What 8x10 lenses to get?

[Mike Tobias]

OK, so I finally broke down and decided to get the 8x10, and now I need to find some lenses. I would prefer lenses with 11x14 coverage, as I would like the extra movement and less light falloff, but am wondering if this is necessary. From those of you more knowledgable in this area, I have a few questions:

1) What lenses are best/should I avoid?
2) How much movement does an "average" (say 450mm) lens allow for (ie, is it worth the extra $/searching to find 11x14 lenses, and will there be much difference)?
3) I've read that newer 8x10 and larger lenses are of lower quality than older lenses because of less demand for such lenses, and they remain "softer" than older lenses. True/false?
4) Is it difficult to mount barrel lenses w/shutter (ie, worth the time, effort)?
5) What is your preference in lens focal lengths (ie, your 2 favorite)?

Thanks in advance for all your help!

Mike

[John Cook]

For the last forty years that I have been in LF photography, the two standard lenses for 8x10 are the Nikkor-W 300mm f5.6, the 360mm f6.5 and their Schneider counterparts.

The Nikkor-M 450mm f9 is a dandy lens. But the extreme length of the required bellows is a problem. The camera will begin to act like a sail and move around in even the slightest breeze. In the studio, the two standards will be too far apart to adjust the front while watching in the ground glass.

Older lenses tend to have a much more primitive coating, resulting in a softer image. Some excellent photographers absolutely swoon over this effect. But I have always felt that if I wanted a mushy image I would simply shoot 35mm and save myself the grief of LF. Bottom line: newer lenses are sharper than old. I’m sure there must be an exception in there somewhere, but I haven’t yet found it.

There are many highly experienced photographers on this site who favor some scarce, obscure lens nobody ever heard of, which hasn’t been manufactured in fifty years. My recommendations are for what you can pick up this afternoon, brand spanking new with guarantee, at any decent camera store.

[Francis Abad]

Schneider's 240 Apo-Symmar and 355 G-Claron. Moderate wide angle and a normal lens. These two are my staples. Sharp, great contrast, not too big or heavy (for me anyway). I do not think they are part of the range anymore but I am sure you can find some new old stock with some of the main large format retailers.

[Tim Curry]

1) A very decent lens as a "normal" would be the used Schneider Symmar-S in 300mm, as John has mentioned. You will then have to decide on a longer lens (400mm-600mm), or a wide angle (210mm-240mm) based on your needs and style. One thing to keep track of, filters for big lenses are more expensive than you will find in 4x5. The 300mm Symmar-S which I found used, for example, uses a 105mm size which is not cheap. They are available now as some pros are moving into newer models. Keep track of lenses and try to consolidate your needs around one filter size if at all possible.

2) An average lens of 450mm has plenty of movement for 8x10. When you start to get into shorter lengths, coverage goes up with cost.

3) There are some outstanding older lenses out there, but in general, the newer lenses which are made to closer tolerances and designed with newer technology, are better in many respects than a garden variety single coating old lens with a tired shutter. (Internet myth about "older is always better," in this case)

4) To properly mount a barrel lens in a Copal 3 shutter will generally set you back between $600 and $800. Is it worth it to you when you can find a good used lens-shutter which is good for the same price? Depends....

5) 300mm & 240mm

[Francis Abad]

I second Tim's caution about filter size. Apo-Symmar 240 and 355 G-Claron both take 77mm.

[Michael Kadillak]

I second the recommendations made above particularly Tims about the cost of mounting a barrel lens. I personaly have found it to not work for me as it was more cost efffective to acquire a used modern lens in a newer shutter over a cumbersome and sometimes cranky Ilex #5 that would have been necessary for a re-mount.

If I were contemplating being outdoors on the trail at some point with your 8x10, I would seriously consider two lenses based upon performance/coverage and not being in a copal #3. The 450 Fuji C f12.5 and the G Claron 305. I have the Fuji and it is in a Copal #1 and takes a 52mm filter and will nearly cover 11x14 so 8x10 is not a problem. It is such a tiny lens that weights nothing and I have no problem focusing it even at f12.5. I have heard others talk about the 305 which I also believe comes in a Copal #1 and will cover 8x10. I use the 355 G Claron and the 450 M Nikon F9 and they are both fabulous performers, but much bigger and heavier than the two alternatives mentioned above.

Considering the weight of everything else with 8x10 (holders, tripod, and focusing cloth) sometimes paring down a bit in the optical department as long as you are not compromising quality and results is not necessarily a bad thing. Lastly I would just recommend being a bit more patient with 8x10 shooting versus say shooting 4x5 as you have a proportionally larger amount of ground glass to evaluate with each shot. At the end of the day it is a wonderful experience well worth the time and effort. Just an alternative point of view as you would do well with any of these suggestions.

Cheers!

[John Kasaian]

Mike,

Welcome to 8x10! I'm not knocking new lenses, but I don't feel the least bit disadvantaged with my classic glass. My favorites ("most used"to be more accurate) are the Kodak Wide Field10") and Commercial Ektars( 14"), and Goerz Artars(14" 19" and 24")

For focal lengths, anything from 240mm/10" to 420mm/16-1/2" I would consider "normal" and something in that range would probable be the most useful. For a second or third lens I'd go for something really wide(159mm f/9.5 Wollensak WA) and/or something really long(Goerz 24" Artar.)

For newer lenses, I can recommend the Nikkor f/9 450mm M and the Schneider 240mm G Claron from personal experience, and while I've never used one, I find the 165mm Super Angulon or 155mm Grandagon interesting, though weight/ size/ and price-wise they aren't likely additions to my kit.

The 240mm G-Claron is an especially nice lense: coated, small and light weight in a modern shutter with a useful image circle at f/22, APO, and they go for cheap (so cheap its almost criminal!)

Don't stress over lens selection for 8x10, unless you get something really dreadful, those big negatives will look Great as long as you do your part!

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, regarding mounting barrel lenses in shutters---there are exceptions! Schnieder G Clarons will screw right into Copal shutters. All you"ll need to pay for is the shutter and a f/stop scale.

[Ralph Barker]

As others have said, welcome to the realm of near-infinite choices, Mike, but don't stress over the choices - almost none of them are "bad".

Having recently added 8x10 to my bag of tricks (I've been shooting 4x5 and smaller formats for years), it seemed to me that the 8x10 lens choices amounted to a balance between focal length, coverage, optical quality, size, weight, and cost. There is a wealth of information about lenses on this site (click the link above for the home page), and a lot of information on the S.K. Grimes site (http://www.skgrimes.com/) regarding mounting older lenses in modern shutters.

Personally, I use a 150mm Schneider Super Symmar as my ultra-wide. The 95mm filter requirement of this lens wasn't a problem for me, as I already had a 300mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar that uses 105mm filters for my 4x5. So, the 95mm-to-105mm step-up ring was trivial. I use the big, heavy Schneider 300mm as the "normal" lens, but I've been keeping an eye out for a 305mm G-Claron (at the right price) to reduce the weight. For a longer lens, I'm using the 450mm Nikkor-M, and wish I had longer arms.

What I've found interesting is that on 4x5, 90% of my work has been either with a 110mm Schneider Super Symmar, or a 210mm Schneider Symmar. In contrast, on the 8x10, I'm tending toward the wider view of the 150mm lens.

[N Dhananjay]

1) What lenses are best/should I avoid?

In my opinion, any lens that looks sharp enough. You are likely to be contact printing and should have no problem with sharpness from any anastigmatic (post - 1890 or so) design. That pretty much levels the resolution floor betwen old lenses and new lenses. You may still prefer the look of specific lenses based upon the other optical characteristics - flare, contrast etc. But the look you like is based very much on how you shoot and how you want your prints to look.

2) How much movement does an "average" (say 450mm) lens allow for (ie, is it worth the extra $/searching to find 11x14 lenses, and will there be much difference)?

At long focal lengths, coverage is seldom an issue - even process lenses will offer enough coverage. At shorter focal lengths, coverage will be more limited but use of wide angles seems to decrease as you move to marger and larger formats (although this clearly is idiosyncratic). Unless you are doing the kind of work that demands huge coverage (architecture/product etc), save the $.

3) I've read that newer 8x10 and larger lenses are of lower quality than older lenses because of less demand for such lenses, and they remain "softer" than older lenses. True/false?

I would say false. See 1 above. If anything, newer glass is likely to be sharper given computer aided design etc but you probably will be hard pressed to see any difference in a contact print. Some older designs, especially uncoated lenses, have a little more flare and this can result in somewhat more shadow detail. Don't get sucked into sharpness issues with formats as large as 8x10. Given careful technique and methodical working, a contact print should be sharp and grainless regardless of whether you use a 100 year old Dagor or Protar or whether you use a 1 year old Schfujnikron. There will be differences in how the prints look, which can be compensated to some extent by other controls, especially in B&W, but this is a function how you want your prints to look.

4) Is it difficult to mount barrel lenses w/shutter (ie, worth the time, effort)?

Eminently worth it. Especially look to the following technique. Get yourself a large shutter like an Alphax or Betax 5. Longer focal length lenses can be front mounted. Shorter lenses can also be accomodated. The folks at SKGrimes will help you out there.

5) What is your preference in lens focal lengths (ie, your 2 favorite)?

If you had to get two lenses, I would push you towards a 240 Dagor and a 480 Artar. These are based on the way I want my prints to look ...;-) but Dagors and Artars are affordable and tend to hold their value well if you decide you prefer another look.

Hope this helps. Cheers, DJ

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Mike,

You left out some very important information that would have a big influence on what lenses make the most sense for you. First, what do you plan to shoot? Landcapes, portraits, architecture, studio still lifes. etc? The "best" lenses for one application may be totally different than the "best" lenses for another. What is your price range? There are some great deals out there right now on previous generation, but still modern lenses. These are lenses that were made within the last 25 -30 years that are multticoated and come in reliable modern (usually Copal) shutters. Prices for these lenses have dropped dramatically in the last few years, but it's pointless to recommend anything specific until we know what you will be shooting and how much you expect to spend.

1) What lenses are best/should I avoid?

Depends (see above)

2) How much movement does an "average" (say 450mm) lens allow for (ie, is it worth the extra $/searching to find 11x14 lenses, and will there be much difference)?

There's really no such thing as an "average" 450mm lens. Among current lenses, there are three 450mm models available - all are very different (but will have more than enough coverage for 8x10). They are the 450mm f9 Nikkor M which is a tessar type (4/3) that takes 67mm filters, is in a Copal No. 3 shutter, has a 440mm image circle and weighs 640g; 450mm f12.5 Fujinon C (4/4) 52mm filters, Copal No. 1 shutter, 486mm image circle, 270g; 450mm f8 Fujinon CM-W (6/6), 86mm filters, Copal No. 3, 520mm image circle, 1140g. If you include the more common 480m focal length, the number of options goes up considerably - and that' just lenses that are currently available new. Include recently discontinued and "classic" lenses, and the choices go up by an order of magnitude. In just the three current 450mm lenses, you see a huge variation in some parameters (including price). Which is best for you will depend on what you're shooting and your budget. In the 300mm and 360mm focal lengths, there are mny more options (both modern and classic).

3) I've read that newer 8x10 and larger lenses are of lower quality than older lenses because of less demand for such lenses, and they remain "softer" than older lenses. True/false?

I've read a lot of nonsense on the internet, but this one takes the cake. It is true that there are some very sharp "classic" lenses, and classic lenses may offer other advantages in some cases (more coverage, smaller size, lower cost), but to say that newer lenses are soft is ridiculous. Newer lenses benefit from better coatings and far better manufacturing techniques and quality control. Better coatings provided a couple of benefits. First, an increase in contrast (a reduction of non-image forming light - aka flare). This alone will make images appear sharper even if the resolution is the same. Second, it allows the lens designers more freedom in incorporating more air spaces in their designs that can result in a better corrected lens (which leads to better sharpness over a wider range of apertures). Most of the best selling modern lenses are based on designs (plasmat for standard lenses and biogon derivatives for wide angles) that weren't practical until coatings became commercially viable. Add in multicoatings and the designer has ever more freedom to pursue more complex, better corrected designs.

4) Is it difficult to mount barrel lenses w/shutter (ie, worth the time, effort)?

It's not difficult for a competent machinist. However, that machinist will want to be compensated for his time and skill - and every lens is unique, which requires a different set-up, which adds to the time involved and the cost of the work. This can add up in a hurry. And then you have the cost of the barrel lens and the new shutter to consider. With used shutter mounted lenses selling at very reasonable prices, it can be hard to justify the cost involved - unless you have some very unique barrel mounted lens that doesn't have a shutter-mounted alternative (or you yourself are a competent machinist).

5) What is your preference in lens focal lengths (ie, your 2 favorite)?

Without knowing what you're shooting, my preference may or may not be relevent. And even if we shot the same types of subjects, our personal vision and preferences may be totally different. For example, I'm a landscape shooter, but I'm not a big user of wide angle lenses. I prefer slightly wide to slightly long lenses for most of my work, and tend to use long lenses more than wide angles. This is the direct opposite to many other landscape shooters I know who shoot almost 100% with wide angles and don't own any lenses longer than "normal". As I have to carry them aound on my back, I tend to prefer lighter lenses. I also prefer lenses with smaller filter sizes as this save space in my pack and money in my wallet. For you, this may be totally irrelevent (or maybe not).

I'll refrain from specific recommendaions until I know more about you intended subjects, your goals and your personal preferences.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

P.S. from the variety of responses, you can see why it's important that we know what you plan to shoot and how much you plan to spend. For example, many people are assuming you will be shooting black and white, and perhaps contact printing. Fact is, we don't know that. Personally, I shoot color and make both conventional prints as well as digital prints from scanned original color transparencies. So, my recommendations may be totally different from others. Whether or not any of these recommendations are valid depends on your needs. Until we know those needs, all you're going to get is recommendaions based on our (highly variable)needs.

Kerry

[tim atherton]

"In my opinion, any lens that looks sharp enough. You are likely to be contact printing and should have no problem"

I love this assumtption that comes up every time someone mentions 8x10

Lots of us shoot colour and either ahve it printed by a lab or scanned and print digitally.

Plenty of us scan B&W and also print digitally

8x10 enlargers are fairly easy to have these days and are not necessarily as big as a house...

the idea of using 8x10 and then limiting yourself to contact prints seems rather narrow

[Ed Burlew]

For grneral shooting of scenics I have found that the 240rodenstock sironon even if not apo is extreemly sharp, and these are easily available and reasonable priced, I find that the 355 -360 range are very useful for portraiture, You will find that the portraits are now more waist up rather than head shots and you do not need to get in as close, Also the 480 apo rodagons are samll and extreemy sharp, they use a 67 mm filter, the 240 sironar uses an 86 filter adn the 355 g-claron uses a 67mm filter. with these three lenses you will be ready for just about anything. I would begin with a 360 or a 240, the 450-480 are more limiting because you will restrict the depth of filed and the bellow draw will be long. You can rent or borrow wider or longer lenses for special purposes. Any of the Multicoated lenses will be very sharp.the advantage of the multicoated lenses is that you can go to color easily,also using an x-synchabkle shutter will allow for fill flash. Fill flash can be any flash, I have used metz 45's for excelent portrait results. If you go to the barrel lenses then you will be restricted to b&w and natural light. Also lenses have a sweet sopt and it is usually from f22,32,45. smaller is not alwalys sharper. Each lense has its own circle of coverage and you have to look at the tables for the data. I like my 240 alot but I ran out of rise on achitecture so I finally saved my money and got the 210xl Schneider. Now the camera limits out before the lense does. but it did not help with scenics much in terms of rise. Be SURE the shutter is accurate.Try it at one and one half second times for a feel then test it and mark it so you will know tre real shutter times.

[Mike Tobias]

Thank you all for your input, it is truely invaluable. To clarify what I am doing and/or going to be doing:
I currently shoot a hodgepoge of different things, both format, subject and purpose wise. I have 35mm, digital, and MF (6x7) outfits, and shoot commercial, event and fine art photography. I enjoy the fine art the best (primarily hand printed B&W from my 6x7) and am wanting move more in that direction, as I find it by far the most fulfilling, and find the control of an 8x10 to be particularly appealing. I will be selling to galleries (no, not "wow, if only I had an 8x10 I could....." but already selling to galleries, looking to make that an area to explore), so we're ultimately talking enlarged prints here, not contact prints. My work focuses primarily around still lifes of one sort or another, and portraiture. Although I'd like to attempt doing some landscapes at some point, they are not what I going to be shooting for the most part.

As far as cost/weight/etc. is concerned, I have been toting around a 35mm outfit around for the last 7 years (ie, 2 pro bodies, 8 lenses, tripod, 4 flashes = 60+ lbs and $10k), and the thought of buying one or two lenses for most of my work for a couple thousand rather than buying a single lens for specialized purposes (and sets me back $2k) is rather appealing. Before anyone jumps in here with the whole "magic-bullet" thing, I am not looking for one. My work in 35mm and 6x7 is good in it's own right, but I enjoy working in the "traditional" darkroom, and a large negative would be conducive to that. In essence what I am saying is that the cost/weight/etc. are only secondary concerns, I am primarily interested in simplicity, ease of use, versatility and quality (yes, quality last, because I'd like to believe that for the most part it's technique rather than gear that comes into play here, and it doesn't sound like from what everyone has posted that there are any "dogs" as far as lenses go).

So thank all of you for all your great answers (no, really, all very helpful), and I have one last question: better to buy or build an 8x10 enlarger?

Also, I feel I must add, although I'm new to this group, I've read through (literally) hundreds of postings here and have not seen a single flame. Coming from what I've seen on other groups, (who shall go unnamed) I was pleasantly supprised to find both helpful and courtious answers to even silly questions such as mine. For those who are unfamiliar with the "ettiquette" of other groups, I have seen many times people get all bent out of shape on the whole "which is the best lens/camera/format/etc." question, and become insulting quite quickly. Thank you for your infinate patience and all your helpful advice.

[John D Gerndt]

Speaking to the related question of whether to build or buy and 8x10 enlarger as one who has built I’d say buy. It is a lot of work to get things right. It is cheaper, lots, but it will take time and patience.

Why not take advantage of the price break that comes as a result of the scarcity of 8x10 commercial shooting? You can find some great prices now and then on the net but it is a matter or luck/timing and questions of weight and space. Patience pays. Beware incomplete systems though. Parts are as hen’s teeth. Go and see the piece and make sure you can align it all and that it fits your darkroom.

There is one outfit I know of that sells the big stuff. You are gong to be paying him for his work as a gleaner but that is only fair, the company: www.glenview.com. I bought a Kodak f8 10” on his recommendation and I must say it does a very good job. Good luck in this big adventure. Oh by the way, front and rear mounting barrel lenses to a serviced #5 is a very good way to get good lenses for cheap and…you only have one shutter’s idiosyncrasies to deal with

[Richard Årlin]

I am getting a 8x10 this week myself, a ShenHao HZX810-IIAT. I have a 158mm Cooke WA ser.VIIB f/6,5, a 240mm Zeiss Goertz Dagor f/6,8 and plan to get a 450mm Fuji-c f/12,5. I think they will make a very nice combination. Contact printing AZO, photoengraving and other alternative processes

[Jim Galli]

You've gotten so much good info here all I'll do is add to the fray with my 2 fave's. OK 3. As I've used the 810 over time these have changed but these 3 allow good moves on 810. 270 G-Claron, 14" Kern Gold Dot Dagor, 16 1/2" Repro Claron. These 3 even though close together in relative jump from size to size do 80+% of my 810 pics. Actually you could drop the 14" out of there but it's just so superb..........and finally if you find a 210mm f6.8 Kyvytar you are a lucky man. A clean late coated 8 1/4" Dagor is just as good.

[William Marderness]

My three picks for 8x10 are: 270 G-Claron, 355-G Claron, 600 Fujinon C.

[Cap Frank, Narragansett]

Welcome to the 8X10 world. I have been shooting 8X10 for 20 years and I still am quite happy with my grandfather's 12" triple convertible Protar. However I don't shoot color. When I use the 4X5 back I use a 210-W Nikor with joy. In the past I have used wide field Ektars with success. As long as I don't shoot with the sun or other strong light source in the frame, I have never really come across a sub-standard classic or new lens.

I echo everyone's recommendation about the G-Claron, I have a 150 and it's a dandy for close-up work. Which leads me to ask the others who use G-Clarons for general photography, I always thought the G-Clarons were corrected for 1:1 work and not so great at infinity. Please set me straight on this matter.

Question: Does anyone know how to cure the Schneider SA internal, infernal, black flakes?

Questions: Why are the Lanthars so expensive today?

[Ernest Purdum]

Regarding Cap Frank's questions, several symmetrical designs are quite tolerant of differences in subject/image ratio. One example is the dialyte, four individual elements with the positive elements front and rear. Examples are the highly regarded 203mm f7.7 Ektar, and several process lenses such as the Apo Artar, Repro-Claron and others. More compact vertical process cameras brought a requirement for lenses of similar characteristics, but greater coverage for a given focal length. The G-Claron was a very successful response to these needs. There are actually two versions of the G-Claron. To gain the increased coverage, it was necessary to go to six elements. Originally, these were all cemented, but later production items have an airspace which gives the designer a little more opportunity for correction. While it is true that its ideal use is at close to 1:1, when stopped down to f22 it gives an image at infinity which is quite acceptable. Many photographers are very pleased to have the small size and weight of the G-Claron and find the small aperture no sacrifice.



I don't know anything to do about the paint problem.



The Apo Lanthar prices are, I think, just one more example of supply and demand. They weren't made for very long, so there are less of them available than there are people who would like to use one. I used a 300mm Apo Lanthar on 4X5 for many years, mostly for product photography, and found it a delight to use. A bright image and lots of coverage are a pleasant combination. Now that shutters for large aperture long focal length lenses are no longer available, I suppose it will remain as the best f4.5 300mm lens available. The smaller sizes have more modern competition, but there are still potential buyers attracted by the lenses' large aperture and fine reputation.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Among the older lenses, from what it sounds like your budget and projected uses are, it's hard to go wrong with the 12" and 14" Goerz Dagors (look for the later coated Gold Dot/Gold Rim versions), coated Red Dot Artars at longer focal lengths, and the Kodak 10" Wide-Field Ektar as a moderate wide-angle with huge coverage. The only downside to these lenses, as I see it, are the older Ilex shutters, which won't give you quite the precision of a new Copal shutter (but not an issue if you are shooting with strobes), and also the odd filter sizes, but you can get adapters.

Front mounting barrel lenses on one big shutter is not a bad idea. I got lucky and picked up a 12" Gold Dot Dagor and 19" Apo-Artar that had the same flange size, so I had an adapter made by S. K. Grimes to use either on the Ilex 5 shutter that normally contains a 10" Wide-Field Ektar. Having three lenses with one shutter and lensboard greatly reduces the bulk and weight of my 8x10" kit, and although it's an older shutter, at least my shutter speeds are consistent from one lens to the other. I don't get any vignetting with the front mount on 8x10", but it is a bit of a restriction on 11x14", so I'll probably eventually have the Dagor and the Artar mounted in their own shutters.

Among the modern lenses from the major manufacturers--Schneider, Rodenstock, Caltar, Fuji, and Nikkor--most are pretty good, and you can select on the basis of the features you like--speed vs. coverage vs. weight/bulk vs. cost.

Newer lenses often have less coverage than some of the older ones (with notable exceptions like the Schneider Super-Symmar and Super-Angulon XL series), but the image circle will tend to be sharper from corner to corner. This has advantages and disadvantages. By restricting the circle of illumination, you get less light bouncing around in the camera that can reduce contrast, and if you're outside the circle of good definition, you'll know it because you can see the vignetting. On the other hand, what if you are taking a photo with no important detail in the corner at the edge of the image circle?--the lack of resolution at the edge of the image circle with an older lens isn't necessarily a disadvantage in such a case, and you might tolerate it if the alternative is mechanical vignetting.

[neil poulsen]

Another well known lens for 8x10 to consider is the Fujinon W 250mm f6.7. (Not the f6.3.) This has an image circle of 389mm, which is sizeable for its lenstype. This is not as good as the WF Ektar 250mm, which has a 410 image circle, or so. But, it's suitable for field work. It's lightweight, compared to other lenses in it's focal length, and it's mounted in a Copal 1 shutter.

[arkadi]

have anything changed here since 2004? Any news or new choices?
I am mostly concerned about optical quality rather than weight or price.

thanks!

[Alan Gales]

have anything changed here since 2004? Any news or new choices?
I am mostly concerned about optical quality rather than weight or price.

thanks!

Here you go for normal to long. http://www.cookeoptics.com/l/xva.html Ari has one and loves it!

I'll buy my copy when I win the lottery! ;)

[Luis-F-S]

If you had to get two lenses, I would push you towards a 240 Dagor and a 480 Artar. These are based on the way I want my prints to look ...;-) but Dagors and Artars are affordable and tend to hold their value well if you decide you prefer another look.

I'd go for a 12" Dagor and the 19" Artar. The 9/12" Dagor is a nice wider lens to the 12", or if you want wider, go with the 8 1/4". If just one lens, then the 12" Dagor. L

[John Kasaian]

I have added only a 12" Dagor and a 15" B&L Petzval magic lantern lens to the 8x10 fleet since '04.
Awesome self control, eh?:rolleyes:

[arkadi]

am I right sensing that basically no one manufactures new lenses for 8x10 and bigger that's why we are left with what was there for decades?

[Steven Tribe]

OK - this thread has arisen from the dead!

Have suggested to the Mods that it has a moving day to the Lens thread.

[ruilourosa]

Well...

I have some lenses for 8x10... an american tessar copy (Ilex Paragon) 375mm, a nikkor-w 300mm, a g claron 240mm, a fuji w 210mm, and a 165mm angulon, apart from flare and color they all look sharp, the angulon is a bit tricky to use but it works...

i even made a 600 ish out of two achromat close ups that works very well for portraits and has a huge coverage...


i think any lens will work, although i would prefer new lenses, i lust for a nikkor 120, a sheneider 150 xl, a fuji 450,

but save some money for film as is expensive as hell


cheers

[IanG]

This thread started just before I bought my first 10x8 camera, I already had a Nikon M 300mm f9. My Agfa Ansco Commercial View came with a 12" f6.8 Am Opt Dagor but the seller a Professor of Photography told me it was useless and had separation and he'd never used it. In fact it was 60+ years dirt around the edges and the lens had been coated post WWII for the original owner who'd studied and taught at the Clarence White school of Photography.

So like others I've been very happy with a 12" Dagor, I also have a 240mm Nikon and a 165mm Super Angulon.

Ian

[Oren Grad]

Have suggested to the Mods that it has a moving day to the Lens thread.

< drags thread toward new home with much huffing and puffing... done! >

Seriously, now: I think the only major change since 2004 is that with the possible exception of occasional batches of the Cooke XVa, all of the lenses marketed for 8x10 are now out of production. There may be some new stock left of a few, particularly Rodenstock, though quoted prices are breathtaking.

[Peter De Smidt]

There the Wollaston meniscus lenses: http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Lenses.html

[Jim Noel]

Mike,

Welcome to 8x10! I'm not knocking new lenses, but I don't feel the least bit disadvantaged with my classic glass. My favorites ("most used"to be more accurate) are the Kodak Wide Field10") and Commercial Ektars( 14"), and Goerz Artars(14" 19" and 24")

For focal lengths, anything from 240mm/10" to 420mm/16-1/2" I would consider "normal" and something in that range would probable be the most useful. For a second or third lens I'd go for something really wide(159mm f/9.5 Wollensak WA) and/or something really long(Goerz 24" Artar.)

For newer lenses, I can recommend the Nikkor f/9 450mm M and the Schneider 240mm G Claron from personal experience, and while I've never used one, I find the 165mm Super Angulon or 155mm Grandagon interesting, though weight/ size/ and price-wise they aren't likely additions to my kit.

The 240mm G-Claron is an especially nice lense: coated, small and light weight in a modern shutter with a useful image circle at f/22, APO, and they go for cheap (so cheap its almost criminal!)

Don't stress over lens selection for 8x10, unless you get something really dreadful, those big negatives will look Great as long as you do your part!

I fully agree with John, and would add that older lenses do not necessarily make softer images. Often the difference is in knowing how to compensate during processing. Many of the lenses which younger people say are not as good were the ones grew up with in the 30's.. Coatings have altered the images making them appear sharper but for me they eliminate the fullness or roundness of objects in the image.

[John Kasaian]

Newer lenses come with newer shutters while old lenses may not come in old shutters, or maybe no shutter at all.
This whimsy, oddly enough, appeals to me.

[Robert Langham]

My favorite is a 250mm Wide-Field Ektar, but I don't take the 8X10 out of the studio. Other lens is a 14 inch Commercial Ektar. I'm mostly using "T" for a shutter speed right now on kinetic still life, with and without flash. Lotta great lenses cheap floating around. I've bought off Ebay with no complaints.

139420

[Luis-F-S]

have anything changed here since 2004?

Yup nearly all 8x10 lenses have been discontinued! L

[jbenedict]

Yup nearly all 8x10 lenses have been discontinued! L

Nearly all LF lenses have been discontinued. :(

I use a 375/6.8 Ilex-Caltar. Works great. It is in a #5 shutter and the continuation of servicing and parts is a concern. Might be better to have something in a modern shutter with modern coatings for the extra money.

[orgraph]

I have bought 8x10 6 month ago and use Color Tamron 240/6.8; Fujinon L 300/5.6; Fujinon l 420/8; Nikkor 600/9
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/877/41377873525_b8239bc37a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/263qqdv)2018-05-20 Ukraine Sh 100 in XTOL 1+2 11 min011-02web (https://flic.kr/p/263qqdv) by Yuriy Sanin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52922077@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/975/27844162338_3e3c0f287a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/JquBos)2018-04-25 Ukraine Foma in DDX 1+4 8 min001-03web (https://flic.kr/p/JquBos) by Yuriy Sanin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52922077@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/832/41948659121_e8290ae87a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/26URQTt)2018-05-06 Ukraine Sh in DDX 1+9 10 min002-002web (https://flic.kr/p/26URQTt) by Yuriy Sanin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52922077@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/874/40471558840_7c569d4725_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/24Ekjrf)2018-05-20 Ukrainr Shanghai 100 in XTOL 1+2 11 min008-012web (https://flic.kr/p/24Ekjrf) by Yuriy Sanin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52922077@N08/), on Flickr

[Mark Sampson]

orgraph, beautiful photographs. You're using your lenses (and camera) well.