Modest wide for 8X10...?

[Randy]

I am looking for some suggestions for what to look at in the way of a modest wide angle for 8x10. I don't need a lot of coverage since I don't do any front movements, just rear tilt if any. I have been looking for a Fujinon 180mm, the old one with the printing inside the front of the lens barrell, or the Fujinon 210mm of the same vintage. I have a 240mm Caltar II S but would like something around 180mm-210mm.

Thoughts?
(edit) - the less expensive, the better

[Jan Pedersen]

A coated 210 Dagor. Far better than the Fuji. Yes, i did at one time have the Fuji but it failed to impress at close to infinity.
The 210 G-Claron is also good if you don't need any movements, covers about the same as the Dagor.

[Leigh]

My database of modern lenses shows no 180mm options that cover 8x10.
Please note that my database is not comprehensive, is particularly short in Schneider lenses, and it has no older lenses.

It only shows a couple of 210mm options:
The Fujinon W 210/5.6 and the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-W 210/5.6 both have 352mm ICs. The Rodenstock is quite rare.

Some others that come close but would afford minimal or no movements at all:
Rodenstock: Sironar-N 210/5.6 (301); Apo-Sironar-N and Apo-Sironar-S 210/5.6 (316)
Fujinon: CM-W 210/5.6 (309mm IC)
Schneider: Apo-Symmar MC 210/5.6 (305)

But 210mm is awfully close in coverage to your 240mm; hardly worth spending the money and carrying it around.

I would suggest the Nikkor SW 150/5.6. Its huge 400mm IC allows large movements, even if you don't need them now.
It's small, in a Copal 1 shutter, and it's inexpensive. KEH has several of them in stock.

KEH also has the 180mm Fujinon that you mentioned, but it's the later multi-coated version with printing on the outside.

- Leigh

[MIke Sherck]

I use the older Fujinon 210 and like it very much: sharp and contrasty throughout its aperture range and at all distances. With 352mm of coverage, you have room for useful movements and it's not too terribly expensive. It's also a reasonable size and weight. There really isn't anything I know of to dislike about it.

Mike

[Steve Hamley]

I have a 180mm Fuji-W (the early one), and it will illuminate 8x10, and probably cover straight on. Fuji was pretty accurate in their coverage statements, so 305mm for the early W leaves you about 5mm short according to the literature. However, actually measuring 8x10 "usable" image area (not counting film rail area) is somewhat less, indeed about 305mm. I think you can count on a few more mm of coverage especially if contact printing. The early 210mm Fujinon-W would be a better choice if the focal length difference doesn't matter. The 210mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S will also cover with no movements.

An 8-1/4" Dagor (at least most of them) will also cover, but keep in mind you will need to be stopped down to f:32 or f:45 to maintain a usable image off center - again unless contact printing when you can get away with a lot.

A 190mm WF Ektar should also cover straight on.

Although outside your stated focal lengths, the 150mm Schneider Super Symmar XL and the 165mm WA Dagor would also be choices.

Cheers, Steve

[benrains]

My vote is for the early Fujinon-W 210/5.6 which I find covers 8x10 well enough. On the wider side, the Schneider Super-Angulon 165/8 will do it with room to spare. For older lenses you might consider the Schneider Angulon 165/6.8 or a Wollensak 8x10 Series III 159/9.5 or 8x10 EX.W.A. Series IIIa 159/12.5.

[largeformatguy]

This lens is slightly shorter than the range you indicated but the 165mm Angulon is a wonderful lens and has enormous coverage. It easily covers 8x10 with lots of movements. Pre-war models are more scarce but cheaper that the later coated ones. I have one in a dial set compur and it is very light also.

Another consideration is the 210mm Angulon. These are more expensive than the 165mm and are harder to find. Both of these lenses are much cheaper than the newer Wide Angles.

Alan

[mat4226]

Probably starting to sound familiar, but the older Fujinon-W 210 is the way to go. Good coverage stopped down, just don't go silly with movements. It's also the cheapest lens I've purchased to date, they're a heck of deal for what you get.

[Hugo Zhang]

Zeiss-Dagor 18cm f/9 covers 810 with some movement and it is very sharp. My favorite 810 wide lens. :)

[mdm]

Would an 8 1/4 Dagor cover 8x10 with 30mm rise? I am making a box camera and took a flyer on 30mm rise when I drilled the board. Hoping its OK, if not I will live with the vignette.

I can answer my own question, yes it seems to cover fine with 30mm rise.

[Corran]

I found that my sub-$200 Symmar-S 210mm covers 8x10 with a bit of movement stopped down.

Leigh, I went to KEH and looked for a Nikkor 150mm SW but I saw none, only a Nikkor "W" 150 f/5.6. Was that the lens you are talking about, and does it actually have a 400mm IC?? Or are you talking about the Nikkor 150mm f/8? I assume the latter. The f/8 from what I've seen is a lot more expensive than the other.

[John NYC]

Another vote for the Fujinon W 210mm -- the older single coated Fuji with the 352mm image circle. Fuji lenses are already ridiculously contrasty, so you might not miss the multi-coating, especially on B&W. I also have the 250mm version with the 398mm image circle. Between these two, my moderate wide needs are fully covered on 8x10. The 210mm will get used unless there is a need for lots of rise.

I used to have a Schneider Super Symmar 150mm XL. That was a great lens, but it needed at $400 center filter. It was also a little too wide for my tastes, though looking back at some shots I did with it, it was stunning. Maybe I should have just kept it.

[John NYC]

A coated 210 Dagor. Far better than the Fuji. Yes, i did at one time have the Fuji but it failed to impress at close to infinity.
The 210 G-Claron is also good if you don't need any movements, covers about the same as the Dagor.

The Fujinon-W 210mm with the 352mm image circle failed to impress you at infinity? You must have had a bad sample. That lens is SHARP.

[turtle]

The 180-210 area is a nightmare, if you want good coverage, bright ground glass and good value. There really seems to be nothing aside from the 210 SSXL that gives loads of coverage and truly modern performance, with MC etc. A 210 angulon will be hit and miss as there is lots of sample variation in old angulons. Many say it has huge coverage, but others say huge illumination, but that sharpness falls off rapidly outside of 10x8 straight on. The Fuji 210 W with inside lettering gives (on paper) the same coverage as the 210 Sironar W and so is FAR better value and easier to find, but it is likely not quite as contrasty or sharp and in all likelihood has a slightly smaller circle (I don't know this, but suspect) in actual use (despite specs giving the same).

In order to see whether 210 is a useful departure from 240mm, I'd suggest the Fuji 210 W and the 210 G claron. Specs suggest the Fuji has more coverage, but in practice I bet they are about the same. I would estimate my 210 G claron to have a circle of about 350mm at f32. The consensus seems to be that Fuji specs are right at the limit of what is useful and that some other manufacturers are somewhat more conservative.

If you want to try 180-190 (ish) another option is a 165 Angulon and crop the neg slightly i.e. anticipate 7x9" shooting area. This will allow the lens to cover comfortably. If contact printing and not using much movement, you might find the 165 also covers straight on. Its coverage is rated for 18x24cm straight at F22, so at F32-F45 you might be OK.

[Tony Lakin]

My 210mm F9 Computar rocks, pin sharp huge coverage, hard to find and expensive but worth looking out for, you may get lucky.

[Armin Seeholzer]

If you have a Sinar with Sinar shutter, then you can use a Konica GRII 210mm in front of it. Almost endless coverage if you stop down!

Cheers Armin

[jkcz]

Schneider Angulon 210/6.8
69389

[Randy]

Thanks for the input folks. Lots to consider. I should have mentioned that my 8X10 will not handle a lens much shorter than 180mm. The darn bellows will not compress much more. Probably 165mm at the very shortest.

[Warren Clark]

Hi Randy,

I'm not seeing any mention of the discontinued Rodenstock 210/5.6 ApoSironar (W). I like mine
on 8x10. It is big and heavy with great optics. Similar also is the Schneider 210 SS HM.
Both have coverage of about 352mm if I recall.

Warren Clark

[ic-racer]

"Modest" would be 240 to 250mm to me. The 180 Fujinon is closer to "Super-wide" to me. The 180mm does cover very well at infinity and I'd highly recommend it. Especially if you enlarger has a tilt lensboard. Then correcting verticals can be done when printing.

[ic-racer]

Schneider Angulon 210/6.8
69389

Thanks for posting that, I had been looking for the info. I have both the Fujinon 210 and the Angulon 210. I'm not going to say which is better (in case I have to sell the other one here :) :) :) ) but I wanted to try the Angulon as a convertible.

[Leigh]

I'm not seeing any mention of the discontinued Rodenstock 210/5.6 ApoSironar (W).
Warren,

Check post #3 where I said:

"The Fujinon W 210/5.6 and the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-W 210/5.6 both have 352mm ICs.
The Rodenstock is quite rare."

Ya gotta read what's been writ.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

The 180 Fujinon is closer to "Super-wide" to me.
I hardly think a 70° angle of view (wide side) would constitute a "super-wide", but I guess it depends on your definition.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

I should have mentioned that my 8X10 will not handle a lens much shorter than 180mm. ...
Probably 165mm at the very shortest.
The qualifying parameter is the flange focal length (FFL), not the optical focal length.

The FFL on the Nikkor 150/5.6 that I mentioned is 165.9mm.

- Leigh

[ic-racer]

I hardly think a 70° angle of view (wide side) would constitute a "super-wide", but I guess it depends on your definition.

- Leigh

It certainly does!

[jkcz]

Thanks for posting that, I had been looking for the info. I have both the Fujinon 210 and the Angulon 210. I'm not going to say which is better (in case I have to sell the other one here :) :) :) ) but I wanted to try the Angulon as a convertible.
I´m checked 210/6.8 Angulon on my 11x14" camera and at F32 it seems to me ok :) Wonderful lens, small, convertible, in reliably German shutter.

[benrains]

Thanks for the input folks. Lots to consider. I should have mentioned that my 8X10 will not handle a lens much shorter than 180mm. The darn bellows will not compress much more. Probably 165mm at the very shortest.

On my Deardorff 8x10 the Angulon 165/6.8 is pretty much at the limit for how much the bellows will compress, but thankfully the front standard of the camera allows for additional rise/fall independent of the bellows. Depending on your camera and the size of the lensboard, you might be able to use a recessed board for a bit more flexibility. Another older lens option I'd forgotten about is the Kodak Wide Field Ektar 190/6.3.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

More than you asked for, but a 210mm f9 Computar is a wonderful medium wide for 8x10; Tons of coverage, very sharp, light and compact. They aren't cheap, but prices seem to be dropping a bit...

[jumanji]

Can you educate me how to do this? (correct vertical distortion?) I always thought those tilting lens board and baseboard on the enlarger is just for some special dof effects.


"Modest" would be 240 to 250mm to me. The 180 Fujinon is closer to "Super-wide" to me. The 180mm does cover very well at infinity and I'd highly recommend it. Especially if you enlarger has a tilt lensboard. Then correcting verticals can be done when printing.

[Vaughn]

...Another consideration is the 210mm Angulon. Alan

My first images with an 8x10 was with one of those -- very nice to work with.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Can you educate me how to do this? (correct vertical distortion?) I always thought those tilting lens board and baseboard on the enlarger is just for some special dof effects.

Keystone distortion is a good search term in Google. Keystone distortion correction is best done in-camera, IMHO, but tilting the lensboard or easel works if you can stop down far enough to retain a sharp image. Each method is different. Using generous rise in-camera is what I prefer but it cannot always be done. My problem with the enlarger technique is that the object's relative dimensions are messed up. I am willing to be corrected!

[ImSoNegative]

I have the fujinon 250 6.7, great lens

[ic-racer]

Can you educate me how to do this? (correct vertical distortion?) I always thought those tilting lens board and baseboard on the enlarger is just for some special dof effects.
This is a picture of the enlarger just after printing the image of the bridge. Negative from a Symmar-S 210mm on 8x10 with no movements (camera pointed upward).
Of note, the original negative is horizontal, but the print becomes vertical. There is no light falloff, as the camera lens was centered on the negative at the time of film exposure. In fact the sky needed a little burn, as it is farther from the negative when enlarging. The image and grain are in perfect focus on the baseboard and razor sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner. This is the 'poor man's' Super Angulon 210.
138583
138584

[Drew Wiley]

Two year old thread, but guess it's a common lens request. I've used the Fuji 250/6.7, 240 A, and 250 G-Claron with about equal results. All have about the same
real world image circle but differ in coatings and physical size.

[Andrew O'Neill]

My Nikkor W 210 just covers 8x10 nicely.

[Richard Rau]

On my Deardorff 8x10 the Angulon 165/6.8 is pretty much at the limit for how much the bellows will compress, but thankfully the front standard of the camera allows for additional rise/fall independent of the bellows. Depending on your camera and the size of the lensboard, you might be able to use a recessed board for a bit more flexibility. Another older lens option I'd forgotten about is the Kodak Wide Field Ektar 190/6.3.

I use the 150/8.0 SW Nikkor with some movement, and I also use the 120/8.0 SW Nikkor which offers corner to corner coverage with no movement on my V8 Deardorff with the bellows fully compressed on a flat lens board. However, obviously, both really fall into the extreme wide catagory.

[Ari]

My idea of modest wide is the equivalent of a 35mm lens on 135 (or full-frame digital) format.
A 210mm on 8x10 comes closest, I believe, and there are a few 210s that cover 810 with room to spare.

[ImSoNegative]

[QUOTE=Ari;1269595]My idea of modest wide is the equivalent of a 35mm lens on 135 (or full-frame digital) format.
A 210mm on 8x10 comes closest, I believe, and there are a few 210s that cover 810 with room to spare.[/QUOTE

the Fuji 210 with the inside lettering is a great moderate wide for 8x10

[Luis-F-S]

A coated 210 Dagor. Far better than the Fuji.

+1 Even uncoated. If you want something a bit wider, you can go to the 6 1/2" WA Dagor; a little less is the 9 1/2" Dagor. L

[Steve Goldstein]

My idea of modest wide is the equivalent of a 35mm lens on 135 (or full-frame digital) format.
A 210mm on 8x10 comes closest, I believe, and there are a few 210s that cover 810 with room to spare.

A 135mm on 4x5 (270mm on 8x10) is a near-exact match to 35mm on 135 based on the equivalence of the angle of view along the film's short side. (Others may disagree, I happen to think that considering the film's shorter edge makes more sense than its diagonal, but for some this borders on a religious argument.) Following this model the less-common 270mm G-Claron might be just the ticket, or the 250 f/6.7 Fujinon-W, or 250mm Wide-Field Ektar, or any of the many 240s that'll cover 8x10. There's also a 10-3/4" (273mm) Apo-Artar, but I don't think that'll cover at infinity.

It really comes down to your definition of "modest", as in "Modest wide for 8x10...?"

[MMELVIS]

3 that I use
Eskofot Ultragon 210mm F9
Gundlach Radar Extreme Wide Angle Anast. 6 1/4 inch (159mm)
BERTHIOT (Paris) 120mm F14 Perigraphe No.3 Series VIa Brass lens

[Ari]

A 135mm on 4x5 (270mm on 8x10) is a near-exact match to 35mm on 135 based on the equivalence of the angle of view along the film's short side. (Others may disagree, I happen to think that considering the film's shorter edge makes more sense than its diagonal, but for some this borders on a religious argument.) Following this model the less-common 270mm G-Claron might be just the ticket, or the 250 f/6.7 Fujinon-W, or 250mm Wide-Field Ektar, or any of the many 240s that'll cover 8x10. There's also a 10-3/4" (273mm) Apo-Artar, but I don't think that'll cover at infinity.

It really comes down to your definition of "modest", as in "Modest wide for 8x10...?"

Yes, that's certainly valid.
My thinking was if a 50mm is normal on 135 format, and a 300mm is normal on 8x10, to get the equivalent FLs you either divide or multiply by 6.
So 35mm lens on 135 format is (35 x 6) equal to 210mm.
That, and the 210 looks roughly the same on 8x10 as did the 35mm on 135, i.e. modestly wide.

[StoneNYC]

Here guys...

138639

[IanG]

My choice for a modest wide angle for my 10x8 cameras is a 240mm f5.6 Nikon it fits nicely between my 12" Dagor (coated) and 165mm Super Angulon. I have 210mm lenses but none fully cover 10x8 although the 210mm Symmar is close, although thinking about it I have a 210mm Hexanon GRII but it's a barrel lens so I'd need to add a shutter.

Ian

[Alan Gales]

Yes, that's certainly valid.
My thinking was if a 50mm is normal on 135 format, and a 300mm is normal on 8x10, to get the equivalent FLs you either divide or multiply by 6.
So 35mm lens on 135 format is (35 x 6) equal to 210mm.
That, and the 210 looks roughly the same on 8x10 as did the 35mm on 135, i.e. modestly wide.

The problem is that 8x10 is a squarer format than 135mm. To me my 250mm on my 8x10 looks like my old 35mm lens on my 35mm camera. I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying that a person has to see decide for themselves. It's just not a clear cut comparison.

[jumanji]

Thank you. I guess i will have to practice more.

This is a picture of the enlarger just after printing the image of the bridge. Negative from a Symmar-S 210mm on 8x10 with no movements (camera pointed upward).
Of note, the original negative is horizontal, but the print becomes vertical. There is no light falloff, as the camera lens was centered on the negative at the time of film exposure. In fact the sky needed a little burn, as it is farther from the negative when enlarging. The image and grain are in perfect focus on the baseboard and razor sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner. This is the 'poor man's' Super Angulon 210.
138583
138584
The Dagor is nice for portrait but my 210, even at f45 has fall off (this can be solved when printing or scanning) and soft at corners (impossible to solve).

[John Kasaian]

I used two "modestly wide" on my 8x10. Both are very fine lenses,
A 10"/250mm WF Ektar, which is fast and has----seemingly----acres of coverage and is my "go to" for architecture.
A 240mm G Claron which is small and lightweight and wonderfully sharp, which is the lens I always take when hiking or backpacking.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I have a 210mm Hexanon GRII but it's a barrel lens so I'd need to add a shutter.
Ian

Me to I use it with the Sinar behind the lens shutter! It is really sharp and a lot of covering power!

[IanG]

Me to I use it with the Sinar behind the lens shutter! It is really sharp and a lot of covering power!

I also have a 150mm Hexanon GRII as well and that covers 10x8 with a little room for movements. I have Thornton Pickard shutters I can use with them so must get around to trying them.

Ian