PDA

View Full Version : Why no 180mm's for 8x10?



CXC
30-Oct-2005, 09:31
So, why is it that my 110mm covers 8x10, and my 240mm covers 8x10, but my 180mm doesn't? A quick review of the lens charts on this site reveals that my Nikkor-W isn't the only one that doesn't cover; NO 180mm lens seems to be available for 8x10.

Who can tell me why?

Armin Seeholzer
30-Oct-2005, 09:44
But the 165 mm Super Angulon dos and it is not far away from 180mm!

tim atherton
30-Oct-2005, 10:23
but far enough away that it makes a difference imo

There only seem to have been a few lenses around 180mm that cover 8x10 and they are mostly oldies?

Christopher Nisperos
30-Oct-2005, 11:07
The Schneider Makro-Symmar 180mm/f5.6 will cover 8x10 at 1:1 and give you about 35 or 40mm of rise and shift space, if memory serves (and A LOT more at 2:1 !).

For infinity focus, Schneider's Apo-Symmar 150XL will work. Perhaps that focal length is close enough for what you want to do?

Hope this helps you.

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2005, 11:51
It is a mystery, since 90mm is such a popular focal length for 4x5".

Joseph O'Neil
30-Oct-2005, 14:12
Maybe because you don't see a lot of 180mm to begin with. If you look at new lenses, there's a lot more choices in 90mm or 210mm - at least for 4x5.
If you follow Ebay, used in the stores, etc, you'll find that not a lot fo 180mm show up - at least - as compared to other sizes.
So maybe it some kind of perception thing, an "orphan" perception, because 180mm is usually identified with 5x7, and if I had to bet money on it, I would figure there are more 8x10 shooters than 5x7 shoots (correct me if I am wrong).

Of course, this philosphy of life is brought to you from a guy who uses two different 180mm for his 4x5 shooting, so I'm not sure my opinion is worth that much.

...and sorry, neither one will cover 8x10 .....
:)
joe

Michael Gudzinowicz
30-Oct-2005, 17:44
A 7" f/6.8 Dagor will cover with a 338 mm circle.

kreig
31-Oct-2005, 07:58
Why not consider the 190mm WF Ektar ??????????????

Michael Gudzinowicz
31-Oct-2005, 17:14
> Why not consider the 190mm WF Ektar ??????????????

The 190 WF Ektar will work, if the change in focal length is tolerable.

The 200 mm Grandagon N will give considerably more coverage (494 mm), and so
will the 210 mm Super Angulon (501 mm), Dagor (400 mm), Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar
(385 mm), and Schneider Angulon (385 mm), with the Schneider Super Symmar HM,
Fujinon W, Rodenstock APO Sironar, Rodenstock APO Sironar W, Schneider Symmar,
and Sinar Sinaron WS completing the list of lenses with over 350 mm coverage.

But they are 210's, and not 180. I'd settle for a 155 or 165 and a 200 or 210
if I still were using 8x10. CXC just has to get rid of that 240 to make room
for those lenses.

Mike

Walt Calahan
31-Oct-2005, 20:25
My Fujinon CMW 180 mm f/5.6 works well with my KB Canham 8x10 lightweight wood field camera. Get a bag bellows.

tim atherton
31-Oct-2005, 22:01
How much coverage do you get Walter?

(you need a bag bellows for a 180mm with the Canham?)

Jim Galli
31-Oct-2005, 22:19
Our modern lens designs come with stock coverage angles. 70 degrees + or - for our beloved plasmats, and 105 degrees for our 8 element SA type wide angles. At 70 degrees your just breathing on 8X10 with a 210mm lens. With 105 degrees you've got so much coverage at 180mm that it's dumb not to tweak it a bit to 165mm. Which they did. There's nothing modern in the gap between our modern 70 and 105 degree coverage designs. 100 year old Dagor's that are somewhere around 82-85 degree angle would make it. Barely. The 110 degree Protar V 183mm covers in spades. But it's an antique with all caveats included. But the answer to your question lies in modern lens design. Didn't Zeiss make a beautiful little f9 WA Dagor that was 180mm? Probably cost you more than a 150XL but it might be worth it.

Michael S. Briggs
31-Oct-2005, 22:53
Jim, I think along with you that it has to do with design types, but your theory doesn't account for the existence of the 210 mm Super-Angulon and the 200 mm Grandagon.

I think that Schneider and Rodenstock (and later Fuji and Nikon) took their designs for a wide-coverage lens and made it into a series of closely spaced focal lengths. The spacing was selected to give photographers many choices, but not to be so fine as to have too many lenses to make or to stock. For example, for Schneider, the classical LF Super-Angulons were available as 65, 75, 90, 120, 165 and 210 mm. The focal lengths are roughly x1.3 apart. It just ended up that the series didn't have an entry that was twice 90 mm.

It's another guess.

Walt Calahan
1-Nov-2005, 06:15
Tim, right now I've got a bag bellows on order. When it will arrive is anyone's guess?

I'm using the standard bellows which is a big pain. You must be very careful not to get the bellows in the frame. It can be done, but then you get almost no movement of the lens.

That's why I recommend the bag bellows. Once the bag bellows shows up, I'll learn how much movement I really have with the manufacturer's published 260 image circle.

Yesterday (1o-31-2005) I used the Fujinon to make what I hope is a really fun Halloween Picture. I pretty much had to keep everything on the camera in a straight line, and pull the bellow as far forward as possible with the two fabric loops found on either side of the standard bellows. All the edges on the ground glass were clean, but I'll probably have a slight edge cut off on the film that one can't see on the ground glass due to the bellows.

Stay tune. Good luck.