PDA

View Full Version : Does an affordable, available, non-plasmat 300mm-ish lens that covers 8x10 exist?



williaty
20-Jun-2018, 21:36
I'm shooting 8x10 plates now via a 305mm f/4.5 B&L tessar in barrel and Packard shutter but I'd like to shoot film too. For me, that requires a lens in a "modern" shutter that actually has clockwork speeds. I am also not a fan of the way plasmat lenses tend to draw the transition from in focus to out of focus areas. They make me feel jittery and anxious. So I've been looking for an older design (pretty much anything that's sufficiently sharp for a contact print, really, I'm not into the meniscus look). I've been camping on ebay for a month or so now and not having much luck. I'd love to just snag a Commercial Ektar 12" or some other form of tessar (CZ Tessar, Xenar, Paragon Anastigmat), but either they're in collectable condition and priced near to a thousand bucks or they're just not appearing with any frequency. Well, or they're a Heliar, Apo-Lanthar, etc and I'd have to sell my car to buy one. Anyway, I'd like to broaden my horizons to increase my chances of finding something.

It's entirely possible that this simply means I don't know there are other lenses I could be looking for. Can you guys recommend something about 300mm/12", that covers 8x10, isn't a plasmat, is common enough that I can just buy the darned thing without having to be some sort of sniping god on ebay, and doesn't cost close to a grand?

Corran
20-Jun-2018, 21:40
Not a whole lot of movements but the Nikkor-M 300mm f/9 is what I use while backpacking my 8x10. I haven't used it but Fujinon had their similar 300mm f/8.5.

The Nikkor can be found under $500. Is that the price range you are looking at?

I thought the Nikkor was some variation of the Tessar design but others insisted it wasn't in an older thread so I dunno. I don't usually have a lot of OOF areas in my 8x10 images so I don't have an opinion on that.

williaty
20-Jun-2018, 21:53
I already had a tab open with Nikkor-M 300s in it to check pricing and realistically you're looking at $600 to get one to your door. I'd love to stay under $400 but I don't even know if that's possible. You bringing them up made me look a little harder. I have an older Nikkor lens brochure which lists the Nikkor-M 300 as 4 elements in 3 groups and the cut-away drawing sure looks like the kind of curves you'd find in a tessar design.

Corran
20-Jun-2018, 21:58
I don't keep up with the prices so they might be trending up. Small portable 8x10 lens and all that...but I think one could likely come around at under $500 if you wait, especially here in the classifieds or on the Facebook LF group. I think I bought mine for $400 and I remember almost buying another on eBay that was a BIN for $350, but it sold quick. Of course this was a few years ago.

By the way, there is a very old post from Sandy King claiming the Nikkor-M has in excess of 450mm of coverage (dependent on your needs with regard to enlargement/resolution). Some here though claim "it does not cover 8x10" with sufficient quality. In my personal experience having used the lens, it covers 8x10 just fine and has room for typical movements, and I have no issues with image quality using it that way. Just wanted to throw that out there before the likely posts linking to this or that technical chart.

renditiont
20-Jun-2018, 22:21
I'm shooting 8x10 plates now via a 305mm f/4.5 B&L tessar in barrel and Packard shutter but I'd like to shoot film too. For me, that requires a lens in a "modern" shutter that actually has clockwork speeds. I am also not a fan of the way plasmat lenses tend to draw the transition from in focus to out of focus areas. They make me feel jittery and anxious. So I've been looking for an older design (pretty much anything that's sufficiently sharp for a contact print, really, I'm not into the meniscus look). I've been camping on ebay for a month or so now and not having much luck. I'd love to just snag a Commercial Ektar 12" or some other form of tessar (CZ Tessar, Xenar, Paragon Anastigmat), but either they're in collectable condition and priced near to a thousand bucks or they're just not appearing with any frequency. Well, or they're a Heliar, Apo-Lanthar, etc and I'd have to sell my car to buy one. Anyway, I'd like to broaden my horizons to increase my chances of finding something.

It's entirely possible that this simply means I don't know there are other lenses I could be looking for. Can you guys recommend something about 300mm/12", that covers 8x10, isn't a plasmat, is common enough that I can just buy the darned thing without having to be some sort of sniping god on ebay, and doesn't cost close to a grand?

Aero Ektar 12 inches f/2.5 (7-element/modified double gauss) and Eastman 13.5 inches f3.5 (5-element I think). They are commonly available and packard shutter should work well.

AE12 on 8x10IP, 1/260-ish sec. The lens is razor sharp and this 2nd-copy of mine is pretty beat up on the front and rear glasses

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1746/27744357047_7c8196406b_z.jpg

williaty
20-Jun-2018, 22:22
Aero Ektar 12 inches f/2.5 (7-element/modified double gauss) and Eastman 13.5 inches f3.5 (5-element I think). They are commonly available and packard shutter should work well.
You clearly missed the "affordable and in a modern shutter" part! ;)

Corran
20-Jun-2018, 22:28
I think you are looking at a bad time. There seems to be a huge uptick of interest in 8x10, what with the Intrepid 8x10 coming out and a number of photographers who have followings on Instagram/Youtube extolling them and the virtues of 8x10. Consider the number of threads we've had asking about getting into 8x10 and skipping 4x5. Hence the higher prices.

williaty
20-Jun-2018, 22:29
Huh, well that's unfortunate. I tend to be completely oblivious to what's popular at the moment so I had no idea 8x10 was seeing a resurgence.

Darren Kruger
20-Jun-2018, 23:31
Some lenses to consider keeping an eye out for. When they show up they are often in a Wollensak Alphax or Betax shutter. Not modern but I've found them to be fairly decent shutters.

Wollensak Velostigmat Series 1a 13" f6.8 (convertible, keep an eye out for separation)
Wollensak Velostigmat Series II 12" f4.5 (without fuzzalator should cost less)
Gundlach Radar 12" f4.5

Have you checked out the what is for sale at Igor Camera or KEH to see if they have something you would be interested in?

-Darren

blue4130
21-Jun-2018, 00:01
Check out the fujinar lenses in Shanel shutters. They are tessar designs if I am not mistaken. 300mm f4.5.

renditiont
21-Jun-2018, 04:04
You clearly missed the "affordable and in a modern shutter" part! ;)
No I didn't miss it haha. I got my beat up AE12 f2.5 for $50, and I converted a damaged SG for shutter for another $40. Clearly the combo is affordable :)

But anyway, for my blue yellow low serial AE 308mm f2.5 with clean glasses I paid $200, all on Ebay fyi

Pere Casals
21-Jun-2018, 04:40
I some sort of sniping god on ebay, and doesn't cost close to a grand?

Not 300-ish, but let me point a 420mm choice that's excellent for 8x10 portraiture.

This is a Symmar 240mm convertible to 420mm by removing the front cell, not a Plasmat but half of it, just a triplet. Usually it has a shutter, ebay price from 120 to 250.

Single coated, converted to 420mm is f/12 and it works very nice for portraits. When converted it has some focus shift, so you should focus at same aperture you shot, that would require a tight dark cloth.

Also when converted to 420mm we should stop to /22 or beyond to get sharper corners (for landscape).

rdenney
21-Jun-2018, 05:15
I only paid about three hundred for my good-condition 12" f/6.3 Ilex-Calumet Caltar, which is a (good) copy of the Kodak Commercial Ektar--a hot-rodded tessar design. It's in an Ilex #4, which works reliably. Shutter speeds are not always super accurate, but they are always consistent and after testing one knows what to do. I would consider a shutter like this sufficient for modern use, and better than a gummed up Compur or Copal.

Ilex also made the Paragon, which is a conventional tessar design. It's not quite as optimized as the Caltar, but it's still a good lens.

I'm not sure there's a better balance between affordability and modern applicability at that focal length. They are not common, but then again I found one when I was looking for it, so I suspect they are findable.

For me, "affordable" for a 12" lens is just about anything under $500.

Rick "a tough focal length to be too picky if on a budget" Denney

consummate_fritterer
21-Jun-2018, 05:16
Williaty, IMO the 'jittery' out-of-focus areas are caused by apertures with too few blades, more so than lens design. Both certainly play a part but even lenses with the smoothest/creamiest OOF rendering are greatly affected by aperture shape. Maybe look for a late model Commercial Ektar in Ilex shutter? Rick's Caltar is another good option.

David Karp
21-Jun-2018, 06:18
Another option would be a 300mm Fujinon L. It is a Tessar type, single coated, in a Copal No. 3.

David Lobato
21-Jun-2018, 07:13
What about the 12 inch and 14 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar in Ilex shutter? Or the Kodak Ektar lenses?

Pete Roody
21-Jun-2018, 07:42
Try looking for a Wollensak Raptar Series 1a 13" (330mm). This lens is triple convertible so you add focal lengths of 20" and 25.5" using single elements. Usually found in Alphax shutters that are older but reliable.

williaty
21-Jun-2018, 08:18
OK, summary:

1) Commercial Ektar: already watching. Prices have basically doubled, working on tripling, in the last 2-3 months. All the reasonably priced ones have sold and the only ones left are either damaged or what used to be the "gee that's a silly price" listings that are now the new normal. So far I've bought 2 that the seller said were ok and then I had to return them because either the glass is a train wreck or the shutter doesn't run (and no, I'm not being super picky at this pricepoint).

2) Ilex Paragon Anastigmat: already watching, just haven't seen anything longer than 10" pop up.

3) Ilex-Calument Caltar: new to me, sounds cool, watching for one now.

4) Fujinon-L 300mm f/5.6: new to me, sounds cool, watching for one now.

5) Nikkor-M 300mm f/9: Not wild about f/9 but sounds workable, watching for one now.

William Whitaker
21-Jun-2018, 08:36
I'm shooting 8x10 plates now via a 305mm f/4.5 B&L tessar in barrel and Packard shutter...
Aside from the shutter issue, how do you like that 305 Tessar? They do occasionally show up in a shutter (Betax usually).

I once had a Kern 14" f/8 Dagor that displayed pronounced "nisen bokeh" (double bokeh). It was the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. All the more upsetting because that lens was so expensive! But that was an isolated instance; I've never had any other bad lens experiences myself. But I do like older lenses such as the B&L Tessars, Wollensak Velostigmats, etc. And they still seem fairly common on Ebay, although not in the proliferation of 15-20 years ago.

paulbarden
21-Jun-2018, 08:38
I have the regular (not Commercial) 12” Ektar, and it’s ridiculously sharp when you want it to be, and has glorious out of focus softness. For all practical purposes there’s no difference between the Commercial Ektars and the regular Ektars. (Quality control for the Commercial Ektars was a bit tighter, tolerances more strict)
I could make 4x5 foot posters from my Ektar negatives if I wanted to. If you want to make contact prints (which is exactly what I do), any Ektar 12” will more than deliver. I’ve seen regular Ektar 12” lenses on fleabay for as little as $250. recently.

williaty
21-Jun-2018, 08:43
Aside from the shutter issue, how do you like that 305 Tessar? They do occasionally show up in a shutter (Betax usually).
It seems great, honestly. I've only used it wide open (wet plates) but the sharpness is very good, the coverage of the plate is very good, and the way it draws doesn't bother me. About the only thing I could say as a downside is that, being uncoated, it's a bit flare prone if I can't shade the lens. Even then, it's not absurd flare, just a mild contrast reduction.



I have the regular (not Commercial) 12” Ektar, and it’s ridiculously sharp when you want it to be, and has glorious out of focus softness. For all practical purposes there’s no difference between the Commercial Ektars and the regular Ektars. (Quality control for the Commercial Ektars was a bit tighter, tolerances more strict)
I could make 4x5 foot posters from my Ektar negatives if I wanted to. If you want to make contact prints (which is exactly what I do), any Ektar 12” will more than deliver. I’ve seen regular Ektar 12” lenses on fleabay for as little as $250. recently.

I assumed there had to be a non-Commercial version but I haven't seen one yet so I wasn't sure if they transitioned to Commerical-only above 10" or something.

Oren Grad
21-Jun-2018, 08:43
I am also not a fan of the way plasmat lenses tend to draw the transition from in focus to out of focus areas. They make me feel jittery and anxious.

Which plasmats have you used, and can you be more specific about what bothers you about the rendering? The reason for asking is that plasmats vary quite a bit in their rendering - there's no one "plasmat look". So if you are ruling out plasmats as a class you may be unnecessarily excluding affordable lenses that would serve your purposes.

mdarnton
21-Jun-2018, 08:53
It's already been mentioned, but I want to reinforce that my 12" 6.8 Paragon is my favorite lens I own, for the reasons you want. When I am looking for something like that I set up an ebay search link for it, newest first, and punch the link every time I pass my computer. When they show up at decent prices, and they do, they don't hang around long. Mine cost me $200, worth every cent.

Looks unsharp in this size, click through for larger:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3847/14690979160_10ee14c2fd_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9)

Eric (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr

Bernice Loui
21-Jun-2018, 08:58
Good choices, except for the Nikkor M which is a sought after lens due to it's popularity with field camera folks who want a smallish long focal length lens. IMO, too small a full aperture for a Tessar design as these are typically used near full aperture, about f8-f16 and not smaller.

Notable would be the "modern shutter". Typical Copal# 3 does not have a round iris and this can affect out of focus rendition at the larger apertures. This is where an older Ilex or Compound or Compur (one of my fav large shutters) does better. At taking apertured of say f22 and smaller, the non-round iris might not make a difference. Know most modern lenses (Plasmats, Biogon_ish and similar) have been optimized for f16 to f45. This assumption common in these designs is taking aperture to be f22 ish and all areas of the image to be "sharp". This differers from previous generations of design where in the case of say a Xenar with a full aperture of f4.5, very good image results happen at f8.

The real bargains in Tessars are ones in barrel. Offerings like Kodak Ektar, Xenar and similar in barrel have a nice round iris, significant lower cost than it's twin in shutter and does not develop problems associated with shutters. There is also a full aperture advantage, 300mm Xenar in barrel has a full aperture of f4.5, in shutter it will be smaller.

I'm curious as to why Kodak Ektars have suddenly increased in market value. For the longest time they were considered not that desirable. For decades nice 12" f6.3 in shutter can be had in their original black box for $300 or so. In barrel just over $100.

Don't discount older non coated Teasars like Zeiss, as they continue with the ability to produce excellent images. There are numerous very good reasons why the Tessar design has endured for so long in imaging optics design.


Bernice



OK, summary:

1) Commercial Ektar: already watching. Prices have basically doubled, working on tripling, in the last 2-3 months. All the reasonably priced ones have sold and the only ones left are either damaged or what used to be the "gee that's a silly price" listings that are now the new normal. So far I've bought 2 that the seller said were ok and then I had to return them because either the glass is a train wreck or the shutter doesn't run (and no, I'm not being super picky at this pricepoint).

2) Ilex Paragon Anastigmat: already watching, just haven't seen anything longer than 10" pop up.

3) Ilex-Calument Caltar: new to me, sounds cool, watching for one now.

4) Fujinon-L 300mm f/5.6: new to me, sounds cool, watching for one now.

5) Nikkor-M 300mm f/9: Not wild about f/9 but sounds workable, watching for one now.

williaty
21-Jun-2018, 09:03
Which plasmats have you used, and can you be more specific about what bothers you about the rendering? The reason for asking is that plasmats vary quite a bit in their rendering - there's no one "plasmat look". So if you are ruling out plasmats as a class you may be unnecessarily excluding affordable lenses that would serve your purposes.

I think they've all been either Symmar-S, Super Angulon, or Topcor lenses.

First of all, I tend to shoot wide open on LF. I think I actually haven't stopped down a lens since university when I was assigned table top homework. That's on 4x5, though, maybe I'll find on 8x10 I need to stop down a little even to do a portrait. So the lenses I do like just tend to smoothly get more and more unsharp as you move away from focus until they're clearly out of focus in a nice, gentle, homogeneous blur. They draw the way I would with charcoal on paper, smudging and blurring the shapes of the things outside of the subject. There's no visible division where you can say "ok, THIS is in focus and THAT is out of focus).

In contrast, the modern lenses I've worked with go through this awkward disjointed region that looks like a bad video game render where they can't decide if they're supposed to draw this thing sharp or blurred. Fully out of focus, it almost feels like there's echoes that jitter back and forth rather than smooth blur. The nearly-but-not-quite in focus areas almost seem like the lens cracked the image apart, melted it a little, and shoved it back together. The net result is that the transition area feels disjointed and the fully out of focus area feels like it moves constantly, or wants to move maybe.

williaty
21-Jun-2018, 09:07
Notable would be the "modern shutter". Typical Copal# 3 does not have a round iris and this can affect out of focus rendition at the larger apertures. This is where an older Ilex or Compound or Compur (one of my fav large shutters) does better.
The very early Copal shutters (chrome ring with fine milled edge serrations) had a lot more blades than the later Copals (chrome or black ring, chunky edge notches). I've been wondering if the increase is enough to make a difference.


The real bargains in Tessars are ones in barrel. Offerings like Kodak Ektar, Xenar and similar in barrel have a nice round iris, significant lower cost than it's twin in shutter and does not develop problems associated with shutters. There is also a full aperture advantage, 300mm Xenar in barrel has a full aperture of f4.5, in shutter it will be smaller.
I've got a B&L Tessar 300mm f/4.5 in barrel and I like it but I want a clockwork shutter.


I'm curious as to why Kodak Ektars have suddenly increased in market value. For the longest time they were considered not that desirable. For decades nice 12" f6.3 in shutter can be had in their original black box for $300 or so. In barrel just over $100.
The 12" in shutter with a box is now going for $800-$900. My bet would be that with 8x10 becoming trendy someone who has a lot of social media followers mentioned how much they like their Commercial Ektar.

Bernice Loui
21-Jun-2018, 09:18
Much the same why there are no modern Plasmats in the lens library. I'm one of those who have settled on using full to no smaller than f16 on many 5x7 images. It is a personal style thing and then choosing the tools that meet this need. When there is a need for taking apertures f16 and smaller a Dagor will be applied as needed.


Bernice





In contrast, the modern lenses I've worked with go through this awkward disjointed region that looks like a bad video game render where they can't decide if they're supposed to draw this thing sharp or blurred. Fully out of focus, it almost feels like there's echoes that jitter back and forth rather than smooth blur. The nearly-but-not-quite in focus areas almost seem like the lens cracked the image apart, melted it a little, and shoved it back together. The net result is that the transition area feels disjointed and the fully out of focus area feels like it moves constantly, or wants to move maybe.

Bernice Loui
21-Jun-2018, 09:29
Wonder if this 8x10 fad will endure or fade away in time like many other fads. There are other excellent Tessar design lenses available outside of the Kodak box. That B&L Tessar noted is just one of many. If the 8x10 fad continues on these lesser known Tessar designs might go up in market value much like lesser known non Biogon_ish wide angles for 8x10.

Got to wonder, in the lens library lives a 480mm f4.5 Xenar. This was purchased decades ago for less then $200. It was at a Foto Swap month after month with zero interest. Eventually out of impulse, made the purchase then used it on the 8x10 Sinar with Sinar shutter. Got to wonder where where have these largest of Xenars gone? This is what the 480mm f4.5 Xenar looks like next to a 300mm f4.5 Xenar with a box of 35mm Kodachrome.
179604





The 12" in shutter with a box is now going for $800-$900. My bet would be that with 8x10 becoming trendy someone who has a lot of social media followers mentioned how much they like their Commercial Ektar.

Corran
21-Jun-2018, 09:30
Commercial Ektars have been praised here for years. I used to have an 8 1/2" and a 12," but sold them about 4 years ago. They made nice images with a bit softer contrast than my modern lenses but I don't shoot a lot of portrait work so never really did much with OOF stuff.

I have heard similar comments about Plasmats but I've never found the transition to be too jarring. Personally I would consider stopping down at least a little bit to get a tad more DOF that will give a more concrete definition to the sharp/unsharp portions of the image.

Another consideration might be an APO Ronar or other dialyte design, or a Dagor of some stripe. You'll still have the issue of max aperture limited to f/9 on some of these. It's not as bad as you might think.

Bernice Loui
21-Jun-2018, 09:34
No real proper or not proper, correct_not correct to this, modern lenses tend to have higher and harder contrast rendition. I'm reminded of this each and every time the Schneider SSXL and other modern wide angles are used. Yet, the lower contrast rendition of lenses like Kodak Ektar, Xenar and similar remains the personal choice.


Bernice



Commercial Ektars have been praised here for years. I used to have an 8 1/2" and a 12," but sold them about 4 years ago. They made nice images with a bit softer contrast than my modern lenses but I don't shoot a lot of portrait work so never really did much with OOF stuff.

I have heard similar comments about Plasmats but I've never found the transition to be too jarring. Personally I would consider stopping down at least a little bit to get a tad more DOF that will give a more concrete definition to the sharp/unsharp portions of the image.

Another consideration might be an APO Ronar or other dialyte design, or a Dagor of some stripe. You'll still have the issue of max aperture limited to f/9. It's not as bad as you might think.

Oren Grad
21-Jun-2018, 09:43
First of all, I tend to shoot wide open on LF. I think I actually haven't stopped down a lens since university when I was assigned table top homework... etc.

Thanks, all of this is very helpful in clarifying what you're looking for. Given what you've said I won't offer any specific lens advice, as my own concern and experience with LF lenses is primarily with rendering at middling distances and middle-to-small apertures.

The only general observation I will add is that rendering of focus transitions and OOF areas is a complex phenomenon and for a given lens can vary considerably at different apertures and different working distances to the subject, foreground and background. So again, your clarification of intended usage is very important; take it with a grain of salt when someone recommends a particular lens without addressing your specific use case.

Good luck in your search!

Corran
21-Jun-2018, 09:44
No real proper or not proper, correct_not correct to this,

I didn't say he was doing anything incorrect, just suggesting different techniques to possibly assuage any issues with perceived harshness/jitteryness of the image or OOF transitions. Edit: see Oren's post about wrt OOF areas and rendering varying with aperture/distance. That was my point.

Surely someone out there has shot some images with a few different 300mm lenses at various apertures to compare? I looked in my archives and I only have portraits with my 12" Gundlach Radar. A good lens! But not in modern shutter.

John Kasaian
21-Jun-2018, 09:56
Anybody mention the Congo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tam3WWL8aVU

Bernice Loui
21-Jun-2018, 10:11
Difficulty with evaluating OOF is the need to use a given lens over many years, many sheets of film, many varying image making conditions and their resulting images. There is no single image alone that can fully express the total personality of any given lens. OOF is indeed a very complex topic with not single correct answer. Images posted on the web alone is IMO, not sufficient to reveal in-depth the personality of a given lens for a host of reasons.

This is why making recommendations is only a start. From there, ownership of a given lens allows image maker to get to know that specific lens over time. It is very much a relationship between image maker and image making tool. There are differences within a given brand and individual lens, only long term image making can reveal these differences.

For the lenses I'm currently using, they were culled out from a larger group decades ago and they have remained much the same since then and I'm not really willing to part with any of them. Think of this as a long term relationship. As with most long term relationships work is involved to develop and cultivate a symbolic, rewarding and healthy relationship.


Bernice




The only general observation I will add is that rendering of focus transitions and OOF areas is a complex phenomenon and for a given lens can vary considerably at different apertures and different working distances to the subject, foreground and background. So again, your clarification of intended usage is very important; take it with a grain of salt when someone recommends a particular lens without addressing your specific use case.

Good luck in your search!

Sal Santamaura
21-Jun-2018, 13:18
...I'd love to just snag a Commercial Ektar 12" or some other form of tessar...


Not a whole lot of movements but the Nikkor-M 300mm f/9 is what I use while backpacking my 8x10. I haven't used it but Fujinon had their similar 300mm f/8.5...


...Another consideration might be an APO Ronar or other dialyte design...

Note that the 300mm f/8.5 Fujinon C is a dialyte, not tessar, design.

paulbarden
21-Jun-2018, 14:10
I assumed there had to be a non-Commercial version but I haven't seen one yet so I wasn't sure if they transitioned to Commerical-only above 10" or something.

I've seen a few of the 12" Ektar's go by in recent months; they're not that rare.
FYI this is from a recent Wet Plate Collodion negative made using my 12" Ektar lens at f11.5
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/830/41052874404_8fc9c0a81b_b.jpg

rdenney
21-Jun-2018, 14:13
Bernice makes an important point that modern plasmat and biogon forms were designed for making sharp images, not for creating extreme selective focus effects. They indeed work best at f/22 and that's what they were designed for. The wide coverage is part of that--much of view camera technique is using movements to bring more of the image in focus and make it sharper. Plasmats and biogons also seek to eliminate geometric distortion altogether, which is an outcome of their symmetrical designs. That is also a priority in many view camera use cases, particularly architecture.

In earlier times, film was slower and lenses less so. The typical Ilex Paragon (which is approximately analogous to a Kodak Ektar) has a maximum aperture of f/4.5--a large aperture indeed for an 8-12" lens. I have an Ilex Paragon 8-1/2" lens in an Ilex #4 press shutter that looks like it was used as a boat anchor during its life but still works pretty well. At f/4.5, it's rather soft, but that isn't always a bad thing. On 4x5 and printed to 16x20, it's only a 4x enlargement--a lens that only resolves 20 lp/mm will still make a sharp print, at least of what (little) is in focus. I don't recall if the 12" Paragon is that fast, though--it would have to be mounted in a #5 shutter at least, if so.

The Ilex-Calumet Caltars and Commercial Ektars, which are birds of the same flock (Calumet worked with Ilex to re-create the Commercial Ektar when Kodak stopped making it), were more intended to make sharp images, but they are tessars and have a tessar look, with enough residual spherical aberration at wide apertures to soften the rendering nicely. F/6.3 is still fairly wide, but also narrow enough to fit in a #4 shutter.

Not all tessars do that, however. Someone mentioned the Bausch and Lomb Tessar. I happen to have a barrel-mounted B&L Tessar in 139mm, and it has the harshest bokeh of any lens of that focal length I own. The out-of-focus highlights have bright edges and a distracting bright center spot. But that lens wasn't made for anything wide open except focusing.

Rick "noting the color rendition of the 12" Ilex-Calumet is a bit more pastel than with plasmats" Denney

Pere Casals
21-Jun-2018, 15:01
They indeed work best at f/22 and that's what they were designed for.

Rick, I don't agree with that. A lot of plasmats are clearly diffraction limited by /22, in special 4x5 modern designs, with a lot of times working better at /16 and /11. Pérez/Thal. tests, with it's limitations, show that clearly.

I do agree that DOF/OOF transitions are a complex issue, I've only seen that concept technically well explained in the field of the glasses made for cinematography, where the "through focus MTF" is a chart that's kept in mind. But recently I also found that, relative to LF:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170629004640/http://eckop.com/optics/understanding-your-optical-engineer/through-focus-mtf/

https://web.archive.org/web/20170921192301/http://eckop.com/historical-reproduction/

Corran
21-Jun-2018, 15:15
Speaking of Tessars and OOF rendition, my experience shooting the classic Zeiss Tessar lenses in focal lengths of 150mm (4x5), 75mm (6x6), and 50mm (35mm) is that those lenses have pretty nervous bokeh and swirly corners. Not very neutral. Just my opinion of course. Stopping down a decent amount helps greatly. Heliar designs were overall smoother/better.

Jim Galli
21-Jun-2018, 15:16
I love the look of the Gundlach Radar's and they are plentiful in old Betax 5 shutters. But the real solution for your problem is to wean yourself from (modern) shutters. The Betax 5 advertises 1/50th top speed which when checked turns out to be more like 1/20th, so a good running Packard shutter can do what the Ilex and Betax and Alphax's could do and that opens up tons of wonderful possibilities. Expand. One packard shutter can allow you to experiment with whatever wonder happens along. Like Dallmeyer Stigmatics and ubiquitous Red Dot Artars and Dagor's galores.

williaty
21-Jun-2018, 15:25
Jim, I'm actually running a Packard on the B&L 305mm tessar now. I'm pretty reliable up to a half second in the time mode and then get whatever the instant mode gives me. Shorter than 1/2, I just have no repeatability with the time mode.

Jim Galli
21-Jun-2018, 15:28
Jim, I'm actually running a Packard on the B&L 305mm tessar now. I'm pretty reliable up to a half second in the time mode and then get whatever the instant mode gives me. Shorter than 1/2, I just have no repeatability with the time mode.

The "instantaneous" Packards where you put the pin in and it opens and snaps closed are pretty repeatable 1/20th second. A bit faster on the smaller ones. I had a 355mm Osaka f6.3 in the early copal 3 that I thought was pretty terrific once upon a time. My lens cupboard is leaky and nothing ever stays very long, except Pinkhams and the like.

Mark Sampson
21-Jun-2018, 20:30
@Paulbarden, I beg to differ with you about Kodak Ektars. EK used the name "Commercial" to describe their f/6.3 Tessar-formula Ektars. The f/4.5 Tessar versions were simply called "Ektars". I don't know if the f/6.3s are particularly superior to the f/4.5s in some way- I've used both types extensively and both are quite good- but the idea of "looser quality control" with the f/4.5 lenses is simply wrong. While Kodak was making LF camera lenses, they were as good as anyone in the field, and proudly put the name "Ektar" on their very best optics. Now it may be that the OOF rendering may differ between the f/4.5s and f/6.3s, but EK never cared about that with the Ektars- which were meant for resolution, contrast, and color rendering. Those photographers looking for soft-focus and out-of-focus "smoothness" would have gone instead to one of the Kodak Portrait lenses.
(on-topic for a moment) I can't recommend a lens to the OP; Out-of-focus rendering has never been a concern of mine- but you will get good information here from those who know far more than I do. Best of luck!

Whir-Click
22-Jun-2018, 04:17
I think the earlier recommendation of a Wollensak Velostigmat Series I, Ia, or II lens resoundingly meets the OP’s criteria of old-fashioned lens design, greater than 8x10 coverage, mechanical shutter (in an Alphax or Betax), affordability, and pleasing out of focus rendition. The convertibility of the I and Ia add to their appeal.

paulbarden
22-Jun-2018, 07:51
@Paulbarden, I beg to differ with you about Kodak Ektars. EK used the name "Commercial" to describe their f/6.3 Tessar-formula Ektars. The f/4.5 Tessar versions were simply called "Ektars". I don't know if the f/6.3s are particularly superior to the f/4.5s in some way

Hi Mark.
I'm confused about the Ektar lenses: I have a 12" f6.3 Ektar that is clearly NOT branded "Commercial", but simply "Ektar". I find conflicting information about these lenses, some of which says the f6.3's are the Commercial Ektars and some that says there were f6.3s in both models. Whatever the case, mine isn't a Commercial Ektar, and yet its an f6.3. Who knows what that means.

DrTang
22-Jun-2018, 08:18
not a lot of love for the 12" Radar?

a pretty dang good and very under-rated lens I think

Bernice Loui
22-Jun-2018, 10:58
Lens labeled Eastman Ektar?

Kodak branded f6.3 Tessars as Eastman Ektars before the Commercial Ektar branding was applied. Have a 14" f6.3 Eastman Ektar in barrel it is not coated, but makes excellent images.


Bernice


Hi Mark.
I'm confused about the Ektar lenses: I have a 12" f6.3 Ektar that is clearly NOT branded "Commercial", but simply "Ektar". I find conflicting information about these lenses, some of which says the f6.3's are the Commercial Ektars and some that says there were f6.3s in both models. Whatever the case, mine isn't a Commercial Ektar, and yet its an f6.3. Who knows what that means.

Bernice Loui
22-Jun-2018, 11:04
Size difference between the 12" f4.5 Ektar in Ilex# 5 shutter -vs- 12" f6.3 Commercial Ektar in Ilex self winding universal# 4 shutter.
179659

The f4.5 is significantly larger than the f6.3, image wise, both are essentially equal except at 4.5 which is softish. The f6.3 Commercial Ektar is good at f6.3 while the f4.5 is less so. Once stopped down to f8, they are essentially equal in performance. The 12" f4.5 Ektar is used for head-shoulder portraits on 5x7, typically with taking apertures larger than f8.

Note the round iris of the Ilex shutters, in this image the f4.5 Ektar is set to f8, the f6.3 Commercial Ektar is set to f11.
179660



Bernice

Drew Wiley
22-Jun-2018, 12:38
A couple months ago I tested my 300 Nikkor M on 8x10. I normally use it for either 4X5 film or as a long lens with 6X9 roll film backs. It certainly doesn't have anywhere near as big an image circle as my various lenses in the 360mm category do. But if your movements like rise or front tilt are conservative,
and you are reasonably stopped down, like most 8x10 work is, it will deliver superb corner to corner sharpness and exceptional gradation. The 300C Fuji allegedly has a somewhat bigger image circle than the Nikon, being a 4-element airspaced instead of the improved tessar design of the Nikkor M. I own
other Fuji C's which would make me think this is correct, but have never personally tested the 300 per se. The predecessor to the Nikkor M was the Q,
which presumably would be a lot cheaper if you can find one; it will be single-coated.

Dan Fromm
22-Jun-2018, 14:17
I just took a quick look at 300 mm or so LF lenses in shutter offered on eBay. For today's snapshot of that universe the OP's question defined the empty set.

Mark Sampson
22-Jun-2018, 22:56
Paul, Bernice, I can't claim to be a true expert on the Kodak lenses. I thought that all EK's postwar f/6.3 Ektars were "Commercial" Ektars; apparently I'm wrong.
I've never seen an f/4.5 (or f/4.7) Ektar labelled "Commercial" but who knows? They might exist. There's no telling what manufacturers will do sometimes- I have seen and used some odd-ball Kodak lenses in my time with the company. And Bernice, you're right; The earliest Ektars were labelled "Eastman Ektar", were uncoated, and made before WWII. I kept one on my desk in its original ebony box- a 10" Eastman Ektar #EY000, so made in 1940. It may never have left the building where it was made...it was in a barrel and I never did try that one. By 1946 the lenses were coated and the "Eastman" name had been dropped. To make things more complicated EK offered uncoated lenses as "Anastigmats" at the same time... I should dig up my Kodak handbooks from the era to see if there's anything useful buried in the tables and text.

Jody_S
22-Jun-2018, 23:08
Anybody mention the Congo?


I just logged in to post that the Yamasaki Congo 300/6.3 is a modern, coated Tessar that goes for cheap. I think I paid $40 for my nicer one, in barrel. I gather it fits in a Copal 3, but I use it with a Packard. Quite sharp wide open but less contrasty than when you stop it down. They come up on fleabay with some regularity, they're not a cult lens so they don't go for high $.

Corran
23-Jun-2018, 09:22
Nikkor-M 300mm f/9 just popped up on the Facebook LF buy/sell group for $450. A lot of times they get cross-posted in the classifieds here too.

williaty
23-Jun-2018, 09:32
Well, last night I pulled the trigger on an older Fujinon-L 300mm f/5.6 in the old (narrow chrome serrations) Copal 3. It's from .jp and it supposedly isn't quite perfect glass but it fit my budget if I stretched the term budget until you can see right through it. Hopefully, it'll be a good workhorse lens for me.

goamules
24-Jun-2018, 05:55
.... I've been camping on ebay for a month or so now and not having much luck. I'd love to just snag a Commercial Ektar 12" or some other form of tessar (CZ Tessar, Xenar, Paragon Anastigmat), but either they're in collectable condition and priced near to a thousand bucks or they're just not appearing with any frequency. ...


...Commercial Ektar: already watching. Prices have basically doubled, working on tripling, in the last 2-3 months. All the reasonably priced ones have sold and the only ones left are either damaged or what used to be the "gee that's a silly price" listings that are now the new normal. So far I've bought 2 that the seller said were ok and then I had to return them because either the glass is a train wreck or the shutter doesn't run (and no, I'm not being super picky at this pricepoint)...



The 12" in shutter with a box is now going for $800-$900. My bet would be that with 8x10 becoming trendy someone who has a lot of social media followers mentioned how much they like their Commercial Ektar.

With a box doesn't matter except to obsessive collectors. Those that will pay $800-900 for a lens with a box.
Statements like "all the reasonably priced once have sold..." must be caveated with "during the time I watched." Because there are hundreds of lenses out there becoming available every month. You just have to look harder. And not be afraid to send a shutter out to be CLA'd if you get a 60 year old lens. I've always been able to find any lens I wanted. It just takes time. Or if you are impatient, money. I got a 14" Commercial Ektar in mint condition at a flea market a few years ago...for $30.

Checking just now, I see four or more 12" Commercial Ektars that sold for under $400 on ebay recently. Actually I don't see any that sold for above $545, and most are averaging about $300. Exactly where they were last time I looked, about 2 years ago.

goamules
24-Jun-2018, 06:05
This nice 12" Velostigmat in a Betax sold for $340 just a couple days ago: https://www.ebay.com/itm/-/323301343894?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l10137

williaty
24-Jun-2018, 08:56
With a box doesn't matter except to obsessive collectors. Those that will pay $800-900 for a lens with a box.
Statements like "all the reasonably priced once have sold..." must be caveated with "during the time I watched." Because there are hundreds of lenses out there becoming available every month. You just have to look harder. And not be afraid to send a shutter out to be CLA'd if you get a 60 year old lens. I've always been able to find any lens I wanted. It just takes time. Or if you are impatient, money. I got a 14" Commercial Ektar in mint condition at a flea market a few years ago...for $30.

Checking just now, I see four or more 12" Commercial Ektars that sold for under $400 on ebay recently. Actually I don't see any that sold for above $545, and most are averaging about $300. Exactly where they were last time I looked, about 2 years ago.

Some of the 12" CEs you see sold in the last 3 months are ones I bought, found out didn't match their description, and returned. I am sure I've tried 2 within the last 3 months and I *think* the very first one would also be inside that 3 month window if that's what you looked at. I didn't realize I had to specify "working" to make you happy.

The idea of sending it out for a CLA is also a red herring. It takes a fair amount of money to get a lens CLA'd, and that's assuming it's actually just truly dirty/gummy and not broken. So if you're looking at it like that, you have to add a hundred or more to the price of everything you're considering buying.

Luis-F-S
24-Jun-2018, 09:23
Can you guys recommend something about 300mm/12", that covers 8x10, isn't a plasmat, is common enough that I can just buy the darned thing without having to be some sort of sniping god on ebay, and doesn't cost close to a grand?

It's called a 305 G-Claron in Copal 3.

William Whitaker
24-Jun-2018, 09:27
I still don't understand the aversion to plasmats. Is there really something inherent in the way all plasmats present an image? I have an old Hugo Meyer 10 3/4", f/4 plasmat that came with a vintage Ansco 5x7 that had clearly been a working photographer's kit. That lens is very pleasing in its rendition at focus, in front of focus, behind focus and everywhere in-between.

So, my curiosity is piqued. I am not being critical of anyone's preference, but merely curious. Does the OP have any representative images which could illustrate the undesired qualities?

williaty
24-Jun-2018, 09:28
It's called a 305 G-Claron in Copal 3.

FWIW, researching old threads on this forum indicates the G-Claron became a plasmat design towards the end of the production life.

Bernice Loui
24-Jun-2018, 10:21
Modern Plasmats are NOT undesirable in any way, they have a different image result than the family of vintage lenses being discussed here. Lens choice is very much an individual image maker's preference nothing more, nothing less. There are those who have chosen a modern plasmat as their primary image making tool, others have chosen non modern vintage lenses as their primary image making tool. It is not a competition or right-vs-wrong or good-vs-bad.... it is trying to decide what tool meets a given need best.

Paul Rudolph originated the Plasmat design at Hugo Meyer Optical.. Paul Rudolph originated an entire series of lens designs.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Plasmat%20lens

Optics design often goes far beyond calculations and idealized optics-lens behavior, there are many, many factors that contribute to the overall personality of any given lens in much the same way as differences in artistic expression.


Bernice



I still don't understand the aversion to plasmats. Is there really something inherent in the way all plasmats present an image? I have an old Hugo Meyer plasmat that came with a vintage Ansco 5x7 that had clearly been a working photographer's kit. That lens is very pleasing in its rendition in focus, in front of focus, behind focus and everywhere in-between.

So, my curiosity is piqued. I am not being critical of anyone's preference, but merely curious. Does the OP have any representative images which could illustrate the undesired qualities?

LabRat
24-Jun-2018, 10:46
I think most of the modern lenses were designed for pro use first, especially where something being shot in a studio depending on the object can have a different rendition, such as a ceramic figure an a hot white background, could photograph unsharp, so the lenses were tweaked to produce a harder, contrast effect to provide a slightly "sharpened" look that would match the look of different objects under a variety of pro conditions...

Older lenses have smoother transitions, but under studio conditions, different objects can photograph very differently, so the post 1960 lenses tended to have much higher contrast, greater apparent contrast, and more color saturation (but a way different look than older lenses)...

Steve K

Bernice Loui
24-Jun-2018, 12:20
Richard Avedon's hard look, simplified images comes to mind. This was also the era of simplified near cubist visual design for many items. Think cubic, straight edge, chrome-glass look.

Marketing folks discovered visual presentations that grabbed the viewers attention made a difference. Noting this ability for hard hitting visual images, producers of marketing material gradated towards this look and visual presentation. Which in turn prompted the image makers (photographers) to produce works meeting this demand-need. In turn, lens makers and film producers met this need-demand with products that will produce this coveted result.

It is fashion, nothing more, nothing less.


Bernice




I think most of the modern lenses were designed for pro use first, especially where something being shot in a studio depending on the object can have a different rendition, such as a ceramic figure an a hot white background, could photograph unsharp, so the lenses were tweaked to produce a harder, contrast effect to provide a slightly "sharpened" look that would match the look of different objects under a variety of pro conditions...

Older lenses have smoother transitions, but under studio conditions, different objects can photograph very differently, so the post 1960 lenses tended to have much higher contrast, greater apparent contrast, and more color saturation (but a way different look than older lenses)...

Steve K

Jim Galli
24-Jun-2018, 12:50
In the mid 20th century, color had everything to do with lens design. It was a new world and the lens designers went to work on a problem that didn't matter much in a pre-kodachrome world. The commercial ektar's were Kodak's answer to Kodak's film. They didn't advertise APO because their audience in the mid fifties weren't scientists, but the Commercial Ektars were the best of two worlds. The pleasing out of focus rendition of a simple design + a new level of apochromatic correction.

A plasmat is just a Dagor with an air space that made it half a stop faster. I know I'll get crucified for saying that, but in essence, it's true.

All of them are just tools in the tool box. It's funny that Dagor's and Plasmat's never stay around too long in my tool box. So many lenses, so little time. I don't analyze the minutiae. I just look at the pictures the different lenses make and I either like them . . or not. Color these days is for Galaxy 8's and I-Phones. Thus the resurgence of interest in lenses with a bit of personality. Kodak Commercial Ektar's are for Kodachrome. If they please you, by all means, use them. But again, they don't last long in my cupboard. That's just me. Give me a Dallmeyer Stigmatic and I'm happy as a clam.

Greg
24-Jun-2018, 15:29
Highly recommend the 12" f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat Series II (without the front "soft focus" ring). It was my first lens for my 8x10 back in the 1970s. Was in a in a Betax #5 that more than once had to repaire it in the field. Had the "soft focus" ring, but I never used it. Sold the camera and lens back when. Recently acquired the same lens in a Betax #5 for my current 8x10 Chamonix. Wide open aperture of f/4.5 is a pleasure to focus. Is very prone to flare, but a lens shade usually takes care of that.

Drew Wiley
25-Jun-2018, 16:54
The problem with most modern 360 plasmats is that they're big and heavy studio-oriented items, usually f/5.6 in a no. 3 shutter. A conspicuous exception would be the stunning 300 Fuji A in no.1 shutter - has generous coverage and otherwise outperforms general-purpose plasmats, but fails the poster's request for affordability. Cheap it ain't, if you're lucky enough to find one. 300 G-Clarons are similar and more common, but single-coated; they also offered a 270.
I don't understand the stipulation for non-plasmats; but if sheer portability is the priority, there is that Fujinon C. I collect old photographs once made with
lenses with a lot of "character", presumably using glass from whiskey bottles they just drank, and which they apparently fabricated while still under a state of inebriation; but I don't use those kinds of lenses myself. There are probably still a lot of old bottles in the Tonopah dump, which might explain Jim's real
secret in how he keeps coming up with so many vintage lenses.