Wide angle lenses for 8x10

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Getting close to buying an 8x10, looking for wide and super wide angle lenses. Like any in the 75mm to 150 mm range?

[Steve Goldstein]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?42006-Wide-Angle-Lenses-for-8x10-Lots-of-Questions!

[Dan Fromm]

75mm on 8x10? 128 degrees with no movements. Dream on.

[Pere Casals]

Getting close to buying an 8x10, looking for wide and super wide angle lenses. Like any in the 75mm to 150 mm range?

The shortest you should go is 120: Nikon SW 120, the SW 150 is a better choice, but it's quite more scarce and expensive, only some privileged people own one.

The Super Angulon 120 is MC, it not completely covers 8x10 but close, it can be used. The SA 121 is not MC, but cheaper.


Goerz Hypergon is shorter (75mm), but IMHO it's a luxurious collectible thing more than an operative lens, beyond its "creative" behaviour, it would be technically better to shot a way smaller format instead.


The SW 120 is like a 60mm in 4x5", so you'll face lots of fall-off, I don't know if a suitable Center Filter can be found... and a CF is always a mess...


As always 8x10" is scarce in glass choices, fortunately there is the amazing SW 120, a superb glass like not many, we should be grateful with Nikon for providing that solution. I don't have one, but it's a glass I often search at ebay, when I feel it's not G.A.S. I'll try to get one, still I do not deserve one.


At 150-165 you have more choices, those well documented: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

The Super Symmar XL 150 is flawless. The Grandagon N 150 is flawless, and the SA 165 Multicoated is flawless.

The single way you can go wrong with one of those if it has a crack in the middle, not a deep scratch but the front element splitted in two halves.

[Greg]

120mm WA Nikkor, has to be perfectly aligned on center with the film back, lot of light fall-off but I don't mind

159mm f/12.5 WOLLENSAK EXTREME WA, have owned 3, image quality varied between them but they are the best bargains out there

150mm WA Nikkor, the best IMO but a huge lens to carry in the field

5.9” No. 5 Gray Periscope, allows for plenty of movement, actually covers 11x14, SK Grimes mounted mine in a Copal No. 3 which I didn't think was possible, not made to be used wide open and has to be stopped down

200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON Cooke Series VIIB WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT, allows for plenty of movement, actually covers 11x14, my favorite

210mm Fujinon W & Nikkor W f/5.6, a pleasure to use at close distances

250mm f/6.7 Fujinon-W COPAL, inside lettering

[ic-racer]

If you are looking for a field camera lens, some 4x5 lenses may work for you if you don't mind cropping the corners. I use this inexpensive Fuji 125. I don't really 'crop' it because I usually have the enlarging easel set to lop off a centimeter all the way around the image, regardless of the camera's taking lens.
195027
195028

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Was curious as to how wide I could go. I tend to shoot very wide images of landscapes like 80 degree field of view which is 75mm on 4x5, double that on 8x10. But that gets into other things like distortion which is not really issue on 4x5. Even considered 47mm on 4x5.

I was thinking 150mm would be a good choice for uw on 8x10. 120mm would be interesting.

I was looking on ebay and lenses are there but need to be sure image circle is large enough. My other yse aside from landscapes would be architecture and portraits so those would be much longer lenses.

[Oren Grad]

I have an 8x10 box camera built around the 120mm Super-Angulon. Stop way down - I'll usually work at f/45 or f/64 - and it can more or less eke out 8x10, especially if your point of focus is short of infinity. Full disclosure re the standard for judging "covers the format": I shoot for contact printing and can't tell you how well the far corners will hold up for those who are trying to enlarge to wall-size. Definitely wants the center filter, though, even for B&W film, unless you don't mind a heavy vignette.

I also have the 155 Grandagon, which is designed for 8x10 with movement and, as intended, covers the format effortlessly.

[Eric Leppanen]

SS110XL covers 8x10 without movements. Even with the CF there is some noticeable light falloff.

[paulbarden]

I like my 7.5" Kodak Wide Field Ektar on 8x10. There's no room for movements (well, maybe a tiny bit) but its an excellent lens (https://live.staticflickr.com/1732/41916664485_936e870445_k.jpg), IMO.

[John Kasaian]

I've a 159mm Wolly Velostigmat EWA yellow dot.
I checked out a 165mm Super Angulon once but thought it way too heavy for the front standards on my ol' 'dorff.

[Bernice Loui]

Contrary to what some will say about the 110mm SSXL covering 8x10, it really does not, been there tried this and the light fall off is not good at all. This goes back to circle of illumination -vs- circle of good optical performance. Respect Schneider's specified image circle.

120mm sw Nikkor stopped down with zero camera movements is about as wide as it gets for 8x10. Then there is light fall off to deal with.
The 115mm f6.8 Grandagon, does not make it.

There are few options for 105 degrees or more for 8x10.

Beyond the difficulties of available wide angle lenses, film flatness and the ability for the 8x10 camera to used this short a focal length is often a problem.


Bernice




Getting close to buying an 8x10, looking for wide and super wide angle lenses. Like any in the 75mm to 150 mm range?

[William Whitaker]

To further muddy the waters (sorry!), I had always heard that the Super Angulon 121mm would barely cover 8x10, straight on, but that the Nikkor SW 120 f/8 will not quite cover.
I have the former, but have never tried it on 8x10. (I have it for use on 5x7.)(And yes, I need to try it on 8x10.) And I've never had the chance to compare those two lenses myself.

[Oren Grad]

To further muddy the waters (sorry!), I had always heard that the Super Angulon 121mm would barely cover 8x10, straight on, but that the Nikkor SW 120 f/8 will not quite cover.

FWIW, the 120 Nikkor SW is actually specified by the manufacturer to cover 8x10, just. (Nikon says 312mm at f/22.) With the 120 and 121 SA the specified image circle at f/22 is a bit short of 8x10, and we're all playing the game of stopping way down and eyeballing the negatives or prints to see if we think they're good enough.

[Peter De Smidt]

Does anyone here regularly focus at infinity? I can’t remember the last time I did. I’ve used my 120 SA with 8x10. It worked fine.

[Hugo Zhang]

SSXL 150mm?

[Luis-F-S]

I use the 6 1/2" WA Dagor for 8x10. Plenty wide for me. If you really need something wider, stick to a smaller format!

[Corran]

Nikkor SW 120mm f/8:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/langdale-3049ss.jpg

150mm lenses (Nikkor SW, Schneider XL) are way more expensive for the most part and larger, but have greater coverage. Do you need that? Not for general landscape IMO. Understand the effects of perspective distortion if you greatly tilt the camera.

One cheap option in that focal length though is a 6" Metrogon. Will not have the contrast of a modern lens, but still very sharp from my experience. Can be found cheap, and then mounted in shutter, or less cheap, in a shutter already.

210mm is the next step up with a multitude of options. 210mm Graphic Kowa is a stellar option, more affordable than the Computar which has possibly a somewhat larger IC, but the GK is more than enough.

On the other side, if you can deal with roughly a 6x10 negative, Schneider 90mm XL covers about that much. Other option for 75 / 90 is to spend thousands of dollars for a Hypergon.

Final note - unless you plan on contact printing or printing larger than 16x20 on the regular, no reason to get into 8x10 over 4x5. The cost in terms of weight and portability is large.

[Greg]

Does anyone here regularly focus at infinity? I can’t remember the last time I did. I’ve used my 120 SA with 8x10. It worked fine.

With my 120mm Nikkor never focus at infinity, really stop down, and final mat opening is 9.5"x7.5" which also helps out a bit.

[Hugo Zhang]

If you are shooting trees at close distance, not mountain peaks at infinity and you don't plan to use much movement, then Rodenstock Perigon 130mm f/12 is very good. It usually comes in a shutter and it is tiny with nice contrast and extremely sharp.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

l typically focus about 2/3 way into the scene. Found that gives me the best sharpness thru out. Also typically at f/32, again, for me, it gives me the best overall sharpness thru out.

I want the 8x10 for among other things, contact printing (portraits/architecture) Yes, I plan to make prints at 32x40 and larger digitally, in the dark room nothing bigger than 32x40 (but more of the panoramic type) Bigger yes, and on back packing trips would not bring it, but my 4x5 instead which has proven excellent. I also want to make portraits that are in the 16x20 range (have had a few inquire about that) and I have made several as well, digitally printed though. Looking like lens/s will be over 120mm which I am good with, especially if it minimizes light fall off among other things.

[Alan Gales]

With an 8x10 you basically have 3 choices in the wide angle department.

1. Buy expensive and heavy glass that will easily cover 8x10.

2. Buy inexpensive glass that will barely or almost cover 8x10. You may have to crop just a little when printing.

3. Put your 8x10 to 4x5 reducing back on your camera and shoot 4x5 for really wide shots.

[William Whitaker]

Does anyone here regularly focus at infinity?

I tried to once, but it was too far away to see...

[Dan Fromm]

Since no one has mentioned it yet, consider getting a 120/14 Ser. VIa Perigraphe. David A. Goldfarb has reported on apug.com that his works well on 8x10, also that skgrimes put it in (I think, it might actually be front mounted) shutter for him. It can simply be stuffed into the front of an Ilex #3.

[Vaughn]

I tried to once, but it was too far away to see...

To infinity, and beyond!

Actually, from here to infinity, tho infinity sees limited use.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Does anyone here regularly focus at infinity?

Yeah, I have focused beyond ∞ and saw Twilight Zone re-runs.

[MAubrey]

FWIW, the 120 Nikkor SW is actually specified by the manufacturer to cover 8x10, just. (Nikon says 312mm at f/22.) With the 120 and 121 SA the specified image circle at f/22 is a bit short of 8x10, and we're all playing the game of stopping way down and eyeballing the negatives or prints to see if we think they're good enough.

The 121SA specifies less than enough at f/22, yet Schneider's catalogue lists 8x10 as its maximum format. They do the same with the 165mm f/8: 386mm IC@f/22, but list a maximum format of 11x14. In each case, the maximum format is based on their listed "smallest f-stop", which is f/64 for both these lenses. I would presume they believed the image quality was sufficient in the corners at those apertures.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Since no one has mentioned it yet, consider getting a 120/14 Ser. VIa Perigraphe. David A. Goldfarb has reported on apug.com that his works well on 8x10, also that skgrimes put it in (I think, it might actually be front mounted) shutter for him. It can simply be stuffed into the front of an Ilex #3.

I will look into this.

[Jac@stafford.net]

One cheap option in that focal length though is a 6" Metrogon..

There is a larger one which covers 8x10 so easily, but it is as large as an 8x10 camera. Way far-out, but somebody's got to try it sometime.

I had a ~6" Metrogon on my 8x10 experimental sky camera with a very interesting shutter, both unavailable now after 25 years. :(

195033

[Steven Ruttenberg]

That looks cool. Any images of the sky you would share?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

That looks cool. Any images of the sky you would share?

Ebay has this one in a shutter for 580. Commercial Ektar 14 in. Lens

[Pere Casals]

Commercial Ektar 14 in.

this tessar was a favourite of Youssuf Karsh, IIRC

[James Morris]

The SSXL 150 is an incredible lens but because of the design, there is considerable light falloff and you will need a CF. They are expensive. 150mm is very wide for 8x10 and I ended up selling mine.


https://live.staticflickr.com/3676/12689482504_b0844a6705_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/kkjV47)Mosman, NSW (2014) (https://flic.kr/p/kkjV47) by James Morris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/james__m/), on Flickr

[angusparker]

SSXL 150mm?

+1 Movements and not too big, the best modern WA lens for 8x10 IMHO...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[angusparker]

The SSXL 150 is an incredible lens but because of the design, there is considerable light falloff and you will need a CF. They are expensive. 150mm is very wide for 8x10 and I ended up selling mine.


https://live.staticflickr.com/3676/12689482504_b0844a6705_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/kkjV47)Mosman, NSW (2014) (https://flic.kr/p/kkjV47) by James Morris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/james__m/), on Flickr

Light fall off doesn’t bother me with B&W, probably would in color.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Steven Ruttenberg]

So many choices yet so little. I need to review the info provided here to make a decision. Probably 120-150 mm range and an extar 14in and Voigtlander 12in Universal Heliar.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The SSXL 150 is an incredible lens but because of the design, there is considerable light falloff and you will need a CF. They are expensive. 150mm is very wide for 8x10 and I ended up selling mine.


https://live.staticflickr.com/3676/12689482504_b0844a6705_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/kkjV47)Mosman, NSW (2014) (https://flic.kr/p/kkjV47) by James Morris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/james__m/), on Flickr

Nice detail.

[LabRat]

Does anyone here regularly focus at infinity? I can’t remember the last time I did. I’ve used my 120 SA with 8x10. It worked fine.

There is infinity, and there is infinity!!!

With my 400mm astronomy telescope, I have to slightly refocus it when it is focused on the moon and I have to change to focus on the stars... ;-)

Steve K

[Havoc]

In astronomical terms, that is macro work you are doing :D

[Pere Casals]

There is infinity, and there is infinity!!!

With my 400mm astronomy telescope, I have to slightly refocus it when it is focused on the moon and I have to change to focus on the stars... ;-)

Steve K



Steve, I guess that in your case you don't have to slightly refocus because stars are farther than moon, as moon is around 384.400km far yet.


Perhaps the effective focal length of your telescope changes because atmosphere is part of your optic system, for example the moon and solar discs are seen way larger when they are in the horizon.


Very Large Telecope (etc) is even automated to modify the optics (Adaptive optics) to overcome several atmospheric effects, including atmospheric turbulence, this is assisted by lasers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics

[Bernice Loui]

Schneider 150mm SSXL is a good lens. Owned since it's introduction in the late 1990's and it remains a choice when needed.
What wide angle lens with 100 degrees or more angle of view does not have light fall off? Better question would be how much light fall off can be tolerated or acceptable with a wide angle of view lens?

As for "expensive" it's relative. Consider how much a few boxes of 8x10 film, processing then print making, then framing cost?


Bernice



The SSXL 150 is an incredible lens but because of the design, there is considerable light falloff and you will need a CF. They are expensive. 150mm is very wide for 8x10 and I ended up selling mine.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

There is infinity, and there is infinity!!!

With my 400mm astronomy telescope, I have to slightly refocus it when it is focused on the moon and I have to change to focus on the stars... ;-)

Steve K

I do astrophotogrphy, guide etc. My 10 inch telescope has a focal length of 2500mm. These things are sensitive to focus, especially when photographing

[Steven Ruttenberg]

10 boxes of D100 would pay for most lenses that can cover 8x10. Better to get it right out of the chute, than experiment a lot. Light fall off I can tolerate depending on the scene. A center spot filter can help if needed and given cost of film, it can pay for itself quickly.

[Corran]

The issue of light fall-off with regards to wide / ultrawide lenses is really overblown, especially with negative films. It's there, and if you are doing some kind of critical work that demands evenness of illumination, get a CF filter. For most applications in the field shooting landscapes and the like, it's part of the characteristic of wide-angles and "correcting" it has its own "look." Besides which, if you are trying to knock down the sky a bit, fall-off can help, especially in some situations (consider the use of front rise to keep trees straight, which means the fall-off is mostly in the sky with the center of the image circle on the bottom of your image).

When I bought my 58 and 47mm lenses for 4x5, I also got a Schneider CF to go with them. I used it religiously on every image. Then I thought critically about "why" and realized I was making more of a problem than solving anything. I haven't used a CF other than with slide film occasionally since.

Just my opinion.

[Jac@stafford.net]

When I bought my 58 and 47mm lenses for 4x5, I also got a Schneider CF to go with them. I used it religiously on every image. Then I thought critically about "why" and realized I was making more of a problem than solving anything.

I find that interesting. I loaned my ƒ5.6 47mm / 4x5" with CF to a friend who reported the CF did nothing. I failed to mention that the lens has to be stopped down ƒ16 or more for it to work.

But you know that. I've drifted. What issues did you find?

Best,
Jac

[Corran]

I'm mostly talking about the fall-off being a good thing for the sky.

Of course, we can use a CF and a GND filter, and perhaps get a bit more shadow detail in the foreground. In my personal opinion and experience, simply shooting it straight with neither, or just a 1-stop GND if it's really a tough situation, seems to be an easier and better solution (or use your darkslide to "dodge" the top of the image for half the exposure, which I've done many times). One more option - red/orange filter with a bit more exposure than one would normally use.

Not to mention a CF is just another glass surface(s) to get flare from, which has burned me in the past (I would never recommend the older Schneider CFs which don't appear to be multicoated). And, if one were to use a CF and a big GND filter...hope to God the sun is nowhere near your frame.

A 47mm is certainly the most extreme example in terms of ultrawide. It will have much more fall-off than a 150mm on 8x10 with an image circle in excess of 385mm. YMMV.

Plenty of folks burn their corners in the darkroom...

[William Whitaker]

Plenty of folks burn their corners in the darkroom...

Yep.

[ic-racer]

... the moon and solar discs are seen way larger when they are in the horizon.

Tell me more. How are you measuring this. Have you published this yet?

[Pere Casals]

Tell me more. How are you measuring this. Have you published this yet?
Your telescope has the same focus position for 384,000km than for light-years far stars, you cannot notice a difference.

Both are in the hyperfocal, with CoC way smaller than your resolving power.

Your statement about focusing moon/stars/infinites is ridiculous.

[Luis-F-S]

So I take it we're done talking about 8x10 wide angle lenses?

[Vaughn]

Tell me more. How are you measuring this. Have you published this yet?

I thought it was due to seeing the size of the moon relative to objects on the horizon (buildings, mountains, etc)...it just seems bigger. Not really an optical illusion, it just looks like one.

I've never been a big fan of wide-angle, and while I occasionally use 480mm (19") and 600mm (24") on 8x10, I prefer to keep it in the range of 210 to 300. Quite pedestrian, I know, but I am more interested in translating what I see, and wide & long lenses distorts that a bit.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The moon appears bigger due to atmospheric effects, kinda like a magnifier. As for focusing, the moon will have a different focus point than stars depending on the eye piece you use. At prime focus well...when I take my 10 inch this week I will tell you the difference, if any....

As for 8x10, here is a pic of the 8x10 I am borrowing. Will shoot D100. Using a 210 G Clarion lens. I checked and you can see the aperture completely thru the cut corners wide open and stopped down. It is the only lens I have will work on 8x10 for now.

I will say this, that big image on the gg is addictive compared to 4x5 and especially 35mm live view and worse the optical view finder.

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you want to see the greater part of the sky, look for a Metrogon.

I just ordered a 240mm Nikkor-W which I hope satisfies my desire for a modest WA over 8x10. I have enough super-wides for 4x5 and smaller formats to keep me humble. Really humble.

Once I achieved super-wide LF I rebounded to moderation. Maybe it is old age. :)

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Maybe it is knowledge and wisdom :)

[Corran]

I go through phases. Lately, have been using more normal and slightly wide lenses, especially on the larger formats. 240mm on 8x10 is a great focal length, as is 210mm. I haven't used my 120mm on 8x10 much in the last few outings, despite always carrying it.

Let's see what you get from your borrowed 8x10 and a 210.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Will do. i hope the film will be here before I leave Friday. If not, my next trip to somewhere. I need to get a jobo expert to process which will also process 4x5. Or one of those jobo type tubes for daylight processing. The expert drum I would be doing inversions. I am building a new house where I am being transferred to and will have a dark room built as well, so eventually I will try my hand at tray processing even though many seem to not like it. But it does offer some simplicity in set up and use.

i ordered 25 sheets of D100. I like this film more or less. It is cheap too and I would rather make mistakes with this film than many sheets of Tmax.

[dodphotography]

Nikkor SW 120mm f/8:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/langdale-3049ss.jpg

150mm lenses (Nikkor SW, Schneider XL) are way more expensive for the most part and larger, but have greater coverage. Do you need that? Not for general landscape IMO. Understand the effects of perspective distortion if you greatly tilt the camera.

One cheap option in that focal length though is a 6" Metrogon. Will not have the contrast of a modern lens, but still very sharp from my experience. Can be found cheap, and then mounted in shutter, or less cheap, in a shutter already.

210mm is the next step up with a multitude of options. 210mm Graphic Kowa is a stellar option, more affordable than the Computar which has possibly a somewhat larger IC, but the GK is more than enough.

On the other side, if you can deal with roughly a 6x10 negative, Schneider 90mm XL covers about that much. Other option for 75 / 90 is to spend thousands of dollars for a Hypergon.

Final note - unless you plan on contact printing or printing larger than 16x20 on the regular, no reason to get into 8x10 over 4x5. The cost in terms of weight and portability is large.

Call me crazy but I make better work on 8x10... I see the GG better, see how minor details interact better especially on the edges of the frame, and actually find I hit better focus %’s with 810 without having to use a Loupe. I live the cost of 4x5 and the portability (carrying 10 holders is a breeze) but I HATEEEEEEE a 4x5 ground glass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

I've never felt that way myself. In fact, I would say that the much lesser cost of 4x5 film inclines me to be a bit more free with shooting it - perhaps taking a photo I would've decided against on 8x10 or bracketing "just in case" since I'm certainly not perfect with my exposures (or perhaps want to give myself the option to develop differently). I remember quite a few times where my "meh" shot at the moment turned out to be "the" shot of the day.

Of course if that's how you feel for your work, go for it.

The other thing for me is consideration for just how far (or how high) I'm going to be hiking for the landscape work I tend to do. I make better shots when I'm not completely wiped out from a long/difficult hike, and so the difference in total kit weight can become important. While the old adage from Brett Weston that "anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic" might be applicable in the American West, it just isn't here in the Appalachians or Florida Swamps. That image I posted was taken after slogging through a couple miles of flooded forest with my Wista 8x10.

[dodphotography]

I've never felt that way myself. In fact, I would say that the much lesser cost of 4x5 film inclines me to be a bit more free with shooting it - perhaps taking a photo I would've decided against on 8x10 or bracketing "just in case" since I'm certainly not perfect with my exposures (or perhaps want to give myself the option to develop differently). I remember quite a few times where my "meh" shot at the moment turned out to be "the" shot of the day.

Of course if that's how you feel for your work, go for it.

The other thing for me is consideration for just how far (or how high) I'm going to be hiking for the landscape work I tend to do. I make better shots when I'm not completely wiped out from a long/difficult hike, and so the difference in total kit weight can become important. While the old adage from Brett Weston that "anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic" might be applicable in the American West, it just isn't here in the Appalachians or Florida Swamps. That image I posted was taken after slogging through a couple miles of flooded forest with my Wista 8x10.

There’s the power of the Wehman... at 34 years old I should be able to carry this rig anywhere for years to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Yes I get that, as I have the "ultralight" version of the Wehman myself (and I'm one year younger than you).

Nevertheless, there is a significant weight penalty for the entire system, including bigger tripod, much larger film holders, oftentimes bigger lenses, etc.

I invite you to come on the Appalachian Trail with me for 8-10 miles and see which you prefer ;). I've hiked up to the highest point on the AT in GA with my Wehman...not a fun day.

Of course, as mentioned in another thread, enlarging from 8x10 is a bear without huge, hard to find enlargers, so since I like to print larger than 8x10 regularly, there is simply no other option than staying small and enlarging from 4x5. I find no meaningful difference between 4x5 enlarged 2x and an 8x10 contact print unless inspecting with a loupe.

[dodphotography]

Yes I get that, as I have the "ultralight" version of the Wehman myself (and I'm one year younger than you).

Nevertheless, there is a significant weight penalty for the entire system, including bigger tripod, much larger film holders, oftentimes bigger lenses, etc.

I invite you to come on the Appalachian Trail with me for 8-10 miles and see which you prefer ;). I've hiked up to the highest point on the AT in GA with my Wehman...not a fun day.

Of course, as mentioned in another thread, enlarging from 8x10 is a bear without huge, hard to find enlargers, so since I like to print larger than 8x10 regularly, there is simply no other option than staying small and enlarging from 4x5. I find no meaningful difference between 4x5 enlarged 2x and an 8x10 contact print unless inspecting with a loupe.

I enjoy the purity of the contact print.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

A totally fair and understandable opinion. I'm definitely not in that camp.

I've gotten better recently at previsualizing print size while photographing. Some compositions do not work small, some do not work big.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Well, my being 54, going on 55 and having wrecked my body from the Marines and bodybuilding, not too mention playing deputy sheriff for a number of years, even a 35 lbf pack can feel like a lead weight from hell. Especially if you hike the grand canyon at all. And that weight can be paired down to bare minimum if you consider necessities for survival more important. That would mean 1 or 2 film holders, a box of film and 1 lens, maybe two at the most and your eye loupe, meter and dark cloth, plus tripod and ball head (could forgo ball head). Last time I did the canyon my pack was 35lbf of just essentials, so you would need to be willing to hike straight up with a pack between 50 and 70 lbf. Can't take the mules as I am too heavy even without pack and rafting requires you to use your soul for a deposit.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

A totally fair and understandable opinion. I'm definitely not in that camp.

I've gotten better recently at previsualizing print size while photographing. Some compositions do not work small, some do not work big.

Grand Canyon almost never works small!

[Corran]

I did a trail recently with an average of 17% grade, max over 35%, with a 50lb pack. Only about 25lbs of that was 4x5 gear, rest was camping gear. Need to pare down my camping gear weight with some UL stuff so I can more comfortably carry the 4x5, but that is $$$. 8x10 is a non-starter on longer hiking/camping outings.

[Vaughn]

Chamonix has come out with some lightweight 8x10 film holders (435grams). About a quarter pound lighter than the standard Fidelity. The price is much heavier.

[Corran]

I saw that. $380 per. I won't be replacing my 8 Fidelity holders I'm afraid.

[Vaughn]

I have some Fidelity 8x10 (and some 11x14) holders with metal darkslides -- they add a bit of weight!...but one does not worry about breaking them.

I carry five to six 8x10 holders, so if I spent a couple thousand and bought 6 lightweight Chamonix (assuming I sold six of my old Fidelities for $50 ea), I'd save 1.5 pounds...which means I could add another lens in the pack that probably weighs 3 or more pounds.:cool:

[Corran]

Vaughn, roughly what's your pack weight when you go out with your 8x10? Just curious.

The other day I actually measured my pack properly, when filled out with roughly my normal 4x5 outfit. It was 35 pounds total including the pack and all my accessories. I like the photo backpack I have for day-hikes but it's in excess of 6 pounds and I've been really considering a slightly smaller and less rugged pack, and toning down the gear just a little. I found a cheap knock-off bag recently for $20 that can hold 4 lenses and a couple Grafmatics and is only 2 pounds, but haven't tested it with a long hike yet.

My 8x10 setup with 3-4 holders, which is the most I usually bring, and 3-4 lenses, is probably a good 10 pounds heavier, if not more.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This really goes to being not just good but great and knowing your subject. Then you can cut down on weight. For landscapes I shoot almost exclusively the 75mm Nikkor. I a sense then I could carry only that lense a spare shutter cable 4 film holders a changing bag dark cloth loupe and meter. And a box of film and so.e filters. If I really tried, I bet I could get the weight to q5 lbs including tripod. 4x5 that is.

[Corran]

One lens is much too restrictive, for me.

The other day, when I went hiking and shot that waterfall with a 300mm, I specifically was looking at photos from Google Maps and decided to bring the longer lens anticipating that usage. So, it is true that knowing what you are looking for is important. I would never leave the house w/o my favorite 90mm lens though. Usually I bring 58/90/150, then occasionally a long lens or sometimes a shorter one, especially if I have my 6x12 back.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have been carrying a 75, 90 and 210. Been thinking of 75, 150 and 300.

[Vaughn]

Vaughn, roughly what's your pack weight when you go out with your 8x10? Just curious.

The other day I actually measured my pack properly, when filled out with roughly my normal 4x5 outfit. It was 35 pounds total including the pack and all my accessories...

Zone VI 8x10, typically with 2 to 3 lenses, two Fuji Ws (300mm and 250mm) and perhaps a 210mm or a 19" (or even 24") process barrel lens. I might occasionally trade out the Fuji W 300/5.6 for a Fuji W 360mm, but it is a big hunk of glass I use with the 11x14. 5 to 6 holders, occasionally 7. Pentax Digital Spot. Ries A100/250 head -- that's 17 pounds over my shoulder, pack about 45 lbs for a combined weight of around 60 pounds (comfortable well-made pack...internal frame travel pack). Add a few pounds of water if I am in a dry climate (Death Valley) and a few energy bars.

The 5x7 travel kit I took car-camping in southern Chile for a month was probably around 25 to 27 lbs. The pack, a Tamrac Extreme Series was not light, but stood up to heavy rain and rough conditions nicely. Two lenses (180 and 210mm). The tripod/head is about 7 lbs. When I took off hiking, I would leave about 7 pounds in the car -- changing tent, extra film/film holders (a total of 8), cleaning supplies and small tools. My 4x5 travel kit can get down to a touch over 20 pounds. Same tripod as with 5x7, but the camera plus 150mm lens weighs 2.5 pounds. 6 to 8 holders.

Backpacking and day hikes can be a bit less for both 4x5 and 5x7, as I will carry the camera on the tripod and work out of a shoulder bag (usually one lens). This eliminates the weight of a dedicated camera pack. My 8x10 pack below:

PS -- what's nuts is watching me scrabble around the rocks of the Checkerboard Mesa area of Zion with the Ries, and the 11x14 w/ one lens and two holders in a pack! I have not weighed that set-up, but with one lens and 2 holders, it seems comparable to the full 8x10 set-up.

[Corran]

That puts into perspective the difference in weight for 8x10 vs. smaller formats.

I'll have to weigh my kit next time I put it all in a bag. My kit is usually my Wehman w/o the top clamshell (not needed for most normal / short lenses), along with Nikkor-SW 120mm, Graphic Kowa 210mm, and Nikkor-M 300mm. I don't usually bring that many holders, and sometimes I'll use a very lightweight tripod that wouldn't be acceptable in windy conditions but works fine for most places I shoot at. If I add another lens or two (Nikkor-M 450mm and Nikkor-T 720mm) it starts to get really heavy, and I definitely have to bring my big tripod for the long lenses. I don't go far, with that much.

[Vaughn]

I do not go far either these days, but I generally wander for much of the day (late starts/early finishes), and one can end up in some strange places just wandering. It can be a surprising long and tired walk back out to the van once the light dies or I've exposed the last sheet with me. A cold beer in the icebox urges me on.

Another lifetime ago it seems, my wandering extended farther than now. On a 5-month bicycle trip in NZ, I wandered up this mountainside with my 4x5. The day before, unplanned, I wandered up the volcano in the distance. No trails. A mere lad of 32. I am about 300 feet lower than the top of yonder volcano. I just went on Google earth and from the photo, worked out right where I stood. I started at 3500 feet and got up to about 7000 feet here...maybe 5 miles. There is still another 1500 feet of mountain above me (also a volcano), but it is mostly snow so I made my way side-mountain over to the ski resort and hiked back via the road. I celebrated New Years Eve 1986/7 with a bottle of beer at the campground.

[dodphotography]

That puts into perspective the difference in weight for 8x10 vs. smaller formats.

I'll have to weigh my kit next time I put it all in a bag. My kit is usually my Wehman w/o the top clamshell (not needed for most normal / short lenses), along with Nikkor-SW 120mm, Graphic Kowa 210mm, and Nikkor-M 300mm. I don't usually bring that many holders, and sometimes I'll use a very lightweight tripod that wouldn't be acceptable in windy conditions but works fine for most places I shoot at. If I add another lens or two (Nikkor-M 450mm and Nikkor-T 720mm) it starts to get really heavy, and I definitely have to bring my big tripod for the long lenses. I don't go far, with that much.

Do you tilt the bed down to remove any bit of the camera from showing up in the frame with 120 Nikkor? That’s so wide!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

On a 5-month bicycle trip in NZ

What a trip !!

[Vaughn]

What a trip !!

'Twas! I had hitchhiked around NZ with a new 4x5 for 3 months 5 years earlier. Camera had a major light leak and it was difficult getting to where I wanted to photograph by thumb. So over the next 5 years I saved enough money to buy a new bike, panniers, new lighter camera/lens, plane ticket and spending money to try it again (the expense of a car was out of the question) -- I was making about $10k a year as a wilderness ranger, so it took awhile. Over the 6 total months, I exposed 70 sheets of 4x5 and got a 20 print portfolio, though now I would reduce it to 12 prints (I have gotten picker in my old age!)

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Nice, I would love to do a road trip like that, I plan on many once I retire. For now I will settle for week long trips of camping and exploring as vacation time permits.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I do not go far either these days, but I generally wander for much of the day (late starts/early finishes), and one can end up in some strange places just wandering. It can be a surprising long and tired walk back out to the van once the light dies or I've exposed the last sheet with me. A cold beer in the icebox urges me on.

Another lifetime ago it seems, my wandering extended farther than now. On a 5-month bicycle trip in NZ, I wandered up this mountainside with my 4x5. The day before, unplanned, I wandered up the volcano in the distance. No trails. A mere lad of 32. I am about 300 feet lower than the top of yonder volcano. I just went on Google earth and from the photo, worked out right where I stood. I started at 3500 feet and got up to about 7000 feet here...maybe 5 miles. There is still another 1500 feet of mountain above me (also a volcano), but it is mostly snow so I made my way side-mountain over to the ski resort and hiked back via the road. I celebrated New Years Eve 1986/7 with a bottle of beer at the campground.

Nice. I am starting to really want to see how well I do with the 8x10.

[Corran]

Do you tilt the bed down to remove any bit of the camera from showing up in the frame with 120 Nikkor? That’s so wide!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need, the front bed (or actually, the side rails) doesn't show up till around a 90mm lens, as long as you rack the focus all the way in before setting up the lens @ infinity.

[Pere Casals]

'Twas! I had hitchhiked around NZ with a new 4x5 for 3 months 5 years earlier. Camera had a major light leak and it was difficult getting to where I wanted to photograph by thumb. So over the next 5 years I saved enough money to buy a new bike, panniers, new lighter camera/lens, plane ticket and spending money to try it again (the expense of a car was out of the question) -- I was making about $10k a year as a wilderness ranger, so it took awhile. Over the 6 total months, I exposed 70 sheets of 4x5 and got a 20 print portfolio, though now I would reduce it to 12 prints (I have gotten picker in my old age!)

Cycling the western coast of the southern island had to be a challenge, this had to be a remote location, even today it is, and hauling around the LF gear... two weeks cycling with LF gear for each selected print. I guess that one becomes a better photographer in that situation.

[John Kasaian]

Nice. I am starting to really want to see how well I do with the 8x10.

FWIW I found a 240 G Claron to be a great little lens for hiking with an 8x10.
Drew Wiley probably has a 240 Fuji that is even smaller and lighter :)

[Peter De Smidt]

A 240mm Germinar-W is terrific, and it converts into about a 460mm lens when the front cell is removed.

Btw, whenever someone is new to a format, I highly recommend starting with some common, less expensive, and easy to use lenses, just to get used to the format. So, something like a 240mm G-claron would be terrific. A Germinar-W would be more expensive. Rushing in to buy exotic lenses is ill advised.

For longer lenses, something around 450 would be good, but things get more expensive: Fuji 450c, Nikon 450m.....If you can do without a shutter, and given 8x10 + filters + f/45 or smaller, then you might be able to find a good deal on a 450-480mm process lens, such as an APO Nikkor, Ronar..... I bought my 480 APO Nikkor for less than $200.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

A 240mm Germinar-@ is terrific, and it converts into about a 460mm lens when the front cell is removed.

Which maker? There is a Doctor Wetzler for 1200, several Carl Zeiss and some Jenna.the latter two are considerably cheaper.

[Peter De Smidt]

Doctor-Wetzlar Germinar 9/240W - that's what it says on my lens.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I think my uncle had a great idea - fasten your pack on a tethered large kite or kite-balloon (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/USpat2431938kiteballoon1944Jalbert.jpg) for those climbs up, and sail down when done. :)

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Doctor-Wetzlar Germinar 9/240W - that's what it says on my lens.

Ok.

[Corran]

LOL!

How accurate can one be in a hang glider?

Here is a phone shot looking over the cliff from the top of Mt. Yonah (https://www.atlantatrails.com/hiking-trails/yonah-mountain-hiking-trail/), towards the parking lot 1600 feet below and about a mile away. Think I can hit it Jac? ;)

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/mtyonah-parkinglot.jpg

[Steven Ruttenberg]

LOL!

How accurate can one be in a hang glider?

Here is a phone shot looking over the cliff from the top of Mt. Yonah (https://www.atlantatrails.com/hiking-trails/yonah-mountain-hiking-trail/), towards the parking lot 1600 feet below and about a mile away. Think I can hit it Jac? ;)

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/mtyonah-parkinglot.jpg

Depends on your throwing arm. I will post up a shot of a 3000 foot drop and a half mile or so wide gorge from upcoming trip.

[Vaughn]

Nice. I am starting to really want to see how well I do with the 8x10.

You may find that the something like the Fuji W 250/6.7 might be as wide as you want to go with 8x10. it is a different beast!

The biggest drop-off around here is standing on Kings Peak (not quite 4100') on the Lost Coast and watching the surfers down below about 3 miles away. Bigfoot country, of course!

[Roberto Nania]

Hello everyone,

I'm considering to buy a light weight wide angle in the range of 160mm / 6.5".
It doesn't have have to be super sharp, actually I prefer it soft since I'd use it on Ortho film and contact printing. It has to cover the film size even if I don't expect sharp edges and I won't bother too much about a certain fall-off.

The Wollensak 159mm would be the obvious choice but it's not so easy to find in EU so I'm thinking on these two old Dagor in Compur shutter:
- Dagor 6.8/168
- Dagor 6.8/180

For what I found so far, it seems that the 168mm Dagor covers the 8x10 area at infinity and even allows for some movement if stopped-down. I couldn't find clear info on the 180mm Dagor.

Does anyone use on of those two lenses on 8x10 and can share his experience?

Thank you

[Dan Fromm]

Before you buy a 180 mm or shorter Dagor to use on 8x10, read this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?13109-Lousy-Dagor discussion. All of it.

[DolphinDan]

Hi Roberto,

I have a Goerz DAGOR 7" (180mm, okay, technically 178mm) f6.8 Lens. I shot it on my 8x10 camera at both f45 and f64, and the lens vignetted. The Goerz literature on this lens from 1951 claims that it does cover 8x10. Maybe other versions of this lens cover 8x10: I don't know. The serial number on my DAGOR is 769522.

2 lenses that I have found in that focal length range that will cover 8x10 are the Kodak WIDE FIELD EKTAR 7 1/2" (190mm) f6.3 and the Bausch & Lomb PROTAR V 7 1/4" (183mm) f18 lenses. The Bausch & Lomb lens is tiny, smaller than the Goerz. You can read more about it on Chris Perez's website:

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/test/NikPro.html

The Bausch & Lomb lens comes in both uncoated and coated versions, as Chris explains in the article linked above.

The Fuji FUJINON-W 180mm f5.6 lens with inside lettering is also supposed to just cover 8x10. I bought 1 of these lenses, and it also vignetted on 8x10 at f45 and f64 for me. Maybe I have bad luck with lenses covering 8x10...

The Kodak, Bausch & Lomb, and Fuji lenses are relatively inexpensive: i got mine for around US$200 each.

Good luck finding a lens that you like and have fun.

Daniel

[Roberto Nania]

Before you buy a 180 mm or shorter Dagor to use on 8x10, read this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?13109-Lousy-Dagor discussion. All of it.

Thank you Dan, I've just finished reading the tread. It looks like there is a big difference between German made and USA assembled Dagors.


Hi Roberto,

I have a Goerz DAGOR 7" (180mm, okay, technically 178mm) f6.8 Lens. I shot it on my 8x10 camera at both f45 and f64, and the lens vignetted. The Goerz literature on this lens from 1951 claims that it does cover 8x10. Maybe other versions of this lens cover 8x10: I don't know. The serial number on my DAGOR is 769522.

2 lenses that I have found in that focal length range that will cover 8x10 are the Kodak WIDE FIELD EKTAR 7 1/2" (190mm) f6.3 and the Bausch & Lomb PROTAR V 7 1/4" (183mm) f18 lenses. The Bausch & Lomb lens is tiny, smaller than the Goerz. You can read more about it on Chris Perez's website:

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/test/NikPro.html

The Bausch & Lomb lens comes in both uncoated and coated versions, as Chris explains in the article linked above.

The Fuji FUJINON-W 180mm f5.6 lens with inside lettering is also supposed to just cover 8x10. I bought 1 of these lenses, and it also vignetted on 8x10 at f45 and f64 for me. Maybe I have bad luck with lenses covering 8x10...

The Kodak, Bausch & Lomb, and Fuji lenses are relatively inexpensive: i got mine for around US$200 each.

Good luck finding a lens that you like and have fun.

Daniel

Thank you Daniel, I put my eyes onto two German Dagors 422xxx and 345xxx; I do believe your Dagor is from a non German manufacturer so maybe, as I understood, it performs differently from the genuine CP Goerz Berlin ones. I can tolerate a small amount of vignetting.
I know I can get perfectly sharp images with a modern Symmar 240 but that's not what I'm looking for.
Baush and Lomb is not an easy lens to find in EU as it is the tiny Wollensak 159.

I think I will give a try to one of those Dagors (168 or 180), they come at under 200€, not free but not expensive either.
I will add my experience in the forum later this year.

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you Dan, I've just finished reading the tread. It looks like there is a big difference between German made and USA assembled Dagors.

They are all the same.

[Hugo Zhang]

Dan and Daniel are right. Regular 168mm and 180mm Dagor of f/6.8 won't fully cover 8x10 at infinity. The Zeiss Dagor 18cm f/9 covers, but that lens is hard to find and is expensive.

[Luis-F-S]

I guess I'm the only one using the 6.5" W.A. f/8 Dagor. It comes up fairly regularly, and though not cheap, it's not astronomical, unless you want to buy it overseas. Mine is an older uncoated (German) one that I took out of an ancient Ilex shutter and had SKG put it in a Copal 1. Don't remember where I got it 30 plus years ago, gave it to a friend and years later he gave it back since he was not using it. Covers 8x10 with room to spare! The shortest f/6.8 Dagor that covers 8x10 I believe is the 8 1/4" and then barely. The 9 1/2" is much better. Don't believe there is much difference between the German and American Dagors as long as you get a good one. L

[Bernice Loui]

8 1/4" Dagor, just covers 8x10.. stopped down good past f22 at that. The 6.5" wide angle Dagor does cover 8x10 and it is small.

Brings up again the difficulty with 8x10 and wide angle lenses. IMO, so many jump to 8x10 believing it is the ultimate film image format without considering all the other factors related to using 8x10 often and what is required.

As for 8x10 lenses that work GOOD in the 150mm to 170mm range:

~150mm f5,6 Schneider SSXL (not low cost, not common).

~150mm f8 Nikkor SW (not low cost, not common, not small).

~155mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon (not low cost, not common, not small).

~165mm f8 Schneider super angulon (not low cost, moderate common, not small).

This group remains not small and compact as many 8x10 users today would like to demand-expect.
While there are smallish older lenses that covers 8x10 like the Protar V, IMO their optical performance is ok at best.
Goes back to what you're after.


Then there is the light fall of question or to center filter or not center filter.


Bernice



I guess I'm the only one using the 6.5" W.A. Dagor. It comes up fairly regularly, and though not cheap, it's not astronomical. Mine is an older uncoated one that I took out of an ancient Ilex shutter and had SKG put it in a Copal 1. Covers 8x10 with room to spare! The shortest f/6/8 Dagor that covers 8x10 I believe is the 8 1/4" and then barely. L

[Peter De Smidt]

If you really want a wide lens, and you don't want to pay a lot of money, and you don't want to use a really dim lens in a wonky shutter, then the 120mm f/8 super wide lenses are a good choice. Stopped down to f/45 or more, many of them cover 8x10 enough for practical purpose. Focus closer than infinity, don't put really important image detail in the corners, or crop in just a tiny bit if your really have to have sharp corners. I've used my 120SA on 8x10 a number of times with good results. There are so many more of these lenses than the big 8x10 lenses, that they're much easier to find, and much cheaper to buy. You do have to make sure that your camera can effectively use such a wide lens.

[Luis-F-S]

Brings up again the difficulty with 8x10 and wide angle lenses. IMO, so many jump to 8x10 believing it is the ultimate film image format without considering all the other factors related to using 8x10 often and what is required.

Bernice

You mean it's not just a really big 35 mm????:p:p:p:p

[Roberto Nania]

Thank you all,

at the end I went for a Boyer Beryl 6.8/180 (a France made Dagor design) in good shape. Its flyer states it covers 18x24cm at full aperture and up to 21x27cm when closed above f16.
I will update with the results in some weeks.

Regards

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, you should have asked about Beryls first or read my (and Eric Beltrando's) article on Boyer. See http://www.galerie-photo.com/boyer-lens-optic.html.

The Beryl is another Dagor clone, has the same coverage as the equivalent Dagor. Boyer, like Goerz, claimed more coverage than its lenses had.

[Daniel Unkefer]

So it covers 18x24 at infinity. So focused hyperfocally it will increase the circle size a bit. Closeup maybe even bigger circle. 6.8 to me is almost always that it is a Dagor type lens. Same basic results with my Schneider Angulons

Very compact even the big ones

[Len Middleton]

Roberto,

Being in Europe, you might want to look at Eastern bloc lenses. See Arne Croell's article on them.

One example he gives is the Hugo Meyer 160mm f6.3 Weitwinkel Aristostigmat with a maximum coverage of 320mm stopped down, with a construction (4/4) similar to the Kodak Wide Field Ektars. It is a compact lens and some were coated.

The other consideration with such short lenses, is that my wood field camera has to undergo some major contortions to get the front and rear standards that close together, plus the potential issue of how much the bellows (32" / 82cm of bellows) will compress relative to the requirements. Just another consideration depending upon your camera...

Hope that helps,

Len

[Dan Fromm]

So it covers 18x24 at infinity.

No it won't. See dioptrique.info. Boyer, to be impolite, stretched the truth.

[Bernice Loui]

That would be a 180mm Dagor, not gonna cover 8x10.

Do not believe the marketing "literature" as that is from a time when over rating the image circle was a very effective marketing deception.
The lens choices that have been mentioned and discussed previously has NOT changed... little if a anything at all has changed with 8x10 lenses in a very long time.
LF is NOT like digital camera lens fashion or 35mm film lens fashion from years ago. What could be done has been... done.


Bernice




Thank you all,

at the end I went for a Boyer Beryl 6.8/180 (a France made Dagor design) in good shape. Its flyer states it covers 18x24cm at full aperture and up to 21x27cm when closed above f16.
I will update with the results in some weeks.

Regards

[Roberto Nania]

Thank you guys.

I'll try the Beryl and let you know if I'm pleased with the results. As I told, I don't look for the perfect detail from corner to corner and some degree of fall-off and blur on the edges could work well for the pictures I have in mind. Let's see; the Beryl came at a fair price, if I won't be satisfied I can always use it with no restriction onto my Chamonix 45 ;)

@Len Middleton: thank you for the tip, good to know about the Weitwinkel.

[Len Middleton]

thank you for the tip, good to know about the Weitwinkel.

Roberto,

According to Google Translate, "Weitwinkel" is German for wide angle, and is common description on German wide angle lenses, hence it being used as part of the name of the Hugo Meyer wide angle lens.

Good luck in your efforts,

Len

[Robert Opheim]

I have been shooting 4x5 for many years and have a variety of lenses from 75mm to 19 inch. Several years ago I bought a Calumet "black beast" to try out 8x10 format. I love the format - but there are trade-offs - a smaller depth of field, weight, bulk, cost. If you want to shoot wide angle on 8x10 then you are either going to shoot with relatively little movements with a standard bellows or one with a bag bellows. Older lenses will work with a standard bellows: 6 1/2" WA Dagor, Beryl, Wide Angle Wollensak 159mm, etc. With a bag bellows the new, larger, heavier, more expensive lenses make sense. Such as: 150mm Nikkor SW, 155mm Grandagon, 165mm Super Angulon etc.

I use a 6 1/2" WA Dagor, for my wide angle. I have a 160mm Hugo Meyer weitwinkel that does barely cover - but it has scratches that ruin the image quality. My end product is enlarging to 16x20 or 20x24 - The dagor works fine. I also have a Nikkor 240mm W lens - it is very sharp. A friend had a 210mm Graphic Kowa f/9 lens very sharp.

[archphotofisher]

Here is a list I have put together for 8x10 wide angle


Nikkor SW 120 f/8 312 77
Nikkor SW 150 f/8 400 95
Super-Symmar XL 150 f/5.6 386 95
Grandagon N 155 f/6.8 382 105
Fujinon CM-W 210 f/5.6 309 67
APO-Sironar S 210 f/5.6 316 72
APO-Symmar 210 f/5.6 305 72
Fujinon A 240 f/9 336 52
APO-Symmar 240 f/5.6 352 77
APO-Sironar N 240 f/5.6 350 77
Nikkor W 240 f/5.6 336 82
APO-Sironar S 240 f/5.6 372 86
Fujinon CM-W 250 f/6.3 320 67


Fuji 210mm W

[Tin Can]

The only one I have is Nikkor SW 120 f/8

A treasure

[Corran]

Nikkor-SW 120mm f/8 is truly a gem and a real sleeper lens, selling for much cheaper than you'd expect for such a useful optic for the multi-format crowd. Usually less than a 58mm XL for 4x5, despite giving similar FOV on 8x10, and of course a great 4x5 and 5x7 lens with plenty of room for movements...

I think partly this is from a few people here on the forum that insisted it didn't cover 8x10. I won't speak ill of the dead though.

[Peter De Smidt]

240 Germinar W
240 G-claron

[Greg]

Nikkor-SW 120mm f/8.... a few people here on the forum that insisted it didn't cover 8x10.

Was in disagreement with another photographer who told me that the diagonal of an 8x10 negative from one corner of the film to the opposite corner is 329mm. The listed coverage of the 120mm he'd seen listed to be 308mm and 312mm so "obviously didn't cover a full 8x10 sheet of film". He did not own or use the lens. On this end I am an owner and user of the optic and love the images it throws on an 8x10.

[Corran]

I've seen some say 325mm for 8x10. Exact pixel measurements via Photoshop of a scanned, dry 8x10 sheet gives me 319mm from end to end and 312.5mm for image area. I usually say 312mm for 8x10 coverage - and I think it's telling Nikon uses that in their literature. I don't know why folks have argued it, though of course movement is limited / nonexistent.

And actually Nikon specifies 8x10 coverage in this brochure on the 120SW:
https://galerie-photo.com/manuels/nikkor-lenses-for-large-format%20cameras.pdf

[Tin Can]

If I need movements I also have a Nikon 360mm W

or 11X14

A very fine shutter and lens with a lot of coverage

https://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

[MAubrey]

Another here to say that the 120mm f/8 is definitely the best choice for an ultra wide like this on 8x10.

[Ron in Arcata California]

Here is a quick shot with a 75mm Hypergon on 8x10 film.
222277
Sharp enough for me even out to the edges.
222278

[Kiwi7475]

Here is a quick shot with a 75mm Hypergon on 8x10 film.
222277
Sharp enough for me even out to the edges.
222278

This is great. If I may ask, how is it that the picture does not show any fall off? At +/-60 deg the loss is about 4 stops. Do you use a center filter or is it one with the star?

[Ron in Arcata California]

Here is my set up with the 75mm Hypergon and spinning star filter. The air is regulated by an original style bulb with air reservoir. The bag protected by mesh keeps the air flow constant and the small valve near the lens regulates the spin speed. It still takes practice to get even exposures without camera shake or enough edge light.

222330 222331 222332
Ron Klein

[Kiwi7475]

Here is my set up with the 75mm Hypergon and spinning star filter. The air is regulated by an original style bulb with air reservoir. The bag protected by mesh keeps the air flow constant and the small valve near the lens regulates the spin speed. It still takes practice to get even exposures without camera shake or enough edge light.

222330 222331 222332
Ron Klein

Thanks — quite a setup!

[Mark Sampson]

It's a welcome surprise to find a Hypergon actually in use by a current practitioner. Hypergons are legendary, like the ivory-Billed Woodpecker; not seen in the wild since 1948, yet not officially extinct. Fascinating to see a working setup, and a photo made with it. A challenging but rewarding device... thanks for sharing the pictures and story with us Ron!

[Jody_S]

It's a welcome surprise to find a Hypergon actually in use by a current practitioner. Hypergons are legendary, like the ivory-Billed Woodpecker; not seen in the wild since 1948, yet not officially extinct. Fascinating to see a working setup, and a photo made with it. A challenging but rewarding device... thanks for sharing the pictures and story with us Ron!

I'm still waiting to see someone using a Hill's Sky Camera. But also very pleased to see that ultrawide 8x10 in action.

[Tin Can]

90mm Hypergon image and data

http://www.glennview.com/index.htm

[neil poulsen]

I like the balance that I've struck between 4x5 and 8x10. (Or course, I would.)

I like 8x10 for their contact prints, and for the quality in images I can achieve with a modestly enlarged 8x10 negative. (Two decades ago, I picked up a Zone VI VC 8x10 enlarger for a very reasonable price.) I do fine with 8x10 using a 610mm Repro Claron, a Nikon 450mm Q, the 355mm G-Claron, a 300mm Fuji f5.6 (w/inside lettering), and for moderate wide-angle, a 250mm Fuji f6.7.

Outside this core of what an 8x10 can do well, I stick to 4x5.

Lenses of focal length smaller than 250mm focal lengths become exotic and expensive. So, I stay away from them. Moreover, the idea of photographing images with exotic 8x10, super-wide lenses and still have front to back sharp focus, etc., etc., (like with 4x5) is kind of a myth.

8x10 cameras themselves can have their own attendant problems. They can be prone to vibrations, heavy, and difficult to backpack. Used with sub-250mm focal length lenses , one will need a bag bellows. Problems, Problems, Problems. Why bother?

Fortunately, I don't have any of these problems using my 8x10 Bender kit camera that I customized, and that I picked up for practically nothing. It's a very solid camera that has usable bellows up to about 28", and it weighs less than 10 lbs.

[Corran]

Nice Hypergon setup. Always have wanted one. Guess I should've bought the one I was offered many years ago for $1500, though it was "just" a 90mm. Now all the ones I see on eBay are at ridiculous prices, like $5000 and up. Whether or not they sell ever is of course a different question.

[John Kasaian]

The widest I have is a 159mm Wollensak Yellow Dot. A 10" WA Ektar and 240mm G Claron see more use however.

[Ari]

Sticking with the holy triumvirate of 150, 210 and 300.
In my wilder days, I used the SA121 and the Nikon 120, both of which covered 8x10 dead-on, and provided a very slight vignette.
I wonder if Roberto likes his 180mm Boyer.

[Kiwi7475]

I like the balance that I've struck between 4x5 and 8x10. (Or course, I would.)

I like 8x10 for their contact prints, and for the quality in images I can achieve with a modestly enlarged 8x10 negative. (Two decades ago, I picked up a Zone VI VC 8x10 enlarger for a very reasonable price.) I do fine with 8x10 using a 610mm Repro Claron, a Nikon 450mm Q, the 355mm G-Claron, a 300mm Fuji f5.6 (w/inside lettering), and for moderate wide-angle, a 250mm Fuji f6.7.

Outside this core of what an 8x10 can do well, I stick to 4x5.

Lenses of focal length smaller than 250mm focal lengths become exotic and expensive. So, I stay away from them. Moreover, the idea of photographing images with exotic 8x10, super-wide lenses and still have front to back sharp focus, etc., etc., (like with 4x5) is kind of a myth.

8x10 cameras themselves can have their own attendant problems. They can be prone to vibrations, heavy, and difficult to backpack. Used with sub-250mm focal length lenses , one will need a bag bellows. Problems, Problems, Problems. Why bother?

Fortunately, I don't have any of these problems using my 8x10 Bender kit camera that I customized, and that I picked up for practically nothing. It's a very solid camera that has usable bellows up to about 28", and it weighs less than 10 lbs.

I don’t know about a myth. I use 180mm and 150mm on 8x10 a lot with great results. It’s hard for me to conceive of it as super-wide given that 150mm is just like ~23mm in 35mm equivalent (I think of the equivalent of 14 or 15mm in 35mm format as super wide), it’s just at the limit of what’s available/common.

A lot of cameras are able to handle 15cm without having to change bellows.

Yes a 150mm lens for 8x10 has become expensive to buy now— it didn’t use to be the case years ago, although if you look and are patient sometimes you find good deals. Everything with film cameras has shoot up in price I’m afraid…

[rmdorman]

I have an RD Gray extreme angle periscope around somewhere that covers 8x10 at 115 degrees ~105mm. I don’t have any scanned examples but there are some on google, not a bad lens.

[Dugan]

Metrogon.