210mm for 8x10" [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Tim V

12-Feb-2018, 23:33

Hi all,

I've done some searching and read the spreadsheets here and various other places, but what are peoples opinions on 210mm lens options for 8x10"?

I'm used to shooting wide on 4x5" (I like 90mm, but slightly tighter is okay too), and all the lenses I've used in that format have had tons of IC for big movements. In 8x10" it seems that IC is a problem with wide lenses, at least in terms of what I'm used to. I like to shoot in tight spaces, with a lot of front rise.

What do people think with regards to the best performing lens of this focal length that isn't going to cost me a fortune, but also gives generous room for movements? Does anything actually exist that fits this bill, or am I essentially limited to 240mm lenses?

Thanks,

Tim

Corran

13-Feb-2018, 00:53

210mm Graphic Kowa is a good choice. They used to be available around $500 but I haven't kept up with the market. There's some discussion on these on the forum, and you'll find that there is some controversy on just how large the IC is. I haven't ever been able to max out the rise on my cameras with the Graphic Kowa, and unless you are doing something totally crazy I think you'll be fine - if you need more IC the Computar lens may have a bit more, but is a lot more expensive.

I don't know anything else in the same league, at that focal length.

Tim V

13-Feb-2018, 02:19

Thanks for the reply. It does indeed seem a hard act in 8x10" capture to get a good lens of this focal length with good IC for movements. The price for the lenses with massive IC is appropriately massive – like the digital tech lenses I've been using with digital MF capture. I'll have to keep an eye out for a Graphic Kowa or Computar F9.

If anyone else has suggestions, throw them out there! Even if it's a shorter lens, I'd like to hear of other options worth thinking about.

Pere Casals

13-Feb-2018, 03:12

210 Super-Angulon are sold around 1000€, 500mm circle.

this is a search for sold items https://www.ebay.es/sch/i.html?LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=Super-Angulon%09+210&rt=nc&LH_PrefLoc=2

Grandagon N 200 is another classic choice, harder to find, I guess.

Kowa and Computar circles:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87491-210mm-f-9-Graphic-Kowa-Image-Circle&p=851877&viewfull=1#post851877

dentkimterry

13-Feb-2018, 05:14

The early Fujinon 210mm W or WS models have 352 IC. These are the ones with the writing on the inside of the lens barrel not the outside. They are suprisingly inexpensive.

John Layton

13-Feb-2018, 05:28

I don't shoot a lot of 8x10 (tend to go smaller or larger)...but my guess is that if this were an alternate universe - with LF camera/lens/film R+D and manufacturing still active and evolving (would be amazing!) that there would be great options for compact wides to moderate wides for all formats.

Michael Graves

13-Feb-2018, 06:05

The Fujinon that Dentkimterry mentions give moderate room for movements. I own one and like it very much. Another lens that comes up at an affordable price from time to time is the 8 3/4" Dagor. Wide open it barely covers, but stopped down to f22 it has about the same image circle as the Fuji. I haven't used the Gold-Rim Dagor, but I understand it has even better coverage, although that can be quite pricey.

John Kasaian

13-Feb-2018, 06:31

The 210 G Claron covers 8x10. Not a lot of wiggle room though it is small and lightweight compared to a Super Angulon.

Myriophyllum

13-Feb-2018, 06:41

Hi, some more:
Schneider-Kreuznach Super-Symmar HM 5.6/210mm; IC 356mm
Schneider-Kreuznach Super-Symmar XL 5.6/210mm; IC 500mm
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-W 5.6/210mm; IC 352mm

Best
Jens

Greg

13-Feb-2018, 07:36

Up to last year was using a 210mm Fujinon-W S with inside lettering. Then acquired a 210mm f/5.6 Nikkor W with outside lettering (think all 210mm Nikkor W's had outside lettering, but not sure). Both have 6 elements in 4 groups, but diameter of the front element of the Nikkor is larger and drawings of cross sections of the 2 lenses differ a little. Shot 8x10s with both at f/45 on center, and I couldn't see any differences in both negatives. Have to shoot with both off center and see which one covers more. In the meantime prefer the Nikkor but can't tell you exactly why.

angusparker

13-Feb-2018, 08:10

The Fujinon with inside lettering only has a little room for movements - you have to be careful not to vignette but its fast, smallish, and cheap - what’s not to like about that. The next step up is the Computar/Kowa Graphic f9 at least in terms of coverage and small size. Love to get my hands on a 210 SSXL but those are very pricey. Better to go wider and get the 150 SSXL IMHO at least for 8x10.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

neil poulsen

13-Feb-2018, 08:29

. . . I'm used to shooting wide on 4x5" (I like 90mm, but slightly tighter is okay too), and all the lenses I've used in that format have had tons of IC for big movements. In 8x10" it seems that IC is a problem with wide lenses, at least in terms of what I'm used to. I like to shoot in tight spaces, with a lot of front rise. . . .

I have both 8x10 and 4x5, and I wrestled with a similar issue. But, it occurred to me that 8x10 is better suited to a different kind of image and photograph, something more towards fine-art. I feel that wide-angle lenses are less relevant for this kind of photography.

Why have two cameras that can do exactly the same thing?

When needed, a Fujinon 250mm f6.7 is plenty wide and has quite a lot of movement for 8x10.

karl french

13-Feb-2018, 08:53

Bernice Loui

13-Feb-2018, 09:20

Inherent difficulty with 8x10, good wide angle lenses. Modern variety are BIG, Pricy and now not so easy to get likely due to demand.

The 210mm Graphic Kowa is a good choice,it is small and covers OK. They were offered in Copal# 1 shutter.
174689
This one was once owned by Morley Bear, he used it on 8x10.

210mm Angulon is another good choice.
Modern wide angles in this focal length are BIG, 210mm Super Angulon, 200mm Grandagon..

Other vintage alternatives 10" Kodak Wide Field Ektar.
Know the difference between image circle of illumination -vs- image circle of designed in definition. A given lens might illuminate the film area, it's image quality at the corners could be poor.

Bernice

ic-racer

13-Feb-2018, 16:29

Corran

13-Feb-2018, 16:31

...something more towards fine-art. I feel that wide-angle lenses are less relevant for this kind of photography.

Wide-angles are not for fine-art photography??? Huh?

Bernice Loui

13-Feb-2018, 20:31

This image art?
https://hopanseladams15.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/piedritas.jpg

One needs to question the intent of, "But, it occurred to me that 8x10 is better suited to a different kind of image and photograph, something more towards fine-art. I feel that wide-angle lenses are less relevant for this kind of photography."

Better to view any camera, lens or other imaging system as nothing more than an artistic tool as a means of artistic expression.

Bernice

I have both 8x10 and 4x5, and I wrestled with a similar issue. But, it occurred to me that 8x10 is better suited to a different kind of image and photograph, something more towards fine-art. I feel that wide-angle lenses are less relevant for this kind of photography.

AJ Edmondson

14-Feb-2018, 07:07

My favorite was the 210 Angulon. For my taste the Angulons just produced beautiful image tones - neither flat nor harsh. The 210 Angulons are hard to find but for coverage they are hard to beat.
Joel

Ari

14-Feb-2018, 07:14

210mm is a great focal length on 8x10. Honestly, I think it is an essential part of a good 8x10 shooting outfit (I mostly use normal and 1.5x lenses.) Really the Computar/Graphic Kowa 210 is the best performer in the smallest package. If you can find one in a shutter for a fair price $400-500 you should be pleased. I've had more than one, but like the personality of the 21cm Angulon better. So that's what I stuck with. Done the 210 G-Claron and 8 1/4 Dagor route as well. The G-Claron is tight on 8x10 (as is the 210 Apo-Sironar W), the 8 1/4 Dagor does a better job, but my Angulon is a bit sharper and coated.

If you shoot 8x10 long enough you'll end up trying just about every 210 out there. It's a perpetual quest to find the best combination of performance/size/price in this focal length.

Couldn't agree more, and I've tried every semi-affordable 210 out there.
I should have scooped up a 210XL when they were more plentiful, but I've sort of settled on a Computar f9, until I win the lottery, of course, and could then afford the XL.
Tim, do a forum search, because this topic comes up regularly, and there may be some good info hidden in the older pages.

Bernice Loui

14-Feb-2018, 10:04

Not so sure the SSXL is absolutely "better" than Angulon after more than two decades of ownership of the 150mm SSXL and 165mm Angulon and images made. Yes, the SSXL produces very etched, high contrast, well defined images on film, but the Angulon or Dagor continues to have a smoother overall image rendition than the SSXL.

The SSXL is a LOT bigger, bulkier and heavier than the Angulon or WA Dagor, yet these vintage gems continues to produce very pleasing images.

During a image sharing event some years ago, one of the artist (Karl) displayed a B&W print image we made during a group trip. One look at that finished print screamed to me that image was made with a Dagor, Karl confirmed this was so.

At this point, I'm going to flat refuse to believe the modern SSXL is clearly superior to the Angulon or it's Dagor variants. Much a different tool and means of expression rather than competitive better than the other.

Your Results Will Vary.

Bernice

Couldn't agree more, and I've tried every semi-affordable 210 out there.
I should have scooped up a 210XL when they were more plentiful, but I've sort of settled on a Computar f9, until I win the lottery, of course, and could then afford the XL.
Tim, do a forum search, because this topic comes up regularly, and there may be some good info hidden in the older pages.

DrTang

14-Feb-2018, 10:20

a lil longer..but I do like my 250 WFE...it's plenty wide for me and has a load of room

Drew Wiley

14-Feb-2018, 11:18

I avoid the whole dilemma by using a 240. Plenty wide for me on 8X10.

DolphinDan

14-Feb-2018, 11:53

IGOR'S CAMERA EXCHANGE currently has a Schneider ANGULON 210mm f6.8 lens for $595 (I have no connection with IGOR'S other than occasionally buying lenses and film holders from them):

http://www.igorcamera.com/schneider_large_format_lenses.htm

Much less than I paid for my 210mm SS XL and probably a heck of a lot lighter!

Daniel

Tim V

14-Feb-2018, 12:22

Thanks for the heads up regarding the Angulon. That seems like a good price... Unfortunately, I'm waiting to purchase a lens after my camera has come back from service. Think it better to keep some money in reserve just in case there are any surprises...

So it seems there are some good options for 210mm lenses out there, and some are not badly priced. My take away from this is that considering the size, I'm most interested in a Computar F9 but would appreciate the extra IC of the Angulon.

It had crossed my mind to just settle for a good 240mm lens, but I think I'd get frustrated fast. I'm used to seeing a bit wider.

Corran

14-Feb-2018, 12:52

Let me reiterate that I have never been able to hit the edge of the IC with my Graphic Kowa, when testing max rise on my camera. I keep meaning to put it on my 8x20 to measure it but haven't. I also have never had qualms with its performance - I even had a 40x30 print made from one negative that really showed the performance possible.

I do wish I had a 210SSXL but only for 8x20!

brucetaylor

14-Feb-2018, 13:20

As I think you can glean from the great responses here, what you plan to photograph and the look you want to have are going to be factors in making your lens choice. I like to do landscape and portrait work with 8x10, neither of which calls for a lot of movements (so image circle in general isn't that big a concern for me). I also like the look from older lenses. I've been happy with my 8 1/4 Dagor and the more modern 210mm Fuji, neither of which was very expensive.

Drew Wiley

14-Feb-2018, 13:33

210 G Claron is affordable and OK if you don't use significant movements.

Armin Seeholzer

14-Feb-2018, 15:11

I use a Konica GRII at 210mm its very cool lens with much covering power!

Ari

14-Feb-2018, 16:16

Not so sure the SSXL is absolutely "better" than Angulon after more than two decades of ownership of the 150mm SSXL and 165mm Angulon and images made. Yes, the SSXL produces very etched, high contrast, well defined images on film, but the Angulon or Dagor continues to have a smoother overall image rendition than the SSXL.

The SSXL is a LOT bigger, bulkier and heavier than the Angulon or WA Dagor, yet these vintage gems continues to produce very pleasing images.

During a image sharing event some years ago, one of the artist (Karl) displayed a B&W print image we made during a group trip. One look at that finished print screamed to me that image was made with a Dagor, Karl confirmed this was so.

At this point, I'm going to flat refuse to believe the modern SSXL is clearly superior to the Angulon or it's Dagor variants. Much a different tool and means of expression rather than competitive better than the other.

Your Results Will Vary.

Bernice

Your point is well taken, however...
When I reach for a 210 on 8x10, it's usually to shoot a structure of some kind, and for those, I like having the XL's clinical contrast and sharpness.
What's more, every time I use a 210, I quickly run out of room. It may be my way of working with the camera, the subjects I choose, I don't know, but I always run out of IC, and quickly.
My favourite 210 was a beautiful Sironar-W, IC of ~352mm (similar to the Angulon), and I had to sell it because dealing with the limited IC was frustrating.
The Computar is much better in that respect, I very rarely run out of IC, but image quality is not on the same level as the Rodenstock.

Randy

14-Feb-2018, 17:12

The Agfa Repromaster...I think it is 213mm, has loads of coverage, is very sharp and usually inexpensive...I think I paid less than $100 for mine...but...it doesn't come in a shutter. It's my wide lens for my 8X10.

Greg

14-Feb-2018, 17:19

One might also consider a 200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT. I bought the lens in a barrel mount to use on my 11x14. The image it projected so impressed me, that I ended up buying a new Copal #3 shutter and had S K Grimes mount the optic in it. Covers 11x14 with a very little bit of movement possible. When used it on my 8x10, allows for a lot of movement. Believe it was coated by B&J at one time but only educated speculation on my part. The image it projects is very much akin to a Dagor but with a bit more contrast.

Bernice Loui

14-Feb-2018, 20:14

210mm SSXL available, add cubic $.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pho/d/schneider-210mm-xl/6462745197.html

Note: 100 degrees.

IMO, very hight price for any LF optic. Back in the 8x10 days the sought after modern 200mm would be the 200mm Grandagon. This is a very good lens, very BIG, very heavy, very pricy, BIG image circle of 495mm at F22, 100 degrees. It does produce that modern WA etch-high contrast look that similar modern WA lenses do. Having been there done this what would be the post process image system that can truly take advantage of this optic today?

The other similar optic, 210mm Super Angulon, 500mm image circle at f22, 100 degrees.

Either lens will likely run the camera out of movement before running out of image circle for 8x10.

How many folks have a good 8x10 enlarger (Durst 184) and large print processing facility to utilize 8x10 film to it's best advantage? Size, bulk, weight and more all goes up very rapidly once enlarging 8x10 is the goal for a finished print.

Me being the forever 5x7 fan has a very broad selection of wide angle lenses of vintage to modern at far lower cost. The 72mm SAXL gets out to 115 degrees, a front to back perspective not easily achieved on 8x10. Beyond this problem of optics difficulties with 8x10, film flatness matters when images demand the high possible image quality from a sheet of film. Film flatness is simply better on 5x7 -vs- 8x10 and the working apertures can be larger too.

IMO, for contact prints which 8x10 and larger excels, but the trade-offs are serious once projected enlargement of 8x10 film is a must do for the finished print.

Bernice

Your point is well taken, however...
When I reach for a 210 on 8x10, it's usually to shoot a structure of some kind, and for those, I like having the XL's clinical contrast and sharpness.
What's more, every time I use a 210, I quickly run out of room. It may be my way of working with the camera, the subjects I choose, I don't know, but I always run out of IC, and quickly.
My favourite 210 was a beautiful Sironar-W, IC of ~352mm (similar to the Angulon), and I had to sell it because dealing with the limited IC was frustrating.
The Computar is much better in that respect, I very rarely run out of IC, but image quality is not on the same level as the Rodenstock.

Drew Wiley

14-Feb-2018, 20:34

Film flatness is a non-issue if you have adhesive holders.

Ari

14-Feb-2018, 21:23

210mm SSXL available, add cubic $.

No kidding! Prices on these are officially delusional.
I'm only buying one when I win the lottery, which I will, of course.

Bernice Loui

14-Feb-2018, 22:22

Been there done these.... Illl :p
Never again.

Want really flat, 8x10 glass plates.

Then we have camera alignment, squashed bag bellows and still limited to less than 100 degrees of view angle.
8x10...

Bernice

Film flatness is a non-issue if you have adhesive holders.

Alan Gales

14-Feb-2018, 22:26

That's the thing about 8x10. Beyond 240mm to 480mm if you aren't limited with the lenses available then you are limited by the price or the small image circle.

Bernice Loui

14-Feb-2018, 22:34

Exactly... if you're going to 8x10. This is the reality of optic choices.

Bernice

That's the thing about 8x10. Beyond 240mm to 480mm if you aren't limited with the lenses available then you are limited by the price or the small image circle.

Tim V

2-Mar-2018, 22:55

Is anyone out there using a SK G-Claron 210mm for 8x10"? Is the published IC significantly different to real world experience, as it is with the 240mm version?

Also, I found an unused Topcor 210mm in the cupboard at work (don't ask...) It has a published IC of 295mm from memory, but anyone actally used it with 8x10" with movements? Any real world experience here?

Thanks,

Tim

Andrew Plume

3-Mar-2018, 02:07

An interesting thread

I have used (but not recently) a 1980's f5.6 Symmar which from memory fully covered 8 x 10, it's pretty big and has the gold rim - that was to celebrate an anniversary of Jos Schneider (probably his birth). I prefer 240mm for this format and use a Berlin made Dagor. Harry Cory Wright used a 240mm lens for his Egyptian project a year or so ago:

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/tutankhamun-photographer-harry-burton/

Andrew

G Benaim

2-Jun-2018, 07:22

Hi Tim
The 210 g claron definitely covers 810 w very little movements, but it's a very nice and sharp lens. My model is the plasmat design so it might be that the dagor offers more coverage. It will also fit directly in a copal 1 shutter, so if you find one in barrel get it.

robshepherd

2-Jun-2018, 10:22

The 210 G Claron covers 8x10. Not a lot of wiggle room though it is small and lightweight compared to a Super Angulon.

I like my 210 G Claron on the 8x10. I also use it on a 4x5 Crown Graphic AND it's small enough to leave on the camera when it's folded. Great little lens.

Joshua Dunn

5-Jun-2018, 17:20

I have a Schneider 210mm Super Angulon f/8. The lens has amazing performance in every way to include an image circle of 500mm. It's a favorite when I shoot 8x10. The only real downside is its size and weight. It is simply a huge lens. The front element is 135mm, about 5 1/8 inches in diameter. The rear element is almost as large. It weights 3 kg or 6.5 lbs. So you need a camera with a really robust front standard. This usually isn't a problem with most 8x10 cameras but it's worth mentioning. It also makes using filters difficult without spending a lot of extra money. To me that's the real advantage of the 210mm Super-Symmar XL, the image circles listed listed for both lenses are the same. However the 210mm Super-Symmar XL is much smaller and lighter, by 1kg or 2.2lbs.

-Joshua

neil poulsen

5-Jun-2018, 18:31

Wide-angles are not for fine-art photography??? Huh?

I'm not at all suggesting that super-wides can't be used for fine art. However, to avoid distortion effects, a lot of fine art is indeed done with longer lenses, and I think that, some of this work is well suited to 8x10.

How much of Edward Weston's work was done with super-wide lenses? (I'll leave this as a rhetorical question.)

With that said, I've since purchased both a Graphic Kowa 210mm and a Computar f9 in the same focal length. After comparing them, the latter has the greater image circle, and is probably also multi-coated.

Corran

5-Jun-2018, 18:52

I am just going to assume what you are trying to say is fine-art reproduction.

neil poulsen

5-Jun-2018, 19:05

Wide-angles are not for fine-art photography??? Huh?

No, of course not; I'm not suggesting that one can't do fine art with wide-angle lenses. But, one won't be doing a lot of general architecture without wide-angles, either.

I think that longer focal lengths that avoid distortion, combined with the 8x10 format, can work rather well for fine-art photography. My realization was that 8x10 work could be in this direction, and that I would always have 4x5 at hand for images that lean towards wide-angle lenses.

With that said, I've since purchased both a Graphic Kowa 210mm and a Computar f9 in the same focal length to help fill a wide-angel gap. After comparing them, the latter has the greater image circle, and is probably also multi-coated. That's the one that I'll keep.

Corran

5-Jun-2018, 21:14

Meandering off-topic here, but Neil, the idea that a certain focal length lends itself to whatever you define as "fine-art" is ludicrous. It might be your preference for how you make images...but certainly not any kind of rule or defining characteristic of a "fine-art" photograph. It's like saying that only certain brushes lend themselves to fine-art painting. There are of course certain brushes a painter may like, but a tool doesn't define the art it creates.

Since I was just at his gallery, I'll use Clyde Butcher as an example. He mostly uses extreme wide-angle lenses and techniques. You are suggesting he is not a fine-art* photographer because of...his lens selection?

*Setting aside the semantics of what qualifies as "fine-art" obviously.

neil poulsen

5-Jun-2018, 21:38

. . . You are suggesting he is not a fine-art* photographer because of...his lens selection? . . .

Perhaps it's the double-negative that's causing a misunderstanding. Filtering it, I'm suggesting that one can do fine-art photography with wide-angle lenses.

mdarnton

6-Jun-2018, 07:38

One thing of interest that I noticed is LF photographers' dislike for what they self-defiine as "distortion". Of course every lens distorts in some regard, and extreme wide angles are simply delivering what your eyes actually see, IF you were paying attention, so this seems very arbitrary. The other thing I don't get is how an entire wing of photograph has branded one particular aspect of vision as distasteful and illegitimate. It doesn't make much sense.

Bernice Loui

6-Jun-2018, 08:31

Sticky film holders have other issues. Want flat, glass plates in a high precision imaging system.

Bernice

Film flatness is a non-issue if you have adhesive holders.

Bernice Loui

6-Jun-2018, 08:32

What is "Fine Art" ?

Bernice

Perhaps it's the double-negative that's causing a misunderstanding. Filtering it, I'm suggesting that one can do fine-art photography with wide-angle lenses.

Bernice Loui

6-Jun-2018, 08:37

Origins might be found in the orthodoxy and ideology of Group f64, purity of vision or straight photography.

Photography is at best an interpretation of an emotional experience in a three dimension world rendered on a flat two dimension plane. This is inherently and by process distortion. Lenses are tools for this interpretive process. Greater the variety of tools, greater the possible results of the interpretive process, limit the tools limits this interpretive process.

Bernice

One thing of interest that I noticed is LF photographers' dislike for what they self-defiine as "distortion". Of course every lens distorts in some regard, and extreme wide angles are simply delivering what your eyes actually see, IF you were paying attention, so this seems very arbitrary. The other thing I don't get is how an entire wing of photograph has branded one particular aspect of vision as distasteful and illegitimate. It doesn't make much sense.

neil poulsen

6-Jun-2018, 10:26

What is "Fine Art" ?

Bernice

:)

Songyun

21-Sep-2018, 07:59

Anyone knows which aperture scale fits the computar 210 f9?

tgtaylor

21-Sep-2018, 09:55

What is "Fine Art" ?

Bernice

You can find several hundred examples of it on my website.

Thomas

Phil Hudson

21-Sep-2018, 09:57

Anyone knows which aperture scale fits the computar 210 f9?

If it is in Copal 1 I imagine that the scales from a G-Claron 210/9 would work?

tgtaylor

21-Sep-2018, 10:32

A 210 is too close to a 240 IMHO. A 180 would be ideal for 8x10 and would give the same FOV as a 90 on a 4x5 b ut for some reason 180's are as rare as hounds teeth and expensive when you do find one...a good one that is. There are some images that can only be taken with one focal length. For example, El Capitan from the Merced, a Kallitype I have on my website, can only be taken with a lens that has a 90mm 4x5 perspective. A 240 on a 8x10 is too long and the 120 waaay to wide. But the 120 with a 5x7 back gives the perfect perspective and practically the same as the 90 on a 4x5. The 90mm is a popular FL for 4x5 and I've always wondered why the lens manufacturers didn't duplicate that for 8x10.

Thomas

Vaughn

21-Sep-2018, 13:01

I have not tried my Fuji W 180mm on 8x10 (inside rim lettering). Rumor has it that it will cover 8x10 (might, closed down all the way and focused closer than infinity), but I got it for 5x7.

Edited to add: For 210mm on my 8x10 I go with a small Graphic Raptar in a barrel. So far I have not run out of room. I have not used it nearly as much since getting a Fuji W 250/6.7, but back into the redwoods for this Fall/Winter, it might see some use again...especially with 4x10.

fuegocito

21-Sep-2018, 13:10

I have the said Fujinon-W 180mm and have tried it on 8x10 and it just misses the corner at wide open, not sure if it changes as it's close down to F22

Steve Sherman

21-Sep-2018, 15:10

I have a 210 f9 Computar, I’m not sure if it’s the smallest lens that will cover significantly more than an 8x10 negative or not. What I am sure of...egos are like butt cracks, everyone has one but no one wants to see or hear one.

tgtaylor

21-Sep-2018, 16:36

If you stop and think about it 35mm has the 28, 645 the 45, 6x7 the 55mm, 4x5 the 90, 5x7 the 120. But what is there for the 8x10? 180 would be the logical choice but 180's that will cover the format are rare or nonexistent. Why the gap?

Thomas

Bob Salomon

21-Sep-2018, 16:58

tgtaylor

21-Sep-2018, 20:59

But a 155 is approximately a 75mm equivalent in 4x5 terms which is wider and not as useful as the 90 which most modern manufacturers market their version of. I know because I have both the 90mm and 75mm f4.5 Grandagons and I find myself reaching for the 90mm far more often than I do for the 75mm. A 90mm equivalent for the 8x10 would be a 180mm version which the majority of lens manufactures do not produce. Why is that?

Thomas

Peter De Smidt

21-Sep-2018, 21:12

My guess is because 8x10 was primarily used in the studio over the last years of commercial film use. For example, the studio I worked for used 8x10 for high end product shots. A wide lens isn't usually useful for that. Look at the 210s that cover 8x10: g-clarons and similar. These were process lenses. I bet 240s, 300s, 360s, and 480s were the main lenses ordered new during the 70s, 80s, and 90s by commercial studios. Sure, there were some wider lenses for architecture, but they were extremely expensive, and wider than 180. I bet there weren't all that many people shooting 8x10 for architectural clients. That's just a guess, of course.

Mark Sampson

21-Sep-2018, 22:12

Peter, your idea seems reasonable. In all my years at Kodak we rarely used 8x10 (but when we needed it it was ready). I'll say that most of the work we did with it was done with a 300mm Symmar-S and a 14" Caltar. I can only remember using the 165/8 Super-Angulon once or twice, when shooting large things in small spaces. All that gear was purchased long before my time in the department; early '70s at the latest, I would think. Most of our work into the '90s was on 4x5, and the 90mm lens was a standard part of the kit, so I'll admit Mr. Taylor's question is valid. There's probably no one answer, though; perhaps a 180mm S-A (if there had been such thing) wouldn't have fit in a standard shutter.

ottluuk

21-Sep-2018, 23:38

[...] There's probably no one answer, though; perhaps a 180mm S-A (if there had been such thing) wouldn't have fit in a standard shutter.

There was a 210/8 Super-Angulon in #3 shutter. You can see Schneider's data here (note the size and weight of the MC version - almost double the weight of the 165/8 MC): https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-210mm.html

The 120/121 - 165 - 210 spread of the bigger Super-Angulons seems to be carried over from the earlier Angulon line. Probably the demand for wide angles beyond 120mm was low enough that they didn't see the need to rethink/diversify the lineup there – unlike the 4x5/6x9 (ultra)wide line that got many tweaks and additions over the years.

neil poulsen

22-Sep-2018, 08:36

Top IC picks for me would be the Computar f9, the Super-Angulon f8, the Angulon f6.8 (I think), and the Rodenstock 200mm SW.

I got interested in this earlier in the year and had the Graphic Kowa f9 and the Computar f9 side-by-side. Consistent with a previous thread that included Sandy King and Kerry Thalmann, the Computar has significantly greater coverage. One nice thing, both of these examples were multi-coated.

For me, a 250ish mm image circle for 8x10 just isn't sufficient, unless I'm photographing straight-on, where minimum movements are all that's needed. Even the Computar f9 (which I kept) is a bit of a compromise. But, the price difference between that and a Super Angulon/Grandagon can be substantial. (Ditto the weight!) The Angulons would be a decent choice, but appear to be pretty rare.

Bob Salomon

22-Sep-2018, 09:01

Bernice Loui

22-Sep-2018, 09:03

8x10 has a history with portrait photographs, landscape photographers and some with architectural photographers. During my tenure with 8x10 some decades ago it was simply optics limited in many ways due to the demands on lens image circle and a host of other problems.

Where 8x10 really shines is 8x10 contact prints with soft focus lenses and similar.

Images made during the tenure with 8x10 was with focal lengths between 24" (APO artar) to 155mm (Grandagon), majority being in the 300mm to 480mm range.

As for wide angle lenses the choices are essentially between 210mm ( Graphic Kowa, Computar, Angulon, Super Angulon, Schneider SSXL), 200mm Grandagon (excellent but HUGE), 165mm Super Angulon, 6-1/2" Wide angle Dagor, 155mm Grandagon, 150mm Schneider SSXL, 150mm SW Nikkor. 120mm Nikkor and Super Angulon does not cover 8x10 properly as the edges of the image circle is pressed to it's limits.

If one wanted something in the 180mm focal length better to crop the 8x10 image.

Adding a crowing out about 5x7 again, all those lenses above easily covers 5x7 with additional lenses being:

125mm SW Fujinon, 120mm SW Fujinon, 115mm Grandagon, 110mm Schneider SSXL, 105mm SW Fujinon, 90mm (Fujinon, Nikkor, Schneider, Rodenstock and ..) 80mm Schneider SSXL (at it's image circle limit) 75mm f4.5 Nikkor, Rodenstock, and others at it's image circle stopped down to f22 and smaller, 72mm Schneider Super Angulon XL.

*5mm focal length increments:

125mm
120mm
115mm
110mm
105mm

then to:

90mm
80mm
75mm
72mm

These are small changes in focal lengths.

The above focal lengths allow small increments in focal length changes not possible with 8x10. Adding to the problem with using wide angles on 8x10 is film flatness, bellows compression ability on camera and dealing with the wide angle image on the GG.

Bernice

John Kasaian

22-Sep-2018, 09:37

What is "Fine Art" ?

Bernice

Art that will pass through a smaller sieve than Coarse Art?

Bernice Loui

22-Sep-2018, 09:48

Who is allowed to decide the size of any art sieve?

Bernice

Art that will pass through a smaller sieve than Coarse Art?

Dan O'Farrell

22-Sep-2018, 10:23

I haven't seen it mentioned here, but how about the 8.5 " / 215 mm f4.8 Series-S Caltar ?
Highly recommended, it covers 8X10, and is convertible to 14".

Tim V

19-Oct-2018, 03:59

Pere Casals

19-Oct-2018, 05:43

At f/45 diffraction limit is 35 lp/mm, so half of the presumably peak peformance of a G-Claron in the center, but around the performance it may have in the corners.

https://125px.com/docs/manuals/lenses/large_format/schneider/gcn.pdf

For contact printing you don't need a lens...

Just print a resolving target http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/USAF.pdf and learn how to measure lp/mm, you have to find around 60 lp/mm in the center and around 35 in the corners for a G-Claron at f/16.

You can use a DSLR mounted in the back for that. You also can use an eyepiece (or 20x microscope ocular...), mount it in a lensboard and place it in the back in the place of the spring-back, you will see it "in the air".

Dan Fromm

19-Oct-2018, 07:46

I'm wondering if my 210mm g-claron lens is a bitt off. Seems very good on the ground glass and focus is accurate on the film, but the edges are soft, even at f45 without too much movement. This is under an 8x loup. Contact prints of course look fine. What do people reckon? It's a great lens for contact printing, but not really enlarging? Lovely light and small, though!

And now a polite little flame war of nothing at all begins. Schneider claims that the lens covers 260 mm at infinity @f/22. This claim is based on MTF considerations. They also say it reaches full coverage at f/22, i.e., that stopping down farther won't increase coverage.

Many users here dispute this vigorously. I vaguely recall claims of as much as 90 degrees, but my memory could well be failing.

Corran

19-Oct-2018, 08:06

Dan - apologies if I've asked this before, but do you know what exactly the MTF considerations were/are from Schneider? The discussion of coverage as it relates to the manufacturer's claims is all well and good, but I don't think it's that relevant for 8x10 and moderate enlargements (much less contact prints).

Bernice Loui

19-Oct-2018, 08:08

Illustration of the lens-optics problem with 8x10. Lenses that properly cover 8x10 is less common, larger cost more and not any where as easy to obtain.

Schneider data says the 210mm G Claron is good for 4x5, f22, infinity with an image circle of 260mm, too small for 8x10 which is why the corners are "soft".
https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/g-claron/chart.htm

Difficulty here, there is a HUGE difference between designed image circle of optical performance -vs- illumination circle. Will the 210mm G Claron light up the film frame for 8x10 apparently yes, will the 210mm G Claron produce a GOOD and proper image for 8x10 at infinity, NO.

*Why is there a continued total dis-respect for specifications published by the folks who designed, produce, sold, warranted these optics?
If Schneider states in published specifications a 210mm G Glaron does NOT cover 8x10, believe it rather than calming it does cover 8x10 then discovering the results are poor then going into denial this cannot be correct?

What is at the root of this Dissonance?

Reality is, lenses in the 200mm range for 8x10 is NOT easy, low cost or simple. Again, back in the 8x10 days, the preferred 200mm lens for 8x10 was a 200mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon, BIG, HEAVY, Expensive but worked great.

Bernice

I'm wondering if my 210mm g-claron lens is a bitt off. Seems very good on the ground glass and focus is accurate on the film, but the edges are soft, even at f45 without too much movement. This is under an 8x loup. Contact prints of course look fine. What do people reckon? It's a great lens for contact printing, but not really enlarging? Lovely light and small, though!

Corran

19-Oct-2018, 08:25

One must still be careful, when talking about G-Clarons, to specify which type of lens they are discussing. Results may vary depending. As for small, good, and inexpensive 210mm lenses, the Graphic Kowa and Computar are available, with the GK selling for only about $450-500 last I saw. My GK is excellent, and I have enlarged an 8x10 (digitally) up to 32x40 and it still looked great everywhere. What is the "claimed" coverage for the GK?

Dan Fromm

19-Oct-2018, 08:46

Bryan, IIRC Schneider and R'stock both say that coverage ends where MTF has fallen to 10%.

Bernice, users' preferences differ. So do their practices. The more important image quality in the corners is, the greater the enlargement, the less a lens covers. Images where IQ in the corners isn't very important can be enlarged more than ones where it matters a lot. And corners that are good enough for contact printing may not allow much enlargement.

Coverage (subjective, as reported by a user) is whatever the user says it is, but what's good enough for one user may not be good enough for another.

Corran

19-Oct-2018, 08:55

I have read on multiple occasions the supposition that Schneider et al. limit IC specifications to a more rigorous standard for process lenses. Is it possible this was done for the G-Claron line of lenses? I am guessing the actual MTF charts are not available. If so, I think it's a bit of a stretch to blindly follow the stated IC, especially for a lens not sold originally as a general-use camera optic (right?).

And yes, of course I agree with the rest of your post. I could point (again) to my 305mm G-Claron that covers 8x20 film.

Drew Wiley

19-Oct-2018, 09:55

That's certainly true. G-Clarons realistically cover a much bigger image circle in terms of general photography than the process specifications at f/22. But given the fact we tend to use movements on view cameras, while process applications are point blank, even at smaller apertures, it is probable in some applications that the corners of 210 on 8X10 film would show a bit of sharpness loss. Even with my 240 G, I stop it down to f/64 if strong tilts are involved and I'm contemplating a print 20x24 or larger. Not my favorite lens for 30X40 prints, but I must qualify that according to my past experience with Cibachrome, which is capable of a lot more detail than any inkjet. My 250 Fujinon A, similarly designed but MC, is comparable in this respect. But my 360 A... wow! - now that's a winner for those big prints. The 180 A version has a circle of illumination covering 8x10, but about a third of the way into the corners the resolution conspicuously softens. That gives a pretty good clue what would happen if a G-Claron was available in the same focal length.

Oren Grad

19-Oct-2018, 10:19

I have read on multiple occasions the supposition that Schneider et al. limit IC specifications to a more rigorous standard for process lenses. Is it possible this was done for the G-Claron line of lenses? I am guessing the actual MTF charts are not available. If so, I think it's a bit of a stretch to blindly follow the stated IC, especially for a lens not sold originally as a general-use camera optic (right?).

See attached - though I suspect these will generate more questions than answers. Sorry, I don't have the 210 data.

Corran

19-Oct-2018, 10:53

Interesting. If I am not mistaken, those look like the newer Plasmat design lenses?

Oren Grad

19-Oct-2018, 11:37

I downloaded those from the Schneider website in 2004, thus during the period when they were selling the plasmat version.

Drew Wiley

19-Oct-2018, 11:56

Bob Salomon

19-Oct-2018, 12:03

All later G-Clarons sold in shutter were plasmats, but better corrected for close-range than general-purpose plasmats. My spec sheet only lists the plasmat construction. Unfortunately, the image circles are only given at 1:1 or 1:2 @ f/22, just like graphics applications, even though the parallel Schneider marketing brochure from the same period recommends G-Clarons for tabletop studio applications. I wonder if alternate constructions were even still being made past the 60's or 70's. Around here at least, Goerz and then Nikkor dominated the process lens market.
Drew, Rodenstock was the dominant supplier of graphic arts lenses for horizontal process cameras with the Apo Ronan series.
Vertical process cameras used wide field lenses from Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock. But for horizontal Rodenstock had a massive lead!

Drew Wiley

19-Oct-2018, 12:37

I've never even encountered Apo Ronars except in shutter for view camera use, Bob. All the big print shops around here used Apo-Nikkors, or else older Goerz, on their big horizontal cameras. Maybe because we're on the Pacific and a lens thrown into a bottle in Japan drifts here sooner than one thrown into the Atlantic! The only common Rodenstocks were cheapo wide-angle versions on stat cameras for casual applications like T-shirt silkscreen shops, perhaps rebranded Geronars. And from what is
ordinarily up for sale on Fleabay, Apo Nikkors seem more common than barrel Apo Ronars... or maybe Apo Ronars got retrofitted with shutter more often for photo use, and this has skewed the proportions. Dunno.

Bob Salomon

19-Oct-2018, 12:48

I've never even encountered one of those, Bob. All the big print shops around here used Apo-Nikkors, or else older Goerz, on their horizontal cameras. Maybe
because we're on the Pacific and a lens thrown into a bottle in Japan drifts here sooner than one thrown into the Atlantic! The only common Rodenstocks were rebranded cheapo wide-angle versions on stat cameras for casual applications like T-shirt silkscreen shops.

Then you haven’t visited enough of them, Rodenstock was by far the leading supplier.

Pere Casals

19-Oct-2018, 13:25

IIRC Schneider and R'stock both say that coverage ends where MTF has fallen to 10%.

10% at how many cycles/mm?

Tim V

19-Oct-2018, 13:51

I have the older Dagor type 210mm G-Claron. I bought it knowing that I would need to upgrade eventually, but it's the best I could afford to get me going right now. I want a Kowa-Graphic, but I only ever see them up for sale for over $1000USD! (I live in NZ, so it's not possible to find anything local for private sale, meaning flea-bay, international stores or private sale here it is.)

It is possible that some of the deficiencies I've seen regarding sharpness are also due to film flatness and / or slight camera shake (I really should upgrade my tripod. It's perfectly rock solid for 80mpx digital capture, but the 8x10" is a wind sail.) Anyway, I'm not talking specifically about the corners being soft, but the edges, eg left/right on landscape orientation being noticeably softer under magnification. If it were just the corners then I'd accept it, but as it's the edges I wonder if my copy of the lens is performing as it should.

I know it's a really hard focal length for 8x10", but it's also my favourite! The contact prints are lovely, it's just I'd love to be able to drum scan them for large prints in the future.

Dan Fromm

19-Oct-2018, 15:34

10% at how many cycles/mm?

Papi, take a look at the data sheets Oren posted. They're more evidence that my memory is failing.

To answer your question, they all show MTF @ 3, 6, and 12 cycles/mm. If I'm reading them correctly, all three of the lenses do better than I believed to the limits of their claimed coverage at f/22 at infinity at 12 cy/mm. But 12 cy/mm isn't much, the interesting question is how well they do at higher frequencies.

Tim, Dagor type G-Clarons are minor cult lenses. You can probably net enough from selling yours to replace it with a plasmat type, if that's what you want, with some funds left over.

Tim when you look at negatives, remember that diffraction is worse off-axis than on-axis and that the diffraction limit Pere Casals quoted is on-axis. 45 lp/mm will start looking fuzzy at magnifications a little greater than 5x. You may be asking for more sharpness than is possible at f/45.

Corran

19-Oct-2018, 15:48

eg left/right on landscape orientation being noticeably softer under magnification.

Double-check your parallelism on the camera. Oh, and make sure your lens' shutter doesn't have the little set screw causing it to sit cocked to one side. Ask me how I know about that problem...

Personally, when I shoot 8x10 I often shoot at f/45 up to f/90. Dan and others are right about diffraction, but would you rather have diffraction or limited DOF? If you want, I can send you a full-size scan of an 8x10 image shot with my 210mm f/9 Graphic Kowa stopped to f/90 (it needed it, for DOF even with movements to orient the focus plane to best fit the scene). I wouldn't hesitate to print such an image to a very large size, if I wanted to do it. As I am only wet printing right now, I made some contact prints instead.

Tim V

19-Oct-2018, 23:23

I’d love to see a scan, thanks.

I have assess to an 8x10” enlarger with ability to print up to 20x24”, so wet prints are in my future.

I think too that my tripod is letting me down and exacerbating the sharpness problems. An upgrade is in order...

Pere Casals

20-Oct-2018, 00:53

I think too that my tripod is letting me down and exacerbating the sharpness problems. An upgrade is in order...

Just attach a toy laser pointer to the front standard, and check vibration of the spot some 20m far, or 100m :). You will know in what wind conditions your setup resists, and what time you have to wait from holder insertion to shutter release.

The vibration of the spot it's just the blur you would have in a long exposure, to know the induced blur at 1/100 you maye take several shots with a dslr at 1/100 to se the speed effect...

Another important thing in a tripod, after (force) inserting a holder it has to return to the same position aiming the same, if not after a tilt the change in the optical axis will move the plane of focus.

With the toy laser you can also check that the spot returns to the same place. Tripods (heads) can be a bit elastic, but they should return to the same framing after (the force) inserting the holder.

Pere Casals

20-Oct-2018, 01:06

they all show MTF @ 3, 6, and 12 cycles/mm.

Hello Dan,

The circle is specified at f/22. The graphs posted by Oren shows 40% modulation transfer in the boundary for 12 cycles/mm, so in this case the criterion should ensure an higher standard.

I guess that it should be difficult to say a precise dimension for the circle... beyond the spot in the corner perhaps it's also important the region near to the corner, so perhaps (guessing) it's also important how fast transfer is decreasing in the boundary...

Anyway having the MTF graphs the manufacturer provides very meaningful information for those concerned.

Probably (also guessing) the transfer shown in the graphs are more stable across all production, compared to the ultimate resolving power at extintion that may have more sample to sample variation...

Drew Wiley

20-Oct-2018, 19:27

Inadequate tripod heads tend to be even more of a culprit than wimpy tripods. Critical lens tests should be done on a rigid optical bench anyway, using precise vacuum film holders.

Pere Casals

21-Oct-2018, 04:11

Inadequate tripod heads tend to be even more of a culprit than wimpy tripods.

Drew, one great think of a Norma (and other cameras...) is that we can use a Tripod Head without Roll, because we can rotate the rail. This allows a lighter/cheaper steady head.

Critical lens tests should be done on a rigid optical bench anyway, using precise vacuum film holders.

This is true, but there are DIY solutions allowing some meaningful optical tests. For example by placing a x20 eyepiece in the back of the view camera we can check in "the air" the ultimate (at extintion) resolving power of a lens in different areas of the circle, (without considering alignment and focus field curvature).

Vaughn

21-Oct-2018, 13:05

Drew, one great think of a Norma (and other cameras...) is that we can use a Tripod Head without Roll, because we can rotate the rail. This allows a lighter/cheaper steady head....

I had a Deardorff Special knock-off (made in India) that had a rotating 4x5 back that served the same purpose.
If I was not so lazy, I'd use my Ries A-100 without a head (8x10 and 11x14) -- a little more work setting everything up, but should be steady. I am often on rough un-even ground setting up the camera, often with limited choices of leg placement...so the head is nice to have.

Tim V

21-Oct-2018, 13:52

I've been using a Linhof 3D Micro geared head, which seems rock solid, although just now checked the recommended max weight at it is only 10kg / 22lb. My camera only weights 4.2kg / 9.3lb, so should be adequate...

I actually also think hat the aluminium body has a bit of flex and is not so good at absorbing vibrations caused by wind and bumps. Wood or carbon fibre would be better in this regard.

With regards to 210mm lenses, I've not seen a Kowa Graphic 210mm anywhere near the $500 mark. I'll keep my eyes open...

Pere Casals

21-Oct-2018, 14:58

I had a Deardorff Special knock-off (made in India) that had a rotating 4x5 back that served the same purpose.
If I was not so lazy, I'd use my Ries A-100 without a head (8x10 and 11x14) -- a little more work setting everything up, but should be steady. I am often on rough un-even ground setting up the camera, often with limited choices of leg placement...so the head is nice to have.

I tried the rotating back of the cambo sc for roll adjustment, I found that it would require something to secure the position because when inserting the holder it can rotate a bit...

A ball head with a bulky/heavy camera it's a bit tricky to use... but I works...

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2018, 16:10

Well, there are various past threads about going "headless". I've done it for decades with both 4x5 and 8x10; and "uneven ground" wouldn't even begin to describe the kinds of places I've routinely been. Plus to you save weight in order to increase stability, whereas trying to remove too much mass from the
camera itself sometimes does the opposite and risks instability.

asf

27-Oct-2018, 09:52

Tim V

21-Nov-2018, 02:07

A follow up: My Dagor type 210mm G-Claron has turned out to be a pretty good preformer after all, as long as you don't push the movements out too fat. Past about 30mm I get hard vingnettes, but I'm not too concerned about them; I just allow for the in the composition. Not ideal for all situations, but I like having the process evident in the final prints. In terms of detail out to the edges, it's really good at f45. I must have been experiencing vibrations that have disappeared with a better tripod and lower winds.

asf

21-Nov-2018, 13:33

On my 210 dagor type g Claron I’ve found coverage equal to about 80deg (maybe 350ic) when stopped down past 32 and illumination for probably another 5 degrees

Measuring a recent test at f32.5 there’s great sharpness from the center out with a band of noticeably softer image for the last 30mm or so before mechanical vignetting

Maybe the corners will improve at 45 or smaller but I never seem to stop down that much

If you have sky in that last bit of illumination you’ll never notice the softness

At the same aperture my 210/9 computar has much more coverage, I’d say 90deg of sharpness with an additional 5 of illumination. It’s an even smaller lens

For me the dagor type Claron has a little nicer rendition in bw, they’re about equal for color

Both lenses are for me much nicer than the more modern version of the g Claron or the big coverage version of the Fuji.

The only not huge one better would be the 80deg Rodenstock in any of its 3 labeled versions but it’s nowhere near as small and its coverage is strictly cut off at 80deg

I should probably sell one of these 210s (Claron or Computar), but which? I always end up using my 200 grandagon, no compromises there except for size

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tim V

22-Nov-2018, 01:32

Thanks for the great into, 'asf'. The Computar / Graphic Kowa 210mm is my unicorn lens and eventually I want to buy one for the extra coverage. The Dagor G-Claron is really lovely lens, and I agree it renders very nicely in BW. I'm hitting the mechanical vignette all the time with mine as I like to shift a bit, but the black corners don't bother me too much; I like the little reminders of the process in the final prints and I tell myself I'm just channelling Atget. Eventually though, I do want the Computar. Maybe I'll keep both...

On my 210 dagor type g Claron I’ve found coverage equal to about 80deg (maybe 350ic) when stopped down past 32 and illumination for probably another 5 degrees

Measuring a recent test at f32.5 there’s great sharpness from the center out with a band of noticeably softer image for the last 30mm or so before mechanical vignetting

Maybe the corners will improve at 45 or smaller but I never seem to stop down that much

If you have sky in that last bit of illumination you’ll never notice the softness

At the same aperture my 210/9 computar has much more coverage, I’d say 90deg of sharpness with an additional 5 of illumination. It’s an even smaller lens

For me the dagor type Claron has a little nicer rendition in bw, they’re about equal for color

Both lenses are for me much nicer than the more modern version of the g Claron or the big coverage version of the Fuji.

The only not huge one better would be the 80deg Rodenstock in any of its 3 labeled versions but it’s nowhere near as small and its coverage is strictly cut off at 80deg

I should probably sell one of these 210s (Claron or Computar), but which? I always end up using my 200 grandagon, no compromises there except for size

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bernice Loui

23-Nov-2018, 09:18

Having used the 210mm Graphic Kowa for 8x10, it should not be consider the unicorn lens as it will NOT have that much more coverage than the current 210mm Dagor type 210mm you're currently using. It will suffer the same light fall-off problems as the Dagor type lens. Still have this lens, but has not been used in a very long time.

Stopping down the lens to apertures smaller than f45 is NOT a solution as it will cause other problems.

Image circle of GOOD optical performance is NOT the same as illumination image circle capability. If the lens will not deliver optimum optical performance at say f22, stopping down becomes a different set of trade offs. Use the proper lens with a image circle to cover the film format required as specified by the folks who designed the lens. Respect this design fact and reality.

Which returns to the same problem with 8x10, one of the most useful focal lengths is about 200mm, medium wide angle. The some of the best lenses in this focal length for 8x10 remains:

*200mm Rodenstock Grandagon

*210mm Super Angulon

*210mm Schneider SSXL

Center filters can further improve their light fall off if needed.

All the above are Large, Heavy, Expensive, not ideal for many light weight foldable cameras.

Which returns to the harsh reality and facts of many who are 8x10 film fans that want a lightweight set up that easy to set up and portable, but also demand the 8x10 film size. These are conflicting requirements and a trade off must be made with no exceptions.

Bernice

Thanks for the great into, 'asf'. The Computar / Graphic Kowa 210mm is my unicorn lens and eventually I want to buy one for the extra coverage. The Dagor G-Claron is really lovely lens, and I agree it renders very nicely in BW. I'm hitting the mechanical vignette all the time with mine as I like to shift a bit, but the black corners don't bother me too much; I like the little reminders of the process in the final prints and I tell myself I'm just channelling Atget. Eventually though, I do want the Computar. Maybe I'll keep both...

Eric Leppanen

23-Nov-2018, 10:10

Here is a list of 210mm 8x10 lenses I put together some years ago:

Small/light lenses
Graphic Kowa f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, reportedly around 380mm IC)
Computar f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, reportedly around 460mm IC)
G-Claron f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, covers 8x10 with very limited movements when stopped down)

Medium sized lenses
Fuji W f/5.6 (Copal 1, single-coated, 352mm IC)
Schneider Angulon f/6.8 (Copal 3, single-coated, 382mm IC)
Rodenstock APO Sironar W f/5.6 (Copal 3, multi-coated, 352mm IC)

Large lenses
Schneider Super Symmar HM f/5.6 (Copal 3, multi-coated, 356mm IC)
Schneider Super Angulon f/8 (Copal 3, single/multi-coated, 500mm IC)
Schneider Super Symmar XL f/5.6 (Copal 3, multi-coated, 500mm IC)
Rodenstock Grandagon/Grandagon-N 200mm f/6.8 (Copal 3, single/multi-coated, 495mm IC)

Here are my thoughts from a more recent post:

The sharpest option IMO is the Sironar W, but I found the coverage at times restricting. I initially tried a small lens/big lens dual solution, using a 210 APO Symmar L (barely covers) for backpacking and either a 210 SSXL (light falloff could be bothersome when significant movements are applied) or 200 Grandagon (less falloff but extremely bulky/heavy) for short hikes. I then explored lightweight f/9 solutions for field use, and compared a 210 Graphic Kowa and 210 Computar. I liked the optical performance of the Computar better than the Kowa, and it had plenty of usable coverage if one could tame the extreme amount of light falloff when significant movements are applied (if I had continued using 8x10 format I would have explored finding a center filter for it). The Computar also exhibited more field curvature than the huge, better corrected wide angle designs (SSXL, Grandagon), meaning I potentially had to stop down more to get everything sharp. Still, if I had to pick a universal 210mm 8x10 lens for field use, I'd go with either the Sironar W (if the coverage is adequate) or the Computar as the best blend of performance and size.

BTW, in recent years I migrated from 8x10 to 5x7, which solves the lightweight wide angle lens problem (the SS110XL with CF provides lots of coverage, and the 150 Sironar W has useful coverage beyond its rated image circle). And of course the film holders are much lighter. There is no 5x7 chrome film currently available (unless one cuts down 8x10) but color neg can be periodically purchased from Keith Canham.

Bernice Loui

23-Nov-2018, 10:18

Going to 5x7 solves the problem of wide angle lenses very nicely... Previously listed a group of wide angle lenses for 5x7 in 5mm_ish steps from 72mm to 155mm.... the the cost and lens availability is much improved in every way.

Did this decades ago, never looked back to 8x10. IMO, 8x10 and larger makes very nice contact prints which fits with the current thing of alternative print process very well. But, there are very real limitations and trade-offs.

As for the color transparency film problem for 5x7, consider cutting down 8x10 film to 5x7. It is not that difficult.

Bernice

BTW, in recent years I migrated from 8x10 to 5x7, which solves the lightweight wide angle lens problem (the SS110XL with CF provides lots of coverage, and the 150 Sironar W has useful coverage beyond its rated image circle). And of course the film holders are much lighter. There is no 5x7 chrome film currently available (unless one cuts down 8x10) but color neg can be periodically purchased from Keith Canham.

Corran

23-Nov-2018, 10:33

210mm Graphic Kowa is still my most-used and fav 8x10 lens...
If there is a slight increase in image quality at wider stops via the larger and more expensive options, that's fine. I wonder how many folks actively shooting 8x10 are enlarging? I would hazard a guess of "not many." I've never found fall-off to be particularly troublesome, shooting mostly b&w.

Contact prints sold really well for me this past year at a few art festivals. 8x10 size are perfect for many people.

This is from the 210mm GK:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/preachersrock-9300ss.jpg

This is the extreme upper right-hand corner at the equivalent of a 15x enlargement if you have a 96dpi monitor:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/preachersrock-9300css.jpg

You can see the texture of the bark. Limitations on DOF and perhaps movement is the only issue, as would be expected. Anyway, I made a few contact prints of this image and they look great. I think I shot at f/45.

Dan Fromm

23-Nov-2018, 11:04

210mm Graphic Kowa is still my most-used and fav 8x10 lens... I've never found fall-off to be particularly troublesome, shooting mostly b&w.

Not surprising. A 210 sees 72 degrees on 8x10, cos^4 puts the corners down ~ 1.2 stops from the center.

MAubrey

24-Nov-2018, 15:43

Here is a list of 210mm 8x10 lenses I put together some years ago:

[i]Small/light lenses
Graphic Kowa f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, reportedly around 380mm IC)
Computar f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, reportedly around 460mm IC)
G-Claron f/9 (Copal 1, single-coated, covers 8x10 with very limited movements when stopped down)

Medium sized lenses
Fuji W f/5.6 (Copal 1, single-coated, 352mm IC)
Schneider Angulon f/6.8 (Copal 3, single-coated, 382mm IC)

...

The Angulon also comes in a Compound #3, which is dramatically lighter than the Copal 3. I have both and when I want a light weight, I go with the Compound, when I want precise times under 1", I go with the Copal.

Tim V

16-Jun-2019, 04:31

Reviving thread.

I've been really loving my 210mm G-Claron Dagor type but am contemplating getting the Schenider 210mm Angulon f6.8.

Can anyone comment if the Angulon is significanltly better, both in IC and sharp rendering of details? Does it suffer much from field-curvature?

I've found the -G-Cloron to be a really great lens and the IC at f45 is actually very good for me. Sharpness does fall off quite quickly past a point though, and that's where I wonder if the Angulong might be money well spent.

Luis-F-S

16-Jun-2019, 05:51

I'd keep using the G-Claron!

neil poulsen

16-Jun-2019, 08:16

You might ask by starting a fresh thread with a descriptive title. (e.g. Falloff From Angulon Lenses?) I'm sure that there are some Angulon owners on the site that can address your question. Whatever Angulon that I would purchase would need to be coated.

There was one I missed that sold recently in the FS section. It was a coated, late model lens that was factory mounted in a Copal 3. Boy, it sure went fast.

Bernice Loui

16-Jun-2019, 08:36

What could be the possible "improvements" of the 210mm Angulon over the 210mm G-Claron? How could-would a 210mm Angulon make a difference or improve your images?

Suspect at a taking aperture of f45, the differences will not be that significant if any at all other than the 210mm Angulon having a larger image circle and this would be a maybe.

Bernice

Greg

16-Jun-2019, 09:29

Up for consideration is a 200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON Cooke Series VIIB WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT. Finally found one and had it mounted in a Copal shutter. A whole lot smaller than a Grandagon 200. Initially acquired it for my 11x14, but then it quickly became my go-to 200-210mm lens for my 8x10. Lens was sold in the USA by Burke & James Inc. in the early 1960s in a barrel mount and came factory coated.

Tim V

16-Jun-2019, 17:32

The Angulon interests me if I can shoot at f22 and still get som good movements out of it. The G-Claron Dagor type really is great-especially for the size and cost-but only stopped down to f45 and beyond. It’d be advantageous for me if the Angulon could gain me a stop or two where large DOF isn’t essential.

I’m reluctant to give up something that is generally working very well though, I.e. what’s the point of throwing quite a large sum of money at a replacement lens that offers little benefit where it matters.

Dan Fromm

16-Jun-2019, 18:12

I've found the -G-Cloron to be a really great lens and the IC at f45 is actually very good for me. Sharpness does fall off quite quickly past a point though, and that's where I wonder if the Angulong might be money well spent.

In other words, it doesn't cover 8x10. This is consistent with Schneider's coverage claims in the 1968 G-Claron brochure, which claims 286 mm for the 210/9 at infinity at f/22. Users' coverage reports here for G-Clarons' coverage are considerably greater than Schneider's claims.

The 210/6.8 Angulon's coverage is a small puzzle. Older catalogs claim 100 degrees/500 mm at infinity at an unspecified aperture for the 210/6.8. The latest I've seen with this claim is from '63. The '67 catalog claims 85 degrees/382 mm at infinity at f/16. Still usefully more than the G-Claron.

Bob Salomon

16-Jun-2019, 19:28

Tim V

17-Jun-2019, 01:55

I mean the G-Claron is very sharp but drops off with moderate movements. I don’t hesitate to use it at F4.5 with a good inch or so of rise. Beyond that I stop down to f64 to increase IC and can get about 2/3 more of an inch, although it still falls off a bit.

The 210mm Angulon does sound better in this regard...

Now, is there a MC version that is better with regards to coverage, or is it just with regards to flare and / or contrast?

Dan Fromm

17-Jun-2019, 04:44

I mean the G-Claron is very sharp but drops off with moderate movements. I don’t hesitate to use it at F4.5 with a good inch or so of rise.

An f/9 lens opens to f/4.5? How did you manage that?

Peter De Smidt

17-Jun-2019, 05:32

Pretty sure he meant f/45.

Daniel Unkefer

17-Jun-2019, 05:42

I have the Norma version of the 210mm Super Angulon, and a non-Sinar 210mm f6.8 Angulon. Both will get the job done with 8x10

AJ Edmondson

17-Jun-2019, 06:02

The 210mm f6.8 Angulon was (as far as I know) never produced in an MC version. There were some single-coated versions (usually denoted by the red triangle on the front lens retaining ring) which were produced in the 1960-1964 range. This remains to this day as my favorite 8x10 WA lens for performance, size, weight. Everyone has different preferences/priorities and you just have to choose based on your preferences! As a young soldier I acquired 165 and 210 Angulons in the early sixties while stationed in Germany and used them on both 4x5 and 8x10.
Joel

Pete Roody

17-Jun-2019, 06:38

Tim V

17-Jun-2019, 13:21

Oops! Yes, I meant f45. Autocorrect keeps inserting the point!

Pretty sure he meant f/45.

Sounds like the Angulon is a good step up from my G-Claron coverage wise, especially at wider apertures. Some serious thought is now needed...

neil poulsen

20-Jun-2019, 09:37

If greater coverage in a smaller size is what the OP is looking for then the 210 angulon is probably the best available option. I was lucky and found Zeiss f9 dagors in both 180mm and 210mm. Both cover 8x10 with plenty of movement. Not easy to source.

From ASF earlier in this thread, the Computar f9 210mm lens is sharp to 90 deg., while it's circle of illumination extends to 95 deg. That means that it's sharp to an image circle of 420 deg. Sandy King has stated that he gets coverage (circle of illumination) for this lens at 456mm, which corresponds to 94.7 deg. This more or less agrees with a Gordon Hutchings article, in which he found that the Computar f9 210mm lens covers 460mm. Note that these claims are for apertures higher than the usual f22. Computar f9 lenses are mounted in a Copal 1 shutter, and it can be found as a multi-coated lens.

Late Schneider literature states that the 210mm Angulon covers 85 deg. at f22, which is coverage of 385mm. It's mounted in a Copal 3 shutter, and it exists only as a single-coated lens.

It looks like the Computar f9 210mm lens also stands out as a nice lens.

Of course, there's always the Schneider Super-Symmar XL or used Super Angulon 210mm lenses that beats all these smaller lenses. But, those lenses (used or otherwise) are super heavy, super large, and super expensive.

Tim V

20-Jun-2019, 19:04

I actually really like my g-Claron Dagor. I bought it as a stopgap until I could afford a ‘better’ lens with more coverage, but I’ll keep it to use on occasions when I want a certain look or need to pack light.

The Computar was always too of my wish list but they are hard to find, especially at what I can realistic prices in a shutter. The Angulon isn’t much easier or cheaper, but I’ve seen a few lately in good order.

The big lenses are inarguably better but not for me as way too big and fragile to carry for my tastes.