Lenses for 8x20

[Michael Wellman]

I'm considering jumping into the deep end of the pool and getting a 8x20 (maybe 12x20). I'm curious to know what lenses people use for this format? What's the longest lens you use? The shortest? thanks

[George Losse]

Michael,
I use these three and this would be the order of which gets used the most.

450mm Nikon M
24" Red Dot Artar
12" Goerz Gold Rim Dagor

8x20 is great format. It's fun, frustrating and beyond words when everything comes together.

[Greg]

Suggest getting a Burke & James catalog from the 1950s or the early 1960s. Back of the catalog is dedicated to listing all the lenses they had FS back then. Also the formats they covered. A treasure trove of specs on vintage lenses. Got copies of their March 1961 and June 1962 catalogues for around $20 off the big auction site. Well worth many times the cost over the past years. Twice the info in the catalogues stopped me from buying 2 lenses that the owners exaggerated (I believe) the covering power of those two optics. Only downside is reading that, for instance, a new 12" Goerz Golden Dagor went for $285 in a barrel mount and $295 in a self cocking Ilex shutter!!!!

[Luis-F-S]

Only downside is reading that, for instance, a new 12" Goerz Golden Dagor went for $285 in a barrel mount and $295 in a self cocking Ilex shutter!!!!

What you mean they're more now?!!!!!:confused:

[Jim Galli]

270 f9 Computar, 355 f9 G-Claron, 450 Nikkor, and any old 24" you find is a nice complimentary kit.

[Michael Wellman]

12" Goerz covers? Wow.

[Michael Kadillak]

For my 8x20 Canham I regularly use the 600C Fuji, the 450M Nikkor, the 305 Computar (you have to be carefully with this lens when shooting architecture because it has some issues with field curvature at the wide extremes that you need to be aware of), the 355 G Claron as well as the 30" Red Dot and occasionally the 35" Red Dot in aluminum barrel (forward tilt the front standard forward and use a rise and a rear tilt back to square things up). Great format but I find that being keenly aware of inadvertent bellows sag and "propping this up when necessary" with a towel or ? are image savers. Spoken from direct experience - i.e. I paid for that lesson.

[Luis-F-S]

12" Goerz covers? Wow.

It does at f/45 and smaller.

[angusparker]

Echo the big three 355 G Claron, 450 M Nikkor and 24” RDA. Here are some more that will cover: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2015/2/ulf-lens-recommendations-14x17


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[John Jarosz]

I've been using for 8x20

305mm Agfa Gevaert Super Intergon with a Packard shutter. (Covers but has fall-off in the corners) I really don't use this lens for taking, it's my 8x10 enlarging lens. I found out about the coverage by accident.

12"Metrogon. (from a 9x18 aerial camera) using waterhouse stops. Haven't seen an example for sale for a few years now. 3" and 6" are pretty common. No shutter, I use an 8x10 darkslide. This lens weighs 7#. If you do stumble upon one make sure you get the Red & Yellow center graduated filters that originally came with it. It's not a convenient lens to use but it's very sharp at F11 to F64. Easily covers 8x20

420mm APO Nikkor mounted in a Ilex shutter

600mm APO Ronar in a Ilex shutter

1200mm Tele Nikkor. The 1200mm rear lens element will cover 8x20. The other 2 rear lenses in the set (600mm & 800mm) will not. At infinity the back focal length is 762mm. There is some fall-off in the corners that need to be compensated for in printing.

[DrTang]

when I had one...I used a 14" dagor with a backmounted shutter

(backmounted?? the shutter was mounted on the front of the lens...it looked weird but worked okay)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

My go to lens for my 8x20 is a Rodenstock 360 mm Gerogon barrel lens. It is sharp and contrasty and covers. I also us a 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon and a 19" Artar.

[William Whitaker]

... I also use a 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon and a 19" Artar.

Jim beat me to it. The Kodak 21 1/4" Copying Ektanon seems to get passed over, but it is a good solution for ULF. They most frequently show up in a barrel configuration. But barrel isn't so bad. This lens wide open is f/11, so especially with a slower film, a lens cap makes a good shutter. Mine covers my 12x20 well, so 8x20 should be generously covered.

[Andrew Plume]

The late William Corey used a Copying Ektanon for his Japanese work:-

http://williamcorey.com/the-camera/

Andrew

[neil poulsen]

The following is Michael Kadillak's response to a question that I asked him in a private message. My question follows his response below . . .


As per your question of field curvature via the 305mm Computar on 8x20, I wanted to let you know that the tendency of the optic to exhibit this characteristic is only a concern to a discerning architectural photographer under unique circumstances. I was photographing the Denver City and County Building close ( like shooting the inside half of a basketball) and could have avoided the curvature issues by stepping a few steps back and shooting the image with the 355 G Claron. Never experienced this with landscape photography which is why it surprised me when it happened.

One of the two benefits of such an optic as the 305mm Computar really is with macro photography where improved DOF is a substantive plus. The obvious other benefit is covering more than 8x20 with a 12" lens (i.e. angle of coverage over 90 degrees), is a game changer when it is needed.

The Computar series of lenses I believe are multi coated (the infamous purple hue from an angle) and I have truly enjoyed using the 240mm Computer on 8x10 because its coverage is far beyond 8x10 and it comes in handy when using movements albeit modest ones. Have a 240mm Doctor and it has vignetted on 8x10 that surprised me. Stay with the Computar as they re fabulous optics.


Michael,

Hi. I saw your comment regarding wide-field curvature issues of f9 Computar's in the current 8x20 thread. QUESTION: I was wondering, how does this curvature manifest itself on prints?

I recently went on a two lens buying spree and now have both a 210mm Kowa Graphic (MC) f9 and a 210mm Computar (not MC?) f9. With all that I've heard, and I've compared them on my 8x10, I was going to keep the Computar and sell the Graphic Kowa. But after seeing your comment, I'm wondering.

Comparing them on my 8x10, the Computar clearly has the larger image circle. There's an old thread in which Kerry Thallman and Sandy King discuss f9 Computars that they have, and Kerry confirms this observation. QUESTION: Does the curvature problem that you mention reduce the effective image circle?

The Thallman/King thread mentions the "huge" image circle of Computar f9 lenses. But, this is for formats that would typically be contact printed. But, I'd like to be able to enlarge 8x10 up to 2x or 3x the size of the negative. So as I indicated above, now I'm kind of wondering?

Any comments that you might offer on this would sure be appreciated.

Neil

[Eric Leppanen]

I recently went on a two lens buying spree and now have both a 210mm Kowa Graphic (MC) f9 and a 210mm Computar (not MC?) f9...

Comparing them on my 8x10, the Computar clearly has the larger image circle. There's an old thread in which Kerry Thallman and Sandy King discuss f9 Computars that they have, and Kerry confirms this observation. QUESTION: Does the curvature problem that you mention reduce the effective image circle?

The Thallman/King thread mentions the "huge" image circle of Computar f9 lenses. But, this is for formats that would typically be contact printed. But, I'd like to be able to enlarge 8x10 up to 2x or 3x the size of the negative.Some years back I also owned a 210 Kowa Graphic and 210 Computar (both purchased from Kerry Thallman BTW) and compared them to a massive 200 Grandagon on 8x10 from the perspective of making enlargements. I ended up keeping the Computar as well as the Grandagon.

When compared within the Kowa's image circle, the Kowa and Computar performed similarly (I thought the Computar was a smidge sharper but probably not enough to make a difference in enlargements). The Computar clearly had a larger image circle so I sold the Kowa. But when I started testing the boundaries of the Computar's image circle, and compared it to the Grandagon (495mm IC @ f/22), I noticed a couple of things. The tests were done using real world architecture and landscape subjects, not resolution targets.

Near image circle extremes, I had to stop down the Computar more than the Grandagon in order to get everything in sharp focus. This I presume was the result of field curvature by the Computar. I don't remember whether I saw evidence of curvature when centered on the IC, if any it was likely minimal. Also at the edge of the image circle, I saw a tremendous amount of light falloff with the Computar (although otherwise the image seemed reasonably sharp). Thus I decided to retain the Computar for backpacking, and the Grandagon for everything else. I remember concluding that if I wanted to use the Computar as a large image circle lens, that I would have to fit a center filter for it. I shot exclusively chrome at the time, I don't know how much negative film would have improved the situation. I had previously successfully fitted a Schneider CF to my 240 Germinar W (I've posted about that either here or at APUG), so I assume finding a reasonably good match for the Computar is possible.

I believe both my Kowa and Computar were single coated, but when centered my Computar produced an image whose sharpness and contrast compared favorably (and may have even slightly exceeded) that of my multi-coated Grandagon. None were as sharp as a 210 Sironar W.

[Corran]

I missed this thread.

If you keep your eyes open, you can find a 305mm G-Claron of the older Dagor type (Google search 305mm G-Claron Dagor and you'll find a thread that I made on this topic). The older Dagor model is hard to find and hard to identify by laymen, so it goes cheap when you find it. Mine cost $150. This covers 8x20 nicely, with even a little bit of wiggle room.

Personally I also have a Nikkor 450mm, which I've used a couple of times. I usually only bring one lens or the other.

[Michael Kadillak]

The late William Corey used a Copying Ektanon for his Japanese work:-

http://williamcorey.com/the-camera/

Andrew

I responded to an add for a Durst 184 enlarger for sale a number of years ago and drove up to Boulder to meet William Corey and spend several hours looking at his enlarger but mostly talking to him about about photography. What was surprising to me was the several hundred negatives that he said he had exposed and had yet found time to process and print. He truly was the epitome of an artist that had found a unique niche in the oriental culture and was masterfully exploiting it. I can remember feeling tremendously invigorated about photography after the experience and hoped to spend more time with him. Unfortunately, William passed far too soon and I was saddened when I learned of the event. Sometimes life is neither fair or easy. I hope his wife finds continues to share the work William created so others can experience his vision.

[8x20_Pano_Shooter]

For my Horizontal 8x20, I use a 355 G Claron, 24" Artar and a 30" Artar. For my vertical 8x20, I have a 14" Dagor and 19" Dagor that gets added to the mix because I need a little more image circle if I use front or rear tilt.

[Michael Kadillak]

For my Horizontal 8x20, I use a 355 G Claron, 24" Artar and a 30" Artar. For my vertical 8x20, I have a 14" Dagor and 19" Dagor that gets added to the mix because I need a little more image circle if I use front or rear tilt.

Confused.

Why would you need a separate set of lenses for vertical 8x20? The film plane does not change and I have never run out of coverage with the 355 G Claron in either orientation. This is because the hyperfocal distance of the 355 G Claron as an extreme wide angle on the 8x20 is very shallow requiring minor front tilt (horizontal) and swing (vertical). Ditto for the Fuji 600C.

[Two23]

What you mean they're more now?!!!!!:confused:



Using an inflation calculator, the value of $295 in 1961 is equivalent to $2,500 today. So yes, they are a bargain NOW.:)


Kent in SD

[8x20_Pano_Shooter]

Confused.

Why would you need a separate set of lenses for vertical 8x20? The film plane does not change and I have never run out of coverage with the 355 G Claron in either orientation. This is because the hyperfocal distance of the 355 G Claron as an extreme wide angle on the 8x20 is very shallow requiring minor front tilt (horizontal) and swing (vertical). Ditto for the Fuji 600C.

I am speaking from experience with my vertical 8x20, the subject matter being photographed and how I want it captured on film. I do occasionally use rear tilt on this camera if that is what it takes to create what I want. I have experienced it where the 355 G Claron will not cover the ground glass. So I use the 14” Dagor.

[Michael Kadillak]

I am speaking from experience with my vertical 8x20, the subject matter being photographed and how I want it captured on film. I do occasionally use rear tilt on this camera if that is what it takes to create what I want. I have experienced it where the 355 G Claron will not cover the ground glass. So I use the 14” Dagor.

Pulled out the 8x20 and swung it to vertical and with the 355 G Claron and as long as I manage the bellows sag I can't get a landscape scene to go limit out with coverage adhering to conventional "movements as necessary" landscape photography image making. Macro shots only improve my coverage. Pleased that I could sell my 14" Dagor a number of years ago. To each their own.......

[Luis-F-S]

Still have mine as well as the G-C. My 14" Dagor is MC in Compur, so coverage is not as generous as the old ones. L

[Corran]

Perhaps the differences in your experiences wrt the 355mm G-Claron is due to the differences between some GC lenses - Dagor vs. Plasmat specifically, as I mentioned earlier regarding my 305mm version. Just a thought. Not sure if there was that difference on the 355mm.

[Michael Kadillak]

Perhaps the differences in your experiences wrt the 355mm G-Claron is due to the differences between some GC lenses - Dagor vs. Plasmat specifically, as I mentioned earlier regarding my 305mm version. Just a thought. Not sure if there was that difference on the 355mm.

I have three recent 355 G Claron's in Copal 3 shutters for my ULF cameras (11x14, 12x20 and 8x20) that all perform similarly in terms of coverage, sharpness and contrast - all top drawer hence the multiples. There are some earlier Dagor designs of other G Claron lenses (210mm and 305mm to name a couple) but I am not aware of that duplicity with versions for the 355 G Claron.

[Luis-F-S]

There are some earlier Dagor designs of other G Claron lenses (210mm and 305mm to name a couple) but I am not aware of that duplicity with versions for the 355 G Claron.

Michael, I'm not ever sure we've determined that the 305 much less the 355 was made in a Dagor design. I have 270, 240, and 150 Dagor Type G-Clarons. If the longer lenses were also made, they must be pretty unusual. My G-Claron catalogue from 1967 lists the 305, but nothing longer.

[Corran]

The 305mm GC was absolutely made in both Dagor and Plasmat - I have one of both! The 305 Dagor covers 8x20 with a bit to spare, the Plasmat just barely misses the corners - probably ~535mm IC total.

I have never seen another 305mm GC Dagor. I don't know how "rare" it is.

[Michael Kadillak]

Reference point from the Schneider website.

355 G Claron on 8x10 focused at 100' @ f32 has a depth of field from 40' to infinity. 8x20 is no different. Modest movements as a result are generally the norm in this condition both to optimize coverage and also to get the most out of the performance of each lens.

My point for the general viewing audience is given the optical properties of your specific lens package is to keep a minimilistic approach to your movements while carefully watching the GG while you stop down. Secondly, only stop down one stop beyond where you feel things are dialed in because of the inducement of unnecessary diffraction. Good Shooting!

[Chauncey Walden]

I also have a 305 Dagor GC and I've seen Michael's prints. Whatever he does works very well.