8x10 lenses for specific use?

[Jon Paul]

I am hoping to purchase my first 8x10 next week (already shoot 4x5). I will need lenses specifically for shooting color transparency film on landscapes. I need adequate coverage for front tilts for near-far focus. I obviously need modern, multi-coated glass. I am considering 240mm, 150mm, 300mm. Already have a 360. I am somewhat budget constraned, so perhaps modern, but not the newest lenses. I do exttremely large prints, not contact prints.
Any specific data will help.
Thanks much,
Jon

[ic-racer]

300mm with huge coverage will be easy as there are many around that will work for you.
240mm will be easy to find and affordable in the 330 to 350mm image circle range which should be OK for 'landscape.'

150mm is going to be expensive and big. The Raptars are old and single coated but they are one of the few alternatives to 'expensive and big.'

[Ben Syverson]

If you have a 360, skip 300 and go straight for 240 or 150.

Keep in mind that 150 is VERY wide. I shot with a 159 recently, and found it pretty difficult to frame an interesting picture, because it emphasizes the foreground SO much. This is the focal length to use if you have interesting rocks in the foreground, but it becomes useless if the ground is uninteresting.

The Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 is highly regarded and has plenty of image circle, but it's not exactly a budget lens.

The Angulon 210mm f/6.8 is a bit wider, has great coverage, and can be had for a lot less than the Fuji...

[Brian Ellis]

The closest thing I know of in the 150 range that will cover 8x10 and not cost much is a 159mm Wollensak. I've owned several and they did very well for contact printing 8x10 b&w, not sure how they'd do with color enlargements. But the 210 G Claron is fairly close and will cover well when stopped down to f22 or smaller and also is relatively inexpensive. Although optimized for close-ups, I've owned G Clarons in three different focal lengths and they all did very well as general purpose lenses.

[Michael Roberts]

You will want a Nikkor M 300mm. I also use a Fuji 210mm but be careful if you look for this one b/c there are two versions; one covers and the other doesn't. A lot of folks here swear by the Claron Gs.... There's lots of info in the threads if you search for specific focal lengths and/or brands.

[Don Dudenbostel]

The Wollensak 159 and WA Dagor won't give much room for movements particularly front tilt, I owned a Wollensak and have uded my WA Dagor for about thirty five rears and love the images but it falls short of coverage compared to.a 165 Super Angulon, I also have a 240 G Claron and its very small and has excellent coverage but for 8x10 I favor my 250 6,7 fuji, A 270 G Clarin might be the lens if you skip the 300,

[Don Dudenbostel]

I failed to mention my 300 Nikkor M doednt cover with much to spare but my 305 G Claron covers with plenty of room to spare,

[Ben Syverson]

FWIW... My Wollensak 159 has more room for movements than my bellows... But the original poster mentioned that he wanted "modern, multi-coated glass," which is like the complete polar opposite of the Wolly. The 159mm is the lowest-contrast, most flarey lens I've ever used. I like the look, but it's not that contrasty "modern" look that the OP is going for.

I really think the OP would be best suited by a nice 240 or 250, but if he happens to be dead-set on a 300mm (and there's no indication that he is), the Nikkor f/9 is not the answer (nor is the similar Fujinon C 300mm f/8.5). He wants something with plenty of coverage, which would be easy and cheap with any old 300 f/5.6. But given that he's doing landscapes, he probably wants something a bit smaller and lighter, which leaves a smaller range of lenses. He would want to look at 305 G Claron, Fujinon 300 A, and lenses of that ilk...

[Jon Paul]

Ben,
you are on the right track! I would love specific suggestions for more contrasty modern lenses. Also, probably looking at 240mm first, then perhaps 150mm. I am looking for reasonable price if possible, but not necessarily dirt cheap. Quality is important to me! I just can't get the Ferrari right now.

Thanks again!
Jon

[Brian Ellis]

FWIW... My Wollensak 159 has more room for movements than my bellows... But the original poster mentioned that he wanted "modern, multi-coated glass," which is like the complete polar opposite of the Wolly. The 159mm is the lowest-contrast, most flarey lens I've ever used. I like the look, but it's not that contrasty "modern" look that the OP is going for. . . . .

To quote the Rolling Stones, "you can't always get what you want." He's going to have to compromise somewhere on his desire for a 150ish lens because he's budget constrained and I don't think he's going to find an inexpensive, 150ish modern, multi-coated lens that will cover 8x10. Even the 210 G Claron, which is probably about as inexpensive as he's going to find in a newer lens in that wide an angle at a relatively modest price, is single coated. So he has two choices (assuming his budget isn't flexible) -forget a 150ish lens or accept something less than his ideal. Hence the suggestion of a 159mm Wollensak or the 210 G Claron.

[Ben Syverson]

Oh, I'm with you, Brian -- the compromise in this case is essentially a three way: high contrast vs wide focal length vs low price. Pick any two.

I really think the 210 Angulon is an interesting possibility if one pops up. I've seen them sell here for around $400... There's also a Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6 on KEH right now for $350, which should cover 8x10. But I'm not sure how much movement you'll get out of it. Can anyone chime in?

[Oren Grad]

I am looking for reasonable price if possible, but not necessarily dirt cheap. Quality is important to me! I just can't get the Ferrari right now.


Jon, can you be more specific about what "reasonable price" means for you? Thinking of the superwide, if you can manage $800-900 you might be able to find a 155 Grandagon or 165 SA. If it's $300-400, it'll have to be something like the Wollensak 159.

[John Kasaian]

165mm f/8 Super Angulon comes to mind--it is a huge lens though! The 240mm f/9 G Claron is a very contrasty little lens with adequate coverage for landscapes--- if you already have a 360mm you like I wouldn't worry about adding 300mm lens especially when on a tight budget---I find that there just isn't that much of a difference, especially in landscapes.

[Oren Grad]

165mm f/8 Super Angulon comes to mind--it is a huge lens though!

The 155 Grandagon is also big, but it comes in #1 shutter rather than #3, which helps a bit with the weight. Another lens to look for is the 150 Nikkor SW, but I don't think there are quite so many of those floating around as the Grandagons and SAs.

[John NYC]

I use a 240mm G-Claron on my 8x10, even for color slides. It works just fine even though it is single coated. In fact, it is fantastic. Coverage is pretty decent. I can't imagine that the 210 G-Claron would really be adequate for anything but very minor movements, but people do use them here. I tend to use a good amount of front rise.

240mm feels pretty wide on 8x10 to me. I can't imagine shooting 150mm myself, though I love what Thomas Birke does with his night cityscapes with 150mm (and other focal lengths). And like Ben Syverson says, maybe if you are going to be doing those big-rocks-in-the-foreground-thing it would also be a good choice.

If I were you I'd pick up a 240mm to complement the 360mm (skip 300mm altogether) and see if you really feel you need anything else.

Edit: Although you might have a hard time finding them cheap, a Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 240mm would also probably be a great choice as it is multicoated and should cover OK, but it is Copal #3, unlike the G-Claron which is Copal #1.

[Jon Paul]

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I can spend a bit more than a few hundred dollars, and perhaps will spend what is necessary to get the quality required. I will, as suggested, work with a 240 and the 360 to start. I want to make sure ths is the right format move for me. So many 8x10 shooters are doing B&W and contact printing that this is a very hard issue to research. I want to do 48x65 inch Crystal Archive prints that will out do my images from 4x5. So, I guess I should be asking which lens (in the 240 range) do I need to purchase to get the clarity I want, and can I do it without spending $2,500? I am getting a whole 8x10 outfit, so it will add up. I want to be economical and budget conscious. If I love it, I have some other gear I can sell to offset the investment.
You are all being very gracious with your time and knowledge.
Please let me know if I need to clarify further. I am trying.
Kind Regards to all,
Jon

[Oren Grad]

So, I guess I should be asking which lens (in the 240 range) do I need to purchase to get the clarity I want, and can I do it without spending $2,500?

Well, a 240 Apo-Sironar-S will cost you less than $2000 new at B&H, and you can find them for quite a bit less than that if you can wait for a used one. That's as good as it gets in a late-model multicoated 240 with decent elbow room on 8x10.

I have one - it's the first modern lens I bought for 8x10, more than 10 years ago. I think it's a spectacularly good lens - but I don't make enlargements from it.

If I recall correctly, Chris Jordan, back when he was shooting 8x10 and making big prints from it, was using a 240 Apo-Sironar-S as well as something longer. You might be able to find something in the archives here if you search on his name together with "Apo-Sironar".

[Ben Syverson]

Jon, thank you very much for adding some more background to your question. It helps a lot!

You're very right that B&W contact printers have much different standards than those of us who blow up color materials very large. We don't have the same needs, so we will be interested in different lenses.

I think $2500 is a very realistic place to start. It's roughly what I spent. I decided to spend more of that on getting a lightweight camera, at the expense of lens purchases... The fact is that many people have heavy 8x10 cameras in their closet, and are waiting for "the right shot" to haul that 20 pound monster into the field. It never happens. I would rather have the $1500 lightweight camera and a couple $500 lenses than the $500 boat anchor 8x10 and $2000 worth of extra glass.

If you have any reason to be dissatisfied with 4x5, you already know you want 8x10. You might as well sell anything you can to get there. I keep 4x5 around as a "fun" format, but if I had to pick one, I'd throw 4x5 under the bus in a heartbeat. :)

[Oren Grad]

Oops... Jon, Ben's perfectly reasonable response leads me to ask whether you meant $2500 for the whole kit or $2500 for a 240.

Language is a slippery thing... :)

[Eric Leppanen]

A 240mm Germinar W is an excellent 8x10 field lens, very lightweight with a Copal 1 shutter. It is essentially a multi-coated G-Claron, and has a roughly 400mm image circle when stopped down. Do a search for it here on the forum and you'll find a bunch of posts describing it. There will be some light falloff at the edges with chrome film if you use all of that image circle, but there is a center filter solution to that if needed.

It is moderately rare, but if you post a WTB you might find a seller. The lens has recently been selling for around $600 or so if I recall correctly.

Finding a multi-coated 150mm 8x10 lens with some excess coverage is going to be tough. The candidates I am aware of are either big (Nikon SW 150, Grandagon 155) or expensive (Super Symmar XL 150). You might want to hold off getting one until you are sure you'll need it. You can do a lot of damage with a 240-360 8x10 lens kit.

[Armin Seeholzer]

What he really need is the lightest of the heavy newer Wides the 150mm SW Nikkor its for the whole life!

Cheers Armin

[Don Dudenbostel]

Don't worry about multi coating vs single coating. You wil never see the difference except under extreme conditions. You will have more problems with bellows flare internally than you will lens flare. Remember we didn't have coatings at all for decades and superb images were made with those lenses and when single coatings came in they were the only thing available again for several decades. I did catalog photography for a numbr of major national clients and used an uncoated series III Dagor for may years and then went to a Symmar and couldn't see any difference. During that time I also used a set if thee RD Artars and could not see any difference in color or contrast. I now use a mix of SC and MC lenses and see no difference in quality of image. Many of these images with the Dagor had stunning color. The one thing I do see is color variation from make and model of lenses. I evaluated a Super Symmar HM 210 after they came out ans wound up sending it back to Schneider. The color was noticably green compared to shots with my Symmar S under controlled studio conditions. Goerz Dagors have a different color then Schneider which have different color than Kodak when compared side by side but over all they all produce excellent and pleasing results.

[Brian Ellis]

Don't worry about multi coating vs single coating. You wil never see the difference except under extreme conditions. You will have more problems with bellows flare internally than you will lens flare. Remember we didn't have coatings at all for decades and superb images were made with those lenses and when single coatings came in they were the only thing available again for several decades. I did catalog photography for a numbr of major national clients and used an uncoated series III Dagor for may years and then went to a Symmar and couldn't see any difference. During that time I also used a set if thee RD Artars and could not see any difference in color or contrast. I now use a mix of SC and MC lenses and see no difference in quality of image. Many of these images with the Dagor had stunning color. The one thing I do see is color variation from make and model of lenses. I evaluated a Super Symmar HM 210 after they came out ans wound up sending it back to Schneider. The color was noticably green compared to shots with my Symmar S under controlled studio conditions. Goerz Dagors have a different color then Schneider which have different color than Kodak when compared side by side but over all they all produce excellent and pleasing results.

Good point about coating, I intended to mention this in my previous post. Multi-coating is a big deal with zoom lenses. Many of them wouldn't be usable without it. But in LF single coating is perfectly fine, uncoated is fine too just a little less contrast (which usually can be dealt with when printing) and use of a good shade when in a high-flare situation. At least that's been my experience though mostly with b&w.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Multi coating is important in zooms particularly complex zooms like in the video and motion picture industry where you have a dozen or more elements. I would suggest a good compendium shade or at the least use your darkslde or black card to shield the sky or stray light from the lens. I generally use black foam core or my darkslide. Bellows flare can kill an image. It causes increased exposure to the outer areas of the film and can influence color as well. Just think about how large the image forming light cone is from most modern lenses. A 300mm plasmat might cover 11x14 and on 8x10 you have all that additional image bouncing around inside the bellows causing lower contrast / fog to some degree. If you're shooting under blue sky that excess image / light from the sky can cause a cool cast to the color plus reduce contrast. Green in the woods will give a green cast particularly in the shadows. Shielding that light from the lens helps prevent these problems.

[Peter York]

My 159 wolly often perfoms double duty as a normal lens for my 4x5 and I am very pleased with the results w.r.t. to resolution, contrast and color (I only shoot B&W on 8x10). Edge resolution on large prints may be another issue. I can't comment on flare as I have not used this lens in situations where flare would be an issue.

On 8x10, note that this lens is very wide, as mentioned above. You can easily focus near-far compositions with a lens that has limited movements by using back tilts, so this lens may have adequate coverage, depending on your shooting style and compositions.

Given their low cost, I suggest you pick one up, try it, and unload it if you are not satisfied. In my opinion it is an outstanding lens for its price/perfomance.

[ic-racer]

Oh, I'm with you, Brian -- the compromise in this case is essentially a three way: high contrast vs wide focal length vs low price. Pick any two.

I really think the 210 Angulon is an interesting possibility if one pops up. I've seen them sell here for around $400... There's also a Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6 on KEH right now for $350, which should cover 8x10. But I'm not sure how much movement you'll get out of it. Can anyone chime in?

From my notes the Nikkor is 336mm.

I just finished a 6 month quest for a couple 8x10 LF lenses. I posted my notes from the 210mm quest here and I went with the Angulon ( http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=62302 ). In the 250mm range I went with the Fujinon 6.7.

In the end I went with the two that had the largest image circles. Probably a backlash from 2 years of using a "4x5" 210mm lens with no movement as my only 8x10 lens.

[Ben Syverson]

Since the Wolly is in discussion, here is a test shot I took with it (159mm f/12.5, @ f/22). Forgive the quick and dirty scan. But I think this demonstrates the level of flare you can expect when shooting color.

Again, this is a tricky lens to use... This is with plenty of front rise to reduce the amount of pavement in the image. This lens is all foreground!

[Peter York]

[QUOTE=Ben Syverson;594610]Since the Wolly is in discussion, here is a test shot I took with it (159mm f/12.5, @ f/22). [QUOTE]

Ben, now you have me intrigued! As I said, I have never shot 8x10 color, and only a few 8x10 B&W images with my wolly, and flare has not been a big issue. I have the 9.5coated version.

I ran a search here and some posters mention problems with flare while others do not:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25324&highlight=159mm+wollensak+flare

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=13160&page=2&highlight=159mm+wollensak+flare


I wonder if the issue is sample variation, or shooting conditions, or something else. The funny thing is, my lens has some ugly cleaning marks on the back element, though the images are quite sharp, even out to the edges on 8x10. Maybe someone sandpapered some sense into my lens:p

[Ben Syverson]

Mine is definitely not coated, so it may be older. But one would not expect a single coating to make that large of a difference.... I do think the high contrast subject is exaggerating the flare. I'll have to do some more tests! :)

[Jan Pedersen]

As already suggested, pick up one of the 159mm Wollensak lenses and give it a try.
I would like to suggest the 159 coated Raptar f9.5 (All Raptars are coated) I have one and compared to my yellow dot 159 12.5 the Raptar has better resolution and i have not seen any difference in coverage.
The Raptar i believe is better corrected, have 8 lenses in 4 groups where the 159 12.5 Anastigmat have 4 lenses in 4 groups. I find that the Raptar has slightly better contrast.

[Jon Paul]

Given the new info I shared, Your answers have really hit the mark more (I need to be conscious of how I word questions!). I do have a 210 (F 6.8?) Caltar II (Rodenstock) for my 4x5 kit. Might this cover 8x10? Will back tilts be possible? It might be nice to have a usable 210 to give me a feel for the focal length desired.
Thanks Again,
Jon

[John NYC]

Given the new info I shared, Your answers have really hit the mark more (I need to be conscious of how I word questions!). I do have a 210 (F 6.8?) Caltar II (Rodenstock) for my 4x5 kit. Might this cover 8x10? Will back tilts be possible? It might be nice to have a usable 210 to give me a feel for the focal length desired.
Thanks Again,
Jon

Are you sure it is 6.8? If 5.6, then that should be a Caltar branded Rodenstock APO Sironar N. So, no it will not cover even without movements...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

[eddie]

the schneider 210 6.8 will cover. no problem. if you want small this is it. or get the 165 f8 SA. great lens. try it. they are not too expensive.

[John Kasaian]

How'za 'bouta Konica Hexanon? Are you good enough with a "hat" for making exposures?

[Rick Moore]

A 240mm Germinar W is an excellent 8x10 field lens, very lightweight with a Copal 1 shutter. It is essentially a multi-coated G-Claron, and has a roughly 400mm image circle when stopped down. Do a search for it here on the forum and you'll find a bunch of posts describing it. There will be some light falloff at the edges with chrome film if you use all of that image circle, but there is a center filter solution to that if needed.

This lens is one of my favorites for 8x10. It's very sharp and delivers high contrast. The multicoating on this lens is quite effective and is also very beautiful, not a serious consideration, but it doesn't hurt. The small size and large image circle make it a real winner on a field camera.

[Jon Paul]

OK guys, the 210mm lens I have is the Caltar II N F-5.6. Sounds like that still won't cover. Nice try anyway. It sounds like I should narrow my hunt to a the 240 Germinar W, or 240 Apo Sironar S.
I have a fear of getting the wrong thing first, then having to purchase again. Also, I am a bit impatient, as I am excited to get to the bigger format. Every shot counts for me, as an passionate artist, and as a professional landscape photographer. I hope to be shooting this rig within a couple of weeks...if all comes together.
Your help is valuable to me, and I haven't simply been asking for your help to kill time (although I love this stuff!).I value, and use, the input.
Thanks for taking the time! I will take any other input as my search narrows.
Regards All!
Jon
www.jonpaulgallery.com

[Jon Paul]

There is a 240 Sironar N for sale on this forum. The catalog says it covers 8x10 (350mm image circle). Any input on the quality? Noone has mentioned this lens. Perhaps there is a reason. It is listed for $395 plus shipping.
Thanks!
Jon

[Oren Grad]

There is a 240 Sironar N for sale on this forum. The catalog says it covers 8x10 (350mm image circle). Any input on the quality? Noone has mentioned this lens. Perhaps there is a reason. It is listed for $395 plus shipping.
Thanks!
Jon

It's a fine lens - I tested a 240 Apo-Sironar-N before buying my S. The main reason I went for the S was the larger coverage - I did find myself sometimes running out of room for front rise on 8x10 with the N.

As with the S, I can't tell you how well the N will hold up to huge enlargements. But if you're just getting your feet wet in 8x10 and are worried about budget, it's a very reasonable place to start. If I couldn't afford the S, I'd be very happy to have the N.

If you can help it, best not to worry too much about getting the "wrong" thing first. In the end, only you can know what's best for you, and the only way to tell for sure is to try it yourself. Many (most?) of us here have gone through multliple cameras and sometimes lenses as well before finding the ones we want to use for the long haul.

[neil poulsen]

Mentioned previously, the 250mm f6.7 Fujinon sometimes goes for around $400. I got mine for just under that. The image circle is 398mm. It's single-coated. For my purposes, this would be more suitable than a Sironar-S 240mm for 8x10. (Not more suitable for 4x5, though.)

[ic-racer]

There is a 240 Sironar N for sale on this forum. The catalog says it covers 8x10 (350mm image circle). Any input on the quality? Noone has mentioned this lens. Perhaps there is a reason. It is listed for $395 plus shipping.
Thanks!
Jon

That lens and a number of other 240s are in the 350mm coverage range and pretty easy to find.

I can't comment on the Fujinon 250 6.7 because I just bought one and it is still in the mail! I'm anxious to try it out.

In terms of your Caltar 210mm, if it is like a Caltar HR 5.6 then it has the same image circle as a Symmar-S 210mm. On paper it won't cover, but in real life if you center it on the 4 corners it will likely make some reasonable 8x10 images. Its worth giving it a try until you can locate a full-coverage lens. BTW back tilt away from the lens will enlarge the image circle, making coverage even better.

[harlan Hambright]

165 super angulon is a very good wide angle with movements on 8x10. i happen to have one for sale.