8x10 lenses, 150-165mm

[Mark Sawyer]

This question is a spin-off from the recent GRII thread, in my continuing search for a lens in the 150-165mm (6-6 1/2") focal length for an 8x10 that I might reasonably expect to find for $250-300 or less. I'll give the info I have on the lenses I know about, and hope someone knows of a lens I haven't thought of, or corrects me on something I have wrong.

Wollensak 159mm EWA f/12.5: I have a very early uncoated one which I like very much. Unfortunately, while it's contact prints are lovely, negatives made with it don't hold up to enlarging to more than 11x14. Coverage is reportedly 379mm (8x10 needs 312mm), which seems about right as mine allows "reasonable" movements. Anyone ever enlarge from a later version and have the negative hold up well?

Konica GRII 150mm: I bought one recently, and while it's a nice macro lens, mine illuminates maybe 300-305mm at infinity, and only about a 270mm circle is sharp. Some people claim more, but I know what mine does...

165mm Angulon: What I've read indicates 320mm of coverage, (slight movements), but I've heard the corners get soft well inside the 312mm circle. Then again, that's what I hear about the 90mm on 4x5, and mine stays sharp to the corners. Still, I'd like a little more coverage even if it was sharp...

165mm Super-Angulon: Out of the price range but slowly coming down with the intro of Schnieder XL's and Nikkor SW's. Sharp with big coverage, but bigger and heavier than I'd like to carry around. By the time I can afford it, I'll be too old to lift it. (Whine, whimper...) (BTW, I have a 121mm SA that barely covers 8x10 stopped way down with NO (!) movements and significant fall-off without a center filter.)

6½" WA Dagor: Covers 8x10, but again doesn't allow much for movements, and all you Dagor-cultists have driven the price way high...

158mm f6.5 Cooke Series VIIb: Kerry Thalmann suggested this and it really caught my interest, but it sounds like they're pretty rare. Might be expensive too, but it's usually in a barrel, so maybe not...

Any other possibilities I haven't thought of? Any comments on these? As usual, thanks muchly for your collective and individual wisdom!

[Vick Vickery]

I used a Wollensak EWA 159mm f-12.5 extensively a few years ago as a normal lens on a 4x5 Graphic View II...it enlarged quite well, but for the most part I was using only the central portion of the extensive (for 4x5) image available. If your problem enlarging from 8x10 is on the edges, a newer coated lens might help since I never had any problem going to 20x24 from my 4x5 negatives. I was always very impressed with these lenses.

[Ole Tjugen]

"Soft" is a relative term. The only one of these I have is the 165 Angulon, and the largest film I have used it on is 18x24cm (slightly smaller than 8x10"). It is plenty sharp for contact prints. I see a decrease in sharpness in the corners on the one big enlargement I have made from this lens, which was shot on 5x7" Ektachrome. But you still have to use a loupe to see the softness on a 50x70cm print (20x27"). The center is still incredibly sharp, beyond the resolution of the scanner used.

[John Kasaian]

M ark,

My Wolly 159mm is a f/9.5 WA "yellow dot" single coated. They aren't much more costly than the EWA f/12.5 and IMHO a tremendous improvement, though I imagine that is a matter of personal taste.YMMV, but I think short of going to the expense of a 165mm f/8 SA it is a very acceptable option. Not much wiggle room---thats the name of the game with using less costly lenses in this focal length on 8x10s. Good Luck!

[Brian Ellis]

I don't think the lens you want - which sounds like a very wide angle lens for 8x10 with lots of room for movements and an exremely low price (for such a lens) exists. And if it did no one would be selling theirs so you still wouldn't be able to buy one.

I've used two of the Wollensak 159 f9.5s and both did very well but I only contact printed with them and scanned for prints of roughly 11x14 maximum, nothing beyond that. I'd suggest setting your sights on something a little longer if you want to stay within your price range. A 210 G Claron comes to mind as a moderate wide angle lens that should be available very close to your price range and that has at least a moderate amount of room for movements on 8x10 when stopped down. I used one of those for several years and was pleased with it though I didn't enlarge beyond about 11x14 so I can't speak from experience with enlargements greater than that..

[David A. Goldfarb]

Somewhat wider there is also the Berthiot 120mm/f:14 Perigraphe. It usually comes in barrel with wheel stops, just covers 8x10". I've had mine mounted in an Ilex #3 shutter and usually use it stopped down all the way for the best coverage. It's surprisingly sharp out to the corners.

[Oren Grad]

Mark - I have to second Brian's point, I don't think a lens exists that meets all of your criteria. If you come around to being willing to consider a big lens like the 165 SA, you should also watch for a 155 Grandagon - prices have been starting to slip on that as well. (BTW, the 150 Nikkor SW is not a new design - I wouldn't be surprised to see that one follow the 165 SA and 155 Grandagon and also be discontinued before too much longer.) In the department of tiny classic lenses with just enough coverage, you might be able to find a 14cm Series V Protar in barrel within your price range. Don't know how well the pictures would hold up to enlargement, though.

[Jim Galli]

You've pretty well covered the available field. The Cooke is hands down winner in my book with one caveat. I've made some remarkable negatives with that tiny lens on 8X10 in certain conditions (flat even illumination). It REALLY has a "look" to it. Like the negs were chiseled out of stone. But unfortunately I've lost an equal amount to really unusual center flare. Bad enough to make me wonder if there was a pinhole in one of the shutter blades or something. Bad enough that the negs are un-printable. Anyone else experience this? The WA dagor is the old faithful. Prices are high because they're tiny and they get the job done. I've not kept either of the 2 165 6.8 Angulons I've owned because in a word, they don't get the job done on 8X10. I've got a yellow dot 159 f9.5 I've never made a photo with! How dumb is that.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

My Wolly 159mm is a f/9.5 WA "yellow dot" single coated. They aren't much more costly than the EWA f/12.5 and IMHO a tremendous improvement

John,

"Tremendous improvement" in what way? I'm not disputing your claim. I haven't shot with the f9.5 version of the Wolly. It is definitely a more complex design, but supposedly the f12.5 has more coverage. In theory, I can see how the f9.5 version could be sharper, especially in the corners. There must be some reason why they offered a more expensive lens with twice as many elements. However (also "in theory"), twice as many elements with comparable coatings would mean slightly reduced contrast.

Anybody out there have one of each (6¼" f9.5 and f12.5 Wolly Ext. WA)? I'd love to see the results of a head-to-head shoot out (same camera, same scene, same film, same development, etc.). I'd be happy to bring my f12.5 Wolly to the large format conference if anyone wants to bring their f9.5 (and an 8x10 camera).

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

But unfortunately I've lost an equal amount to really unusual center flare. Bad enough to make me wonder if there was a pinhole in one of the shutter blades or something. Bad enough that the negs are un-printable. Anyone else experience this?

Jim,

That's a new one on me. Hopefully, a new multicoated Series VIIc in a modern Copal shutter wouldn't have that problem. However, it would definitely not be anywhere near the OP's $250 - $300 budget.

Kerry

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks for the answers so far, guys! Here are my thoughts...

Vick- Yep, i'm leaning towards a newer Wollensak EWA so far...

John- I prefer the f/12.5 to the f/9.5 for the Wollensak EWA because it has a larger image circle. But if I found a nice coated f/9.5, I would seriously consider it. I'd like to know which is sharper, but there may be more variation from lens to lens within the same design than from one design to another?

Ole- Regarding the 165 Angulon, if you can see the corners losing detail on a 5x7, it could only be worse on an 8x10...

Brian- I have a 210mm Dagor (uncoated) and a 215mm Acuton (coated); really like them both. I've shot a negative with one, flipped the film holder and shot with the other, developed them together... they look and print identical, except the Dagor is very slightly softer and loses just a little sharpness at the corners. (Both negs shot at f/45 under flat light, no flare issues.) I prefer the Acuton, (it's close,) but I'd like a little wider lens to go with it.

Oren- I forgot about the Grandagon; good point! Still a bit pricey and heavy... I think I'd refer the Wollensak to a Protar, though it's speculation, (never used a protar.)

David- the 120mm Berthiot would be too wide; I have a 121mm that covers, but I very seldom use it. I'm usually caught between the 159mm and the 215mm.

Jim- if you ever want to sell that Cooke lens, let me know! It's a rare commodity, but I'm watching for one, and you've got me curious. (I tend to shoot under soft light, but it is a serious restriction to consider.) You should try that 159mm; I'm sure it's feeling very neglected...

Current leaning is towards a newer 159mm Wollensak, maybe the Cooke if one appears. Could still change my mind...

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi

I vote for a Grandagon 155 or a Superangulon 165 or a Nikon 150mm.
I have the Grandagon and I'm an advocat for modern lens design in wider lenses sphäre!
If you get one of the 3 I have listed you can they use as a normal lens with large coverage on 4x5 and sell your 150 mm normal for 4x5!
So you get a lens wich covers 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 but you has to get more money out of your poket but then you have a lens wich you can use your hole lifetime and gives you the best possible resolution!
A cheap solution is at the end an expensive solution because you are not happy with the results you have to sell it you are loosing time and money and the expensive 8x10 film needs the best solution in front of it!!

Good luck!

[Oren Grad]

Armin - Something tells me my 155 Grandagon wouldn't make a good normal lens for my 4x5 Nagaoka...

< g >

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Armin,

I agree in principle with everything you say. If you buy the best, you will never have any regrets. I will add to your list the 150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL.

Unlike the OP, I am shooting 4x10. So, I don't need quite as much coverage. As much as I'd love to have the coverage and quality of the three lenses you mention, none of them will actually fit on my camera - they rear elements are too large to fit through the opening in the front standard. The 150mm SS XL, with it's smaller rear element, would work.

For my needs, I'm happy with my little 150mm f9 Graphic Kowa. It produces a very sharp image out to about 290mm. Not quite enough for 8x10, but gives me a little left over for movements on 4x10 (~265mm IC required). As much as I'd like to have the coverage of a 155mm Grandagon-N, there are other drawback in addition to price. At 1460g, it weighs more than the five lenses (110mm SS XL, 150mm Graphic Kowa, 210mm Graphic Kowa, 300mm Nikkor M and 450mm Fujinon C) I currently use for 4x10 put together. It also take huge filters, and as I said, it's too big to fit on my camera (although it's close enough if someone gave me one, I could probably find a way to modify the camera to accept the 90mm diameter rear element). This comparison is a bit absurd, but my little 150mm Graphic Kowa cost less than $250, takes 52mm filters has a 43mm rear element diameter and weighs 180g. The 155mm Grandagon-N goes for about 5x that amount, weighs over 8x as much (1460g), takes 105mm filters and has a 90mm rear element diameter.

That said, if I was shooting 8x10 color transparencies, I'd be watching eBay like a hawk for a good deal on a 155mm grandagon-N or 150mm Nikkor SW at a decent price.

Kerry

[John Kasaian]

Kerry,

I think the improvement over an uncoated Wolly is due to the coating which I believe reduces flair which I find problematic with uncoated and especially wide angle lenses. I'm talking B&W here. The f/9.5 is also supposed to be a copy of the WA Dagor(I have no idea if this is true or not, but it is what I was told) so maybe that contributes to it's performance when enlarged---not that I think the f/12.5 EWA is a slouch---far from it---but maybe that is a trade off for having a skosh more wiggle room with the f/12.5. I don't know. Niether is probably as good of a performer as a 165 SA, but then they don't weigh as much are as monsterous, or cost anywhere near Schneider's wunder lens. Well, its an option to the f/12.5 EWA anyway. BTW, I bought my WA Wolly from Butch Welch who had some great images he'd taken with it on is old website. Funny thing is mine don't come out nearly as nice;-)

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

John,

I don't think the f9.5 Wolly is a WA Dagor type, but I'd have to do a little research to confirm.

BTW, the f12.5 version is also available single coated. In fact, most of the ones I've seen are. Check out this related thread:

Age of Wollensak 6¼" (159mm) Extreme W.A. (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/501292.html)

for more info.

If I was you, I'd request a refund from Butch. He obviously used up all the good images in that lens before he sold it to you.

Kerry

[Ernest Purdum]

The f9.5 Raptar is very different from a Dagor. It is an eight-element design with four groups of two elements each.

[Richard Årlin]

I am the happy owner of a 158mm VIIb in a syncro compur shutter, a real gem but outside the budget mentioned. I never had any problem with central flare. I was actually looking for a 165mm angulon when I found it. Hopefully there will be a modern VIIc, there probably will. I will personally get th 82mm as fast as I can. coincidentally I thought I had spotted one in barrel for only £32 over the net. Lettering was so small on the tiny lens I could not read it and I was very curious to try to focus it as it needed a much longer bellows draw. Instead it showed itself to be a 133mm and even had a deviant f.stop from what it should. If by mistake or exactitude, it was engraved F.6.3. Barbara suggests it might be like a misprinted stamp. By the way tose tiny lenses, too bad they are not made any more

[Ole Tjugen]

Mark;

Read what I read about "softness". I doubt you could find significantly better results from ANY 150-165mm lens when enlarged to 50x70cm! I used a loupe, on a 4x enlargement, shot with a moderate wide-angle lens. Without the loupe it's just sharp.

[Mark Sawyer]

Ole- I read your post on softness carefully, and if softness is starting to show (albeit slightly) in the corners of a print made from a 5x7 transparency, I suspect it would be pronounced on an 8x10 piece of film. I'd seriously consider a 165 Angulon if I could test it before buying, but it seems some have found them soft at the corners on 8x10, and movements are somewhat restricted.

There may not be a lens that "does it all," (price, weight, sharpness, coverage), but I thought I'd ask to see if I missed any good options. I wasn't aware of the 158mm Cooke until a few days ago, and that and a newer (than mine) 159mm Wollensak are the two top contenders now. Or maybe I could rationalize the 150 XL as a "necessity" by reclassifying food and shelter as "luxuries."

[Ralph Barker]

Living in a tent isn't all that difficult to get used to, Mark. And, after a while, one developes a taste for squirrel and field mouse stew. ;-)

[Dan Dozer]

Since there has been a lot of talk about the Cooke, I thought I'ld throw in my two cents worth. I don't have the Series VIIB, but I do have the 6" Series VIIA Primoplane ( got it on E-bay a little over a year ago for about $30). Vademecum indicates this lens was made for 8 x 10. However, I have not really tested it out much.

This is a very small lens at only about 1 1/2" in diameter and is in barrel. I've mounted it to a board with a Packard shutter (and I get a lot of movement on my 5 x 7), but have not tried it yet on the 8 x 10. Do any of you know what improvments in performance might have been made from the Series VIIA to the Series VIIB?