PDA

View Full Version : Wide angle for 8x10



ViktorK
23-Apr-2018, 12:00
hello could anyone suggest me a cheap 8x10 wide angle lens in shutter?
i was looking at buying wollensak EWA 159mm F12.5 but i would like to get other options as well if possible.
thanks

Luis-F-S
23-Apr-2018, 12:58
If the EWA works for you I would get it. Cheap and 8x10 wide angle lens is not usually used in the same sentence. I use a 165 WA Dagor, but it's not usually described as cheap. L

paulbarden
23-Apr-2018, 13:24
How cheap?
I recently bought a 7.5” Kodak Wide Field Ektar for $475, which I regard as a bargain for such a fine lens.

Corran
23-Apr-2018, 17:07
IMO the 159mm Wollensak is a pretty bad lens. Even just for contact printing. The outer periphery is just awful, and almost all of the images I have seen from it online (on 8x10) show the same thing. Looks to be usable on 5x7 max. Sold mine after shooting a few negatives as soon as I could.

mdarnton
23-Apr-2018, 17:20
There are two Wolly 159mm lenses
They promoted the coverage of the f/12.5, and the wide-open sharpness of the f/9.5. I bought the f/9.5 for my Intrepid but haven't used it yet.

ic-racer
23-Apr-2018, 17:24
177487
180 Fujinon. 305mm image circle.

ic-racer
23-Apr-2018, 17:28
177488
Inexpensive Fuji 125mm SuperWide does not cover, but a slight crop when enlarging gives a resulting angle of view wider than an expensive 150mm. It is a modern multi-coated lens that is super sharp, right up to the very edge of the image circle.

Luis-F-S
23-Apr-2018, 17:41
IMO the 159mm Wollensak is a pretty bad lens. Even just for contact printing. The outer periphery is just awful, and almost all of the images I have seen from it online (on 8x10) show the same thing. Looks to be usable on 5x7 max. Sold mine after shooting a few negatives as soon as I could.
Perhaps you got a bad example? Not that I have first hand experience with that lens, but quality control with older lenses varied widely. If the OP buys the lens for a reasonable price and doesn't like it, he can then re-sell it. He just can't pay stupid money for it. In the 8" range, the 210 G Claron in Copal 1 can be had pretty reasonably, wider than that they get pricey quickly. There are few true wide lenses that really cover 8x10, most are not cheap and many of them are hard to find. L

William Whitaker
23-Apr-2018, 17:42
Not quite sure what you mean by "wide-angle" or "cheap". But....
I have a Wollensak Velostigmat Series II (f/4.5) 7 1/2" FL which surprisingly seems to cover 8x10 pretty well, even wide-open at infinity. It doesn't provide optical acrobatics, but for general 8x10 photography is a fine lens and a moderately wide-angle optic. I like the rendering that the Velostigmats produce and this one is in a Betax shutter which, while not providing sync, is far more convenient than a barrel lens. I have had this lens for years and don't recall its origin. It probably arrived via Ebay with one purchase or another. I'm sure it was not expensive.

Short version: Keep your eyes open. Be open to possibilities.

Alan Gales
23-Apr-2018, 18:03
If you want a sharp lens with a lot of coverage at the wide end they get expensive like north of $1,000. If you don't need movements then the Fuji 180, Schneider 165 Angulon, or the Schneider 121 Super Angulon among others can work. All three are inexpensive. I saw on the internet that Clyde Butcher owned the 121 Super Angulon.

Fuji 250mm f/6.7 (lettering on the inside) lenses have plenty of coverage and are a bargain but are only mildly wide like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. I paid $300 for mine but I've seen examples sell for $250-$200 even since I bought mine.

That's the thing about 8x10. Wide angles and long lenses can get real expensive.

Corran
23-Apr-2018, 18:12
There are two Wolly 159mm lenses
They promoted the coverage of the f/12.5, and the wide-open sharpness of the f/9.5. I bought the f/9.5 for my Intrepid but haven't used it yet.

I might be mis-remembering, but I thought the two types were the same, but the "max" aperture was changed to f/12.5 to denote the widest usable aperture. Mine was marked f/12.5, but opened up wider - this made the image very soft and glowy.


Did you ever consider that maybe you got a bad example?

That's why I followed up my statement saying I've seen the same exact issue on photos made with that lens by others. Ask Vaughn, he has said the same thing on this forum. It's a dog, unless there's the rare good example floating around :).

Certainly true about price vs. resale.

Dan Fromm
23-Apr-2018, 18:16
https://web.archive.org/web/20180424011209/https://www.ebay.fr/itm/SOM-Berthiot-Perigraphe-serie-VIa-f14-120mm-n-3-large-format-8x10/222932797909 should just cover 8x10. This one has separations. They're not that rare, turn up more on ebay.fr than on ebay.com. And they're usually fairly inexpensive.

David Goldfarb, who posts more on photrio.com than here, has one that Steve Grimes remounted in an Ilex #3. Front-mounting may be a better option. The 120/14 is in the same barrel as my 60/14, which can be stuffed into the front of a Ilex #3. I had to have the shutter's rear tube truncated to get full coverage, expect that this would be necessary for a 120 on 8x10.

mdarnton
23-Apr-2018, 18:25
I might be mis-remembering, but I thought the two types were the same, but the "max" aperture was changed to f/12.5 to denote the widest usable aperture. Mine was marked f/12.5, but opened up wider - this made the image very soft and glowy..
No, the two are quite different. The 9.5 has eight elements cemented in pairs, half in front, half in back. The 12.5 is four separate elements, only if I am remembering right.....like the 6.8 in smaller formats.

John Kasaian
23-Apr-2018, 18:43
I have a 159 Wolly EWA and it sees more service on the 5x7, but it will cover 8x10 with very little wiggle room if required.
A 165 Super Angulon is a pretty impressive lens and if the front standards of your camera can support a cast iron manhole cover it should have no problem with the SA
IIRC the 120 Nikon SWA will cover 8x10 with no wiggle room.

The widest I use on my 8x10 these days are a 250 Kodak WF Ektar and a 240 Schneider G Claron.

Corran
23-Apr-2018, 18:45
No, the two are quite different. The 9.5 has eight elements cemented in pairs, half in front, half in back. The 12.5 is four separate elements, only if I am remembering right.....like the 6.8 in smaller formats.

Interesting - so what would be the difference in terms of performance? And why the change?

mdarnton
23-Apr-2018, 19:30
I think it's pretty much what I said: one is wide, one is sharp but over a smaller angle. They pushed the 9.5 for banquet work, and said it had a sharp, flat field used wide open, but didn't suggest it for anything else, actually.

The 1935 Wollensak catalog #33 at cameraeccentric.com says a lot about the 9.5. The 1940s catalog #43 comments that the 12.5 starts sharp but gets wider and better stopped down.

The 9.5 diagram is easy to find, but I don't remember where I found the 12.5 diagram.

Corran
23-Apr-2018, 20:28
That to me sounds like the IC is restricted in the 9.5 version - meaning, does it cover 8x10? You mentioned you bought it for your Intrepid - but not which format. I assumed 8x10. If so, you'll have to tell us how it performs. I am certain the one I had was the f/12.5 version.

Willie
24-Apr-2018, 02:47
I see 120mm Nikkor Wide angle lenses from $325-600 range often. They cover 8x10 and give good service.

Steven Tribe
24-Apr-2018, 03:27
https://web.archive.org/web/20180424011209/https://www.ebay.fr/itm/SOM-Berthiot-Perigraphe-serie-VIa-f14-120mm-n-3-large-format-8x10/222932797909 should just cover 8x10. This one has separations. They're not that rare, turn up more on ebay.fr than on ebay.com. And they're usually fairly inexpensive.

David Goldfarb, who posts more on photrio.com than here, has one that Steve Grimes remounted in an Ilex #3. Front-mounting may be a better option. The 120/14 is in the same barrel as my 60/14, which can be stuffed into the front of a Ilex #3. I had to have the shutter's rear tube truncated to get full coverage, expect that this would be necessary for a 120 on 8x10.

This is very good advice. To-day would be a excellent day to check. Perhaps there is even a 135mm perigraphe!

Dan's reference applies to the early version - it may apply to the 20th century faster version.

Pere Casals
24-Apr-2018, 05:06
I also vote for the Nikon SW 120.

The SW 150 can be a better choice but it's scarce an expensive. Cropping a bit the 8x10 SW 120 shot we have same framing than with the 150, and some "movements".

Dan Fromm
24-Apr-2018, 05:22
This is very good advice. To-day would be a excellent day to check. Perhaps there is even a 135mm perigraphe!

Yes, there is a 135/14 Perigraphe. Much scarcer than the 120. 90s are the most common, 120s probably second-most common, and after that they're rare.

For more information on these and other Berthiot anastigmats for LF, see my article on them. There's a link to it in the list.

mdarnton
24-Apr-2018, 06:13
Something interesting to me is all of the old wide angle photos at http://www.shorpy.com/. There are two right now on the front page, one is a street scene that completely disintegrates towards the top corners (click on any photo for a full res version), and the other is of the Chicago train station interior, which is perfect all the way to the corners. I associate good performance with modern, but many of these old W/A shots are very sharp, and I often wonder what lenses were used to get that. Perhaps they were all f/16 lenses that we would reject now because of their speed and lack of shutter. I do know that the f/9.5 Wollensak was a design they inherited from the Royal Camera Company when they acquired it before 1900, and that they kept the best Royal lenses in production for a long time, but the old catalogs show quite a few very slow lenses such as the one Dan has recommended that must have been excellent, based on results in the Shorpy archive.

MAubrey
24-Apr-2018, 07:20
Something interesting to me is all of the old wide angle photos at http://www.shorpy.com/. There are two right now on the front page, one is a street scene that completely disintegrates towards the top corners (click on any photo for a full res version), and the other is of the Chicago train station interior, which is perfect all the way to the corners. I associate good performance with modern, but many of these old W/A shots are very sharp, and I often wonder what lenses were used to get that. Perhaps they were all f/16 lenses that we would reject now because of their speed and lack of shutter. I do know that the f/9.5 Wollensak was a design they inherited from the Royal Camera Company when they acquired it before 1900, and that they kept the best Royal lenses in production for a long time, but the old catalogs show quite a few very slow lenses such as the one Dan has recommended that must have been excellent, based on results in the Shorpy archive.

The street scene looks like the photographer was putting a huge priority on getting those straight vertical lines over and above resolution. Looks like he really pushed the limits of his image circle with front rise.

Luis-F-S
24-Apr-2018, 17:00
So we’ve come up with a bunch of lenses that don’t quite cover 810 and several ancient ones that you’re unlikely to find. Do yourself a favor and get a G-Claron in Copal 1 either a 210 or a 240. At least you can usually find them on the cheap! You can then figure out where to go from there, or spend some bucks and get a WA Dagor!

goamules
24-Apr-2018, 17:57
Protar V

Bernice Loui
24-Apr-2018, 22:26
Directly back to the previous discussion about "wide angle" lenses for 8x10.

Any GOOD wide angle lens for 8x10 will be BIG and expensive, this is just the way it is for 8x10. There are various vintage sort of wide angle lenses for 8x10, but they tend to lack the imaging performance of modern designs. Here is a partial list of modern wide angle lenses for 8x10:


120mm f8 SW Nikkor and Super Angulon can cover direct on, stopped down f22 and smaller no camera movement.

150mm f4.5 Lamegon (Zeiss Jena)

150mm f8 SW Nikkor,

150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL

155mm f6.8 Grandagon.

165mm f8 Super Angulon.

200mm f6.8 Grandagon.

210mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL.

210mm f8 Super Angulon.


I'm sure there are others that are not listed here. Most on that list are going to cost significant $.
Difficulty with 8x10 is wide angle lenses. While there could be significant appeal towards 8x10, reality is,
8x10 is inherently a pricy fim format to produce images with from cost of film to lenses, to camera,
to post processing and all involved with images produced using 8x10. Basic acceptance of the cost involved
need to be a given. It appears more and more imager maker are delving into 8x10 without the realization of
the difficulty and real world cost involved. Yet (Here we are again) going down one film format size cures
many of the difficulties and expense due to 8x10.



Bernice

paulbarden
25-Apr-2018, 06:48
I canít help but wonder why the exceptionally good Kodak Wide Field Ektar isnít included in this discussion - by anyone but me, that is. These Ektar lenses are considered by many as some of the finest optics ever made. And they can often be had for $500 or less!

Dan Fromm
25-Apr-2018, 06:56
Sigh. The OP asked for directions to
a cheap 8x10 wide angle lens in shutter.

Helpful posters suggest expensive w/a lenses that might or might not cover 8x10.

Are there any cheap wide angle lenses for 8x10? Is so, how wide and how cheap?

William Whitaker
25-Apr-2018, 07:43
Are there any cheap wide angle lenses for 8x10? Is so, how wide and how cheap?

It would be nice to hear from the OP regarding his specifications and limitations. Terms like "cheap" are subjective and relative, whereas "under $500" or "under $1000" are specific and absolute. And a lot more useful. Same goes for "wide-angle".

Jac@stafford.net
25-Apr-2018, 08:41
Perhaps another to add to the OP's search.

I got a Wollensak Series III Wide Angle (159mm) ƒ9.5 in Betax #3 shutter for under $400 two years ago. A shuttered version was difficult to find.

Bernice Loui
25-Apr-2018, 09:36
More about the Wollensak WA here:
https://apenasimagens.com/en/velostigmat-wide-angle-ser-iii-f9-5-wollensak/


Question has always been how "wide", what is the budget?

There was a time when these vintage "wide angle" lenses were not expensive, they were mostly forgotten or much less regarded.
During the 8x10 era, picked up a Protar V for $10 in barrel. Tried it on 8x10 Sinar & Sinar shutter. The performance compared to the 155mm Grandagon was poor, essentially the 155mm Grandagon was in a completely different place when compared to the Protar V.

Then we get into semi wide angles like the Wide Field Ektar, which has GOOD performance but not really a wide angle IMO. The 250mm wide field ektar is GOOD moderate wide for 8x10 and the market has figured this out or why are no longer inexpensive. The 190m wide field ektar sort of covers when stopped almost all the way down where the edges are more illuminated then image performance.

Once the focal length moves up past 200 mm for 8x10, there are more lens choice at more reasonable cost.

Moving on the 165mm WA Dagor and 165mm Angulon, both can cover 8x10.... stopped down to f32 or smaller with very limited movements. Performance wise, acceptable. Add the 210mm Angulon, this can be a GOOD 8x10 lens stopped down, but not really a wide angle.

Ex Military would be the once common 6" f6.3 Metrogon which was an aero recon lens. Once common on the military surplus market but no simple task to convert to be used on a conventional view camera.

-There are others previously mentioned.. but the problem remains much the same.

Add to this, the problem of light fall off which can be corrected using a center filter, film flatness which is always a problem for 8x10, film processing,
Enlarger size if enlargements are to be made (contact prints are GOOD with 8x10), film cost and more..



Bernice




Perhaps another to add to the OP's search.

I got a Wollensak Series III Wide Angle (159mm) É9.5 in Betax #3 shutter for under $400 two years ago. A shuttered version was difficult to find.

Corran
25-Apr-2018, 09:48
I have a 6" Metrogon that I haven't been able to use after changing to a different 8x10 camera some time ago...it's an interesting lens but real big. Mine is in a funny one-speed shutter and has a restricted aperture range. I really need to finish modifying the lens board I rough-cut to use it but has been on my "project list" for months. It's a decent lens but it's simply too big and heavy to use seriously, for what I shoot. I bought it on a lark because it was really cheap.

Cheap is certainly relative. IMO the cheapest, easiest to find lens (but limited in IC) is the Schneider 210mm f/5.6 Symmar-S. It just barely covers 8x10 straight-on and can be had for under $200. A lens with plenty of IC though is the 210mm f/9 Graphic Kowa, which used to be found for $400-500 but I think they are trending up. And already mentioned is the Nikkor 120mm f/8 which is still fairly inexpensive (and makes a great slight wide on 4x5) but to me that's "ultrawide" on 8x10, not just "wide."

The (modern) ~150mm range is just so expensive for some reason. The Nikkor 150mm f/8 is just 25% longer than the 120mm, with correspondingly 25% larger IC, but is suddenly 4x the price. I thought the OP was looking for something in this range with the discussion of the 159mm Wolly but if they can deal with something a bit shorter or longer...there's cheaper options in the modern category.

Bernice Loui
25-Apr-2018, 10:06
Cost of WA lenses in the 150mm range for 8x10 is pretty much market driven. When I got out of 8x10 decades ago, lenses like the 155mm Grandagon (yes, owned one for a long time) could be found in very nice condition for under $1,000 and there were a reasonably good supply of used ones. Much the same applies to the 150mm SW Nikkor which was considered an alternative to the 155mm Grandagon. Today, market prices for these have essentially doubled with few appearing on the market. My relic 150mm lens from the 8x10 era is a 150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL which is now used as a moderate wide on 5x7. The 150mm SAXL easily covers 8x10 with GOOD performance, so it will pretty much remain in the pile. This could be the same reason why 8x10 lenses in the 150mm range remains pricy and difficult, folks who have them have little reason or motivation to sell then unless they are completely exiting view camera photography.

The 210mm Symmar does not really properly cover 8x10, it's image circle is too small. Similar applies to similar a good number of modern Plasmat designs.
https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar-s/data/1,5,6-210mm.html

This is often the issue, photographers tend to push lenses beyond their designed in image circle. While there is some designed in margin, this will not result in proper lens performance at the edges and corners of the film format. I'm simply not into this belief or practice. If one is going to do 8x10, spend and budget according and apply the monetary and other resources as needed and demanded by the 8x10 format or go to a smaller film format.



Bernice





I have a 6" Metrogon that I haven't been able to use after changing to a different 8x10 camera some time ago...it's an interesting lens but real big. Mine is in a funny one-speed shutter and has a restricted aperture range. I really need to finish modifying the lens board I rough-cut to use it but has been on my "project list" for months. It's a decent lens but it's simply too big and heavy to use seriously, for what I shoot. I bought it on a lark because it was really cheap.

Cheap is certainly relative. IMO the cheapest, easiest to find lens (but limited in IC) is the Schneider 210mm f/5.6 Symmar-S. It just barely covers 8x10 straight-on and can be had for under $200. A lens with plenty of IC though is the 210mm f/9 Graphic Kowa, which used to be found for $400-500 but I think they are trending up. And already mentioned is the Nikkor 120mm f/8 which is still fairly inexpensive (and makes a great slight wide on 4x5) but to me that's "ultrawide" on 8x10, not just "wide."

The (modern) ~150mm range is just so expensive for some reason. The Nikkor 150mm f/8 is just 25% longer than the 120mm, with correspondingly 25% larger IC, but is suddenly 4x the price. I thought the OP was looking for something in this range with the discussion of the 159mm Wolly but if they can deal with something a bit shorter or longer...there's cheaper options in the modern category.

Jac@stafford.net
25-Apr-2018, 10:16
I have a 6" Metrogon that I haven't been able to use after changing to a different 8x10 camera some time ago...it's an interesting lens but real big. Mine is in a funny one-speed shutter and has a restricted aperture range.

Corran, would you have any pictures of that lens shutter? I would be happy to help if I can.

I have a guillotine shutter with one optional É-stop, plus wide open. Interesting that the shutter is all mechanical but not clockwork-like which inspires some 'interesting' designs. Interesting == "makes me crazy" :)

Corran
25-Apr-2018, 10:20
The 210mm Symmar does not really properly cover 8x10, it's image circle is too small. Similar applies to similar a good number of modern Plasmat designs.
https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar-s/data/1,5,6-210mm.html

This is often the issue, photographers tend to push lenses beyond their designed in image circle. While there is some designed in margin, this will not result in proper lens performance at the edges and corners of the film format. I'm simply not into this belief or practice. If one is going to do 8x10, spend and budget according and apply the monetary and other resources as needed and demanded by the 8x10 format or go to a smaller film format.

The usual caveats apply to the Symmar - yes it's pushing past the "specs" but really not that much. Only ~20mm or ~6%. I used it successfully for a while and did not feel it performed poorly in the corners. Only replaced due to wanting more IC for movements (The GK is also smaller which is nice :)). I am sure that at f/45 and beyond, where I usually am shooting, the difference in resolution at the periphery compared to my Graphic Kowa is not much.

As for "budget accordingly" or "go to a smaller film format," - well, for a while 8x10 was my fun, cheap format. With x-ray film it's cheaper to shoot 8x10! So I just don't agree. I have some contact prints around here from the 210mm Symmar on x-ray film and it was good learning experience. Not everything has to be the best.

Corran
25-Apr-2018, 10:22
Corran, would you have any pictures of that lens shutter? I would be happy to help if I can.

I have a guillotine shutter with one optional ƒ-stop, plus wide open. Interesting that the shutter is all mechanical but not clockwork-like which inspires some 'interesting' designs. Interesting == "makes me crazy" :)

Jac, I can take some pictures tonight and maybe we can compare notes. I still have that CF you sold me for the Metrogon and I actually forgot, way back, to let you know how it worked out.

Bernice Loui
25-Apr-2018, 10:46
Stopping down to f45 and smaller tends to be the lens performance equalizer partly due to diffraction. Just not into this ideology-belief.

Have a 210mm Kowa Graphic which makes a GOOD moderate wide on 8x10 and small. This is another lens that once was mostly dis-regarded as undesirable but has been under appreciated until more recent times. Since then the market values of these have gone up accordingly.

Growing up and working in the era when film was it and 8x10 sheet film was only used when the very best image quality for specific images is a must, this remains the way 8x10 is viewed today. Keep in mind this was when exposing and processing a sheet of 8x10 color transparency film was $10 up about two decades ago. These habits and views remain to this day. It is notable to see how the current group of LF image makers differ from LF image makers from even five years ago. Doing a LFF post search from say 5-10 years ago regarding topics from image making to "gear" is interesting and telling about how much view camera folks has changed.

Personal views, after being at this for so long, resources and time is precious and this sheet films stuff is taken very, very seriously or don't bother. After burning a few thousand sheets of film, the experimenting and tinkering is just not "fun" anymore. Sheet film becomes serious with intention.



Bernice




The usual caveats apply to the Symmar - yes it's pushing past the "specs" but really not that much. Only ~20mm or ~6%. I used it successfully for a while and did not feel it performed poorly in the corners. Only replaced due to wanting more IC for movements (The GK is also smaller which is nice :)). I am sure that at f/45 and beyond, where I usually am shooting, the difference in resolution at the periphery compared to my Graphic Kowa is not much.

As for "budget accordingly" or "go to a smaller film format," - well, for a while 8x10 was my fun, cheap format. With x-ray film it's cheaper to shoot 8x10! So I just don't agree. I have some contact prints around here from the 210mm Symmar on x-ray film and it was good learning experience. Not everything has to be the best.

Corran
25-Apr-2018, 10:57
I was looking through a book of pinhole images again a few days ago. It never fails to remind me what is important in an image, and it's not the resolution in the corners. I try to live by Ansel's seminal quote about not making sharp images of a fuzzy concept (I still often fail).

I recently printed a 4x5 negative that was out of focus in one corner due to difficult DOF needs and geometry that could not be suitably overcome even at small stops.. I consider it a very good image and the stuff in that corner isn't all that important to the image as a whole. To each his own. It's certainly a different world now and the stringent needs of commercial work in regards to LF is mostly dead and gone.

Jac@stafford.net
25-Apr-2018, 11:53
I was looking through a book of pinhole images again a few days ago. It never fails to remind me what is important in an image, and it's not the resolution in the corners. I try to live by Ansel's seminal quote about not making sharp images of a fuzzy concept (I still often fail).

It might be helpful to remember that Ansel had the leisure and finances to visit the same sites over and over until he found the light just right, and at the same time refine his technique. We should all be so lucky, and have time travel to appreciate living in the rarity of expertise of the time.

ViktorK
26-Apr-2018, 14:30
thanks all for the replies. First i wanted something really cheap like the wolly. But now i bought 300mm sironar N MC with peco profia 8x10 and will use these and borrow a nikkor 150 f8 and i will take it from there as i see that in the category i wanted - 120-150mm there isnt something cheap (500usd) with good coverage or IQ. I was looking at metrogon 6in but since i am not from US mounting in shutter would be really expensive (sending it to US and getting it back) or is there any workshop that could mount the metrogon lens here in europe?

Jac@stafford.net
26-Apr-2018, 14:37
thanks all for the replies. First i wanted something really cheap like the wolly. But now i bought 300mm sironar N MC with peco profia 8x10 and will use these and borrow a nikkor 150 f8 and i will take it from there as i see that in the category i wanted - 120-150mm there isnt something cheap (500usd) with good coverage or IQ. I was looking at metrogon 6in but since i am not from US mounting in shutter would be really expensive (sending it to US and getting it back) or is there any workshop that could mount the metrogon lens here in europe?

Oh, just forget the Metrogon unless you want one without shutter. Metrogons are a huge pain in the butt. I have several put to storage, right next to the disposal bin.

Did you look at the for sale (FS) list. There is one excellent lens with shutter (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145735-F-S-Wollensak-Velostigmat-WA-Series-IIIc-8x10-F-9-5-lens). I own one and am happy with it. Browse and be happy!

Luis-F-S
26-Apr-2018, 14:50
A whole lot cheaper than a 6 -/2” WA Dagor

Ari
26-Apr-2018, 19:30
Cheap wide angle for 8x10? In a shutter? Easy, a Fujinon-W 210.
And probably the best IQ for the price.