Is there such as thing as a modern, fast, compact 360 for 8x10?

[KushLovely]

Hey LFPF!

Wondering if a lens like this even exists...?

I'm looking for a 360mm 8x10 lens, that is modern and very sharp, but is also lightweight, and around f/6.3

Is there a lens that ticks all these boxes?

Thanks so much (:

[Oren Grad]

Nope.

[Dann Corbit]

This list shows coverage circles and max apertures for a broad spectrum of lenses:
https://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html
You can find that link in the Lens FAQ document:
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AL8%5FbPxCLJzxCj4&cid=8D71BC33C77D1008&id=8D71BC33C77D1008%212145&parId=root&o=OneUp

Also potentially useful:
http://www.brucebarrett.com/large_format/LF_Lens_Coverage.html

[Vaughn]

Like picking a mate. One hunts for looks, brains, and emotional stability. Pick two. At least you did not toss in cost! I have the FujiW 360/6.3 and it is a large beast. I do not know if the 360/6.8 Rodenstock Sironar N would be much lighter.

[Dann Corbit]

Also:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

[KushLovely]

Thanks Vaughn! What do you think of the Sironar-N?


Like picking a mate. One hunts for looks, brains, and emotional stability. Pick two. At least you did not toss in cost! I have the FujiW 360/6.3 and it is a large beast. I do not know if the 360/6.8 Rodenstock Sironar N would be much lighter.

[Drew Wiley]

F/6.3 and light/compact would be mechanically irreconcilable. You need something that fits in a lightwt no.1 shutter rather than a big no.3. The realistic option, if you can find and afford it, would be a multicoated 360/f10 Fuji A. It's plenty bright for outdoor use, optically superb all the way from near-macro to infinity, and has plenty of surplus image circle for 8x10 usage. I'm not guessing. This has been one of my favorite lenses for both 4x5 and 8x10 for a long time.
There is also an uncommon relatively recent Schneider 350 f/11 Apo Tele Xenar which is only slightly tele in design. I don't personally have any experience with that particular lens, but a few people on this forum might own one.
The Fuji A 360/10 weighs only 465g, whereas their 360/6.3 W plastmat in no.3 shutter weighs 1533g. You can expect that kind of dramatic weight difference in all the other brands of 360 general-purpose plasmats too. For example, the 360/6.3 Sironar N weighs 1560g. That's quite a brick to haul around very much outdoors, if that is what you have in mind. But the big general-purpose studio lenses seem to be going for about a tenth of the price of the rarer and more coveted lightweight equivalents. A realistic compromise in both price and weight would be the 355/f9 G-Claron (later plasmat version) in no. 3 shutter, which weighs 855g.

[KushLovely]

Hey Drew,

Thanks so much for that detailed answer! It's really helped to give me a better idea of this lens arena.

I'm wondering - have you ever used a Schneider 360mm f/6.8 Symmar-S MC non-APO (Copal 3)? And where would you place it amongst the others you've listed?






F/6.3 and light/compact would be mechanically irreconcilable. You need something that fits in a lightwt no.1 shutter rather than a big no.3. The realistic option, if you can find and afford it, would be a multicoated 360/f10 Fuji A. It's plenty bright for outdoor use, optically superb all the way from near-macro to infinity, and has plenty of surplus image circle for 8x10 usage. I'm not guessing. This has been one of my favorite lenses for both 4x5 and 8x10 for a long time.
There is also an uncommon relatively recent Schneider 350 f/11 Apo Tele Xenar which is only slightly tele in design. I don't personally have any experience with that particular lens, but a few people on this forum might own one.
The Fuji A 360/10 weighs only 465g, whereas their 360/6.3 W plastmat in no.3 shutter weighs 1533g. You can expect that kind of dramatic weight difference in all the other brands of 360 general-purpose plasmats too. For example, the 360/6.3 Sironar N weighs 1560g. That's quite a brick to haul around very much outdoors, if that is what you have in mind. But the big general-purpose studio lenses seem to be going for about a tenth of the price of the rarer and more coveted lightweight equivalents. A realistic compromise in both price and weight would be the 355/f9 G-Claron (later plasmat version) in no. 3 shutter, which weighs 855g.

[Drew Wiley]

My own usage of Symmar S lens lenses predates my 8x10 days, and was related only to 4x5 format. But I think I can give a relevant opinion, nonetheless. They aren't quite as ultra sharp or contrasty as later plasmats by the big four manufacturers. But that's not a big deal with 8x10, or even really with 4x5, since the degree of enlargement isn't great even on a large print. They're plenty sharp for most things, with very good color rendering, and I particularly liked the gentler out of focus rendition of Symmar S, or background blur, which wasn't as hard-sharp-busy as later, more contrasty plasmats, and was therefore more appropriate for portraiture or things like flower closeups. There are plenty of these lenses still around at bargain pricing, and if you encounter one still in good condition, why not? But they'll be heavy just like all general-purpose lenses of this focal length

[Vaughn]

Thanks Vaughn! What do you think of the Sironar-N?

I'll defer to Drew and others. My hands-on experience has been with the Fuji W 360/6.3 (both 8x10 and 11x14) and the lens Drew mentioned, the 355/f9 G-Claron, which I have used only with 11x14 -- and very very nice lens indeed. Unfortunately it was not my lens, or I never would have bought the Fuji W.

I have used f11 lenses in the redwoods (process lenses), but another stop of light of a f9 is much nicer to work with. Taken with the 355/f9 G-Claron on 11x14 (carbon print):

[Lachlan 717]

What do you need the f6.8 for? I ask as most LF lenses are not performing at their best at wide open.

I use the 355mm G Claron a lot. One thing that always surprises me is the brightness of the image that it projects, even on the edges of my 7x17” ground glass.

If you’re worried about image brightness, I would suggest it’s not as big an issue as it is with WA lenses.

PS, the 355 Claron is amazing...

[mmerig]

I'll defer to Drew and others. My hands-on experience has been with the Fuji W 360/6.3 (both 8x10 and 11x14) and the lens Drew mentioned, the 355/f9 G-Claron, which I have used only with 11x14 -- and very very nice lens indeed. Unfortunately it was not my lens, or I never would have bought the Fuji W.

I have used f11 lenses in the redwoods (process lenses), but another stop of light of a f9 is much nicer to work with. Taken with the 355/f9 G-Claron on 11x14 (carbon print):

Thanks Vaughn, for tossing that redwood photo in -- very, very nice.

[mhayashi]

I would suggest the CM W Fujinon 360mm f 6.5 which I’m hunting for right now.
Yes, it’s bulky but a few hundred gram less weight (1175g) than the other modern plasmats.
The front filter thread size is 86mm and the outer diameter is 90mm which is also smaller than the others, so I can use Lee 100 filters and snap on filter holder FK100.

I use the big brother lens CM W Fujinon 450mm f8.

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/CMW_specs.htm

Otherwise, if you compromise the fastness, the G claron and the Fujinon A are alternatives like others suggest.

[Chuck Pere]

If you want to pay for it there is a 355mm f8 Schneider Kern MC Gold Dot Dagor that is fairly small. Filter size of 60mm.

[Drew Wiley]

I've owned both the multicoated and single-coated 14 in Kern Dagors. I use 67mm filters with a slip-on adapter for them. They are somewhat heavy lenses, but nowhere near as heavy as big studio plasmats, more like the 355 G-Claron in weight. I find current Kern dagor prices to be absurdly high, kinda cult lens pricing that's a bit unrealistic compared to other options. They do have remarkably good contrast, microtonality, and hue rendition due to only four air/glass interfaces. But the tangential performance at significant tilts and their close-up performance is not as good as plasmat designs.
But back to filters - I should have mentioned that earlier myself. Some of those big studio lenses need especially big filters too, adding to the investment cost and overall weight and bulk of the kit.

[KushLovely]

If you were to choose from these two lenses, which would you pick?


Schneider 360mm f/6.8 Symmar-S non-APO MC (copal 3)
$300-500

Rodenstock 360mm f/6.8 Sironar-N (copal 3)
$750




I've owned both the multicoated and single-coated 14 in Kern Dagors. I use 67mm filters with a slip-on adapter for them. They are somewhat heavy lenses, but nowhere near as heavy as big studio plasmats, more like the 355 G-Claron in weight. I find current Kern dagor prices to be absurdly high, kinda cult lens pricing that's a bit unrealistic compared to other options. They do have remarkably good contrast, microtonality, and hue rendition due to only four air/glass interfaces. But the tangential performance at significant tilts and their close-up performance is not as good as plasmat designs.
But back to filters - I should have mentioned that earlier myself. Some of those big studio lenses need especially big filters too, adding to the investment cost and overall weight and bulk of the kit.

[Kiwi7475]

If you were to choose from these two lenses, which would you pick?


Schneider 360mm f/6.8 Symmar-S non-APO MC (copal 3)
$300-500

Rodenstock 360mm f/6.8 Sironar-N (copal 3)
$750

I wouldn’t choose either. They’re 1.5 Kg lenses.

[KushLovely]

I'm not taking these lenses backpacking or anything like that, so weight is no longer an issue.

What do folks think of the difference in optics between these two?

:o

[Mark Sampson]

Assuming both are in equal physical condition, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the two lenses. Unless, of course, you expect to make wall-sized enlargements... and even then other practicalities might very well mask any small differences in optical quality.
Remember that these were 'flagship' lenses from two of the most-respected optical companies, designed for a demanding professional market.

[Bernice Loui]

Define "lightweight", Define "Fast", Define "Compact.

Each of these requirements will impose specific trade offs that are a fixed given.

As for "sharp" realities of 8x10 often imposed diffraction limited "sharpness" or would "sharpness" be a perception of high contrast,
there is a very real and significant difference between resolution, contrast and a very long list of lens personalties that cannot be
defined by sharp-contrast alone.

Better question would be what are your print image goals? Start here and work backwards with the camera being well down on the list of
how to meet your print image goals.

There is a very long list of 14" _ 360mm lenses that are excellent for 8x10. Each have their plus-minus, none will meet every print image goal.


Bernice




Hey LFPF!

Wondering if a lens like this even exists...?

I'm looking for a 360mm 8x10 lens, that is modern and very sharp, but is also lightweight, and around f/6.3

Is there a lens that ticks all these boxes?

Thanks so much (:

[karl french]

Sure there is. The Osaka Commercial 360mm f6.8. Very sharp, light and usually cheap. It's a late coated Japanese Tessar. I love mine.

[Oren Grad]

Sure there is. The Osaka Commercial 360mm f6.8. Very sharp, light and usually cheap. It's a late coated Japanese Tessar. I love mine.

Thanks, Karl - my bad for overlooking this. That's the rebranded Congo, right? For the OP, the specification for that lens is image circle 415 mm, so plenty of room for 8x10 with movement, filter size 67mm, and weight 750 g, despite being in a #3 shutter, so quite a bit smaller/lighter than the late-model plasmats from the big four.

[karl french]

Yes, it's same as the Congo as far as I know. Mine is in a Copal 3S from the late 80's.

[Luis-F-S]

Not F6.3 but then again I use a 14” GD Dagor and a 355 G-Claron!

[Peter De Smidt]

Sure there is. The Osaka Commercial 360mm f6.8. Very sharp, light and usually cheap. It's a late coated Japanese Tessar. I love mine.

I have a version of this in a barrel. It has the same specs, but it's possible that it's a copy. Anyway, in a barrel its fairly small and light weight. If you're photographing at f/45 or so, you can likely get your exposures to a few seconds, which is easy to do manually.

[Tin Can]

Me Too

Peter tipped me about it

All gone now, I think, but we cannot post live auctions

For very good reasons!

That darn eBay must be watched constantly

so I don’t any longer

I use it with Packard shutter





I have a version of this in a barrel. It has the same specs, but it's possible that it's a copy. Anyway, in a barrel its fairly small and light weight. If you're photographing at f/45 or so, you can likely get your exposures to a few seconds, which is easy to do manually.

[Sal Santamaura]

If you were to choose from these two lenses, which would you pick?


Schneider 360mm f/6.8 Symmar-S non-APO MC (copal 3)
$300-500

Rodenstock 360mm f/6.8 Sironar-N (copal 3)
$750

I have no direct experience with the 360mm Symmar-S, but did own and use several shorter focal lengths in that series. I do own and use the 360mm Sironar-N. I'd not hesitate for a minute to answer "the Sironar-N."

[Drew Wiley]

Symmar S vs Sironar N? That's a Coke vs Pepsi question.

[Sal Santamaura]

Symmar S vs Sironar N? That's a Coke vs Pepsi question.Nah, if the question were "Coke or Pepsi," my answer would be "neither." :)