CM-W. This lens is a plasmat, a little brighter than the 240A. It covers the 8X10 format, with minimum movement capability. The Fuji 250 CM-W is mounted in a Copal 1 shutter and is close in size and weight to the Schneider 210.

Eric Wagner
9-Apr-2005, 09:15
You might want to check out the Sept/Oct 1997 issue of PhotoTechniques. In that issue is an article by Carl Weese about the Kodak 10-inch Wide Field Ektar, and he compares its images with those made by a 240 Sironar N and a 240 Sironar S.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
9-Apr-2005, 10:31
Eric hit the nail on the head. Once you've used a wide field Ektar you'll never say I wish I had got this or that, ever. That lens will dig into the shadows with a backhoe. Coverage? 11x14 OK.John

Oren Grad
9-Apr-2005, 11:15
John, I disagree. The 10" Wide Field Ektar is too flat and flarey for my taste - I much prefer the 240 Apo-Sironar-S. Because the WFE will cover as much as 80 degrees when stopped down, it can be a useful tool for those working in 11x14 or 7x17. Also, some people may just like the WFE image character. But for my purposes it's not remotely a substitute for a late-model plasmat.

Those who are interested in this focal length range should read Carl's article. He characterizes in detail the strengths and limitations of the WFE and the 240 Apo-Sironar lenses, rather than simply asserting that one or the other is "best" or "sharpest".

Ralph Barker
9-Apr-2005, 11:25
FWIW, I "love" my 240 G-Claron. It's an excellent little lens that can often be found at a bargain price.

Here's a scan of an 8x10 Polaroid made with the 240 G-Claron:


John Berry ( Roadkill )
9-Apr-2005, 14:00
I can find no disagreement with you comments. It IS the character of the lens that I love. The flair is what I use to my advantage for my style of shooting. I also have a 210 macro sironar so I will stand behind you, on backing up your choice.
I've drooled over that shot before. It's a pleasure to see it again. Thanks for letting me know a little more about it.

Oren Grad
9-Apr-2005, 15:18
John - I actually like some of the color work that Joel Meyerowitz has done with the 10" WFE - but it's just not a good match for what I want to do for now in B&W. Glad you enjoy working with it - part of the fun of having all these different modern and classic lens types available is that there's something for virtually every taste.

Cheers, and good light...

Eric Woodbury
9-Apr-2005, 16:42
A vote for the Fujinon W 250/6.3. I got mine for 810, but now use it instead of the 210mm for 45 and 57.

Carl Weese
9-Apr-2005, 17:41
Just yesterday I printed a recent picture made with the 10" Wide Field Ektar--perhaps I should say *very* wide field since the negative is a 7x17. The picture looks across the edge of a cliff through a screen of treetops and off into a canyon. Conditions were deep overcast, light drizzle (possibly my favorite kind of light) and the character of the WFE in this case makes for a wonderfully velvety palladium print. But for a general purpose lens on 8x10, I use the 240mm Apo Sironar S and never miss the look of the Ektar. Technical capabilities alone don't determine the usefulness of a lens. As several have pointed out in this thread, the imaging styles of different photographers will lead to different lens choices. No right or wrong, just a matter of finding what's appropriate for the style of optical image desired.


tim atherton
9-Apr-2005, 19:37
"Eric hit the nail on the head. Once you've used a wide field Ektar you'll never say I wish I had got this or that, ever. That lens will dig into the shadows with a backhoe. Coverage? 11x14 OK.John"

I had one for a while and really didn't like it, despite all the hype. Traded it for a Fuji 250 6.7 which is one of my most used lenses.

BTW it's the older 250mm 6.7 that really covers 8x10 well. The newer 6.3 doesn't have nearly as much coverage.

Eric Woodbury
9-Apr-2005, 19:45
Correction: Mine is the 6.7, not the other as previously stated.

Dave Moeller
9-Apr-2005, 20:31
The Fujinon 250 f/6.7 covers 8x10 with room to spare, but the f/6.3 will also cover 8x10. It doesn't give much room for movements at infinity, but it's generally a whole lot cheaper than the f/6.7 (for obvious reasons).

I use the f/6.3 on 8x10; I originally bought it for 4x5 and was happy to discover that it covers 8x10 when I moved up in size. Although the f/6.7 has a much larger image circle, I'm sticking with my f/6.3 for now as the image quality is breathtaking, and little of my work is done at infinity.

John Kasaian
9-Apr-2005, 22:52

I can only comment on the 240 G Claron and the 250mm Wide Field Ektar. I love both for different reasons, which is the only way I can justify owning two lenses so close in focal length. Of the two, the G-Claron often gets the nod when hiking because it is so darn small and lightwieght with its modern copal shutter. The WF Ektar has a completely different persona---maybe its because I "cut my 8x10 teeth" on Universal #5 shutters but I really enjoy working with my WF and the prints seem to me to be uniquely different from the G-Claron's. For portraiture I'll go with the WF every time. Both lenses are sharp and contrasty. If you have the disposition for old shutters and vintage glass the WF Ektar is a delight. If you demand precision or small and lightwieght, then the G-Claron will certainly fill the bill. Either way you win!

Lars Åke Vinberg
10-Apr-2005, 13:28
I have a Fujinon-A and an Apo-Symmar both in 240 mm. I got the Fujinon-A as a lighter alternative, but have now found myself going back to the Apo-Symmar, for a few reasons: First, I frequently shoot in low light, so the extra 3x light of the Apo-Symmar is a lifesaver. Second, on 8x10 transparencies I often find the falloff of the Fujinon-A to be slightly objectionable. The Apo-Symmar seems to have less falloff. Both lenses are very sharp (I use the Fujinon-A for 6x12/4x5 as well) but the Apo-Symmar has an edge here. It could be that it is more contrasty leading to the appearance of sharpness while resolving the same.

10-Apr-2005, 13:34
I'm another satisfied 240mm G-Claron customer. Don't forget that Schneider includes a free macro lens inside of every G-Claron, should you get the urge to do a close-up, without carrying another lens.

Kerry L. Thalmann
10-Apr-2005, 14:17
Lots of good answers. It seems you have several options, new and old, small and large, to consider. One more you might want to look for is the 240mm f9 Germinar-W. It is very similar to the G Claron in terms of size and coverage, but is a newer design that is multicoated. Like the G Claron, if you can find one in a barrel mount, the cells will screw right into a standard Copal No. 1 shutter.


Ole Tjugen
10-Apr-2005, 18:28
Nobody's mentioned the old Schneider Symmar 240/5.6 convertible, so I'll just mention it.

Works fine, cheap, convertible, tight but adequate coverage. Comes most often in a Compur #2 shutter, same size as the 165/6.8 Angulon which is also nice...

gang zhao
13-Apr-2005, 08:25
Why don't try the Nikkor-W 240mm/5.6? It's a truly excellent lense for a 8x10 photographer. The coverage is very similar to the Apo- Symmar 240mm/5.6 as well.

Juergen Sattler
14-Apr-2005, 07:14
What about the Rodenstock 240/5.6 APO Sironar N - it does not have quite the same image circle as the S, but should give room for some movement on 8x10. Rodenstock claims the image circle to be 350mm at f22. Used prices seem to be reasonable on the "N".

Oren Grad
14-Apr-2005, 09:56
Juergen - I've tested both the Apo-Sironar-N and the Apo-Sironar-S, and found that the extra 3 degrees of coverage with the S made a big difference in usability on a lens with such a wide view - I tend to use a lot of front rise with short lenses on squarish formats, and frequently ran out of coverage with the N. I ended up buying the S. Of course, Rob's mileage may vary, depending on what he likes to photograph and on his compositional habits.