PDA

View Full Version : Any recommendation on an 8x10 lens for tabletop and sculpture



1erCru
15-Aug-2020, 14:03
Having trouble making up my mind. 300-360 seems to be the focal length that would be most appropriate.

On the list so far is a commercial Ektar 14” and a Schneider Symmar S 360. Other than that I’m struggling.

Any thoughts ?

Oh and I do a fair amount of color work as well.

Intrepid camera max bellows listed at 560mm

Greg
15-Aug-2020, 14:43
355mm G-Claron comes to mind, but for tabletop requires a lot of bellows extension. A 210mm G-Claron would require a lot less bellows extension. Do you know the maximum bellows extension on your 8x10? Might want to add that on to your post.

Ari
15-Aug-2020, 14:55
A 210-250 would be better.
I'd suggest the Fujinon 250 f/6.7.

LabRat
15-Aug-2020, 17:49
To build on what Greg sez, you need to double your bellows extension for 1:1 of your FL (which is 8X10 shooting area common in TT), so for 300mm, can your bellows extend to 600mm to achieve that???

And you want to shoot sculpture, so what scale/size will you shoot???

Your choice is a numbers game, so determine those first...

Steve K

1erCru
15-Aug-2020, 18:22
I’ve been shooting 4x5 for three years and pretty much only use a schneider 210 Apo Symmar and occasionally a Rodenstock 150. I’ve never shot with an 8x10 and picked up an Intrepid. I was under the assumption that a 150 on a 4x5 was equivalent to a 300 on an 8x10. I have no frame of reference so am assuming my logic is faulty.

The sculptures aren’t large. Looking for a normal perspective but preferably a little bit beyond normal. Definitely don’t want it to look like a wide angle shot.

Mark Sampson
15-Aug-2020, 20:30
Given your choices, I'd try the Symmar-S 360. The Ektar (one of my favorites) will have a slightly different 'look', lower in contrast than the lenses you're used to. It would still be a fine choice for 'everyday' 8x10 work, too.
I'd get a brace that runs between your front tripod leg and the front standard of your 8x10, too; view cameras are often a bit shaky at max extension, and you'll need small f/stops for DOF (and the resulting long exposures).
Your 210 should work well if you're dealing with very small subjects and need to get more magnification on-film.
Shooting close-up and tabletop work can be a fascinating challenge- best of luck, and post your results when you have any!

Jim Noel
16-Aug-2020, 06:49
Most of my indoor work is done at or near 1:1. A 210mm works fine on my Lehman. I pre-focus with a tape measure. I run the bellows out to 420mm, then move the camera so the lens is 420mm from the subject. Fine focus on the ground glass.

paulbarden
16-Aug-2020, 07:34
I love my Kodak Ektar lenses, but the 14" Commercial Ektar is quite heavy, potentially too heavy for the Intrepid. I wouldn't dare put my 12" f4.5 Ektar on my 8x10 Intrepid.

Torontoamateur
16-Aug-2020, 08:13
The G-Claron 355mm is made for close up work. It is a "normal" lens . Not heavy. You will have good room to make the set ups and flexibility. Going in close with the 210, 250 is like shooting table top with a Nikon? Canon with a 35mm lens. Stay with the normal length. I d maybe a 480mm APO Ronar or a Nikon 450mm. How do I know? I do this table top myself. I have the 360MM f?6.8 and the G- Claron 355MM . the G-Claron is better overall . I do use a 480 APO Ronar.. It lets me back up a bit and does great close work. I find this a perfect combo ( I do have Fuji 250mm ab nd Sironar 240mm , and rearely use these for table top. When I go in close with those the background is still wide and hard to master in a still life. I ilke to have the "normal" look.

Luis-F-S
16-Aug-2020, 08:15
Most of my indoor work is done at or near 1:1. A 210mm works fine on my Lehman.

+1!! Get a 210G-Claron.

ic-racer
16-Aug-2020, 09:39
Any 8x10 lens. Even some 4x5 lenses. Just about any table too.

Luis-F-S
16-Aug-2020, 12:21
The G-Claron 355mm is made for close up work. It is a "normal" lens . Not heavy. You will have good room to make the set ups and flexibility. Going in close with the 210, 250 is like shooting table top with a Nikon? Canon with a 35mm lens. Stay with the normal length. I d maybe a 480mm APO Ronar or a Nikon 450mm. How do I know? I do this table top myself. I have the 360MM f?6.8 and the G- Claron 355MM . the G-Claron is better overall . I do use a 480 APO Ronar.. It lets me back up a bit and does great close work. I find this a perfect combo ( I do have Fuji 250mm ab nd Sironar 240mm , and rearely use these for table top. When I go in close with those the background is still wide and hard to master in a still life. I ilke to have the "normal" look.

Staying in the normal range is not possible with 560 mm of bellows to get to 1:1 which the Intrepid has. With a 210 you need 17" of bellows so that's doable. If you don't need 1:1, then the 305 G-Claron is usable. A Deardorff V8 has 32" or 812mm of bellows, so you can use up to a 16" lens and still get to 1:1! You can also use Artars instead of G-Clarons. Both are process lenses and optimized for close-up work.

L

Bernice Loui
16-Aug-2020, 12:44
Lens, secondary, difficulty will be lighting and keeping that sculpture focused in areas that are important. Other factor becomes bellows, is there enough on the camera to be used to achieve the needed image size on GG then Film. If there are more than one object in the image, arrange the shorter-smaller objects in the front, with the taller-larger objects towards the rear, this will allow holding focus easier with camera movements applied.

Lens choice if you're interested in fine detail, APO Artar, APO Ronar, APO Nikkpr and similar. 300mm to 360mm depending on camera bellows available.

Table top stuff is easier on 4x5 due to the lower magnification and easier to hold focus where needed. 8x10 table top makes stuff that much more difficult.


Bernice

Neal Chaves
16-Aug-2020, 12:59
A 210-250 would be better.
I'd suggest the Fujinon 250 f/6.7.

I worked with an "odd couple" for many years. A Fujinon 250 6.7 and a G Claron 355 9. A little bit wide and a little bit long. Made very pleasing 11X14s, 16X20s and 20X24s back through them using cameras as enlargers and later with a Beseler 45M converted to 8X10.

1erCru
16-Aug-2020, 15:29
Yeah , it don’t necessarily need 1:1. This will be a jump to 8x10 so I’m not sure exactly what I am getting into. I build everything I photograph so the technical side isn’t my strong point. I absolutely love the perspective a 210 Schneider gives me on almost everything I shoot. The shooting distances range between 3.5 feet when I invert the camera and shoot stuff on the ground to between 5-7 feet for small scenes.

I’m already seeing that the perspective is going to be different with 8x10 and that simply buying some lenses at different focal lengths will be mandatory.

Torontoamateur
17-Aug-2020, 04:22
Let me chime in again. I would recommend you move to a camera made for table top work. With more movement and more bellows. Even the old green monster, the Calumet, can do well. The Intrepid is designed for landscapes and portraits. What lens have you been using now on the Intrepid?

Bernice Loui
17-Aug-2020, 08:23
If the belief moving "up" to 8x10 will improve table top image quality over 4x5... that is likely no.

What it will do is cause a whole lotta grief and difficulty that once never happened. Trying to hold focus will be a LOT more difficult, lighting demands will be more than expected, trying to keep the film flat will be surprise, camera stability and adjustments will be not as easy as expected.

~Lens choice will be the least of these difficulties.~

There were VERY good reasons why most table top images back in the day was not done on 8x10 and done on 4x5..

IMO, best camera for table top work 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 would be a Sinar P for a very long list of reasons.. and if ya do this get a proper studio stand and table these make life a LOT easier.. Oh, if you're using strobe to make images. It will need to be in the few kilowatt/second range, adding light modifiers will and can greatly increase the demands on strobe power. Think f32-f45 typical for table top 8x10, where 4x5 often good with f22... and possible lens resolution is lower at f32 and more so at f45. If the images are contact printed, even f90 is likely ok, but to achieve f90 using strobe is going to be "interesting"..


Bernice



Yeah , it don’t necessarily need 1:1. This will be a jump to 8x10 so I’m not sure exactly what I am getting into. I build everything I photograph so the technical side isn’t my strong point. I absolutely love the perspective a 210 Schneider gives me on almost everything I shoot. The shooting distances range between 3.5 feet when I invert the camera and shoot stuff on the ground to between 5-7 feet for small scenes.

I’m already seeing that the perspective is going to be different with 8x10 and that simply buying some lenses at different focal lengths will be mandatory.

1erCru
17-Aug-2020, 13:39
Just received and set up the camera. Put the 210 on. The perspective is wonderful! I will most likely use the 210 before I buy another lens. Definitely have enough depth of field. I think I misused the word tabletop. I’m basically shooting scenes I construct. The goal is to primarily shoot 4x5 and if something develops that looks great , simply snap an 8x10 of it and compare. If it’s all a failure then it will be helpful for landscapes or Ill throw my hands up and sell it all..

The only thing I’m worried about is keeping the film flat like you mentioned.

interneg
17-Aug-2020, 15:35
If the belief moving "up" to 8x10 will improve table top image quality over 4x5... that is likely no.

What it will do is cause a whole lotta grief and difficulty that once never happened. Trying to hold focus will be a LOT more difficult, lighting demands will be more than expected, trying to keep the film flat will be surprise, camera stability and adjustments will be not as easy as expected.

~Lens choice will be the least of these difficulties.~

There were VERY good reasons why most table top images back in the day was not done on 8x10 and done on 4x5..

IMO, best camera for table top work 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 would be a Sinar P for a very long list of reasons.. and if ya do this get a proper studio stand and table these make life a LOT easier.. Oh, if you're using strobe to make images. It will need to be in the few kilowatt/second range, adding light modifiers will and can greatly increase the demands on strobe power. Think f32-f45 typical for table top 8x10, where 4x5 often good with f22... and possible lens resolution is lower at f32 and more so at f45. If the images are contact printed, even f90 is likely ok, but to achieve f90 using strobe is going to be "interesting"..


Bernice

What you are describing sounds a lot more like dancing to the strange identikit whims of a catalogue art director wanting both deep focus and no strange distortions of the product than doing creative table-top work. And if you're doing the latter you don't need especially grand or fancy kit, just adequately precise for your final print size. I just want something that I can define my field of view & focus with, then lock it down - the real work is the arranging of the objects. The only positive for the Sinar in my view is the shutter system - and even then, it's a lot of unnecessary knitting & complications - for that matter I don't find Sinars (or most monorails apart from Linhof & possibly De Vere's ancient 8x10) terribly enjoyable to use - and a camera that irritates me is not going to lead to better work. Better to spend the money on big strobe power or a space with a good north light. Severe technical limitations (of the right sort) often lead to much more freely creative approaches than the absence thereof.

John Kasaian
17-Aug-2020, 21:14
Laugh if you must, but I've had decent luck with a 159mm Wollensak WA yellow dot shooting still life marine specimens like shells, starfish and a seahorse. Working up close with a longer lens takes more bellows than I'm comfortable asking my old 'dorff to give.
It does require a lot of light and long exposures IIRC.

neil poulsen
18-Aug-2020, 09:36
If the belief moving "up" to 8x10 will improve table top image quality over 4x5... that is likely no. . . .

I tend to agree with this observation. I thoroughly enjoy photographing with 8x10. But given the expense of lenses, the need to stop down the lens for DOF, thereby engendering long exposures, etc., I reserve my 8x10 for more straightforward photography that doesn't stray outside the limits of my equipment.

For any specialty work like architecture, super-wide pnotos, etc., I can always use 4x5. For example, I have a Fujinon 105mm SW that I prefer over a 90mm SW for landscape photography. These lenses can be found for under 300mm. But the corresponding lens for 8x10 typically costs over $2500. (A 210mm SA.)

neil poulsen
18-Aug-2020, 09:54
I worked with an "odd couple" for many years. A Fujinon 250 6.7 and a G Claron 355 9. A little bit wide and a little bit long. Made very pleasing 11X14s, 16X20s and 20X24s back through them using cameras as enlargers and later with a Beseler 45M converted to 8X10.

Let this combination be so dubbed. :)

I have the "odd couple," and the two lenses work out well together.

The 250mm f6x7 is inexpensive; yet, it has quite a lot of coverage on 8x10. It's a moderate wide-field lens for this format.

While a bit on the expensive side, the 355mm G-Claron is relatively light-weight, has large coverage stopped down, and is capable of excellent photos. It's a moderate long focal length lens for 8x10.

By contrast, I had a Symmar S 360, and was HEAVY and HUGE! It's filter size was about 120mm. (Jeepers.) I replaced it with the 355mm.

I've had this urge to get a 300mm; but, I've been put off by the expense. So, I just purchased a Turner-Reich, Series II 12" triple-convertible (12", 21", 28mm) f7 lens for less than $300. It's mounted in an Alphax #4 shutter. The lens is factory coated, so It will be interesting to see images that it can produce.

Tom Monego
18-Aug-2020, 11:15
I have done a lot of table top for medical text book, varying between micro instruments to consoles all on 4x5. Console size, a 150 or 135 worked well, when I wanted some distance a 240 G Claron. For small instruments, usually 1:1 or closer I used a 120 Apo ED Macro Nikkor, working distance was tight but the results were worth it. So it would all depend on the size of the sculpture. If your sculptures are small front and rear movements help.