Shooting multiple formats (4x5 & 8x10) - separate lens sets, or one for both?

[6x6TLL]

Been enjoying the 4x5 journey the last few years, and recently found a used 8x10 for a great price.

Have been wondering for a while what I've been missing out on by going with 4x5 instead of 8x10, so I went ahead and picked it up, along with a few film holders and film from some of the fine people here on the forum (thank you!). Wow that huge ground glass sure is a joy to compose on!

Discovered that my 4x5 lenses don't really cover 8x10 (wasn't paying as much attention to image circle as I probably should have when I bought them).

Two come close enough to get me started - a Rodenstock Sironar-S 210/5.6 and Commercial Ektar 12"/6.3. No real room for movements, but I can shoot landscapes straight ahead, do a few portraits, get closer, etc.

My question is for those who shoot both sizes, do you have separate sets of lenses for each format (sounds $$$$), or do you have one set of lenses that covers both (likely providing a far greater image circle/more movement than needed for 4x5 and larger shutters as a drawback)?

Still very much a newbie to large format, looking for some guidance here.

Thanks!

[konakoa]

There aren't many lenses from a 4x5 kit that can do double duty on an 8x10, yet I would give a solid thumbs up to the Nikkor 300mm f/9. Nice reach on the 4x5, a more modest view on an 8x10. The lens is small and compact. Copal 1 shutter so that keeps the size and weight down too. Surprisingly bright and even on the ground glass even though it's f/9. Filters for the front are easy as well. A jewel of a lens!

Otherwise, yeah, a separate lens kit. 240, 450, 600...

[fotopfw]

I started with 8x10" now, I use a Nikon 240, Symmar 300, Apo Ronar 480 all with ample movements. I use these lenses also for 4x5". The reverse way, starting on 4x5" and going to 8x10" you must almost always buy 8x10" lenses.

[dave_whatever]

I've used the Fuji 240/9 and 300/8.5, the 210 G Claron and the 110SSXL on both. Just from a logistical standpoint a lens tends to live in either the 5x4" bag or the 10x8" bag though. It's just easier to keep em in one place or another rather than risk picking up the bag only to get out to your location only find you left the lens you want in the other bag. So at the minute my 240/9 is in the 5x4" kit, and the 210 and 300 are in the 10x8" bag.

[Alan9940]

I do have separate sets of lenses for 4x5 and 8x10, but that's mainly because I started with the "smaller" format over 40 years ago, moved on to 8x10 some years later and didn't know about lenses that could cover both formats. However, nowadays I have Fuji A and C lenses mounted on Technika boards that work for both formats. And, these lenses being so small and light makes for easier backpacking, too!

[6x6TLL]

There aren't many lenses from a 4x5 kit that can do double duty on an 8x10, yet I would give a solid thumbs up to the Nikkor 300mm f/9. Nice reach on the 4x5, a more modest view on an 8x10. The lens is small and compact. Copal 1 shutter so that keeps the size and weight down too. Surprisingly bright and even on the ground glass even though it's f/9. Filters for the front are easy as well. A jewel of a lens!

Otherwise, yeah, a separate lens kit. 240, 450, 600...

-M, -W or -Q version?

[Graham Patterson]

I started with 4x5, but there is a little overlap in the lenses with the 8x10. The 210 is used for 4x10/5x8 using a mask, the 270 G-Claron works with rear movements only. The 450mm Nikon is 8x10 only, and the 90mm, 135/150mm are for the 4x5. I do have a 333mm meniscus I use with the 8x10, but that is a bit specialized.

Just to make things more complicated, the 90mm, 135mm, 210mm, and possibly the 270mm, are used with the 2x3. Because of the overlap I need checklists!

I never thought I would use 8x10 when I got the 4x5.

[konakoa]

-M, -W or -Q version?

The -M version is the f/9 I spoke of. The -Q is an older optic I’m not familiar with. The -W is the f/5.6 yet that’s a much larger lens in a Copal 3. I think very highly of my Nikkor-W f/5.6 but the large size and weight of it scares pretty much everyone away from even considering the lens as an option.

[paulbarden]

I'm having difficulty believing that the 12" Commercial Ektar doesn't have sufficient coverage to allow for respectable movements (nothing extreme).

[6x6TLL]

The data I've been able to find shows an image circle of 304mm at f16 and 317mm at f22 for the Commercial Ektar 12" (which I think was intended as a 5x7 lens originally, with the 14" version designed for 8x10).

I believe 8x10 needs about 312mm for full coverage, before movements.

[MartyNL]

Naturally, if you know in advance that you're going to be working with both 4x5 and 8x10, then it makes a lot of sense to buy kit with both formats in mind.

However, in my journey, it was never quite so obvious and what makes it worse, and in no small part to this forum, I've gone head-first down the "historic lens' rabbit-hole, with the unexpected consequence of perhaps never wishing to use a 'modern' piece of glass to take a photograph ever again...

[Vaidotas]

12” Dagor
Fujinon 250/6.7
8 1/4” Dagor
Inherited and most favorable 165/8 Super Angulon
Wollensak Series III Ex.WA 159/9.5

All of them are in use from MF roll back to 18x24
Sure you’ll have some surplus light shattered inside the bellows and lower contrast, but they are good performers.

By building up my 5x7 set up I always had in mind possibility to shoot in bigger format.

[John Layton]

...a 305mm F/9 G-Claron can do "quadruple duty" as a lens for 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14! Does quite well with all of these formats in fact!

[waterlenz]

Important to keep in mind that the IC at 1:1 is 2x that of infinity and that at 1:1 one is shooting about an 8x10" area with 8x10. Thus one is using more bellows draw for 8x10 than 4x5 and smaller formats for the same subject. Those short FL lenses may be more useful than you think. It is mostly the short FL wide angles that are more format specific such as 65 to 90mm lenses for 4x5.

[paulbarden]

The data I've been able to find shows an image circle of 304mm at f16 and 317mm at f22 for the Commercial Ektar 12" (which I think was intended as a 5x7 lens originally, with the 14" version designed for 8x10).

I believe 8x10 needs about 312mm for full coverage, before movements.

I have the 12" f4.5 Ektar, (not the f6.3 Commercial Ektar), and its usable image circle is 361mm. So it's conceivable that the f4.5 version has a larger image circle (news to me, but I suppose it makes sense). I've found my 12" Ektar has more than enough image area to use substantial movements on 8x10.

[dave_whatever]

From the old Kodak brochures:

247805

[6x6TLL]

Important to keep in mind that the IC at 1:1 is 2x that of infinity and that at 1:1 one is shooting about an 8x10" area with 8x10. Thus one is using more bellows draw for 8x10 than 4x5 and smaller formats for the same subject. Those short FL lenses may be more useful than you think. It is mostly the short FL wide angles that are more format specific such as 65 to 90mm lenses for 4x5.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand.

The IC doubles as the subject (or plane of focus) comes nearer, which requires greater bellows extension?

I have a 90mm Grandagon N, but expect it's only useable on the 4x5 setup, not anything larger. IC is 236mm at f22. Do you mean a 150mm or 210mm could be more useful on 8x10 when using more bellows draw (thus enlarging the image circle)? I.e. more close up work, macro, etc?

[AuditorOne]

I do not have what I would call a lens "kit" for my cameras. I guess I never really thought about it. When I find a lens I like I tend to stay with it for quite awhile unless something better pops up. I do like my 8 1/4 inch Dagor on both 4x5 and 8x10. It started on an Empire State 5x7 but it has been on my 8x10 since I sold the Empire State. I have been very happy with it as a landscape lens which is what I shoot most of the time, so no reason to change. Besides I have a particularly decent APO Symmar 150 L for the 4x5 so I am not exactly hurting.