New 155-165mm Wide Angle For 8"X10".

[Tony Lakin]

Hi Guys and Gals
There is a genuine possibility of the manufacture of a lightweight lens in the 155-165 range to cover 8"X10" this would be in a Copal #1 shutter and similar in size to a Cooke VIIB, could anyone who would be interested please respond so I can get an idea of numbers and could you also state the approximate price you would be prepared to pay and also any comments or ideas. It would be most helpful if you could respond within 7 days.

Regards

Tony Lakin

[Walter Calahan]

Cool, I'm in!!!

I'd prefer more in the 165mm range.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I may be interested, depending upon price among other concerns.

[Barry Wilkinson]

I may be interested, especially if it would also cover my 5x12". Price????

Barry

[Jack Flesher]

I'm in, but it's all a matter of cost -- need to know that before I commit to anything.

[Tony Lakin]

Hi
I'm afraid I can't give any indication of a price for this lens yet, it would depend on the production run, if any one interested would please give an indication of what they would be prepared to pay this would be most helpful, I have a meeting with a leading lens manufacturer in 7 days time and the more info I can provide the better.
I must point out that no commitment or deposit would be required.

Thankyou

[vinny]

165mm would be the shortest i'd want to go. $650

[Scott Davis]

Can you at least give us a ballpark range on the price, and the minimum order quantity needed to get that price? ie it will be no more than $1500.00 if we meet the minimum order quantity of 20 pcs, and if we meet threshold A (50 pcs), it will go down to $1200.00, and threshold B (100 pcs), it will drop to $900.00 .

[tim atherton]

Anywhere from 155 - 165mm would be good - size of say the 6.5" Dagor WA/Wolly 159mm (or the Kowa/Computar lenses) and max $650.00 or so.

[Brian Ellis]

"lightweight lens in the 155-165 range to cover 8"X10" this would be in a Copal #1 shutter"

Sounds a lot like the the Wollensak 159 f9.5 lens. For about $300 on ebay that's a hard lens to beat for small, light, good 8x10 coverage, and plenty sharp, at least on the 8x10 contact prints I made, not sure about enlargements since I never made any enlargements in the darkroom from 8x10 negatives. While another lens in the same general category but presumably with better performance in some respects would surely be welcome, I don't see how you're going to get any meaningful indications of interest without giving at least a ballpark price range. There's a big difference between the size of your market at $300 and $3000.

[Tony Lakin]

Can you at least give us a ballpark range on the price, and the minimum order quantity needed to get that price? ie it will be no more than $1500.00 if we meet the minimum order quantity of 20 pcs, and if we meet threshold A (50 pcs), it will go down to $1200.00, and threshold B (100 pcs), it will drop to $900.00 .

[Tony Lakin]

Hi
I am sorry I can't be more helpful at this stage, what I would assume would be thet this lens would retail some where between $1000 and $2000 and that the production run would have to be at least 100 units, please bear in mind that a new Copal #! shutter alone costs more than $300.
Regards

[tim atherton]

, please bear in mind that a new Copal #! shutter alone costs more than $300.
Regards

One at a time, maybe (And about $250.00 retail). But not, as I recall, to a lens manufacturer who is buying them by the pallet load

[lee nadel]

a 165mm with the cost of 1200.00 would be great but with more coverage then. a 165mm dagor. i'm in also

[Mark Stahlke]

Why not something a little longer, like a 180mm? The 90mm lens is very popular for 4x5 but there aren't any comparable modern lenses for 8x10 shooters.

That said, I might go for a 165mm. It depends on price and coverage.

Cheers,
Mark

[Ole Tjugen]

I'm not really interested, since I already have a 165mm f:6.8 Angulon. But I'll be watching with interest anyway. :)

[Gene McCluney]

I would be interested if under $1000.

[Tony Lakin]

One at a time, maybe (And about $250.00 retail). But not, as I recall, to a lens manufacturer who is buying them by the pallet load

Hi Again
I would like to make my position clear, I am a passionate 8"X10" user who happens to have been asked if I thought it would be feasible to sell such a lens if it were produced and if I could possibly get an idea of potential demand, I currently use a Cooke VIIB and having read previous threads thought that there may be a demand for a modern improved equivalent using the latest technology, I would have no financial interest in this venture but would happily purchase one myself at between $1000-$2000. I also have a Cooke Series XVI triple convertible which I have owned and used for many years, when the XVIA became available I purchased one as soon as I could scrape together the funds and I am so glad I did and thought how nice it would be to have a modern compact wide angle as well.
I think it would be great if the lens manufacturers could be persuaded that there is a demand by larger format photographers for lighter more portable optics as the days of the huge super angulons etc. are over.

Regards

[Gregory Ng]

I am interested. But a lot depends on lens coverage, aperture, weight and price.

[Sal Santamaura]

To reiterate what I've previously told Barbara Lowery, a modern version of the 158mm Cooke -- let's call it a VIIC -- would be ideal. That's the exact focal length desired, and I'd pay $1,500 for it. 180mm would also be OK, to be used on different formats, but 158mm is the sweet spot.

[Rick Moore]

I would be interested in a small 155-165mm lens that offered good coverage of 8x10. A maximum aperture of f9-10 would be fine. My ideal price point would max out at around $1,250.

[Oren Grad]

I think you'd get a clearer answer if you simply ask "how many of you would pay $1500 for a modern 158mm Cooke?"

All the answers from people who want to pay less than $1000 are irrelevant, because at that price Cooke will never do it. Even $1500 may be iffy for them, given what they've asked for the PS945 and the XVa, but if there's solid demand at that price at least there would be a basis for negotiation.

Good luck...

[Bruce Watson]

There is a genuine possibility of the manufacture of a lightweight lens in the 155-165 range to cover 8"X10" this would be in a Copal #1 shutter and similar in size to a Cooke VIIB, could anyone who would be interested please respond so I can get an idea of numbers and could you also state the approximate price you would be prepared to pay and also any comments or ideas.

I might be interested in a 160mm lens for 10x8. It would depend on its size and weight, performance, etc. It would be lovely if it was at least an f/8. I'd guess that the price range for a new lens will be on the high side of the $1000-2500 USD range.

This proposed lens would be like an 80mm lens for 5x4 which is wide indeed. Around a 75 degree angle-of-view along the 10 inch side IIRC. This would be an excellent size.

[Henry Ambrose]

I'd be interested in a 165 or even a 180 that gave good coverage at a reasonable size.
There are already two available 150s, the Nikon and the Schneider. Yes, I know the Nikon is no longer made but they're out there on the market.

My perfect lens near what you are suggesting would be a 165-180 with a 400mm or larger fully usuable image circle and no larger than 95mm filter size, rear element that fits in a Technika board. Maximum aperture of f8 would be great but slower might be OK too. I'd pay $1000-1500 or maybe more for a truly exciting lens.

Another way of naming my perfect lens would be a "Schneider Super Symmar XL 165 or 180mm" thats the same size and performance as the current 150 XL. Or the equivalent to a typical modern 90mm on a 4x5 or maybe the Super Symmar 80mm XL on 4x5.

[Randy Redford]

Count me in, depending on coverage and price. I have the Nikon 150 but would like something lighter.

[Tony Lakin]

I'd be interested in a 165 or even a 180 that gave good coverage at a reasonable size.
There are already two available 150s, the Nikon and the Schneider. Yes, I know the Nikon is no longer made but they're out there on the market.

My perfect lens near what you are suggesting would be a 165-180 with a 400mm or larger fully usuable image circle and no larger than 95mm filter size, rear element that fits in a Technika board. Maximum aperture of f8 would be great but slower might be OK too. I'd pay $1000-1500 or maybe more for a truly exciting lens.

Another way of naming my perfect lens would be a "Schneider Super Symmar XL 165 or 180mm" thats the same size and performance as the current 150 XL. Or the equivalent to a typical modern 90mm on a 4x5 or maybe the Super Symmar 80mm XL on 4x5.
Hi
The lens I am proposing would be much smaller than any of the lenses you mention, we are are talking smaller than a 150mm Symmar S the filter thread would be in the region of 52mm the weight would be 250-300 grams.

[James E Galvin]

I'm interested, would prefer 155mm, need to know more about it: coverage, f#. I'd go $1200.

[tim atherton]

It sounds like the Computar combo. Combine the elements from a 150mm and 210mm Computar, get around a 165mm tiny f9 ish lens with a fair bit of coverage?

[Tony Lakin]

It sounds like the Computar combo. Combine the elements from a 150mm and 210mm Computar, get around a 165mm tiny f9 ish lens with a fair bit of coverage?
Hi
Thanks for that info Tim, I have a 210 Computar so I wouldn't mind trying the combo, have you tried elements from a 150 G Claron with the Computar? are 150mm Computars readily available, I bid for a 150mm Kyvytar (spelling?) a couple of years ago but Kerry outbid me.
Regards
Tony

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I'd definitely be interested. Of course, the lower the price the bigger the market and I'd love to see a compact multicoated 100 degree 8x10 wide angle in a modern Copal shutter for $999.95, but I'd likely be willing to pay more ($1200 - $1400) if that was the only option to get such a lens.

Concerning pricing... Yeah, if they were priced at $650 everyone would buy one, but I seriously doubt the company making them would be in business very long. A 150mm APO Sironar-S - a 75 degree lens in a smaller, cheaper Copal No. 0 shutter currently sells for $840 - $895 new. And keep in mind it's been in production for almost 15 years and has been a big seller by LF lens standards. They have had plenty of time and sufficient sales volume to recover their initial engineering and tooling costs. The 180mm APO Sironar-S, in a Copal No. 1 shutter, currently sells for $1070 - $1160. In terms of coverage, the 150mm Super Symmar XL is the closest (actually ONLY) current equivalent and it sells for $2100 - $2600 new. It's been on the market for a decade and is obviously a more complex design. On the used market, 150mm APO Sironar-W, a modern 80 degree lens that was discontinued in the late 1990s, recently sold on eBay for $1710. This is for a used 10 - 15 year old lens that doesn't even cover 8x10 (it covers 5x7 with moderate movements).

Realistically, I don't see how anyone could bring ANY new shutter mounted LF speciality lens to market with a retail price of less than $1000 and hope to make enough profit to make it worth their time and effort. This is especially true for the boutique manufacturing of small quantity, high quality optics where the expected production volume is 100 units. In such a scenario, the manufacturing costs do not benefit appreciably from economies of scale, and ALL of your design, prototype, manufacturing, test, marketing, advertising, etc. costs have to be distributed over those 100 units.

Kerry

P.S. That said, please let us ULF shoters know when the 200mm and 222mm versions are ready to go into production. I have an old (ancient) uncoated barrel mounted 8" f6.5 Cooke Series VIIB. I'd love to have a multicoated version in a modern Copal shutter.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Tony,

If you haven't done so, you may also try posting your inquiry over on APUG. There are a lot of dedeciated 8x10 (and larger) shooters over there who might be interested in such a lens.

Kerry

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi all

I would also prefer a 180mm but could also be happy with a 150--165 price could be around 1200 USD but first I had to sell my 155 mm Grandagon!
Armin

[Henry Ambrose]

Hi
The lens I am proposing would be much smaller than any of the lenses you mention, we are are talking smaller than a 150mm Symmar S the filter thread would be in the region of 52mm the weight would be 250-300 grams.

OK, smaller is great but not for me if it would only work shooting straight on or nearly so. I'd really want the 400mm usuable image circle. And I'd want it to more or less match modern lenses for contrast and sharp enough all over to enlarge.

In short, I'd pick imaging performance over extremely small size every time.

I'm still interested in whatever you come up with.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

OK, smaller is great but not for me if it would only work shooting straight on or nearly so. I'd really want the 400mm usuable image circle.

For 100-degree coverage:

158mm focal length = 376mm image circle
165mm focal length = 393mm image circle
180mm focal length = 429mm image circle

Kerry

[Ole Tjugen]

... or maybe I would buy one afterall, to test it against a 165 f:6.8 Angulon, a f:9 WW Protar and a f:16 WW Aplanat...

[Henry Ambrose]

For 100-degree coverage:

158mm focal length = 376mm image circle
165mm focal length = 393mm image circle
180mm focal length = 429mm image circle

Kerry

Looks like that would work!
I'd be thrilled with a 180 like that and the 165 would be pretty fine too.
I'd buy either of those with that much fully usuable coverage.
Sign me up!

[Jim Rice]

I frankly don't see the point in duplicating previous focal lengths from production modern manufacturers. I understand the desire from the backpack guys, but there goes about half (2/3s?) the market. A 180 with gobs of coverage at f:8 would make more sense to me. I'd save up a grand+- for one of those. You're looking at a price range out of my reach anyway with a 100 lens run, so I don't count.

[John O'Connell]

Under $1500, multicoated, would have to cover 400mm.

There is little or no point to a another ~160mm lens that covers 8x10 with just a few millimeters to spare.

[tim atherton]

I frankly don't see the point in duplicating previous focal lengths from production modern manufacturers. I understand the desire from the backpack guys, but there goes about half (2/3s?) the market. A 180 with gobs of coverage at f:8 would make more sense to me. I'd save up a grand+- for one of those. You're looking at a price range out of my reach anyway with a 100 lens run, so I don't count.

yeah - if you could replicate the 180mm (?) zeiss dagor that would be something else

[Hugo Zhang]

I am not interested. I sold my 159mm f/9.5 Wolly for less than $300 two years ago and have a 150mm SSXL I barely use and a 18cm f/9 CZ Dagor which is my favorite for my 8x10 Deardorff.

[Struan Gray]

Why is everyone hung up on wide angles? Don't answer: I know.

What I want, and would even spend money for, would be a field-usable 30" lens. I could live with f16 or f20 if that were necessary to squeeze it into a Copal 1 shutter. At present, the choice is between huge, heavy process lenses, or the hard-to-find and expensive Nikon telephoto.

What would a 750 mm Sonnar or Tele-Tessar look like?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Why is everyone hung up on wide angles? Don't answer: I know.

What I want, and would even spend money for, would be a field-usable 30" lens. I could live with f16 or f20 if that were necessary to squeeze it into a Copal 1 shutter. At present, the choice is between huge, heavy process lenses, or the hard-to-find and expensive Nikon telephoto.

What would a 750 mm Sonnar or Tele-Tessar look like?

Struan,

If it was physically possible to mount a 30" lens into a Copal No. 1 shutter, the max. aperture would be limited to f25 by the 30mm maximum diaphram opening of the Copal No. 1 shutter. Even in a Copal No. 3 shutter, you're looking at something in the f15 range.

The two smallest, lightest 30" lenses I have encountered are the 30" f12.5 Red Dot Artar and the 760mm F14 APO Ronar CL. I have a very recent sample of the latter that tips the scale at 1190g (42 oz.). Not exactly ultralight, but about 1/3 the weight of a 750mm APO Germinar or 760mm APO Nikkor. I'm currently using mine with a Sinar Shutter. The folks at SK Grimes might be able to shoehorn it into a Copal No. 3, but I doubt it would be an inexpensive proposition.

I doubt if a tele design would save much weight, and probably add considerable bulk. The 800mm Nikkor T-ED in a Copal No. shutter weighs 1600g, and is significantly bulkier than the barrel mounted 760mm f14 APO Ronar - and the Nikon T-ED series are some of the lightest, most compact teles I've seen.

Kerry

[Struan Gray]

Kerry, in principle you can gain up to a stop or so from the magnification of the aperture by the front element. f16 in a Copal 1 should be just doable. Nikon managed it with their 720 tele.

A tele has the advantage of eliminating the additional mechanical gubbins required to use a normal lens. My mucking about with lens combinations indicates that for my Norma rail lengths beyond 18" require an extra standard, and extra bellows, and an extra rail support. A telephoto that would let me photograph down to, say, twenty yards or so with an 18" rail would result in a much smaller pack weight and volume, even allowing for the bulk of the lens itself.

I realise I am really just describing the Nikon 720 telephoto. I would like to see an option that split the difference between the two Nikon tele series: something like a 600, 750, 900 setup. Not as simple as resurrecting a double Gauss design and slapping a multicoating on it, but the simpler long lens designs have just as dead patents as the classic wide angles.

[Colin Graham]

I'd pay up to $1200 for a good performing 155-180mm with a 400mm circle. A 180 would be ideal! It doesn't even have to be tiny, just smaller than a spare bedroom.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry, in principle you can gain up to a stop or so from the magnification of the aperture by the front element. f16 in a Copal 1 should be just doable. Nikon managed it with their 720 tele.

Struan,

Yes, but it also results in reduced coverage. You didn't mention what format you are shooting. Given the title of the thread, I had assumed 8x10 (or larger). Perhaps not. If you're shooting something smaller than 8x10, coverage would not be as much of an issue.

Even though it's a tele design, the 720mm Nikkor T-ED will not let you focus down to 20 yards with an 18" rail. Just to focus at inifinity requires 18.5" of extension. You could add a top hat style lens board, but then you'd have a heavy lens jutting out far in front of your front standard and rail - not exactly the ideal situation for stability.

While there are certainly advantages to tele designs, modern large format telephoto lenses tend to be heavy, bulky, very, very expensive and have limited coverage. Most classic large format telephoto tend to be even bulkier and heavier and typically don't perform as well.

Given that the Nikkor T-ED series, the Fujinon T series and the current Schneider teles already exist, there probably isn't a market big enough to support another large format telephoto offering. Even if one of the "classic" tele designs was utilized, given the very small production volumes, such a product would probably end up costing more than the already available alternatives, possibly be heavier and bulkier, and have inferior performance.

The Congo telephotos are current production examples of classic telephoto designs. They are available in 300mm, 400mm and 500mm focal lengths. The image circles are 160mm, 200mm and 170mm. They are affordably priced and have been in production (and sold under various names) since the early 1970s (at least, perhaps earlier). Unfortunately, they don't offer anything longer than a 500mm. If you're really serious about pursuing this, I would suggest you contact them to see if they'd be willing to make a longer model in their TeleCongo line. Even if they were interested, I would suspect they would require you (or someone) to place an order for a rather substantial quantity of lenses to get something into production

Kerry

[Struan Gray]

Kerry, thanks for your thoughts. I suspect a 350 for 6x6 is more likely to drop into my price and convenience range than a 700-plus for 4x5. Still, it doesn't hurt to dream

[George Stewart]

I'd pay perhaps up to $1700 for a tiny 165mm focal length lens for 8x10. Since there are no currently manufactured small lenses of short focal length for 8x10, I think that it would sell well, for a LF lens.

[John Berry]

165 for me. I would be willing to go fifteen hundred new, but I'm Prepared to go $87.63 at the moment. I had tim build me up a metrogon. Nice a peice as you would want. I have negs sharp enough to enlarge. ( and I can ) The elements are cheap on the bay. I got mine for $135.00. By the time your suckin photons, your going to be into it 6 bones. Just another reference point for what you might be expected to pay for a nice new spiffy. If you already have a 165 SA you might be able to get by with just one of those hernia belts.