8X10 Wide and Tele Suggestions

[AnzaRunner]

I'm currently using a Toyo 45AII with a Nikkor 75mm and 210mm. I really like the focal lengths. I'm dabbling into 8x10 with an Ebony camera that I picked up from a fellow forum member. Replicating these focal lengths would mean I would need something in the range of 150mm and 420mm.

I see that there is a Nikkor 120mm SW which is pretty highly recommended. Is there anything out there that I should be looking at which is slightly longer, and has a bit more coverage? Also, what are your recommendations for a low tele lens in the 420mm range? Thanks!

[Peter De Smidt]

I have a Fuji 420L lens that is very good. It does come in a #3 shutter, but it's not a huge lens. The only one that comes in a #1 shutter is a Fuji 450c. People like the Nikkor 450m, another lens in a #3, but I've never used one.

One the wide side, if Schneider makes a 150mm Super Symmar Aspheric, that would be a great lens. You might want to check into the regular 150mm Super Symmar, but I'm not sure exactly what the coverage is. I'll be using one fairly soon on a 5x7, and so I can always report back. Otherwise you could use any of the 150f8 lenses, such as a Super Angulon, Grandagon...

You have a great camera. I'm jealous!

[Walter Calahan]

Besides the Nikkor 120 mm, looked into a 165 Schneider Super-Angulon (not usually cheap). I use both. The Nikkor 150 mm is worth looking at if you don't want both a 120 & 165.

I find having a 360 mm a good start for short tele lenses on 8x10. I use my 360 mm a lot. Something in the mid-400 mm range is also useful. I have a triple convertible lens that has a 476 mm configuration, which a nice jump from the 360 mm.

Good luck.

[Gene McCluney]

A 180mm Wide Field Ektar (on the used market only) might suit you for a Wide Angle, and it is much smaller than a 165mm Super Angulon.

[Rick Moore]

If you're looking for something a bit smaller and less expensive than the 165SA, the 159/12.5 Wollensak is a good alternative. The f12.5 version has a bit more coverage than the f9 version. Mine is in an Alphax shutter.

[Gene McCluney]

If you're looking for something a bit smaller and less expensive than the 165SA, the 159/12.5 Wollensak is a good alternative. The f12.5 version has a bit more coverage than the f9 version. Mine is in an Alphax shutter.


A bit smaller?? You mean Several Orders of Magnitude Smaller. Those 159mm Wollensak are teeny-tiny. I hear they are good, though.

[Rick Moore]

I think the entire lens/shutter combination of my Wollensak 159/12.5 is smaller than the front element of a SA 165.

The versions mounted in Betax shutters are even lighter than the Alpha versions.

[Gem Singer]

Since you like the look of the 75 and the 210 in 4X5, you will probably like the look of the Nikkor f8 150SW and the Nikkor f9 450M for 8X10.

I use those two lenses on my 8X10 Canham as a wide angle and a long lens.

The 150SW is a large sized lens, mounted in a Copal 1 shutter. It's rear element measures 95 mm. in diameter. Make certain that the front opening of your camera is large enough to accept it.

I also have a Nikkor f8 120SW. It barely covers the 8X10 format. However, the 120 is a great focal length on my 4X5/5X7 Canham.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use both the Nikkor 120 SW and 450. The 120 SW just covers 8x10 at infinity, so don't expect to do much movements...but it's so wide on 8x10, movements really don't mean much. The only movements I've employed with this lens is back swings/tilts. Both are great lenses for 8x10. I use them almost on every outing.

[AnzaRunner]

Thanks for all the replies. It sounds like the Nikkor 150 and 450 will be good options. The reason I chose the 75mm over the 65mm on my 4x5 was because of coverage, and I have enjoyed that. As a result, I think the 150 will suit me well for my wide.