8x10 Lenses Most Used, Most Desired

[neil poulsen]

I hope I"m not treading too much familiar territory with this inquiry. The nice thing about 4x5 is the variety of lenses that are available at reasonable cost, or at least, are available.

But, 8x10 is a different ballgame. Need lots of movement on a moderate wide-angle, and a SW 120mm or 121mm can be found for under $400. But for 8x10, an equivalent cost can exceed $1500.

Need a 300mm for 4x5 that doesn't weigh a lot? It's pretty easy to find a 300mm Nikon M at a reasonable price. But for an equivalent lens on 8x10, prepare to weight months (or years?) and spend upwards of $2000 for a Fijinon, 600mm C.

So, this prompts me to inquire, what lens focal lengths/model (W, SW, T, G-Claron, M, etc.) for 8x10 do your use regularly? Also, what focal lengths/model would come in most handy, if one could either find and afford?

ADDED A LITTLE LATER . . .

What kinds of photography do you do in 8x10, versus what you might do in other, smaller formats?

[jeroldharter]

I used a 210 Sironar-W, 300 Nikon M, 450 mm Fujinon C, and 600 mm Fujinon C. I paid the piper.

Going wider than 210 you have limited options. There is an old Schnieder SA 165 that covered 8x10 - I forget the exact designation.

I don't think you will get a lot of movement flexibility with a 120 mm. Plus you should verify that your bellows are compressible enough for such a short draw. I had a Wehman 8x10 with a 4x5 reducing back. But it was almost unusable with a 90 mm lens because the bellows were so compressed.

[Jim Galli]

There are some inexpensive solutions that are wonderful. If you like 120 on the 4X5, consider a 240mm G-Claron on the 8X10. 135mm on 4X5? Look for a 270mm G-Claron. A little harder to find but a really wonderful lens and the darn thing will cover an 11X14. 210 G-Claron covers 8X10 with modest movements. Yes, longer focus is more $$$ but there are worthy choices that are less than the modern Fuji. Red Dot ARtar in shutters are around. 19" and 24" are affordable. About 1/4 of the price of a Fuji 600. 300 and 355 G-Clarons in shutter are spectacular 8X10 lenses. 450 Nikkor is affordable and although heavier than the Fuji, it's also faster and having owned both, I like the Nikkor just as well.

Once you get comfy in your shoes you may want to experiment with some of the thousands of older lenses still floating around. I bought a convertible Wollensak 13" Series 1a from 1915 or so for $110 the other day. It's a marvelous old lens. Turner Reichs by the boat load. The sky's the limit and it seems to be a buyers market these days. Be curious. Have fun.

I've made some incredible images with a 45CM f9 Reproduction Tessar that I couldn't get 60 bucks for if I sold it. There's tons of stuff out there.

[angusparker]

Most used and desired is the Fujinon A 360/10 - light for the focal length and large IC. The G-Claron 355/9 is a great but heavier alternative as mentioned above. Fujinon W 210/5.6 with lettering inside filter ring is a great sleeper wide lens and does not cost too much. Tried the Nikon SW 120/8 and it worked barely on my 8x10 - very wide of course. The SSXL 110/5.6 apparently almost covers, but the SSXL 150/5.6 definitely does. Artars, Rodenstock APO Ronan CL lenses, and lots of old Kodak glass as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LabRat]

The other thing to bear in mind is which lenses do you use most on your 4X5??? Remember that your smaller camera will be able to use more FL's than your 8X10 due to bellows compression + extension issues, so maybe it's time to go "back to your roots" and choose the FL that matches your "vision" and go back to the old "one lens" rule for a duration, then decide what is lacking, then fulfilling that need...

Then maybe you can avoid the "GAS" bling-bling syndrome, before you start lusting over stuff you don't need, and concentrate on shooting with something that you have already developed a deep relationship working with, and stay focused on completing your vision cycle...

Keep it simple!!!

Steve K

[Alan Gales]

My most used lens is my 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar. For a wider lens I own a Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 (lettering on the inside) lens and for a longer lens I own a 19" Red Dot Artar. You don't have to spend a fortune for 8x10 lenses.

I wouldn't mind having a 14" Dagor and a 14" Heliar for a different look but they are too pricey for me.

[Peter De Smidt]

It also depends a lot on what you shoot. For instance, I have a book of Upper Michigan water falls taken by a gentleman with an 8x10. He said that for his work he never needed a shutter, as the exposures were all long enough to time manually. If so, that opens up a lot of options, especially on the long end. Apo Nikkors, Ronars and other process lenses in barrels are very high quality and not that expensive. And don't discount 120mm wide angle lenses. I recently did a shot with a 120mm SA with my 8x10 Sinar. I was focused 20 feet away, and there was nothing important in the corners. The lens covered just fine, as in as seen with a 3000 spi scan at 100% on screen. G-glarons, Graphic Kowas, Fujinon Ls, APO Germinars.....there are a lot of good choices that aren't hellishly expensive.

[IanG]

My most used lens is a 12" Goerz Am Opt Dagor, although made in 1940 te original owner had it coated after the war. I have a Nikon 300 M bought initially for my 5x4 Wista with an eye to moving to 10x8 later on, but my first camera came with the Dagor essentially just thrown in for nothing, the second owner never used it.

I have a 165mm f8 Super Angulon a great lens but a huge beast covers 15"x12" stopped downto f22, so plenty of room for movements, not practical for backpacking. Last year I bought a 240mm Nikon W on this Forum from another UK member it's a nice moderate WA on my Agfa Ansco 10x8s and also quite nice to ue on my Wista 45DX as wella s my Seneca 7x5 (one is converted to take Wista/Linhof lens board).

I have a pair of 159mm Wollensak EWA lenses which I've not tested yet (one has separation - I was sold it for the shutter), if the best one performs well then it would be ideal for backpacking with the Agfa Ansco Commercial view, and I've a Turner Reich triple convertible to test as wel. Really I'm looking for the equivalent of my light weight 5x4 kit which is a 90mm f8 Angulon, 150mm Xenar or Tessar, and a 203mm f7.7 Ektar. Teh 12" DAgor is a relatively small light lens compared to 300mm Symmar etc.

Ian

[mdarnton]

I do mainly portraits, and look towards older Tessar-type lenses in the 12-16" focal lengths. There are plenty of Ektars, Caltars, Paragons, and Raptars out there, excellent lenses and often incredibly cheap, especially if you can handle a Packard shutter. I've come to prefer synched Packards in the studio in preference to anything else, because they're very fast to work with.

[Alan9940]

My most used lens is a Fuji CM-W 360mm (when backpacking) and/or my Schneider 360mm Symmar-S when working from the car. I've taken some of my best images with the Schneider and really like that lens, but it's a beast! Most used wide angle is a Fuji A 240mm with occasional use of a Kodak 190mm Wide Field Ektar. The Kodak lens is nice, but it just barely covers 8x10. For longer focal length it's a 19" Schneider Apo-Artar. I'd like to have a wider lens than the 190mm, but then coverage becomes an issue. I've looked at the Schneider 165mm SA, but, again, that's a beast of a lens!

[vinny]

450 nikkor M, 305 g claron, 210 5.6 fujinon-w, 250 fujinon w, fujinon 600C. I got my fujinon 600 before the price tripled. I rarely us it and the 450M is my go to.

[jp]

You can get a 300/5.6 in copal 3 shutter, planar style from Schneider or Fuji for a few hundred dollars in perfect condition used. It's probably quite common. I haven't used my symmar-s for years and should probably sell it.

I have a Kodak 305 portrait lens I just leave on my 8x10 field camera. I like soft focus and that does it well. They are quite popular as well and used prices start at several hundred $. It's a little short for portraits on 8x10 as it was designed for 5x7.

If you use a studio camera, you can have a bigger lensboard and have more lens options, including those with packard shutters.

Nothing wrong with used just so long as you budget some $ for the shutter to be serviced.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm glad I own a 600C, but don't use it very often either. When I want long perspectives, I generally prefer to use my 4x5 monorail. With a 450C on it (also one of my most used 8x10 lenses), I get a lot of reach. A lot depends on the wind and atmosphere. Any long shot is apt to suffer from some intervening haze; so 8x10 doesn't always give as much extra detail as you might expect in distant scenes. For certain projects I'll tote along the 600, but mainly use 360 and 450 for 8x10, but also routinely carry a 250. All these lenses remain in side pouches to the pack, and I only switch out the camera in the main compartment between 4x5 and 8x10, according to my seasonal preferences and budget.

[Vaughn]

I seemed to have gone towards the Fuji W lenses for the 8x10 (250/6.7, 300mm and 360mm -- the 360mm also being for the 11x14). They are on the heavy side, but none of my 8x10 system is lightweight...and I may not carry the 300 and the 360 at the same time, perhaps go with the 250 and 360. I just got the 360mm, so it will be fun to try that out...just need to get it on the right lens board. Time will tell if it replaces the 300mm which has been my mainstay.

But if I am under the redwoods and will be making all long exposures, I also have the choice of some process lenses without shutters...a 210mm Graphic Raptor (small and light) and a couple RedDot Artars (19" and 24"). My LF work is primarily B&W landscapes.

My non-LF photography has taken an interesting turn. It is primarily 6cmx6cm B&W using a TLR (fixed lens, 80mm or 75mm). Negatives are contact printed -- Platinum/palladium. The small size requires a very different way of seeing and composing than I use with the 8x10. Very rewarding. Time for another printing session!

[Andrew O'Neill]

120 Nikkor SW, 210 Nikkor W, (both just cover), 240 Nikkor W, 300 Nikkor M, 450 Nikkor, 600 Fujinon C

[domaz]

I have a 120 Nikkor SW and a Fujinon-SW 125 f/8 both cover 8x10 very nicely and give you an impressively wide angle of view. The 210mm Fujinon-W is a great lenses as well, wide angle of view and no trouble covering 8x10. For longer focal lengths I like the 15" f/10 APO Raptar. It's a lightweight lens that is easily used with a Packard Shutter (or get it mounted in a shutter (http://lensn2shutter.com/15inaporaptar.html) if you have the cash).

[Drew Wiley]

And once again, your instincts took you down the right path with those little 6x6 contacts, Vaughn. Draws the viewer in.

[David Schaller]

I use 240 and 305 G-Clarons, and the 450 Fuji C. I also have a 210 Symar that covers, and can be converted to a longer focal length, but I don't recall the details at the moment.

[Graham Patterson]

A 270mm G-Claron for me. It is also my 'long' lens for the double extension Wista 5x4. The 8x10 will only get lenses added if/when it proves it's worth for my interests.

[Ari]

For portraits and urban work on 8x10, a 150 and a 300 are all I need. I think the 150XL is a fantastic modern lens, and I've also used it on 4x5 where it shines just as brightly as on 8x10.
I'd love to have a 210 that has plenty of room for movements (Grandagon 200 or 210XL), because I always run out of room with a 210.
I guess prices would put those two lenses in the "desirable" category.

And for portraits, I've used many different lenses on 8x10, from Heliars to Ektars, even a Nikon 300 f5.6, briefly; the 12" Commercial Ektar was my fave until I bought a Cooke XVa, the triple convertible.
Yes, its IQ is stellar, but the Cooke is also quite economical: it's prevented me from wanting or needing (or affording) any other lenses. :)
And the three FLs (300, 476, 646) are similar to the Fuji C offerings, costing roughly the same, probably a little more.

[John Kasaian]

It depends on what you'll be shooting and how much you want to spend and how large of a lens your front standard (or your poor back, if you're hiking) can take. For vintage glass---as Jim Galli mentioned---the sky is the limit.
I shoot with a passel of old lenses---Ektars, Dagor, Artars, G Claron, Velostigmat, Nikon, and B&L.

The 240 G Claron is probably my most used lens because it is small and light weight and was one of the least expensive to purchase.
I also use a 250 Widefield Ektar mostly for architecture because it seems to have acres of coverage.

My "normal" lenses are a 14" Commercial Ektar and a 12" Dagor. "Long" is a 19" Artar.

A 360 Nikon M, 14" Artar and 159 Velostigmat yellow dot spend most of their time aboard the snouts of other cameras. The 15" B&L Petzval is just plain fun.

Any of these, plus many others(Fuji, Wollensak, Ilex, Schneider, TR etc...) would be considered desirable. It's not so much the lens, but what you do with it that makes or breaks a photo op (ducks and takes cover.)

[Jac@stafford.net]

Defining photographers' preferences is as elusive as tracking such foolish metrics as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. It's all bullshit.

A question remains: are photography viewers of a similar metric?

[Willie]

Would love to have a Cooke XVa Triple convertible lens. Just priced a bit much these days.

[Greg]

Over the years have always gone back to photographing waterfalls and streams especially in gorges. Shoot 8x10 film. Printed with traditional Silver gelatin paper up to a few years ago when I started to make digital negatives and print Platinum/Palladium and some Silver prints.

These 3 lenses are the ones I currently use:

240mm Dagor - little gem of a lens

12" f/4.5 Wollensak Series I Velostigmat in a Betax - the first lens for my 8x10 back in the 1970s. Also in the 1980s bought a 12 3/4 “ (18 7/8” 27”) f/7.7 BL Protar VII and a 14” f/7.7 GOERTZ DOUBLE-ANASTIGMAT. They both have huge coverage and are excellent optics but have always gone back to the 12" Velostigmat. The Velostigmat does not have the 1 to 6 front "soft focus" ring.

508mm f/7 Caltar - bought it primarily for my 11x14 but whenever i take my 8x10 out, the Caltar also goes with me.

If I really need a wider angle lens, I take along my 5.9” f/14 No. 5 Gray Periscope in a Copal. It actually covers 11x14 but its sweet spot is 8x10.

When I was printing on traditional FB paper, preferred to use G-Clarons but for Platinum/Palladium prefer to use older classic optics.

Always wanted to own a Trigor but never came across one that was priced reasonably.

[Mark Sampson]

The last time I did an 8x10 project, I used a 10" Kodak Wide Field Ektar and a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar. The WFE got most of the use. I was unhappy to sell that system off, but it wasn't paying its way. Should I ever go back to 8x10, I'd look for those lenses again.

[Robert Opheim]

I mainly shoot 4x5 but I have been shooting some 8x10. In order of use: Nikkor 450 M lens, Nikkor 300mm M lens, 240mm Nikkor W lens, 19 inch red dot artar lens, 12 inch soft focus Wollensak Velostigmat lens with variable 0-5 settings, and 8 1/4 inch 1960's American Optical Co Dagor lens. I have been shooting nature close-ups to infinity images, some architectural - urban to rural images, and working on portraits. The image is what its about.

[Peter Gomena]

I only used an 8x10 for a couple of years, but I found that a 300 and a 19" or 20" (can't remember precisely what it was) did me for most subjects. I never owned a wide-angle lens for it, couldn't fathom the cost.

[Luis-F-S]

Most used is the 12" Dagor followed by a 9 1/2" Dagor. Wide to a 6 1/2" WA Dagor then long to the 19 and 24" RD Artars.

[John Kasaian]

Most desired? That would be the Cooke XVa because Ansel had one, and the 19" Dagor f/7.7 because it's a Dagor and it has enough coverage to contain a Walmart parking lot. That's if most desired translates into what prices they demand from buyers. There are good reasons why cult lenses are highly regarded, but to dismiss more pedestrian long time industry workhorses just because Ansel didn't have one, or have the market cornered when it comes to some esoteric quality is, IMHO, just silly.

[ic-racer]

I have nearly the whole set of 80-degree Fujinon-W that cover 8x10. The 300, 250, 210, and 180. I don't know the current market, but when I first got into 8x10 these lenses could be had at bargain prices. For super wide I use an inexpensive Fujinon SW 125 and just crop a little when printing.

[Vaughn]

I have nearly the whole set of 80-degree Fujinon-W that cover 8x10. The 300, 250, 210, and 180. I don't know the current market, but when I first got into 8x10 these lenses could be had at bargain prices. For super wide I use an inexpensive Fujinon SW 125 and just crop a little when printing.
I have an older Fuji W 180mm -- inside lettering. I bought it as a long 4x5 or a short 5x7 lens. Will there be any movements possible on an 8x10 at infinity? I did not even think to check it for 8x10 coverage.

[Steve Goldstein]

The inside-lettering 180 has an image circle of 305mm at f/22, so it offers no practical movements on 8x10 at infinity.

[Vaughn]

The inside-lettering 180 has an image circle of 305mm at f/22, so it offers no practical movements on 8x10 at infinity.

Thanks! Tight for 8x10, but it sounds like the 180mm would work nicely for some 4x10 exposures! Now I just have to remember where I put that lens!

[Drew Wiley]

Unlike the Germans, Fuji tends to be a bit overly optimistic about how they calculate usable image circles. So even head-on, without any movements, I'd expect
some degradation towards the corners. Probably no big deal on a contact print, but there. Even my 180 Fuji A has an illumination circle bigger than 8x10 film;
but the corners are conspicuously mushy.

[Alan Gales]

Thanks! Tight for 8x10, but it sounds like the 180mm would work nicely for some 4x10 exposures! Now I just have to remember where I put that lens!

Vaughn, I've got the same lens but I haven't tried it on 8x10. Someone on here told me to try it straight on but I haven't yet. Might be good for 4x10.

[Ari]

The 180 W covers dead-on, I've used it that way a couple of times. But that doesn't make it an 8x10 lens.
Same goes for the 210 W, which covers 8x10 amply; when using it on 8x10, I find the entire image suffers in quality, not just the edges.

[faberryman]

The inside-lettering 180 has an image circle of 305mm at f/22, so it offers no practical movements on 8x10 at infinity.
Unless my math is wonky (a distinct possibility) the image circle for 8x10 is 327mm, so not only will there be no practical movements, it won't even cover 8x10 at f22.

[angusparker]

The 180 W covers dead-on, I've used it that way a couple of times. But that doesn't make it an 8x10 lens.
Same goes for the 210 W, which covers 8x10 amply; when using it on 8x10, I find the entire image suffers in quality, not just the edges.

312.5mm is usually considered the IC for 8x10



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drew Wiley]

Most of us routinely shoot 8x10 at smaller stops than f/22 anyway, more like f/45 to f/64; so that has to be taken into account. But any 180 general-purpose plasmat is going to be dicey at best.

[Ari]

Unless my math is wonky (a distinct possibility) the image circle for 8x10 is 327mm, so not only will there be no practical movements, it won't even cover 8x10 at f22.

I've owned a few lenses that were not supposed to cover 8x10, but did.
Most of them had smaller ICs than the Fuji 180W; for example, the Schneider SA 121mm, or 120mm.
IC in the 290s, but it covers 8x10 straight-on.

[Alan Gales]

I've owned a few lenses that were not supposed to cover 8x10, but did.
Most of them had smaller ICs than the Fuji 180W; for example, the Schneider SA 121mm, or 120mm.
IC in the 290s, but it covers 8x10 straight-on.

Ari, I've got the SA 121mm f/8 lens too. On 4x5 it mirrors my 250 on 8x10. Feels like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. I haven't tried it straight on with 8x10. It''s pretty wide!

I bought the thing off Ebay for about $175 shipped. I checked the shutter with my shutter speed tester and to my surprise it was accurate. What a bargain!

[Vaughn]

Most of us routinely shoot 8x10 at smaller stops than f/22 anyway, more like f/45 to f/64; so that has to be taken into account. But any 180 general-purpose plasmat is going to be dicey at best.
I won't take it on a long trip...but one of these days with 4x10 in the redwoods at less-than-infinity and f/64? The Zone VI 8x10 has plenty of rise/fall and shift to get the lens centered on the 4x10 section of film to be exposed. I already have a light little Wollei Graphic Raptor 210mm barrel lens that does cover 4x10 and 8x10 just fine...but shutters are so fine, though...

[Ari]

Ari, I've got the SA 121mm f/8 lens too. On 4x5 it mirrors my 250 on 8x10. Feels like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. I haven't tried it straight on with 8x10. It''s pretty wide!

I bought the thing off Ebay for about $175 shipped. I checked the shutter with my shutter speed tester and to my surprise it was accurate. What a bargain!

What a lens, eh? I keep mine on 4x5, but in a pinch it could work on 8x10.

[IanG]

What a lens, eh? I keep mine on 4x5, but in a pinch it could work on 8x10.

I'll keep using my 120mm f6,8 Dagor, it's so small amd light and overs 7x5 :D

Ian

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm not ashamed to admit that I like the lenses that our esteemed Jim Galli does not like. :) His work is nailed-down. I appreciate it very much, but differ.

A 14 3/4" fast(ish) lens I bought from Jim remains a favorite of mine for 8x10.

Edit: I'm through with lenses that have no shutter. Sure, my studio camera has a huge Packard shutter with sync, but I'm over it. Ma Faute!
.

[xkaes]

There are at least a dozen Fujinon lenses that might meet your needs. Check them out at

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/lensgraph.gif

Some are older, some newer, some hard to find, some easy.

[William Whitaker]

...
But, 8x10 is a different ballgame....

Yes, 8x10 is indeed a different ballgame. And that's part of what makes it so much fun!
8x10 was the "go to" format for so may years. And because of that there were many, many lenses designed for it. So today, those of us with a taste for the arcane and archaic enjoy a plethora of choices.

There are probably so many 14" lenses out there that you'd go nuts trying to count them all. In fact, after years of collecting, I ended up with so many [14" lenses] that I had to start getting rid of them. Alas, I do still regret selling that 36cm Heliar...:rolleyes: And yes, Heliars were made in focal lengths for 4x5. But it is in 8x10 that the Heliar seems to take on the persona that we love. That's the difference in the ballgame (at least the way I see it). The portrait lenses just don't mean the same in 4x5 for some reason...

But not just the portrait lenses. The commercial lenses, too, the ones which were designed to be semi-soft and flattering wide open and sharp closed down (so that the working stiff of a photographer might get by with the investment of just one lens and not a vault-full) were largely designed in focal lengths for 8x10. I refer to lenses like the Gundlach Radar. Take a look at the Portraits thread on this forum and you'll see what I mean. 8x10 is a different ballgame and it's a great one! The redoubtable Kodak Commercial Ektar is itself among that bunch. Yes, the prices of Ektars have risen over the last 20 years (what hasn't?), but it's still a bargain among lenses for the 8x10 and would be my recommendation for a solid 8x10 lens (if my opinion means anything. Ha!)

On a personal note, I have a Cooke f/6.3 Series XIV, purchased years ago from an esteemed member here, which I adore. A pleasing glow wide open, yet quite sharp stopped down, this lens makes me want to drag that 8x10 out and use it.

It's a great ballgame!

[Michael Kadillak]

8x10 is my go to format and although I have collected a broad array of options to consider, in the landscape West the 450m and the 600C get the most usage. Mid distance the 355 G Claron is the go to lens because of the enormous coverage for movements and the razor sharpness. Macro it is usually the 240mm Doctor or the 355 G Claron. I have two 12" lenses and it has been years since I have taken them out of the case. Keep them around just in case just like the 30" Red Dot.

[neil poulsen]

I must say, this has been a really interesting thread. Given some of the limitations of needing such a large image circle for 8x10, it shows how many have explored the "corners" of the available lens space. I look forward to visiting some of these corners.

The 250mm f6.7 is my standard lens in that focal length, if for no other reason, because of it's size. But, it's a great 8x10 lens. However, other "inside lettering" lenses kind of escaped my notice. The discussion of the 180mm Fujinon (inside lettering) was interesting. While it's pretty thin on 8x10, if I become more involved in 5x7, I'll get this lens. It's inexpensive, and it's pretty easy to find. I think that I'll also keep my eye peeled for an "inside lettering," 300mm Fuji.

Another 300mm lens that occurs to me is a convertible Symmar. It's my understanding that, because of their construction, they can be stopped-down for additional coverage more effectively than say, a Symmar-S.

Perhaps because of some of the image circle challenges, I feel that 8x10 is more for fine-art, landscape, or portrait photography. This works fine, because 4x5 is always available for more "logistical" photography, like architecture. With that said, it would be interesting to hear what Ezra Stoller might have said in this conversation. His architectural work using an 8x10 is amazing.

Given my brief experience with an 8x20 I was "inspired" to purchase during 2015, I found examples of a 355mm G-Claron that I bought from Kerry, a 450mm M, and a 600C. The 600C was sheer luck, as I otherwise, could never have afforded the cost. I happened to stumble across one for $1000, when I also had some extra room on my credit card. So, I have a nice spread. But, I see that there are some other avenues to explore as well.

Thanks for all the input.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

At first I only had the Nikkor 300 mm M and that was the only lens I used for big project. I carried a Temba shoulder bag with the Tachihara 8x10" folded, the lens + 3 holders. Then I added the 250 6,7 Fujinon and the Nikkor 45O M. Later I got the Schneider 150 XL and the Fujinon 600 C. When you have a long lens like the 600 mm you need a big Ries tripod. At the beginning I could run around with my one lens 8x10" kit, now I need a station wagon and an assistant when shooting the big format.

[stawastawa]

I desire to browse this selection of lenses

159430

[Jim Galli]

I desire to browse this selection of lenses

I need to send the little green men to that chap's house.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I desire to browse this selection of lenses

159430

I have one that looks rather like the lens by his left hand.
.

[Corran]

I need to shoot 8x10 more. 4x5 is so much easier for hiking that I default to it, and with good technique and my Cezanne the resolution increase from 8x10 IMO is practically nil when shot 2-3 stops smaller for DOF concerns.

That said my Nikkor 120mm f/8 is probably my most-used lens, or equally used has been my Graphic Kowa 210mm f/9. I have been favoring more normal lately so 210/300 probably will be more common now in my new environment.

Most desired? I really would love to try a 75mm Hypergon on a custom P&S style camera. Probably not going to happen unless I luck into one at an estate/garage sale, but that's how I've gotten a lot of rare stuff so you never know. Would be better in the swamps than the mountains I think though. I could probably shoot nothing but ultrawides in the swamps of Florida and be happy.

[Luis-F-S]

The Lens stash................159445
Most used on 8x10: 12" Golden Dagor, 9 1/2" Golden Dagor, 6 1/2" WA Dagor, 16 1/2", 19", 24" & 30" Artar.
On 5x7: 9 1/2" Golden Dagor, 8 1/4 Golden Dagor, 4 3/8" WA Dagor, 14" 19" Artar.
on 4x5: 8 1/2", 6" Golden Dagor, 4 3/8" Dagor, 9 1/2", 12", 14", 16 1/2", 19" Artars.

[Luis-F-S]

I have one that looks rather like the lens by his left hand.
.

Makes a great door stop doesn't it? I think I have one too!

[John Kasaian]

My current most used for the 8x10 'dorff:

240 Schneider G Claron----Lightweight, and in a modern shutter plus takes common size screw in filters from my Nikon SLR. It's small enough to ride inside the 'dorff with the lens board reversed, qualities I find most advantageous for hiking. Very sharp, too.

250 Kodak WF Ektar----A lovely lens with a huge image circle, great for architecture as well as portraits, IMHO. Fast enough for low light photography.

12" Goerz Dagor----Hey, it's a Dagor! Like the G Claron it is small enough to stow aboard the camera.

14" Commercial Ektar----Another lovely lens with a huge image circle and fast enough for low light.

19" Goerz Red Dot Artar----the long lens in my kit. Very sharp! This one also fits in situ in the 'dorff.

I've collected some others over the years, but these are my most used.

[neil poulsen]

I need to send the little green men to that chap's house.

I wonder how they might print on orthochromatic film? :)

[Jim Noel]

MY most used lens on 8x10 is 10 3/4" Dagor. Coming in second is the 14" Dagor. The 12" Dagor stays in the case most of the time. The 19"Artar gets a little use. Other than these I use my no name,shutterless brass lenses usually.

[Alan Gales]

I own three 8x10 lenses: Fujinon 250mm f/6.7, 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar and 19" Red Dot Artar. My most used is my 14" Commercial Ektar.

If I win the lottery I'd like to try out a Cooke Triple Convertible, a 14" Dagor and a 14" Heliar.

[DG 3313]

I've owned a few lenses that were not supposed to cover 8x10, but did.
Most of them had smaller ICs than the Fuji 180W; for example, the Schneider SA 121mm, or 120mm.
IC in the 290s, but it covers 8x10 straight-on.

The lens I use the most on 8x10 is not even supposed to cover the format.....APO Symmar 210 5.6 @ F-22 or F-32.

[xkaes]

The Fujinon W 180mm covers 8X10 as well as many of their longer lenses. I would not call it SUPER wide, but it's pretty wide. It has an 80 degree angle of coverage! There is a chart/graphic at:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/fujigraph.htm

[premortho]

Probably 90% of my LF work is done on 5X7. But I use the 8X10 Rochester Commercial View occasionally. I have two lenses for it. One is a Russian version of a Zeiss which is too heavy for my camera. So,in reality, I only have a Turner-Reich triple convertable in 12, 21, and 28, which has a Packard Shutter controlling exposure. The Packard is an IBT shutter.

[jaytral]

the most used: Commercial Ektar 6.3 12"
the most loved: Universal Heliar 4.5 300mm

[Steven Tribe]

I am surprised you recommend the 30cm Universal Heliar (which I have) for 8x10 as the catalogues say the 36cm is the right lens for this size. But Voigtlander may be being anal and the corresponding Cooke soft F4.5 lengths are given better coverage.

[jaytral]

Yes Steven, I know Voigt data say 30cm Universal Heliar is for 16x21cm. I used Universal Heliar 36cm until I check by myself coverage for 8x10 at portrait distance with 30cm. And I assume there is no vignetting. And so now, the UH36 was sold and I use the lighter and smaller UH30 with a front mounting Gitzo shutter

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg167/harry_crews/Univ%20Heliar%2030%20Gitzo%20shutter_zpswpv8onht.jpg

[Armin Seeholzer]

My most used is the 155mm Grandagon f 6.8 just in front of the Sinaron SE 240mm f 5.6 for landscapes and architectures 3. Nikkor SW 120mm !
For portraits the Universal Heliar 360mm f 4.5 and 2. the 480mm f 4.5 Schneider Xenar 3. 300mm Zeiss Jena Tessar f 4.5

Amen!!

[William Whitaker]

The Lens stash................159445


At you, Luis... ;)

I posted this image several years ago (2007?...)
159770

Don't ask me what they are...

[RSalles]

Will,

Don't underestimate the weight over this table!
The other day I had the idea to lift a small furniture used only for the lenses, and I was surprised by its weights - even having much less lenses in there then you do,

Cheers,

Renato

[cplkao]

On 8x10 I shoot portrait on paper negative and wet plate so uses barrel lens with lens cap shutter,
at the moment I am shooting with a 330mm/f3.6 Liesegang Anastigmat lens, and moving up to a Euryscope Portrait lens soon.

159773

I would love to have a Cooke XVA or Universal Heliar or Commercial Ektar or Dallmeyer 3B/4A!

[valdormar]

This is all I use on my Deardorff 8x10 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-Large-Format-camera!&p=1344925&viewfull=1#post1344925).
Kodak Wide Field Ektar 10" = "1948"
Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" = "1947"
161770

[John Kasaian]

This is all I use on my Deardorff 8x10 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-Large-Format-camera!&p=1344925&viewfull=1#post1344925).
Kodak Wide Field Ektar 10" = "1948"
Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" = "1947"
161770
Thats a nice brace of Rochester lenses you got there!

[valdormar]

Thats a nice brace of Rochester lenses you got there!

Thanks John, The only other lens I would like to own for my Deardorff 8x10 is the Kodak Portrait Lens 16".

[Daniel Unkefer]

From my days as a practicing Architectural Photographer:

121mm F8 Schneider Super Angulon (covers 8x10 when forward-focused)
165mm F8 Schneider Super Angulon
240mm F5.6 Schneider Symmar
300mm F5.6 Schneider Symmar
360mm F5.6 Schneider Symmar
480mm F9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar
600mm F9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar
590mm F9 Zeiss Apo Planar
790mm F11 Rodenstock Apo Ronar

All used on 8x10 Sinar Normas with Sinar Norma Shutter

[mat4226]

Here are the 8x10 lenses I use in the field, in order from most often to least often:

250mm Fujinon-W f/6.7
150mm Schneider Super Symmar-XL f/5.6
355mm Schneider G-Claron f/9
600mm Nikkor T-ED f/9
800mm Nikkor T-ED f/12
121mm Schneider Super Angulon f/8

[Luis-F-S]

I probably use mostly:

12" Dagor
9 1/2" Dagor
19" Artar
6 1/2 WA Dagor

[Greg]

After reading this thread, went back to try two of my lenses on my 8x10. My 180mm f/5.6 FUJINON-W and my 210mm f/5.6 Nikkor W which up to today I was only using on my Whole Plate camera. Manufacturer's published coverage specs on both these lenses indicates they should not cover 8x10. Shot both stopped down to f/64. To my surprise both lenses fully covered the 8x10 format and with some movements even possible. The image quality was excellent in the corners. I also assumed that by stopping down to f/64 I should see some loss of sharpness due to diffraction... I really didn't see any loss.

[Cor]

greg,

This was judged on contact prints, or..?

Best,

Cor

After reading this thread, went back to try two of my lenses on my 8x10. My 180mm f/5.6 FUJINON-W and my 210mm f/5.6 Nikkor W which up to today I was only using on my Whole Plate camera. Manufacturer's published coverage specs on both these lenses indicates they should not cover 8x10. Shot both stopped down to f/64. To my surprise both lenses fully covered the 8x10 format and with some movements even possible. The image quality was excellent in the corners. I also assumed that by stopping down to f/64 I should see some loss of sharpness due to diffraction... I really didn't see any loss.

[Greg]

greg,

This was judged on contact prints, or..?

Best,

Cor

12.5" x 16.5" LED light board

Initially use a large Horseman Precision Lupe 4X

Image evaluations done with a Peak Optics SKS Stand Microscope 25x
http://www.peakoptics.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=136

Attached image (rough scan) shows what i shot with the 210mm Nikkor.

Negatives shot with an 8x10 Sinar Norma on a Linhof Heavy Duty tripod. With the Sinar I know the standards are parallel and in alignment, and with The Linhof Heavy Duty tripod know vibration not to be a factor. I shoot all my lens test images from the covered porch of our town's museum. Building and porch were part of the Collins Co. factory complex and industrial strength. Building protects me from the wind. Focus is on the stop sign probably 60 feet away. Bricks of building on the upper right of the negative great for judging sharpness. Lettering in window of building behind the stop sign great for judging diffraction. Branches in upper left great for judging how the lens records "nature".

I ID my negatives by noting cars passing through the intersection... simple and foolproof.

Ilford FP4+ processed in Rodinal in JOBO tanks.

Don't like to compare contact prints cause I don't have a contact printer with a vacuum frame.

Once the weather warms up a bit up here in New England, will shoot with same lenses on an 11x14 which should show me their actual coverage.

thanks for asking

Greg

[neil poulsen]

greg,

This was judged on contact prints, or..?

Best,

Cor

This is what interests me. I've asked in the past, and it appears to me that claims of huge image circles for these lenses, for the Computar f9's, Kowa Graphics, etc., are for contact prints. But, I wonder how some of these claims would fair if an 8x10 image were enlarged?

Of course, making claims only for contact 8x10 prints is certainly legitimate, given their acceptable viewing size and their prominence. But I suspect most mfg image circle claims take into account some degree of enlargement. (Not sure what? Is there a standard?)

[Dan Fromm]

Neil, if there are standards for measuring coverage they're not in the common language. When posters here talk about circle covered some mean circle illuminated, whatever that means, others mean circle with adequate image quality at the edges, whatever that means. Both concepts have room for ambiguity.

In addition, what sellers mean by "covers" isn't always what users mean. The clearest case is that of a person who posted here and sold on eBay as landarc. landard sold 180/6.8 Dagors on eBay with the claim that they covered 8x10, started a long and hilarious discussion here with a complaint that his 180/6.8 Dagor didn't cover 8x10.

At one time I thought that a lens maker would apply the same coverage standard to all of its lenses. I can't prove it. For example, Rodenstock seems to have used an MTF-based standard to estimate coverage. Coverage stops where the MTF at some resolution or other is low, whatever that means. Then I looked in some Rodenstock brochures. The Apo-Ronar brochure shows, for example, MTFs that are high and don't decline much across the field for, e.g., 1000/16 and 1200/16 Apo-Ronar CLs, MTFs that drop nearly to zero at the edge for, e.g., 480/9 and 600/9 Apo-Ronar CLs. The 75/4 Apo-Rodagon-D's MTF curves are very high and very flat across the field; I've had one, b'lieve that a field stop limited coverage, i.e., IIRC the lens put no image outside of the circle R'stock claimed it covered.

There's a semi-standard about what constitutes sharpness in the final print. ~ 8 lp/mm at reasonable, whatever that means, contrast. Assuming a perfect enlarging lens, and how much the negative is going to be enlarged its easy to calculate what this means for resolution in the negative.

ULF is often contact printed, but not always. For example, Clyde Butcher prints enormous from 11x14. I've been to his Big Cypress shop, noticed that the subjects in his prints' corners have little detail. That's one way to finesse a lens' lack of coverage (in the sharpness at the edges of the circle sense). People who post images here to show their lenses huge coverage often do the same.

Sharpness is considerably overrated. It can be quantified, so is easy to pay attention to. Some of my most effective prints are soft all over. Strong image can beat fuzz. Sometimes.

[Greg]

This is what interests me. I've asked in the past, and it appears to me that claims of huge image circles for these lenses, for the Computar f9's, Kowa Graphics, etc., are for contact prints. But, I wonder how some of these claims would fair if an 8x10 image were enlarged?

Of course, making claims only for contact 8x10 prints is certainly legitimate, given their acceptable viewing size and their prominence. But I suspect most mfg image circle claims take into account some degree of enlargement. (Not sure what? Is there a standard?)

For me am more and more making Digital Negatives for printing on Printing Platinum/Palladium. I have been making the Digital negatives based on Dan Burkholder's The New inkjet Negative Companion including a step tablet to the side of the image. This allows me to crop and enlarge the initial image. For me I base my criteria of judging my negatives for sharpness with the assumption that I will be able to reproduce the image by 200%. This is one reason I do not judge the performance of my lenses by making contact prints. After some practical tests, I know how much sharpness the negatives must have to be possibly "enlarged" by 200%. Most measurements for coverage listed by manufacturers is for f/22. My maximum enlargement of 200% allows me to stop down to f/64 with my lenses of 180mm and longer and this gives me greater coverage measurements.

Recently did a lot of research for a second time on Computer f/9s, Kowa Graphics, etc. and decided not to go in that direction. Seems like there were several undocumented changes in the generations of these lenses, plus they seem to command rather high prices now. Only had a chance to try one of these optics long time ago, and my particular sample did not cover 11x14 even though I know of others using the "same" lens on 11x14 and experienced full coverage.

Really great source of info is in "The use of Historic Lenses in Contemporary Photography" by Paul Lipscomb.

Would also love to know the answer to your question: "Is there a standard?" So far it's alluded me....

[Luis-F-S]

Sharpness is considerably overrated. It can be quantified, so is easy to pay attention to. Some of my most effective prints are soft all over.

+1!!! The less experience, the sharper they want the lens they buy to be! :confused: L

[Greg]

Agree with Dan Fromm's longish very well done post. I once worked with a photographer (also a RIT graduate like I), who used to test his aerial lenses by shooting USAF lens test charts from 12 feet away, but then went to actually used his equipment shooting from planes.

"The human eye generally is considered to have a resolution of 10 to 14 lines/mm at a viewing distance of 10 in." Page 117 from Stroebel's VIEW CAMERA TECHNIQUE

[neil poulsen]

I think my comments are more muse than pointed discussion. Summarizing, I generally feel comfortable with mfg specs, which I think must assume some degree of enlargement. With some notable exceptions (e.g. G-Claron?), they seem to work in practice.