Lenses for 8x10 (again)

[ditkoofseppala]

Senior members of this forum must get tired of hearing this topic hashed over and over again, but the fact remains that noobs continue to succumb to the siren song of the 8x10 format. I guess I'm one, although in some ways not quite a noob. Nevertheless, it has been thirty years since I did much with large format, and even then it was mostly 4x5; I only ever exposed just a few sheets of 8x10 cutfilm before life's sweeping little changes took me in other directions. Now in my dotage I find myself going back to things I didn't get anough of 'way back when, and LF is one of them. And despite the warnings in the "no, I mustn't" thread, I gone and done it -- I bought a second-hand 8x10 Toyo. Now I'm brooding over the question of optics for the beast. Funny, it just isn't that hard a decision in 4x5, where it all seems logical, easy even. But somehow in 8x10 the stakes are higher (and not only the stakes, but other things like the prices and the weight).

Guys, I just watched a 240mm f9 Schneider G-Claron knocked down on eBay for USD664, which I believe is more than the darned things sold for brand new. I see what they mean about a "cult lens." Standard listings indicate an image circle of 298mm for that focal length, a bit skimpy for 8x10's 325mm image diagonal; yet one hears claims that it will "cover 11x14" --well, maybe it will (at 1:1?). And yes, I've read all the hooha about the "biting sharpness" and the "rendering" et patati et patata. Definitely some signs of true-believerism here and there; cult lens, yeah.

Well, I didn't bid on it. I think I know hype when I smell it, and I can definitely spot a bidding war in the making when the thunderheads gather on eBay. But darn it all, the choices here are neither easy nor satisfactory. I don't think a 240/9 G-Claron would be a sensible choice for 8x10 if I could only afford one or two lenses for the format. And at the prices these chunky optics with 300+ image circles command, you have to be rather well off to consider MORE than that.

If I want something wide-angle-ish, the main contender is the Schneider Super-Angulon 165/8 with its 390-395mm image circle, assuming you want to use any movements at all. It cost $2400-3300 when it was new a decade or two ago (no, I haven't dared look at the new price today, I don't want to stress my heart like that). And there's a late-model example going right now that's already bid up to USD985 with 22 hours yet to run on the auction. Ouch.

For a "normal" there are just two choices of focal length generally available: 300mm and 360. The better 300's cover a 400-420mm image circle mostly, unless you're looking at something like an APO-Ronar (which only covers 264mm). The 360's give you more room for movements with their 500mm image circle for Symmars and such (and if you don't use movements then why use a view camera?); but apparently at a fairly hefty weight penalty, not to mention the limited top speeds of those big leaf shutters and the enormous cost of the lens/shutter combination.

Finally there are the longer options, like the Caltar 508/7 and the various 19 inch process lenses (usually in barrel mounts). These are sometimes a lot cheaper than a 360mm Symmar. But would you really want your main lens to lack a shutter, since nobody seems interested in building an affordable behind-the-lens shutter for 8x10 aficionados?

Maybe I've just got my knickers in a twist from looking at too many secondhand lens listings online, but I just can't seem to see a really attractive and viable (let alone affordable) solution to the dilemma of optics for the 8x10.

You good people out there who have been shooting 8x10 for decades, now. What do you do? Once the new has worn off it all, and things have settled down to the point that you've evolved a personal style with 8x10 format and a personal *way of working* with the big camera -- how does the optics question actually shake down? Leaving aside the various cults and manias, and the compulsion to fiddle with antique brassies -- if you are going to have ONE lens for your 8x10, what's it to be? And if you are going to have just TWO, what should they be? And is it a better idea just to forget about process lenses, or are they serious contenders as lenses for everyday work in 8x10?

???

[Brian C. Miller]

The only special thing about the G-Claron is that it can be used for multiple purposes, like doing double duty as an enlarger lens and a taking lens. I have used a G-Claron on my 8x10, and its a very good lens.

Recommendation: Just get a lens! You need something on the front of the camera, unless you have the patience for pinhole photography.

I have a couple of Wollensaks for my camera. One is wide, the other is long. Is the name on them important, or is it what I do with them that makes the picture?

Buy according to your tastes and budget, but get something on the camera and then go make photographs!

[ditkoofseppala]

Of course I forgot to mention the obvious: what I intend to DO with the 8x10!!! My main interests for 8x10 would be landscape and architecture (mostly in the sense of exterior views of old abandoned structures, with some interiors and detail shots), and static nature (mostly flora, but also things like wildfowl gathering for migration, etc.); maybe the odd character portrait. Since I'm going to be moving into a different part of Canada at the same time I'm resuming my long-neglected LF interests, I'm not yet entirely sure about everything I might wind up photographing, but certainly the above areas are where I intend to start.

[Jim Galli]

I have probably over 40 lenses I could use on an 8X10. If someone held a gun to my head perhaps that same old Cooke that Adams used so much would be the one I'd keep. 8X10 is very different from 4X5. You've graduated to contact prints and after a bit you'll discover 68 line pairs / mm just doesn't matter much. What matters is tonality and smoothness. The guys in 1915 knew a lot more about that than we do today. Wade through some of the pages on my little web site. Like the one that says an old Conley anastigmat can out muscle a MC Symmar. You'll be more confounded than ever :D BTW a 240 G-Claron will cover 410mm regardless of what Schneider says. I measured.

[ditkoofseppala]

Recommendation: Just get a lens! You need something on the front of the camera, unless you have the patience for pinhole photography.

I have a couple of Wollensaks for my camera. One is wide, the other is long. Is the name on them important, or is it what I do with them that makes the picture?

Buy according to your tastes and budget, but get something on the camera and then go make photographs!

I don't know if I really deserved that, or not, Brian! Perhaps I did. Yes, of course, the end in view is to get an optic of some sort on the front end, with a view to getting out and exposing some film. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my first post. Although, come to that, I would be perfectly amenable to exploring the possibilities of a pinhole. Optics don't make great photographs; great photographs are made THROUGH optics, not by them.

But given the lack of clarity of the 8x10 lens scene (at least by comparison with 4x5, at least in MY mind), coupled with the COST of big lenses with big coverage, it seemed sensible to enquire concerning what others have done, in the end, after their own years of experimentation and learning. Isn't that what a forum of this kind is intended for -- the exchange of knowledge gained through experience?

At this point the camera itself hasn't even been delivered yet, I'm still trying to buy a few decent film holders, and having a darkroom is probably three to six months in the future, at best. So while I'm as yet unable to "go make photographs" I'm trying to gain just enough perspective on the lens question to perhaps avoid making an expensive mistake.

As for Wollensaks, I have unhappy memories from the late 1950s of the mushy negs produced by certain Optars and Raptars . . . not sure I'd care to repeat that experience.

[tim atherton]

There have been 4 or so Fujinon 250mm 6.7 lenses (NOT the 6.3) on ebay in the last week or so for between $340.00 and $390.00 - a fantastic 8x10 mid wide angle lens.

It was the second 8x10 lens I got. The first was a 12" Commercial Ektar - which you should be able to find for between 250.00 and 375.00 (if you are lucky on the lower end). A little large, but a fantastic lens.

I still have and use both (though I have a small/light Fuji 300mm that gets carried more often than the Ektar these days)

I've used both for architecture and landscape. Until recently I probably used a 210mm (the getting hard to find fantastic Kowa Graphic) and the fuji 250mm more than any other lenses.

A 210mm G-Claron will also do with an inch or so of movement

Goign wider, the cheapest option is probably the 159mm Wollensak Wide Angle. Again, an inch or so of movement at f32/45

I've missed a few, but after that the prices and/or weight generally start to go up.

But for ages, the only two 8x10 lens I had were the first two I mentioned.

And it's kinda weird - 250mm seems wider on 8x10 than 125mm is on 4x5 :)

I often used a 90mm for landscapes on 4x5. In 8x10 I often found the 210mm too wide...

[Kirk Fry]

ditkoofseppala,
I suggest some reading, both on this forum and Steve Simmons book "Using the View Camera" There are lots of lens choices, many can be had for way less than you quote. Fujinon and Nikkon (M)both made "compact" 300mm lenses in the $500 used range. The 300 mm M is only supposed to cover 300mm but it works fine on 8X10. A sleeper in the 240 mm range (10 in) is either an older Symmar which sells for about the price of the shutter ($300) or a good clean Commercial Ektar which sells for more. The bonus of the Symmar is that you can unscrew the front element and you get something like a 460 mm. lens. At 355 (14 in) either a G-Claron (you can still find them for less than $500 in barrel and you just screw them into that No 3 Copal that came with the 240 mm Symmar or a 14 in Commerical Ektar, a lens that kept an army professional photographers alive for decades. Cheap, good wide angles are kind of rare. Cheap ($200 to $500) would be a 165mm angulon, 6 1/4 in Wollensak EXWA or a 180mm ish Zeiss Protar Series V f18 usually without shutter. When I started in 8X10 I already had the Nikkor 300mm and I just used that. You might look at http://www.prairienet.org/~b-wallen/BN_Photo/LFN/ViewNeedsEvalLensMkt.htm

K

[ditkoofseppala]

Well and good, Jim, but those old Cookes are not exactly easy to come by, AND the shutter problem remains intractable. It wouldn't be so bad if we still had a lot of slow emulsions around (Panatomic-X and Pan F are probably still a bit fast for outdoor work with old barrel lenses -- I can't even remember the names of all the old really slow ones of 4-12 ASA in the pre-ISO days). I know people use lith film sometimes now, but seems like an uphill struggle trying to juggle developers and timing to produce a gentler curve out of emulsions designed for high contrast.

And you're right. I HAVE read your articles comparing various old brassies with Symmars and Sironars. I found them quite interesting, but let's face it, gaining a usable working knowledge of the optics of yesteryear is yet more of a challenge than the basic question that I outlined above. I've had over a dozen brassies on my eBay watchlist for several days, but had to recognise that I'd just be shooting at high-flying geese blindfolded. I watched one of a group of four (maybe you were the seller, even) skyrocket to over $300 while the others stayed mostly in the <$100 bracket. Maybe others knew which was a sheep and which were the goats; I didn't. Why buy something you don't understand? That's not a good way to get started.

If you've got 40 lenses that are usable for 8x10, have you one or two redundant examples that you'd be willing to sell, that you could recommend with confidence as reasonably sharp, with the good rendering qualities you mention? Knowing that I'd be relying on your experience in that area of expertise?

I know, at least, that 8x10 IS different to 4x5, as you said. That in large measure is why I'm floundering a bit, because I'm aware of a difference but not yet conversant with the fine points of it all.

[Mike Davis]

Seriously just get a 300 or so, load some holders and shoot.

My first 8x10 lens was a 14" Commercial Ektar in a #5 Ilex. It's a good lens though it could use a CLA as the slow times are off. It also requires a longer throw cable release. My second lens was one of the 240-w Germinars from Kerry. I bought it in the barrel, found a VG condition used shutter and I was in business. I would like a 450mm-480mm at some point and hopefully I will find a deal one of these days.

Mike

[ditkoofseppala]

Kirk, I've got the Steve Simmons book already on order, funnily enough, impatiently awaiting its arrival as I felt I could do with a thorough review even though I do still recall quite a lot (was an avid reader about anything photographic in my teen years, and most of it has stayed in my mind).

Yep, I'm well aware of the convertibility of the Symmar; used to use a 180 Symmar on my grey 4x5 B&J non-monorail view in the early 1960s. And I was just looking speculatively at a Protar series VII listing . . . but, the shutter problem. (I'm still thinking about feasibility of a Speed Graphic shutter behind the lens; not many of them are still in good working order, now, at least on cameras that you wouldn't feel badly about cannibalising.)

Tim, Kirk, AND Mike -- how amusing and reassuring that you ALL mention the Commercial Ektar! It's a lens about which I don't think I've EVER heard anything bad, only praise. There's a 10" going right now; if it were at 12" or a 14" I'd grab it, but the 10" just covers, and I'd really like some wiggle room for movements. Obviously I need to look at some of the less big-name options. I don't recall ever having heard of the Germinars before, for example.

And Kirk, thanks for the article link. I read the whole thing, and it's one of the most helpful articles of its kind that I've read recently. Good stuff!

[John Kasaian]

If you want a real bargain look at Wollensak 1a triple convertables---that will give you all the focal lengths you're after in one lens/shutter for probably less than $400 and it is a very capabl performer indeed! G-Clarons (especially the 240mm)and Commercial (14") and WF(250mm/10") Ektars are always excellent choices but the prices seem to be climbing out of site, so if you happen upon a good deal jump on it. Another option is the convertable Symmar and of course the Dagors 12" And 9-1/2" Dagors occasionally show up at dealers for reasonable prices. Another lens to look at is the apo artar, not nearly as costly as the red dots but excellent none the less. My 14" APO will cover 8x10 with some wiggle room, and don't forget 12" Wollensak Velostigmats and 375mm Ilex Acugons. All these are lenses I'd be happy to use (if fact I do use several of these) and there are examples around which shouldn't break the budget. Take your pick and run with it!

[Ole Tjugen]

I stick to cheap, and German since they're easily available here.

So I use 121/8 Super Angulon, 165 and 210/6.8 Angulon, 240, 300 and (soon) 360/5.6 Symmar. And a couple of old brass lenses up to 840mm...

[Nick_3536]

All of my 8x10 lenses are also my 4x5/5x7 lenses.

Widest 120mm Nikon F/8. Hard to find now that Nikon has given up.

210 Fuji -W in a Seiko shutter. First model. Low cost. Most I guess worry about the Seiko and it's not the latest greatest model.

I've got a 240mm G-Claron that I bought in a barrel for $40 and mounted into a spare shutter. The Fuji is a better choice IMHO. OTOH for the $40 I paid the Claron is a steal.

300mm Fuji. This is the old BIG Tessar mounted in a #3 shutter. Most won't touch it because the big shutter means it out weighs your average boat anchor. Plus being a Tessar coverage isn't huge. OTOH it's fast and cheap.

I'd like to add something around 450mm later but no rush.

If I had to take only one lens it would be the 210mm Fuji. The 300mm is much bigger.

[lutherasmith]

I like the Large format Nikon lenses. My favorite is the 150SW. I use it more than the others. You can still purchase some of the Nikon lenses from BHphotovideo in New York.

Good luck,

Luther

[Michael Kadillak]

For 8x10 I find that there are two general focal lengths that I opt for the most 12-14" (as you said the 12 and 14" Commercial Ektar's are great as is the 355 G Claron) and about 17" which I find the 450 Nikon M is a best of breed. I have the 16 and 19" Red Dots but find the Nikon in a special class for contrast, sharpness and tonality.

Never got into the classic lenses because of the issue with the shutters or should I say my impatience with them. Have a good time with your 8x10 Toyo. I have one and they are wonderful to use.

Cheers!

[Ted Harris]

For your first lens stop fooling with eBay and call Jim at Midwest Photo (614-261-1264). Their prices are often less than eBay and seldom very much more. Not to mention his lenses are always pristine or he tells you and you can exchange it .... and you will have it a few days ater you order.

[Ole Tjugen]

300mm Fuji. This is the old BIG Tessar mounted in a #3 shutter. Most won't touch it because the big shutter means it out weighs your average boat anchor. Plus being a Tessar coverage isn't huge. OTOH it's fast and cheap.

That's not big. The 300mm f:4.5 Xenar is BIG - and in a #5 shutter. Same shutter as the 360mm f:5.6 symmar, BTW...

[Nick_3536]

That's not big. The 300mm f:4.5 Xenar is BIG - and in a #5 shutter. Same shutter as the 360mm f:5.6 symmar, BTW...

Less then a stop faster and too big to fit my lensboard. Too big :p

[Dave_B]

For what its worth, here are my 8x10 lenses. Mostly Nikkors but a number of others as well. In general, the Nikkors are first rate lenses. Sharp and constrasty with good color rendition. In particular, the Nikkor 300M is one of my favorites.
Cheers,
Dave B.


Brand FL f/s Shutter IC-mm Fltr

Nikon-SW 120 8 0 312 77

Nikon-SW 150 8 1 400 95

Roden-GN 155 6.8 1 382 105

Schneider-AS 210 5.6 1 305 77

Nikon-AM 210 5.6 1 400 67

Nikon-W 240 5.6 3 336 82

Calumet-SII 240 5.6 3 337 86

Schn G-Clar 240 9 B 319 46

Schn G-Clar 270 9 1 335 58

Nikon-M 300 9 1 325 52

Nikon-W 300 5.6 3 420 95

Schn G-Clar 305 9 B 381 67

Schn G-Clar 355 9 3 444 77

Nikon-W 360 6.5 3 494 95

Nikon-M 450 9 3 440 67

Goerz RDA 450 11 B 450 62

Nikon-T ED 600 9 3 310 95

Nikon-T ED 800 12 3 310 95

Nikon-T ED 1200 18 3 310 95

[Mike Davis]

For your first lens stop fooling with eBay and call Jim at Midwest Photo (614-261-1264). Their prices are often less than eBay and seldom very much more. Not to mention his lenses are always pristine or he tells you and you can exchange it .... and you will have it a few days ater you order.

This is good advice. I have bought a couple of lenses (including the 14" Commercial Ektar) and a camera from Jim. I have never been disappointed in the quality of any of them.

[ditkoofseppala]

Thanks, everyone! This gives me a good, broad survey of what people ARE using, and a whole lot to think about. I'll look into some of the options mentioned!

[Rory_5244]

Gosh, all I have is a Fujinon 240 F9 that I use for 4x5 and 8x10. Movements on 8x10 are restricted to a few degrees of tilt and swing and you can forget about shifts. But it workin' for me!!

[Ken Lee]

Your problem is that you are trying to find the ideal lens (for you) in advance.

If you are like many people, you will buy and trade and sell and experiment, and the process will be fun and frustrating at the same time. It's a bit like musical chairs. Whatever sticks around when the bell rings, is the one you like best.

Here's a nice example: Equipment Bought, Used, then Sold (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/gone.html) by Christopher Perez, one of our esteemed forum members. His page may need some updating, since he's always..."exploring".

And here's another recommendation for Jim at Midwest. In the long run, the lack of anxiety you get by dealing with him, is well worth any pennies you might save on eBay.

[Herb Cunningham]

The magic bullet won't be there in lenses. The size of the shutter and its condition are what you will run into with ebay. I am about to list here on the LF classifieds at least 3 lenses, maybe 5. All with very generous coverage on 8x10, one I think will cover 11x14 or larger. I also have a monster 600mm process lens that will cover half of Georgia and most of hell.

If you buy from anybody, make sure you can return it in 30 days or more if you don't like it.

All the reputable dealers will do that, and most of the guys on apug and here will also.

you can develop 8x10 in trays in the bathtub. tape up the door with gaffer's tape and go for it. I started that way, doing contact prints.

good luck

[MIke Sherck]

My original choice for 8x10 was a 240mm Caltar-IIN (Rodenstock) and a 360mm RD Artar. Both lovely lenses but the 240mm wasn't quite wide enough too much of the time, and the 360mm was almost perfect for me as a "normal" lens but I sold it. I also tried a 12" Ilex Paragon at one time; it isn't a focal length that I used very much. Now, my set is a 420mm Fujinin L and a 210mm Fuji. The 210 was my most-used 4x5 lens and just happens to cover 8x10 at infinity. The 420 is my all-time favorite large format lens. A friend has promised to send me a 19" to try out for a longer lens; we'll see, and I still have the hots for another 360mm RD Artar but can't logically convince myself that it's something I "need". Maybe when I become rich and money isn't an issue... :)

Mike

[archivue]

i've spend a lot of time to find a 305 g claron in black copal... then i realise that i much prefer the 240 in 8x10... so i've found a nice and expensive 240.
I've bought an apo sironar N in 360 focal lenght ( a monster )...
240 and 305 are too close to carry both in the field... so, i will probably sell my 305 sometimes.
finding the best lense for your needs, depends on plenty of stuff... subject, backpaking or not, the camera, colour or black and white, big enlargements of contact prints... and the others lens in your arsenal !

for me 240 and 360 is a good choice, but 210 and 300 make sense, while 210 and 360 or 240 and 300 are not working !

[Geert]

210 and 360 or 240 and 300 are not working !

I think you are about right.

I mostly skip the 300mm and use the 240mm and 360mm in the field. All classic Symmar lenses.
A 600mm Apo Ronar goes along but didn't see any use for it in the last 5 months.

Focal lenghts are much closer together when you go up on negative size.

The brassies stay at home for portraits.

Greetings,
G

[Brian C. Miller]

I don't know if I really deserved that, or not, Brian! Perhaps I did. Yes, of course, the end in view is to get an optic of some sort on the front end, with a view to getting out and exposing some film.

The reason that I said what I said is due to how I started. Camera, lens, figure out what fits. I started with a P&S, then went to a Pentax 6x7 w/90mm LS and spotmeter. With just one lens, I worked to find the best in a scene that fit with what equipment I had. My Super Graphic came with its original Wollensak 135mm. Same thing, work to find the image that fits the best. Is that such a bad thing?

That's why I recommend just getting A lens. Its going to have to be a really bad lens to not give any sort of decent performance. Midwest Photo (http://www.mpex.com/) has a really good selection. Find something in your budget, buy it, and work with it. Expose at least 500 sheets through it before selling it.

Me, I'm saving up for a Cooke convertible. $3000 new, and I get three lenses in one.

[Vaughn]

Just to throw in my 2 cents.

If I only had one lens, I would stick with my first lens I got for 8x10 -- a Fuji W f5.6 300mm.

Biggest reason: I shoot under the redwoods -- relatively low light, and I greatly appreciate the f5.6. I am always surprised how bright even my f11 lens is out in the sunlight.

Second reason, I find it a nice general focal length, not too short, not too long.

Its got more movent than I need for landscape work. Copol 3 shutter that is a workhorse. And weight is not that big of a factor, considering the weight of everything else I carry.

[ditkoofseppala]

The 8x10 lens saga continues -- progress report.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about, but evermore
Came out the same door where in I went.

(Fitzgerald, The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam)

Myself when old is having similar experiences. I've listened to quite a variety of opinions here, some of them with a good deal of apparent experience and wisdom behind them. Some light is emerging through the murky gloom, but it still is NOT easy. Of course, there is no "magic bullet" -- I don't recall asking for one. All I'm trying to do is to make moderately intelligent decisions at the outset, realising that time and many boxes of exposed sheetfilm may well modify those decisions -- or could even confirm them, if I'm exceptionally lucky! And some things fit in with intuitive logic, like the observation that 210 and 360 isn't working, neither 240 and 300, but 210 and 300 or 240 and 360 will both work fairly well.

At this point, though, questions like dollar prices and sheer availability weigh heavily. With all due respect to Hizzoner the moderator, do I detect a note of hostility to eBay? Like any busy marketplace, it has its pitfalls and its drawbacks, but for somebody stuck in an out-of-the-way location (as I have been for most of my life), it may actually be the most practical choice, if not the only game in town. And caveat emptor!

Immediately upon being advised to check out Midwest Photo Exchange by two responsible people, I hustled butt to Google the name, and promptly got their website with its Inventory List. At this moment, under the heading of Lenses - 8x10 and larger, I find:


150/8 Nikkor-SW (used, for $1,295)
210/5.6 Super Symmar XL (new for $2,995)
240/5.6 Nikkor W (qty. 3, used, $469-689)
240/9 Apo-Ronar (used, $589)
240/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S (new, $1,789)
240/5.6 Symmar-S (used, $449)
250/5.6 Fuji-Soft Focus (qty. 2, used, $469-495)
300/5.6 Nikkor-W (qty. 2, used $695-795)
305/9 Apo-Artar (used, $695)
450/12.5 Fujinon-C (new, $895)
480/9 Goerz Apo-Artar ctd. (condition unspecified, $695)
600/11.5 Fuji-C (new, $1,425)
600/9 Nikkor Tele ED (used, $1,595)
1100/22 Schneider Fine Art XXL (new for a modest $4,499)


Much to my disappointment, only one of the listings actually specified the presence of a shutter, and all the rest could well have been barrel mounted as far as anyone could tell. Perhaps one is expected to know this by instinct, but given the presence of so many process lenses I don't think shutters can quite be taken for granted in all of these listings.

Only two 300 mm. lenses, and one of the two a process lens. NO 360's whatsoever! I don't mind saying that I was underwhelmed by the above list, not to say disappointed. Leaving aside everything priced <$1000 (as I absolutely must), there were one dozen lenses to choose from, seven of which were 240/250 focal length.

I won't wear out my fingers and test the patience of this forum by making an exhaustive list of all the lenses usable for 8x10 that presently appear in a thorough eBay search of active listings. But I will say that there is a great deal more variety and depth of offerings. Price, of course, can only be judged roughly by those offerings graced with a "Buy It Now" option; otherwise you don't know the price till the auction's over. But based on a week of close watching, I would say that there are many more budget-priced opportunities on eBay. Midwest didn't offer a single lens under $449 in price.

Having nothing else to do on Sunday afternoon, I sat down at the computer, called up my laboriously-assembled watch list, and did a little cautious bidding. I didn't win anything, but the results were interesting and educational:



I bid &#163;280 ($560 roughly) on a 360/6.8 Symmar-S that sold at &#163;320 ($640).
I bid $235 on a Wollensak 12" Velostigmat in 'studio shutter' that sold at $271.
I bid &#163;275 ($550) on a Super Angulon 165/8 that finally sold at &#163;510 ($1020).
I bid $360 on a B&L Protar 165/18 bbl. mt. that sold at $365.
I bid up to $623 on a Nikkor-W 360/6.3 (B.I.N. $669) - and didn't meet the reserve!
I didn't bid on a Kodak Comm. Ektar 254/6.3 started at $298; nobody bid on it.


My bidding may appear eccentric, but I had my reasons. The Symmar 360 could have been a good buy, but it IS a huge beast of a lens to lug around; I was ambivalent about it. I think that had I kept bidding it would have sold at a higher price, anyway. At the moment I'm operating on the principle that I would like to buy a GOOD normal lens for less than $600, and by normal I mean a 300 or 360. And a secondary principle is that I would not be willing to spend more than $300 on a vintage lens or a barrel mount unless it was something terribly special.

I made an exception for the 165mm Protar because it DOES cover 8x10 just as well as a Super-Angulon without all that size and weight, and has an awfully good reputation; but had I kept bidding, it would have gone MUCH higher, as the other main bidder was obviously quite determined to have it. Probably I should have bought the Commercial Ektar that went begging, but the 254 just covers 8x10 decently and I really wanted the 14" version, so I let it pass. I might live to regret that.

I think I could have any number of 300's, though, both vintage and modern; several are upcoming in the next day or two. And I think some of them could be had for $400-500, though not all. Lenses in shutters, I'm talking about, not process lenses.

I'll freely admit that there would be much less risk in buying from a trusted dealer such as Jim at Midwest Photo. But I would suspect you pay for that in drastically limited choice and generally higher prices. So, despite the additional risk factor, from where I sit it looks like eBay is where I'll probably find my 8x10 lenses. If I get one I don't like, I can always put it back on eBay, can't I! And from some of the listings I've seen, there are quite a few EXCITING offerings there. Like the Protar and the Commercial Ektar. I don't see those on Midwest's list.

Time was when people in my position either went without, or took their chances with Wall Street Camera Exchange. Now there's eBay. Riskier? Doubtless. But if you don't have money and mobility, the only way to compensate is by accepting risk. Sour deals in used photo equipment happened regularly long before PCs and eBay appeared on the scene. The overwhelming majority of buyers on eBay must be satisfied with their purchases, or they wouldn't keep buying that way. I guess if I'm wrong about that, I'll appear on the forum here in a month or two, dressed in sackcloth and ashes. :(

[Nick_3536]

With all due respect to Hizzoner the moderator, do I detect a note of hostility to eBay?


Immediately upon being advised to check out Midwest Photo Exchange by two responsible people, I hustled butt to Google the name, and promptly got their website with its Inventory List. At this moment, under the heading of Lenses - 8x10 and larger, I find:


150/8 Nikkor-SW (used, for $1,295)
210/5.6 Super Symmar XL (new for $2,995)
240/5.6 Nikkor W (qty. 3, used, $469-689)
240/9 Apo-Ronar (used, $589)
240/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S (new, $1,789)
240/5.6 Symmar-S (used, $449)
250/5.6 Fuji-Soft Focus (qty. 2, used, $469-495)
300/5.6 Nikkor-W (qty. 2, used $695-795)
305/9 Apo-Artar (used, $695)
450/12.5 Fujinon-C (new, $895)
480/9 Goerz Apo-Artar ctd. (condition unspecified, $695)
600/11.5 Fuji-C (new, $1,425)
600/9 Nikkor Tele ED (used, $1,595)
1100/22 Schneider Fine Art XXL (new for a modest $4,499)


Much to my disappointment, only one of the listings actually specified the presence of a shutter,

Of those the Ronar and the Artar would be the only ones I'd question if a shutter was included. All the rest left the factory mounted only. I think the XXL might come in a barrel to but I think it's faster without the shutter.

Ebay tends to be fairly expensive IMHO. Too many of the bidding wars you mentioned often for lower grade product. Gems do get bought on Ebay for pennies but often the prices make no sense to me.

[Salty]

If the list of Mpex available lens came from the same page, they should all be in shutters. Mpex usually has a seperate page listing for barrel lenses.

It's been a couple of years since I bought a lens on ebay. The prices seem higher and there's a lot of gouging on shipping charges.

[Brian C. Miller]

I looked up the specs for the 305 Artar, and that's a 5x7 lens.

Aparently 8x10 has improved in popularity. A couple of months ago they had two pages of lens.

[David Schaller]

FWIW, I use the 450 Fujinon and the 240 G-Clarion, and don't use the 305 G-Clarion any more for 8x10. Both are small and easy to use. The 240 is wide enough for most buildings, and the 450 is great for the details. Sometimes I think about getting a faster lens, to make focussing easier, but I haven't done so.
Good luck in your search.

[David Karp]

The MPEX inventory goes up and down. Often, they have lenses not yet shown on the website, so its worth a call to Jim to find out what is available. He can also tell you if he has lenses on their way in to the store. Finally, if you want a particular lens, give Jim a call and tell him what you want. If he does not have it, he can usually find it for you fairly quickly, unless it is something in huge demand or rare.

[John Kasaian]

I'd contact Jim Galli if you want a 240 G Claron. He seems to have an unlimited supply of them mounted in either copal or prontor press shutters and quite reasonable IIRC

[ditkoofseppala]

I witnessed a most amazin' phanonnamon last night whilst perusing my eBay watchlist. A 12 1/4" COOKE CONVERTIBLE ANASTIGMAT was up for grabs. For days it had slowly built up a bidding base without going much over $200. But things warmed up in the last hour, taking it over $500. Then in the last few minutes, the snipers moved in -- more than one, I think. This lens was knocked down for $1,025 at the close of the auction.

Just as though a "control" was needed for this experiment in bidding extravagance, about ten minutes earlier bidding closed on a Symmar 300/5.6 -- it sold for only $293. Okay, its shutter needed a CLA and it showed some wear and a minor ding. But the glass was okay.

I have to ask myself whether those participating in the frenzied bidding on the Cooke thought -- or felt, perhaps subconsciously -- that owning that particular lens would somehow put them as photographers in a class with Ansel Adams.

And then I have to ask myself which lens Ansel Adams would probably use if he were alive and 40 years old again, right now in the year 2007. Would it be the Symmar-S or some similar current or recent lens -- or would he be one of the cultists seeking and using the lenses of three-quarters of a century ago?