Newbie help: Best modern lenses for 8x10

[PaulSchneider]

Hi guys!

I'm thinking of getting into 8x10 and would like to start out with two or three lenses.

But I'm completely overwhelmed by the lens choice and different prices! I thought Canon had lot of choice already and now this ... :(

So please can anyone tell me which lenses are considered the best in their respectivr focal lengths?

I'm only interested in the most recent designs and would like to buy something I will never have to sell except if I stop with the hobby ...

On the ultra wide end, ist the super symmar XL 150 any good?

Why is the super symmar xl 210 so expensive and is it well regarded?

As a standard lens, should one get the 300 sironar s or the apo symmar?

Generally speaking, between sironar s and apo symmar -> is one generally better or do there exists specific things one should know about one brand or the other?

Kind regards

Paul

[Frank Petronio]

I don't know if you want extremes, but if you are more moderate in your needs then perhaps getting something like the latest 240 and 360 Sironar-S or APO-Symmar Ls are the best starting points, after which you can spend the big bucks on the 150XL and 480 lenses to round out your kit.

They are wonderful lenses but the market for reselling high-end 8x10 gear can bite you when you try to get out of it. Lots of people claim to desire it, but few have the ready cash or will to buy your gear when you decide to sell it! So the best strategy is to start with just one or two good lenses and make sure you want to stick with 8x10 over the long haul.

Pesonally, if I bought a Rodenstock then I'd want my other lenses to match and be Rodenstocks too. But I'd just as soon start off with a Schneider as a Roddy, they seem so close in most practical regards -- things like filter sizes often end up being the deciding factors.

Also, the modern lenses are big and heavy... a 14" Commercial Ektar in a #5 is still a baby compared to a modern 360.

[Mark Sawyer]

There's not a whole lot of difference between modern lenses. They all have the same design parameters, and all obey the same laws of physics.

"Why is the super symmar xl 210 so expensive and is it well regarded?"

More coverage. Yes, it's well regarded. If it wouldn't be well regarded, they wouldn't have made it. There aren't any surprises in modern optics; they all do the same things, and do them very well. It's mostly a matter of where do you draw the price line on diminishing returns, and what do you absolutely need. Most people don't need that extra coverage that the Super Symmar XL 210 gives, but if you do, you do.

The big thing is figuring out what you need before you buy something.

(BTW, you're lucky. Doing that for modern lenses is much easier than for vintage lenses, and correspondingly, although not near as much fun!)

[Walter Calahan]

Paul

There are many ways of defining "Best."

Why spend huge dollars on expensive glass when you do not even know if you'll like working in 8x10 yet?

Most modern lenses are pretty darn good in the 8x10 format. Many older lenses are too.

Choose the lenses that work with your photographic vision. Don't get a back full of glass that may end up fighting you, which will make shooting 8x10 frustrating.

[williamtheis]

as you look at lenses, you might want the specs... try

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

if you are doing close up work, you can get by with a much smaller image circle...

[John Jarosz]

What are your usual subjects?

Even though it's 8x10, will you only be doing contact printing?

Color or B&W?

If you will be doing 8x10 contact printed in B&W, then you have a lot of choices. For this kind of photography you'll have a hard time seeing the difference with many of the lenses (old and new).

While many of the newer lenses can give a lot of coverage, they are pricey and can be very heavy. If you are doing outdoor work, consider what you will be carrying into the field.

If you are doing critical color work that will be enlarged to poster size, then I'd stick with the modern stuff.

John (my opinion, anyway)

[John Kasaian]

A 240 G Claron would be a good start---far less costly than the glass you're talking about and not one bit inferior--my 2-cents anyway. The money you'll save will buy a lot of film! :D

[ic-racer]

There's not a whole lot of difference between modern lenses.

I second that.

Also, the older lenses are usually fine, and in the case of Fuji, you have to go with the older ones to get your 8x10 coverage.

Are you using a monorail or field camera? The Super Symmar XL 210mm may not be the first choice for a field camera, unless someone else is hauling your equipment :)

Here is a thread on some 210mm lenses that work well with an 8x10 field camera setup: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=62302

[Jim Galli]

8X10 works on the principal of brute force. It's an 800 hp V8 in a Ford Falcon. Spending an extra $1200 for 805 hp is ludicrous. It only takes 40 hp to move away from the stop light.

Now to answer your question, or at least one of them, on 8X10 I'd prefer a Dokter Optic 240mm f9 Germinar to the 210mm Symmar XL. And if I had $$$$ to spend, I'd love to have a Cooke XVa convertible as my normal based on how my old school single coated XV runs.

[Ben Syverson]

It is a mistake to start out in any new format with 3 lenses.

A better option is to buy an inexpensive modern "normal" lens (300mm for 8x10) and see how it feels. Shoot 10-20 sheets with it at least. If you find yourself wanting something lighter, wider, etc, then do some research.

Unlike smaller formats like MF or digital/35mm, lens "quality" or sharpness matters much less than coverage, aperture, price, and so forth. All the modern lenses are sharp enough to produce incredible 80" prints from 8x10.

[PaulSchneider]

as you look at lenses, you might want the specs... try

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

if you are doing close up work, you can get by with a much smaller image circle...

Wow, thank you, this is a most useful list!

[PaulSchneider]

It is a mistake to start out in any new format with 3 lenses.

A better option is to buy an inexpensive modern "normal" lens (300mm for 8x10) and see how it feels. Shoot 10-20 sheets with it at least. If you find yourself wanting something lighter, wider, etc, then do some research.

Unlike smaller formats like MF or digital/35mm, lens "quality" or sharpness matters much less than coverage, aperture, price, and so forth. All the modern lenses are sharp enough to produce incredible 80" prints from 8x10.

Thank you very much for these insights everybody!

But I cannot believe that the price differential can be so big! I mean one apparently can get a 300 mm lens for 500 or 3000 usd ... and there isn't a significant difference?

Is the 300 apo symmar a good choice to start?

[Bob McCarthy]

Paul,

I am a recent convert to 8x10 (6 months ago) after 20+ years with the 4x5. What you read is true about the brute force of a big negative.

I started with a Nikon 240 I traded with a friend for another lens. I got a 470 (19.5 inch) Red Dot Artar in a swap for a bellows. I'll end up buying a 360 Commercial Ektar or equivalent.

All for less than the price of a new "modern" lens and sharpness is just not an issue.

Are you coming from 4x5 or a smaller format? If smaller Id suggest a pass through 4x5 first.

bob

[Eric Leppanen]

Are you going to be hiking with your 8x10 camera, or working near your car or in the studio? Will you be photographing architecture, or just landscapes and portraits? Will you be photographing architectural interiors or landscapes prior to sunrise or after sunset?

We really need to know your intended applications before much in the way of lens recommendations can be made.

Since it appears that your 8x10 camera will be your first foray into LF, it makes sense to first verify that the LF working style works for you before making any large investments. The lenses you are asking about (particularly the Sironar-S's and APO Symmars) are primarily studio lenses which are relatively large and heavy, and are much less common among 8x10 shooters than the G-Clarons, Germinar W's and other field lenses previously mentioned. That doesn't mean that folks don't use them for field applications, but you should know exactly what you are getting in to before you invest heavily along such lines. If your 8x10 kit ends up being so bulky/heavy that you are discouraged from using it, then obviously more research should have gone into your original purchasing decisions.

Once we understand your goals and applications, we can suggest a lens or two that would represent a good starting point for 8x10. You can always resell these lenses later (the advantage of buying popular used lenses is that you can resell them later at roughly the same price) and "upgrade" to the biggest, bestest Super Symmar XL's, APO Sironar-S's, APO Symmar L's, etc. if that is really what you want to do.

But bear in the mind that the majority of folks shooting 8x10 these days are amateurs shooting landscapes, portraits and some studio work, and these folks are usually happy with lightweight f/9 aperture lenses that perform nearly as well as the big studio lenses at a fraction of the price and weight.

[Rick Moore]

Is the 300 apo symmar a good choice to start?

A 300mm Apo Symmar or Apo Symmar L is a fine lens. It's also a huge chunk of glass in a very large Copal 3 shutter. Unless you really need the coverage, you might consider a smaller, lighter lens. I use a Fujinon 300C for this length. It's in a Copal 1 and uses 52mm filters. It has plenty of coverage for my uses and it quite sharp. It's f8.5 vs 5.6 for the Symmars, but I have never had any trouble focusing on a Canham fresnel.

Another option is a Nikkor 300M, also in a Copal 1. It's f9 and has a little less coverage than the Fujinon, but it's used by many 8x10 shooters.

Also, a little larger, but excellent performers and still half the size and weight of the Apo Symmar, there are 12 and 14 inch Kodak Commercial Ektars. There are also 12 and 14 inch Dagors that are quite small, but they usually don't come cheap.

These are just a few of the lighter. smaller alternatives to the huge plasmats. On the other hand, if you're doing catalog photography with a Sinar P2, you might just need the massive coverage of the plasmats.


--
Rick

[rdenney]

But I cannot believe that the price differential can be so big! I mean one apparently can get a 300 mm lens for 500 or 3000 usd ... and there isn't a significant difference?

Is the 300 apo symmar a good choice to start?

Yes.

Let's take those 300ish MM lenses, and consider the choices. The most common choice, including that Symmar, is the plasmat. Plasmats are highly, highly corrected, very sharp, contrasty, and virtually without distortion. They perform well even at larger apertures, not that you'll often make that much use of wide apertures with 8x10.

Then, there are the tessar designs, which are four-element, non-symmetrical normal lenses. The 12" Kodak Commercial Ektar and the 12" Ilex Paragon are two good examples. Given the long history of tessars, the later ones tend to be contrastier than the earlier ones. Performance drops to the corners perhaps a bit more than with plasmats, and the corners are closer in--the tessar has less coverage. Stop them down, though, and they are abundantly good enough for 8x10 for any print that will fit in an actual building.

You can also get triplets. The Rodenstock Geronar is an example. Very, very contrasty, and if you stop it down far enough (f/22 at least or f/32 for 8x10 sounds about right), reasonably sharp. They are inexpensive even when not very old. At the appropriate aperture, making prints big enough to notice the difference between a Geronar and a modern tessar, or even a plasmat, will present more challenges than which lens to use.

And finally, you can get process lenses, like the G-Claron. These are optimized for close focus, but work fine at infinity if well stopped down. Their big advantage is that they are small and light for their focal length, because they are slower (usually f/9 instead of the f/5.6 of a typical plasmat).

The lastest plasmats are the most expensive of these, but they are only incremental improvements over plasmats from 15-20 years ago.

The reason for the difference in price is that new lenses still have a cost constraint, and manufacturers are forced to charge high prices even though it means they will sell very few to a corner of what is already a small market. Used lenses have no such constraint, and sell for what the general market will bear. Thus, it is quite possible to get a Commercial Ektar or Ilex 12" lens for around $300, an older plasmat such as a Symmar-S or Sironar-N for $500, a process lens for about the same, or a triplet Geronar for under $400. The latter three will be multicoated and mounted in modern Copal or Compur shutters. The 12" Kodak or Ilex lenses will be in completely serviceable but vintage Ilex shutters.

Remember that an f/5.6 lens of longer focal length than 12" will be about the size of a small car. My 12"/f/6.3 Ilex-Caltar, whcih is a copy of the Commercial Ektar, is quite big and heavy, and it's a pup compared to a 300mm f/5.6 plasmat.

Rick "who paid $200 for that Ilex in near-perfect condition" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

But I cannot believe that the price differential can be so big! I mean one apparently can get a 300 mm lens for 500 or 3000 usd ... and there isn't a significant difference?
There may be a difference, but it may not be related to image quality. And $500 is too high. You can find a quality modern 300mm on this forum for much less than that. Big f/5.6 lenses tend to be less than f/9s, but even on KEH, a 300mm f/9 will go for less than $500.

$3,000 is almost objectively too much to spend on your first 8x10 lens. You have no idea what you even want at this point.

Unlike most areas in life, LF is not a place where you "get what you pay for." You can spend $15,000 on an 8x10 setup, but it won't necessarily get you sharper pictures than the guy with the $500 setup.

[Oren Grad]

But I cannot believe that the price differential can be so big! I mean one apparently can get a 300 mm lens for 500 or 3000 usd ... and there isn't a significant difference?

Let's consider the extreme case: you can buy a new 300mm Apo-Sironar-W for $5000 or a used one, if you are patient, for $2500, give or take. What you get with an Apo-Sironar-W is a huge image circle. The price you pay, in addition to the money, is that the lens is BIG and HEAVY. The extra coverage makes a meaningful difference if you require extreme movements for exotic studio setups, or if you are shooting 11x14 or 7x17.

But if you are just getting started with general snapshooting of people and places on 8x10, the extra coverage won't do you any good, and the extra weight and bulk will be a millstone around your neck. In that case, spending all that extra money will buy you something that's *worse* for your intended use, not better.

There is no single scale of good-better-best with LF lenses, only a set of tradeoffs among cost/size/weight/coverage/viewing brightness/subtleties of rendering in which the task is to figure out what's the best match for *your* needs.

I strongly agree with the advice to buy one, reasonably affordable lens to get yourself started, and hold off on spending more money until you start to figure out from experience what you need next.

If I were starting again from scratch with 8x10 now and were on a tight budget, I'd look for a 300mm Sironar-N MC or Caltar II-N MC (same lens under Calumet's private label), because from experience I know that I like the big Rodenstock plasmats, and the Rodenstock "N" type tends to be attractively priced on the used market. The 300 Apo-Symmar that you mention is also a fine lens, but is likely to be more expensive. If a big plasmat in Copal 3 is too much to carry, a 300mm Geronar or a 305 G-Claron in Copal 1 would also be an affordable, perfectly reasonable starting point. Others here will have plenty of other good suggestions for an affordable first lens.

[Jim Galli]

But I cannot believe that the price differential can be so big! I mean one apparently can get a 300 mm lens for 500 or 3000 usd ... and there isn't a significant difference?


Believe it. A $400 305mm Schneider G-Claron can resolve 67 lppm (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#300mm_and_longer). That's stunning.

[John NYC]

Get a 240 G-Claron to start. It's the only 8x10 lens I have right now, and I keep going back and forth on whether I even need another longer one. It is about as wide as I care to go on 8x10 myself. And it is ridiculously sharp at f/22, where I do all my shooting.

I bought mine from a private seller here on the forum after putting up a want-to-buy ad. It is a beauty, like-new (literally, and with box) and not that expensive.

[Merg Ross]

Choice of a lens for 8x10 will depend on many factors, in particular your way of seeing. Personally, I would find a 150mm too short for my own work, but you might like the look. If I were starting out in 8x10, which I did about 50 years ago, I would be looking in the range of a 240mm to 300mm lens. I would start with only one lens, and master all of the possibilities with that lens. You might find that you prefer something shorter or longer, but that is where I would start. As for a lens, I agree with those who have suggested the G-Claron lenses; take a look at the 240mm and 305mm, or even the 270mm.

[Frank Petronio]

If you shoot portraits or low light, the extra stop you get from a Plasmat (Sironar, Symmar) can be important -- albeit at a weight and sometimes expense penalty.

It is hard to justify $3000 for a new Sironar-S when $500 buys a 15-yr old Sironar-N that will make equally excellent images. About the only time you might rationalize the new lens is if you are spending government money or doing the most extreme movements and requiring the most exacting performance.

But... if you are that fussy then everything else in your workflow has to be equally high-end and fussy because you're only as good as the weakest link... so the best enlarger, the best scanner, the best tripod, the best.... $$$$.

[jp]

I went with a 300 5.6 symmar-s (used of course) because
* 5.6 is pretty bright for this range of lens and I can focus easier because of that. Shooting at 5.6 isn't likely to happen because of the narrow DOF
* It has a newer shutter than the kodak
* I already have multiple tessars for 4x5 and I wanted something a little different.
* I'm not concerned about size or weight of the lens. If size or weight are super important, I can do 4x5 or MF.
* I'm shooting B&W, so APO isn't important.
My lens was $200 with a dented filter thread and no other faults. They start at $300 or so with properly shaped filter threads. As my printing options are contact printing and epson700 scans, this lens is overkill for my uses.

[erie patsellis]

jp,
for most moderate dents, a short piece of small (3/8" or so) dowel and a wood block with a hollow cut out to match the lens diameter (easily made with a bench mounted belt sander or bandsaw) and a few minutes work will eliminate the dent totally. more drastic dents take a little longer and more work, but can be fixed as well.

[jp]

Thanks Erie! It might nice to use a filter with it. I'll give it a try.

[carverlux]

When I first saw this post, I thought "8x10 modern lenses - hmmm - I have nothing meaningful to add". The reason is simple - although it did not occur to me at the time, I don't think there is a "modern" 8x10 lens that I would prefer over those I have now that are "not-so-modern".

Over the past year, I have sold a "modern" lens that I thought I would never sell, a mint 360 Apo-Sironar-S. In its place is a 40yr-old G-Claron and a 50yr-old Commercial Ektar. These two more than cover the void once taken up by the gorgeous Rodenstock yet I still have enough change to fly to LA and have fun for a week. Another example: a tiny Cooke VII replaced a venerable multi-coated 165 Super Angulon. The Cooke is about 25% the size and weight of the Super Angulon, shutter included. In relatively short order, I fell in love with the Cooke.

Perhaps more important is that the personality of the "not-so-modern" lenses is quite a discovery to me. Going from deciding what to buy based on MTF and distortion charts to looking at real prints of 3D objects like people and buildings was part of this journey. Whether it is corner to corner sharpness or extreme coverage, I can find them all fairly handily in any one of a number of lenses built over the past 100 years. All this only to offer the encouragement that taking the time on a path to discover is as rewarding as ordering that "perfect" lens from a datasheet. If I had known before I bought my modern lenses what I know now, the money I saved and the fun I could have had would be like a free trip to the South of France for a month.

Obviously, YMMV
Carver

[Mark Sawyer]

I have sold a "modern" lens that I thought I would never sell, a mint 360 Apo-Sironar-S. In its place is a 40yr-old G-Claron and a 50yr-old Commercial Ektar.

For a lot of us, G-Clarons and Commercial Ektars are modern lenses! :D