Recommended lens for Chamonix 8x10 for portrait/landscape

[Steven Ferson]

Hello,

I recently purchased a Chamonix 8x10 and the fuji 250 f6.7 as a first lens.

I did an extensive research on the 300 to 360 mm options for a second lens. I am considering a 360 mm to avoid perspective distortion in headshots and general photography/landscapes. 360 mm seems to be expensive or heavy or both.

It probably doesn’t make sense to put a symmar 360 on the front of a lightweight field camera…?

What is your lens recommendation for a 360 or 14” on a chamonix 8x10 for portrait and landscape?

I am thinking about the Kowa graphic 360 f9, the 14” commercial ektar or the fuji W 360 f6,3.
There is little info on how the kowa graphic draws and i haven’t found the weight of the commercial ektar yet. Based on its weight, the fuji is probably a better option than a symmar, but at the double of the price, i consider it overpriced (1200€ Or 600-800€ + import taxes).

Or is it better to forget about a 360mm and look for a g-claron 305 or something else?

Thanks for your advice!

Steven

[ic-racer]

I'd hope the front of a Chamonix 8x10 would hold a big 360.

I have a Shen Hao, with what seems to be a more robust front standard, and it can handle a big 360.

[Alan9940]

The Fuji W 360/6.3 is certainly smaller and lighter than a Schneider Symmar 360, but not by much. The Fuji 360 is still a chunk of glass. If you'd like, I can weigh mine and let ya know. The lightest and smallest lens in this range is the Fuji 360A, but these are very scarce and quite expensive. If you decide on the 300mm route, your options will open up a bit. The 300 plasmats aren't particularly small or light, but I can't image the Chamonix couldn't handle one. IIRC, Ben Horne uses (or used) a Nikkor 300/5.6 on his Chamonix Alpinist. If you want to go really small in the 300 range, there's the Nikon 300M or the Fuji 300C.

[angusparker]

The Fuji W 360/6.3 is certainly smaller and lighter than a Schneider Symmar 360, but not by much. The Fuji 360 is still a chunk of glass. If you'd like, I can weigh mine and let ya know. The lightest and smallest lens in this range is the Fuji 360A, but these are very scarce and quite expensive. If you decide on the 300mm route, your options will open up a bit. The 300 plasmats aren't particularly small or light, but I can't image the Chamonix couldn't handle one. IIRC, Ben Horne uses (or used) a Nikkor 300/5.6 on his Chamonix Alpinist. If you want to go really small in the 300 range, there's the Nikon 300M or the Fuji 300C.

The Fujinon A360 f10 is an ideal lens for a lighter 8x10 but as mentioned hard to find and expensive. The plasmats are heavy but have good coverage and better max apertures. The Nikon M or Fujinon C 300mms are very small and have just enough coverage - not going to give you big movements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Kiwi7475]

The Chamonix handles the Nikkor SW 150 without issues so it shouldn’t have problems with any of the larger 360 mm options you’re discussing here….but if you want light, a g-claron 355mm would work great, and give you large movements; no need to go for far more expensive options….

[Lachlan 717]

Are you sure you want a Plasmat for portraits?

[Alan9940]

The Chamonix handles the Nikkor SW 150 without issues so it shouldn’t have problems with any of the larger 360 mm options you’re discussing here….but if you want light, a g-claron 355mm would work great, and give you large movements; no need to go for far more expensive options….

I've never seen or handled any Chamonix camera, but I'd be willing to bet that their 8x10 may moan a bit with my Schneider Symmar-S 360/6.8 hanging on the front. Even my Deardorff slips a bit, unless I crank down on the knobs. The 355 G-Claron is a great suggestion that I forgot about.

[ic-racer]

I saw this on the internet. 1000mm Apo-Germinar/Copal 3 on an 8x10 Chamonix.

244072

[Greg]

Since probably around the early 1980s, I have been using a Calumet 20" (508mm) f/7 Ilex Caltar. Wide open for 8x10 portraits back in the 1980s. Stopped down and use it on my 11x14 Chamonix with movements. The front Chamonix standard holds it without any problems. The maximum aperture of f/7 is amazingly bright on the GG.

[Tin Can]

https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/lenssupport

My S11 Studio Deardorff doesn't need it

Tested to 20 lb

[Steven Ferson]

With an extra tripod at the front

[Steven Ferson]

This is the answer for my weight concerns….=> it is an issue, but there is a solution if you choose to go that route.

[Steven Ferson]

Are you sure you want a Plasmat for portraits?

That is part of the question. I like the look that you can get with a cooke anastigmat, a heliar or a protar, but am not sold on the petzvals.
It seems that 16” is the right size, but i assume these are heavy and don’t come with a shutter.

These extra complications are best to avoid for beginners like me?

[Steven Ferson]

The Chamonix handles the Nikkor SW 150 without issues so it shouldn’t have problems with any of the larger 360 mm options you’re discussing here….but if you want light, a g-claron 355mm would work great, and give you large movements; no need to go for far more expensive options….

The G Claron 355 or the kowa graphic 360, both f9 seem to make sense. Are they also OK for portraits or is it better to go for a brighter 300mm plastmat?

[Whir-Click]

The Fujinon L 420 ticks a lot of boxes: single coated Tessar design, agreeable 8x10 focal length, modern shutter, reasonable weight burden on a Chamonix.

[Kiwi7475]

The G Claron 355 or the kowa graphic 360, both f9 seem to make sense. Are they also OK for portraits or is it better to go for a brighter 300mm plastmat?

Focusing should be fine at f9 unless you’re taking portraits in very dim light. The only other difficulty would be if you’re using strobes and need a dark environment not to “overpower them” when taking the shot.

The advantage of a brighter lens though would be to decrease the depth of focus… so it depends what are you looking for….

[Scott Davis]

I'd vote for the 14" Commercial Ektar. It's a big chunk of a shutter, but the overall weight is reasonable. And hey, if it was good enough for Yusuf Karsh, it's good enough for me. I use mine on my Canham 8x10 regularly and have no problems with it on the somewhat spindly front standard. Ditto my 250 Wide-Field Ektar, which is a bigger, heavier piece of glass.

I haven't weighed them directly to compare but in my mind, the 355 G-Claron isn't a dramatic weight savings over the 14" Commercial Ektar. I'd rather have the tessar design and the faster maximum aperture for doing portraits. The G-Claron would win if you needed to do a LOT of movements as it has the image circle big enough to cover my 14x17 with movement. The Commercial Ektar is going to top out at 11x14 with very limited movement.

[Greg]

I'd vote for the 14" Commercial Ektar. It's a big chunk of a shutter, but the overall weight is reasonable. And hey, if it was good enough for Yusuf Karsh, it's good enough for me. I use mine on my Canham 8x10 regularly and have no problems with it on the somewhat spindly front standard. Ditto my 250 Wide-Field Ektar, which is a bigger, heavier piece of glass.

I haven't weighed them directly to compare but in my mind, the 355 G-Claron isn't a dramatic weight savings over the 14" Commercial Ektar. I'd rather have the tessar design and the faster maximum aperture for doing portraits. The G-Claron would win if you needed to do a LOT of movements as it has the image circle big enough to cover my 14x17 with movement. The Commercial Ektar is going to top out at 11x14 with very limited movement.

14" Commercial Ektar in Ilex #5 mounted on Sinar board 2 lb 6 1/8 oz
355 G-Claron in Copal #3 mounted on Sinar board 2 lb 2 3/8 oz
360mm f/6.5 Nikkor-W in Copal #3 mounted on a Sinar Board 3 lb 5 oz heavy but have used it many times on my Chamonix without problems

[Steven Ferson]

14" Commercial Ektar in Ilex #5 mounted on Sinar board 2 lb 6 1/8 oz
355 G-Claron in Copal #3 mounted on Sinar board 2 lb 2 3/8 oz
360mm f/6.5 Nikkor-W in Copal #3 mounted on a Sinar Board 3 lb 5 oz heavy but have used it many times on my Chamonix without problems

Thanks!
Nice to hear that weight is not a no - go with one of the f6.5 options. Of these 3 lenses, which one would you recommend the most for portrait & landscape? My other lens is a fuji 250 f 6,7.

Steven

[Steven Ferson]

No happy users of the Kowa 360f9?

[Tin Can]

I assume Winter is coming at your patch

You will buy at least 2 lenses

Buy any cheap 250mm without shutter first

Shoot all winter inside, friends and family, or manikins

to learn lighting, strobes don't need a shutter




I have 2


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51726182851_b90cf29411_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mNSd3P)A Plastica Early (https://flic.kr/p/2mNSd3P) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Greg]

Thanks!
Nice to hear that weight is not a no - go with one of the f6.5 options. Of these 3 lenses, which one would you recommend the most for portrait & landscape? My other lens is a fuji 250 f 6,7.

Steven

I either contact print my 8x10 negatives on FB paper or make digital negatives and print Platinum/Palladium. I see no difference in the three lenses if all stopped down to f/45. I'm sure there are differences, but I've never seen a reason to shoot the same scene with each of the optics just to compare them with each other. The Commercial Ektar is circa 1947 and essentially NOS! until I acquired it maybe five years ago, but its lens coating looks to be a lot more modern. I prefer the seemingly brighter image on the GG that the f/6.5 Nikkor-W gives me, even though the Commercial Ektar is a f/6.3 optic. I shoot from the back of my car so weight is not a factor. If I were to sell two of the optics and keep only one, I'd be very happy with any of the three. I also have and use a 250mm f/6.7 FUJI. My favorite pair of lenses is the 14 inch and the 250mm. Good luck in whatever you choose.

[NormaN]

What about the Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 360mm/f9
in shutter, Filter size: 58mm, IC 318mm, Weight about 450grams?

[Michael_qrt]

What about the Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 360mm/f9
in shutter, Filter size: 58mm, IC 318mm, Weight about 450grams?

That lens would work well for portraits if the image character is what you're after, maybe a little tight on movements for landscapes although it should be sharp, 450g in a Copal 3 shutter seems a bit low without looking it up as from memory the shutter itself is almost 400g, certainly one of the smaller/lighter lenses in Copal 3.

Another good option if you can find one is a Commercial Congo 360mm f/6.8 (also labelled Commercial Astragon/Osaka Commercial/Commercial Komura and maybe also with the Yamasaki name or others), it's supposed to be a remade version of the Commercial Ektar but in a newer Copal 3s shutter, much smaller and lighter than the big plasmats in this range.

[CatSplat]

I am thinking about the Kowa graphic 360 f9, the 14” commercial ektar or the fuji W 360 f6,3.
There is little info on how the kowa graphic draws and i haven’t found the weight of the commercial ektar yet. Based on its weight, the fuji is probably a better option than a symmar, but at the double of the price, i consider it overpriced (1200€ Or 600-800€ + import taxes).


I'm not sure what the shipping arrangements might be for you, but KEH.com has a Fuji 360mm for $439.00 (https://www.keh.com/shop/360-f6-3-fujinon-w-copal-bt-65mt-8x10-lens-681033.html?rrec=true) at the moment.

[Vaughn]

Both my Zone VI 8x10 and Chamonix 11x14 handle my Fuji W 360 easily, if that helps any. I work a lot under the redwoods where the faster lenses are nice.

Perhaps a Red Dot Artar 14" in a shutter would be another choice to keep the weight down (f11). I like my 19" and 24" barrel versions, but one is stuck between two opposing factors -- on the slow side under the redwoods for easy composing...and too much light in the desert without a shutter.

[Steven Ferson]

I assume Winter is coming at your patch

You will buy at least 2 lenses

Buy any cheap 250mm without shutter first

Shoot all winter inside, friends and family, or manikins

to learn lighting, strobes don't need a shutter




I have 2


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51726182851_b90cf29411_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mNSd3P)A Plastica Early (https://flic.kr/p/2mNSd3P) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

A 250 f6.7 is coming. Good idea to stick with one lens and give it a try.
In retrospect i should have bought just a 300 5,6 in stead of wanting a 250/difficult 360 combination.

[Steven Ferson]

I'm not sure what the shipping arrangements might be for you, but KEH.com has a Fuji 360mm for $439.00 (https://www.keh.com/shop/360-f6-3-fujinon-w-copal-bt-65mt-8x10-lens-681033.html?rrec=true) at the moment.

Thanks for the link. 440$ + 40 shipping + risk fee/customs commission DHL 10%? + export customs + 21% VAT + 7% import customs….

2 film holders from Japan, selling for 180€ together ended at a grand total of 340€ after al shipping and customs cost.

I guess i can buy a lens for about 800-900€ in europe at the cost of importing a 500$ lens. It is probably cheaper to travel to Japan and collect two nice expensive f8 or lenses than imprting them by mail :-).

[Greg]

A 250 f6.7 is coming. Good idea to stick with one lens and give it a try.
In retrospect i should have bought just a 300 5,6 in stead of wanting a 250/difficult 360 combination.

Throughout the 1980s, I set out on a project to photograph gorges and waterfalls in southern New England. Stuck to using only one lens - a 300mm. Many times I had wanted to move just a little bit closer or farther away from my subject but couldn't because of the terrain. Switched to using a 250mm and a 360mm and just leaving the 300mm home. Made a huge difference in composing my imagery. My experience was that there really wasn't a huge difference in the angles of coverage of these. That being said, when I was a student at RIT and started to shoot 8x10... for two years my teacher and mentor urged me to shoot with only one lens - a 300mm.

[NormaN]

That lens would work well for portraits if the image character is what you're after, maybe a little tight on movements for landscapes although it should be sharp, 450g in a Copal 3 shutter seems a bit low without looking it up as from memory the shutter itself is almost 400g, certainly one of the smaller/lighter lenses in Copal 3.

Another good option if you can find one is a Commercial Congo 360mm f/6.8 (also labelled Commercial Astragon/Osaka Commercial/Commercial Komura and maybe also with the Yamasaki name or others), it's supposed to be a remade version of the Commercial Ektar but in a newer Copal 3s shutter, much smaller and lighter than the big plasmats in this range.
Hello Michael

You are of course right, the weight is not correct (I picked up the figure somewhere). I weighed my Apo Ronar in the Prontor shutter: 680 grams.

I also have one with a Compur3 shutter (it has more blades) but I haven't found it yet :o

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52075859645_350d2c9cdf_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nkLoM4)Alice 1995 (https://flic.kr/p/2nkLoM4) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

480mm F9.0 Rodenstock Apo-Ronar on 8x10 Norma HP5 D76. 16x20 print made by local commercial lab. Lit by medium and large softbox camera left. 4x8 foot foamcore camera right. Back then the idea was, soft light, combined with clinical sharp focus. A good combo IMHO.

[Steven Ferson]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52075859645_350d2c9cdf_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nkLoM4)Alice 1995 (https://flic.kr/p/2nkLoM4) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

480mm F9.0 Rodenstock Apo-Ronar on 8x10 Norma HP5 D76. 16x20 print made by local commercial lab. Lit by medium and large softbox camera left. 4x8 foot foamcore camera right.

Well done! For me the take away is that for head and shoulder portraits, it is better to have something longer than a 300, but you need enough bellows…. The apo ronar 360 covers, but allows little movements.

[Hugo Zhang]

14” commercial ektar or 14" Dagor if I have to choose one for portraiture and landscape.

[paulbarden]

14” commercial ektar or 14" Dagor if I have to choose one for portraiture and landscape.

Agreed. The Kodak Commercial Ektar is as good a lens as you could wish for.

[Alan9940]

Agreed. The Kodak Commercial Ektar is as good a lens as you could wish for.

I found it to have slightly less contrast vs my Schneider 360/6.8 Symmar-S, but nothing a slight boost in development couldn't fix. I only ever owned the 14" version, but this lens definitely renders unique image characteristics that I've not seen in my more modern LF lenses.

[paulbarden]

I found it to have slightly less contrast vs my Schneider 360/6.8 Symmar-S, but nothing a slight boost in development couldn't fix. I only ever owned the 14" version, but this lens definitely renders unique image characteristics that I've not seen in my more modern LF lenses.

"More contrast" is rarely what a photographer wants in a portrait lens!

[Daniel Unkefer]

Well done! For me the take away is that for head and shoulder portraits, it is better to have something longer than a 300, but you need enough bellows…. The apo ronar 360 covers, but allows little movements.

I have a pair of matched 360mm F9 Apo-Ronars I use on my 5x7 Twin Lens Norma portrait camera. One I got from an Olde Photographer in Italy. He made me promise to keep it and use it, it was a cherished lens for him. In a barrel with Norma Rabbit Aperture Control Ears. Great lens. Apo Ronars are under rated generally and some are not at all expensive. And TC is right, you don't have to have a shutter if you are using strobes. But it is a nice enhancement for a price. For landscape a hat works good.

[Alan9940]

"More contrast" is rarely what a photographer wants in a portrait lens!

I was just trying to add a bit more to the consideration of a lens to buy, but, in general, I agree.

[Steven Ferson]

Hello,

A fuji 360 f 6,3 in mint shape has arrived :).


Regards
Steven

[Daniel.E]

You probably outbid me on that one that hahahaha I was looking for one as well.

[Tin Can]

I am slowing working on Heavy Studio 8X10 Deardorff

My goal is SF lenses only with 4X5 for testing 8X10 0r slider for 5X8 with string focus

[Vaughan]

My goal is SF lenses only with 4X5 for testing 8X10 0r slider for 5X8 with string focus

I know some people dislike this lens, but the Fujinon SF 250mm f5.6 lens in Copal 3 shutter covers 8x10 at infinity when stopped down to f22 or smaller (when it has little to no soft focus and renders more like a tessar) and is reasonably cheap and easy to find. At close up distances the coverage should improve markedly, and with 8x10 a head and shoulders is relatively close up.

Just be careful to check it has the strainers with it: it left the factory with two, a yellow dot and a red dot, with the yellow dot giving the strongest soft focus effect (other than no strainer all). Most being sold on eBay have no strainers, or only one that's fitted inside the lens: these could be either yellow or red dots.

String focus: is that one fits sisal?