focal length...8x10

[Percy]

Hi.

Before I order this thing...

I have a wonderful Fuji 300 6.3 lens for 8x10. I'd like another focal length, and am considering a 240 symmar s 5.6.

Does the angle of view differ significantly from that of the 300? The Fuji is ridiculously sharp; can I expect similar performance from the 240 symmar s?

Thanks for your time.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, Percy, basic info on the 240mm Symmar-S is available on the Schneider site at the following URL:

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar-s/data/1,5,6-240mm.html

This lists the image circle at 337mm, and the coverage angle as 70°.

Others here may have more information regarding how the Symmar-S compares to your Fuji lens in terms of performance.

[Kevin Crisp]

The Symmar S is a great lens, keep in mind if you think you're getting multicoated that some have it and some don't. If it doesn't say multicoating on it, it isn't. If you don't need a great deal of movement and don't mind the weight, you won't be going wrong with that lens. Since I do often use quite a bit of front rise, and do carry my camera a mile or more from the car, I've found that the 240mm lens I use is the G Claron, which has more practical coverage and is much lighter. It is dimmer to focus at f:9 vs. f:5.6 but this has never bothered me. Some people seem to think it is a real drawback.

[Oren Grad]

For my taste, the view through a 240 does feel very different from the view through a 300. I would find an image circle of 337mm very limiting for a 240 on 8x10. Especially on such a squarish format, I find that I tend to want room for quite a bit more front rise with a 240 than I do with a 300. I ended up with the 240 Apo-Sironar-S, which covers 75 degrees, corresponding to an image circle of 372mm at f/22 and infinity focus. That's an expensive lens, though, and may not fit within your budget. If it doesn't, I'd still recommend looking for one of the 72 degree lenses such as the Apo-Sironar-N, Caltar II-N or Apo-Symmar, which would at least give you a little bit more scope for movement.

The 240 G-Claron that Kevin mentioned will also give you plenty of coverage if you stop it way down - the G-Clarons typically reach 80 degrees or so at f/45. The "flavor" of the G-Clarons is a bit different, and I'm happier using an Apo-Sironar or Apo-Symmar. But it is an option worth considering if the subjects you photograph allow you to work routinely at small apertures. It also has the advantage of being much smaller and lighter than the big 240 plasmats in #3 shutters.

[Robert Skeoch]

You might consider the Fujinon 240A.
It's very light weight and is in a Copal #0.
Everyone seems to look to Kerry Thalmann for advice about lenses so this is his classic's page....
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

-Rob

[Bruce Watson]

Angle of View = 2 * ArcTan(Film Dimension / (2 * Focal Length * (1 + Magnification)))

Assuming the 10" diminsion and magnification = 0 (infinity, basic landscape work)

300mm lens, AV = 46 degrees

240mm lens, AV = 56 degrees

210mm lens, AV = 62 degrees

I've got my lenses for 5x4 spaced about 15 degrees apart, which I find very comfortable. So if it were me, I'd look for a 210mm instead of a 240mm lens. Clearly, YMMV.

That said, I do own and regularly use a 240mm Fujinon-A. I have to say that it too is rediculously sharp. Fuji does know how to make a sharp lens.

[Eric Leppanen]

Percy,

Just out of curiosity, I didn't know there was a 300mm f/6.3 Fuji lens. What lens model to you have?

For my work, there is relatively little difference in angle-of-view between 240 and 300mm lenses, but because the 210mm 8x10 lenses are typically so huge and expensive, a lot of folks use a 240mm (when I hike with my 8x10, I typically take a 150-240-300-450 lens set with me). When I am at home or close to the car, I prefer a 150-210-300-450 lens set since the angle-of-view differences are more pronounced.

The differences in personalities between lens families is so subjective that I don't think there is much consensus regarding any differences. I personally find Fuji lenses tend to produce high acutance images with high perceived sharpness, whereas Schneiders favor a "smoother" look with perhaps a smidge more shadow detail, while Rodenstocks fall a bit in between (albeit more on the higher acutance side; some folks consider the APO Sironar-S line to be relatively contrasty, for example). But most differences tend to get overwhelmed during the processing and printing stages, so I'm not sure how significant they really are.

Among 240mm lenses, I think the APO Sironar-S is arguably the reference standard, but the Symmar-S is excellent if you don't need much coverage for movements. It superficially may not look quite as sharp as your Fuji, but I think if you examine negatives under a loupe you'll find it resolves just as much. If you don't mind using an f/9 lens to save weight, then the Fuji 240A or Docter Germinar-W are excellent options. The Germinar is essentially a multi-coated G-Claron and is arguably better for 8x10 since it offers more coverage when stopped down; Kerry Thalmann still has some for sale at www.apug.org/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=757&sort=1&cat=2&page=1 (http://www.apug.org/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=757&sort=1&cat=2&page=1). The Germinar has a similar "look" to the Fuji.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Rob - You might consider the Fujinon 240A. It's very light weight and is in a Copal #0. Everyone seems to look to Kerry Thalmann for advice about lenses so this is his classic's page.... http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

While I HIGHLY recommend the 240mm Fujinon A for 4x5 and 5x7, I don't really recommend it for 8x10. Sure, if you already have it for 4x5 or 5x7, you can press it into service occasionally for 8x10. However, it just doesn't have enough coverage (IMHO) if 8x10 is your primary format for this lens. Fuji specs the coverage at 70 degrees for an image circle of 336mm. In my experience, those numbers are pretty accurate. And while the lens does illuminate a larger circle, it goes real soft real fast beyond the manufacturer's specified coverage and stopping down further does little to increase the usable coveerage by any significant amount. I'm not saying this lens can't be used on 8x10, just that it would not be my first choice for that format in this focal length.

If size, weight and price aren't an issue, I'd recommend the 240mm f5.6 APO-Sironar-S. If size, weight and price are issues, I'd recommend either the 240mm G Claron or the 240mm f9 Germinar-W. They both fit in Copal No. 1 shutters, and are, therefore, a little heavier than the 240mm Fujinon A, but still quite compact and light for lenses capable of covering 8x10 with movements. While the manufacturers' specs on these lenses are the same (Germinar-W) or even less (G Claron) than the Fuji, in actual use they both provide substantially more usable coverage when stopped down to f32 or smaller. IMHO this makes them better suited to the 8x10 format than the 240mm Fujinon A.

Kerry

[tim atherton]

another very nice contender is the Fuji 250mm 6.7

As for difference - it really depends on what sort of work you do I think

for 8x10 I have 159/165mm, 180mm (well 7"), 210mm and 250mm lenses. I use all of them pretty frequently and see significant differences between the way they look in use. And the jump from 250mm to 300mm seems a big jump...

Saying there should be a certain degree of difference between each lens in a "set" of lenses or a certain mm difference in focal length between each step is a bit like those "one size fits all" hats - they never do. What's much more important is how you see with the camera and what sort of work you do

[John O'Connell]

Based on my experience, I think 240 and 300 are too close to have both for 8x10. Cetainly they're too close to be your only lenses. It's like buying 35mm lenses 9mm apart in focal length. A good rule of thumb in 8x10 is to space your lenses at least 100mm (4") apart.

When I'm first filling out my lenses for a format I prefer to double or halve my focal lengths: in 8x10 I do 159, 355, and 800, and I've been waiting to get a 250 Fuji SF to finish my collection.

Cheap wides: the Protar V options marked 6.5x8.5 and 8x10, and the Wollensak 159.

[Frank Petronio]

Then again, why not just use one lens? It worked for Avedon and lots of other famous/great/rich photographers. Keep it simple and wait until you have the need for a certain lens.

When I was a lens whore, I prefered to make big jumps because I: 1. am frugal (or cheap, Kerry) 2. don't like carrying too much 3. and it's easier to decide which lens to use.

If I were doing commercial architecture I could see the point of having every step of a series of focal lengths, since the relationship of near to far is so critical. But for general photography, it seems easy enough to walk forward or backward to adjsut the field of view, and live with the background relative to the foreground.

[Walt Calahan]

Percy

You can do a lot with one lens.

I use a Cooke XVa in its "normal" set-up for much of my photography. It's a 311 mm lens.

I then jump down to a Nikkor 240 mm f/5.6. I find it a gentle jump, but I could have jumped down to a 210 mm.

There's no right or wrong. You should try a few different wide focal lengths to see what works best for your way of seeing.

With the Nikkor and the Cooke, I have a range from 240 to 645, with two jumps in between.

[John Kasaian]

I agree that the difference between 240 and 300mms isn't much, unless you've got a very specific situation that requires it. FWIW I'd look into going the 'other direction' and scope out a 450 Nikkor M while you can still get one new (or if you want to go wider and if your front standard can take it, a 165 or 210 mm Super Angulon----or if you're cheap like me a 159mm Wollensak WA) I think any of these lenses will give you a substantially greater variance than the 240mm.

[Paul Coppin]

I run a Symmar S 210 on my 8x10, and coverage is tight. Lens works well but its easy to run off the edge with movements if you're not careful...

[Ole Tjugen]

My most used 8x10"-lens is a 240mm Symmar. After that, 165mm Angulon and 121mm Super-Angulon. But I also have a 210 Angulon, a 270 G-Claron, a 300mm Industar (and an Aristoplan), 355 G-Claron, and so on all the way up to a massive 650mm Aplanat.

What I bring with me out is the lenses I think I'll be using - 121, 165 and 240.