PDA

View Full Version : fun, fast lens for 8x10 that won't break the bank?



scathontiphat
20-Jan-2018, 22:52
Pretty new to the world of large format lenses. I'm putting together my first 8x10 kit, and have picked up a Rodenstock Sironar-N MC 360mm f/6.8 as my main workhorse to start with. But I also very much like the work of Sally Mann in Immediate Family, and was wondering if anybody had suggestions for lenses to look for that are more in the lo-fi category. I still want it to be sharp in the center, prefer big apertures, but happy for it to vignette and go mushy towards the edges. I liked the look of Peztvals when i did a wet-plate class many years ago, but it would appear that the price of Petzvals take it out of the bargain-bin category these days. Any suggestions? my version of budget friendly is <$300. how are the Xenar 300mm f3.5 and f4.5s? thanks!!

mdarnton
21-Jan-2018, 06:38
The Wollensak Velostigmat 300/4.5 was available in a soft focus version, which was sharp until you crank out the front element and it becomes progressively softer. They show up on Ebay regularly and are within your price range. Basically, it's the same lens as the Xenar, but uncoated. Being a normal lens for 8x10, of high quality. it won't give you the vignetted, falling-apart-at-the-edges Sally Mann look, though, and neither will the Xenar. Perhaps using one that's too short for the format will make you happy, though, in which case I might start with an old 165mm Wollensak (probably around $70 on Ebay). Unlike modern lenses, these Tessar-format lenses get crummy at the edge, beyond their spec'd format, before the image circle runs out, and that test would be within your budget.

For her look, you might look for a projection lens designed for a smaller format than 8x10, then figure out what to use as a shutter. I like Packard shutters a lot, myself, so don't write them off.

Another option is fitting a close-up accessory lens to a spare shutter. I have two old shutters that fit 49mm and 58mm close-up lenses, and a set of either runs about $15 on Ebay. That's not the Sally Mann look either, but it's cool. On LF, because the relative diameter of the lens is small, the effect won't be extreme--go check out the flickr.com monacle group-- https://www.flickr.com/groups/monocle_lens/pool -- for some examples on 35mm format, which is more extreme. Reinhold makes the exotic version of this, faster than you can hang on a small shutter, with therefore a greater effect, for LF. I have two, and they're well worth the cost: http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html

John Kasaian
21-Jan-2018, 07:37
I haven't shopped for a lens in quite awhile so I'm not up on prices. Maybe a Rapid Rectilinear will fill the bill?

OKAROB
21-Jan-2018, 07:48
John, have you looked at the Fujinon 300mm L lens. The are a Tessar type lens and are usually reasonably priced compared to the plasmat cousins. The come in copal 3s shutters, so they are not the lightest lenses, they are quite a good lens.

Robert

renditiont
21-Jan-2018, 14:39
Leitz Hektor 300mm f2.8, 4-element with multi-coating and razor sharp . I found mine for $150 but sometimes it can be had for under $100.

Greg
21-Jan-2018, 15:22
The Wollensak Velostigmat 300/4.5 was available in a soft focus version, which was sharp until you crank out the front element and it becomes progressively softer. They show up on Ebay regularly and are within your price range. Basically, it's the same lens as the Xenar, but uncoated. Being a normal lens for 8x10, of high quality. it won't give you the vignetted, falling-apart-at-the-edges Sally Mann look, though, and neither will the Xenar. Perhaps using one that's too short for the format will make you happy, though, in which case I might start with an old 165mm Wollensak (probably around $70 on Ebay). Unlike modern lenses, these Tessar-format lenses get crummy at the edge, beyond their spec'd format, before the image circle runs out, and that test would be within your budget.

For her look, you might look for a projection lens designed for a smaller format than 8x10, then figure out what to use as a shutter. I like Packard shutters a lot, myself, so don't write them off.

Another option is fitting a close-up accessory lens to a spare shutter. I have two old shutters that fit 49mm and 58mm close-up lenses, and a set of either runs about $15 on Ebay. That's not the Sally Mann look either, but it's cool. On LF, because the relative diameter of the lens is small, the effect won't be extreme--go check out the flickr.com monacle group-- https://www.flickr.com/groups/monocle_lens/pool -- for some examples on 35mm format, which is more extreme. Reinhold makes the exotic version of this, faster than you can hang on a small shutter, with therefore a greater effect, for LF. I have two, and they're well worth the cost: http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html

My first 8x10 lens was a Wollensak Velostigmat 300/4.5 with variable diffusion, though back then never used the diffusion option. In a Betax that broke down a cou[ple of times but was able to repair it in the field, they are very simple shutters IMO. Sold it in the 1980s. Few years back picked up another 12" Velostigmat but without the variable diffusion ring. With the Betax being self cocking, I have in the past shot 1/3 of the total exposure wide open and the other 2/3 of the total exposure stopped down all the way to f/64... Only downside to this optic is that you get a lot of flare when shooting snow scenes in the winter with direct sunlight falling on the subject, problem seems to go away on a cloudy day, but then also specular highlights in the snow go away.

As for Projection lenses recommend red Buhl lenses. On my full plate use a 8.5" f/3.4 and a 9" f/2.5. Probably they also would cover 8x10 but not sure. Since they have no aperture (or shutter), I use a x10 ND filter to get the exposures doable using a dark slide in front of the lens.

I think the best all around lens is a brass lens with a double meniscus and a rotating ring with different aperture openings. If you're lucky, you can find one and with hot glue, mount it in front of a inexpensive Polaroid Copal shutter. Am now adapting one to a Polaroid shutter to be able to use the iris in the shutter. Again won't come close to "breaking the bank", especially if the brass is generic and not labeled with any writings. For 8x10 my brass lens with a double meniscus is about 9" in focal length.

Pere Casals
22-Jan-2018, 12:19
how are the Xenar 300mm f3.5 and f4.5s? thanks!!

Not a large circle, but nice results:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/24836092967/sizes/k/

That image is very nice, with powerful depth sensation...

Xenar it is a good lens, but probably you may stop at 5.6 to have some dof.

It's not the lens... it's you. If you have a sharp lens you can obtain a soft focus just unscreewing some tours the front cell, using an (uncut) eyeglass round lens as it was a filter, of blowing humidity to a front filter... also you can use a front cap with a hole to get an swirl...