PDA

View Full Version : If you could only have one..



rkmiec
19-Oct-2012, 06:46
Lens for 8x10 which would you choose. Keep it under $1000 though.
Curiousity has set in after reading what some were saying about the fujinon 250 w 6.7 lens here.

Mark Stahlke
19-Oct-2012, 06:58
355/9 G-Claron.

Gem Singer
19-Oct-2012, 07:02
Nikon/Nikkor f9 300M.

E. von Hoegh
19-Oct-2012, 07:32
Lens for 8x10 which would you choose. Keep it under $1000 though.
Curiousity has set in after reading what some were saying about the fujinon 250 w 6.7 lens here.

30cm C.P. Goerz Berlin Dagor.

karl french
19-Oct-2012, 08:07
12" Goerz American Optical Dagor.

JosephBurke
19-Oct-2012, 08:10
Regarding the 250 6,7 Fuji....that is my preferred--my second being my 210 Fuji--for mild/moderate wides and general use

Vaughn
19-Oct-2012, 08:18
As much as I am liking my new-to-me Fuji W 250/6.7, I would stick with my Fuji W 300/5.6 if I had to choose. I have found the 300 to be a good all-around focal length for my photography.

However, if I went with a light-weight 8x10 instead of my Zone VI (maybe a camera with a single extension -- perhaps non-folding), the 250/6.7 would be a contender. A lot less glass and perhaps it could stay on the camera while walking around.

Lenny Eiger
19-Oct-2012, 13:39
Normal lens. I currently have a Rodenstock Sironar S. However, I also had a Nikon 300M, which was exactly just as good. The other lens would be a Dagor....

Lenny

Drew Wiley
19-Oct-2012, 14:00
Fuji 360A - though getting one under a K takes some patience, but can be done.

Craig Roberts
19-Oct-2012, 14:26
14-inch commercial ektar

Emil Schildt
19-Oct-2012, 14:29
Under 1000$ is easy...

Deciding isn't..

it's a tie between Cooke 14" sf - 360mm Heliar or 300mm Boyer..

C. D. Keth
19-Oct-2012, 14:42
14-inch commercial ektar

Or a 12". I would be happy with either.

Bill_1856
19-Oct-2012, 18:26
12.5" Zeiss Protar (19" and 23" elements), used by St. Ansel for many of his best images, including Moonrise.
I don't shoot 8x10, but have a beautiful little Dr. Staebl casket set in a tiny little Compound shutter with interchangable front elements giving 105, 135, 165, and 195, plus 220mm if the rear element is used alone .

ic-racer
19-Oct-2012, 18:50
Why choose? For less than $1000 I got all the wide 8x10 Fujinons: 250 6.7, 210 5.6 and 180 5.6

rkmiec
19-Oct-2012, 19:43
Why choose? For less than $1000 I got all the wide 8x10 Fujinons: 250 6.7, 210 5.6 and 180 5.6

That's the rule,choose one.
The only reason i put a cap was to avoid people saying cooked xva or some other over priced exotic dream lens that most of us really can't afford. Plus it is more fun then asking what's the best lens,boring.

Cletus
19-Oct-2012, 20:04
The Rare, the Beautiful and the BIG, Rodenstock Sironar W 210/5.6!

Daniel Stone
19-Oct-2012, 20:09
10" Wide Field Ektar

That's IF I only wanted to run with (1) lens.

But personally I prefer the rendering of my Dagors and Red-Dot Artar's

but if only 1 lens, definitely the 10" WFE

-Dan

Jody_S
19-Oct-2012, 20:17
Symmar 210 or Fuji 'A'-series 240. More for a modern shutter than for the unique properties of the lens, but both are excellent. In fact, as soon as I have a few $$$ to spare, I'm buying one or the other.

ic-racer
19-Oct-2012, 20:27
That's the rule,choose one.
The only reason i put a cap was to avoid people saying cooked xva or some other over priced exotic dream lens that most of us really can't afford. Plus it is more fun then asking what's the best lens,boring.

Ok, forced to choose one I'd go with the Fujinon 210/5.6 80 degree lens.

Mark Stahlke
19-Oct-2012, 21:45
The Rare, the Beautiful and the BIG, Rodenstock Sironar W 210/5.6!That's an excellent choice too!

Mark Sawyer
20-Oct-2012, 00:14
If you could only have one lens for 8x10...

...I would shatter a window and gouge my eyes out with the shards of glass, then pour tabasco sauce in the sockets and scrub it around with a wire brush, then pour gasoline in the holes and set it on fire and run around the room screaming.

Just sayin'...

Brian Ellis
20-Oct-2012, 05:18
210mm G-Claron. It was my most-used 8x10 lens. From reading the specs you'd think it doesn't cover 8x10 but it does and then some when stopped down to about f/16 or smaller.

rkmiec
20-Oct-2012, 06:27
...I would shatter a window and gouge my eyes out with the shards of glass, then pour tabasco sauce in the sockets and scrub it around with a wire brush, then pour gasoline in the holes and set it on fire and run around the room screaming.

Just sayin'...

Glad I wasn't drinking something the moment I read this. Hilarious.

karl french
20-Oct-2012, 07:45
Ansel used a Cooke series XV for Moonrise.
You're unlikely to find a 210/5.6 Sironar W for less than 1K.

Just about any modern 300mm plasmat can be had used for less than $1000 lens days. Good for buyers, bad for sellers.

Though I'm currently mildly obsessed with Dagors, I have to say, just based on the bulk of everything else involved with 8x10 the very small size and weight of the Fujinon C 300mm f8.5 would be hard to part with.

tgtaylor
20-Oct-2012, 08:34
360mm Schneider Symmar-S. I lucked out and picked up one off ebay for a very good price but when they do appear they are priced below $1000. This is an excellent lens that works perfectly for landscape and portrait. Equivalent to an 180mm on 4x5 or 60mm on a 35. Allows for all the movements that your 8x10 can deliver and then some.

E. von Hoegh
20-Oct-2012, 08:49
...I would shatter a window and gouge my eyes out with the shards of glass, then pour tabasco sauce in the sockets and scrub it around with a wire brush, then pour gasoline in the holes and set it on fire and run around the room screaming.

Just sayin'...

It would be much more impressive were you to just sit there, calmly and quietly.

John Kasaian
20-Oct-2012, 09:00
A 14" Commercial Ektar because for the longest time that was all I had and the combination of huge coverage and speed more than offset it's bulk & wieght. A more difficult choice would be between a 240mm G Claron and a 10" 250mm Wide Field Ektar(I have both!)

Sal Santamaura
20-Oct-2012, 09:16
I'd keep the 270mm G-Claron I bought brand new, from Schneider's last stock, a few years ago for just over $700. Since I'm an "everything in sharp focus" person, the G-Claron's reported less than perfect out of focus rendering doesn't impact my work. It has all the coverage I can use when it's stopped down, even for 8x10, and is light weight (in a Copal 1 shutter). I have no idea what the used price would be today; mine's not for sale.

It is unfortunate that there are no other 8x10 lenses, at least that I'm aware of, in this focal length. Just like a 135mm on 4x5, a 270mm on 8x10 is 7/8 of the format's diagonal. That provides the angle of view I like best for rendering space.

E. von Hoegh
20-Oct-2012, 10:42
I'd keep the 270mm G-Claron I bought brand new, from Schneider's last stock, a few years ago for just over $700. Since I'm an "everything in sharp focus" person, the G-Claron's reported less than perfect out of focus rendering doesn't impact my work. It has all the coverage I can use when it's stopped down, even for 8x10, and is light weight (in a Copal 1 shutter). I have no idea what the used price would be today; mine's not for sale.

It is unfortunate that there are no other 8x10 lenses, at least that I'm aware of, in this focal length. Just like a 135mm on 4x5, a 270mm on 8x10 is 7/8 of the format's diagonal. That provides the angle of view I like best for rendering space.

270mm/10 3/4" Dagor.

Sal Santamaura
20-Oct-2012, 11:00
270mm/10 3/4" Dagor.Interesting. A little poking around reveals it was in an Ilex 4, but I find no eBay listings to indicate what they've sold for. What is a typical price for one? Are they coated? Rare as 270mm G-Clarons seem to be, 10-3/4 inch Dagors might be even more uncommon.

goamules
20-Oct-2012, 11:51
I'd be hard pressed to decide between a 12 inch Dagor, or a 14 inch Petzval.

premortho
20-Oct-2012, 13:43
Well, I'm one of the few on this forum who can only afford one 8X10 lens. I picked the most versatile (triple convertable) lens I could find. A turner-reich 12-21-27. I only use the first two. A Packard shutter handles the timing of the light for me.

Vaughn
20-Oct-2012, 13:53
Well, I'm one of the few on this forum who can only afford one 8X10 lens. I picked the most versatile (triple convertable) lens I could find. A turner-reich 12-21-27. I only use the first two. A Packard shutter handles the timing of the light for me.

And good enough! I think my choice of the Fuji W 300/5.6 is partly based on the fact that it was my only 8x10 lens for many many years. Other lenses have slowly come my way (sell a print, buy a lens -- if I already had film!)

But this was taken with a TR 12-21-28 on 8x10 (in a shutter, though)...using the 28"...

mdm
20-Oct-2012, 14:38
Photography is a simple pleasure, less is more. All the stuff only detracts from the wow moment, when you press the shutter, look at the developed negative in the fixer, see a wet print in the light.

Cletus
20-Oct-2012, 15:26
mdm - I was a subscriber to that very philosophy - minimalist, less is more - for a good part of my time as a photographer. Then, I got into large format, thinking to maintain that paradigm and keep only the barest essentials to make and print photographs that I would be happy with.

It's a nice thought too, but SOOOOOO difficult to stick too! I don't even consider myself a 'gearhead' either (and ALL of us have had our occasional bouts of GAS) but as time goes on, my kit, cameras and darkroom just continues to grow and grow. Getting off topic a bit here I know, but I seem to find there's always something else I need; a new lens, piece of darkroom gear, etc., in order to continue to meet the demands I set upon myself to fulfill my photographic vision. Ad it never ends! Or almost never anyway.

Maybe this should be the subject of a new thread, but: Don't you ever feel the need for some additional piece of gear, or new camera, or what have you, for no other reason than to accomplish whatever you're trying to accomplish photographically? I think there's a difference between lusting after cameras just for the joy of owning them, and seeking out cameras or gear because without them, you just can't do what you need to do...

Anyway, back to the original topic, sorry for running off on a tangent there!

Corran
20-Oct-2012, 16:03
I think there's a difference between lusting after cameras just for the joy of owning them, and seeking out cameras or gear because without them, you just can't do what you need to do...

Yes, exactly. Not to further derail this but I hate when people call me a "gearhead" just because I've got many cameras and lots of lenses. Sometimes you need X tool and if you don't have it, you can't do what you want. That's all there is to it.

Anyway, I think I use my 210mm Graphic Kowa the most, or my Nikkor-M 300mm, so one of those. Or both, since they only cost about $800 total so that's still under the $1k budget ;).

BradS
20-Oct-2012, 20:05
In fact, I have only one lens for 8x10 - a 300mm Xenar

premortho
21-Oct-2012, 06:29
Vaughn, I never used the long cell of my Turner-Reich because the experts on here convinced me of what trash it was. That pic of Yosa-might falls has changed my mind. My goodness, 3 useable focal lengths for around a hundred bucks...imagine! Now to address the other issue brought up here. So called GAS. Just because I only shoot landscapes, still lifes, and an occasional portrait, does not mean others don't have changing situations that require different gear. I do the Minimilist approach because that's the way I see my work...Doesn't work for everyone.

Ole Tjugen
21-Oct-2012, 06:54
Only one???

Oh well - if casket sets are out, then I'd take a 240mm Symmar convertible. Just to have two in one.

Diane Maher
21-Oct-2012, 08:17
Based on the restrictions applied by the OP, then I'd have to decide between a 450 mm Nikkor-M and a 240 mm Docter and I wouldn't want to, since both are really great lenses. Based on price, I wouldn't have to (or at least not at the prices I got them). I will even add my Kodak 203 mm f/7.7 in this list - I use it on my 5x12 and it is a great little lens.

Sorry, I couldn't keep it to just one lens! :cool:

Vaughn
21-Oct-2012, 10:39
Vaughn, I never used the long cell of my Turner-Reich because the experts on here convinced me of what trash it was. That pic of Yosa-might falls has changed my mind. My goodness, 3 useable focal lengths for around a hundred bucks...imagine!...

A couple of 'issues' with using it at 28":

Bellows! On the Zone IV, at infinity, I have to put the front and back standards on the very last tooth of the geared rails. (But my Kodak 2D will allow for closer focus).

I did use an orange filter (taped onto the front of the shutter, cell mounted behind the shutter). The single cells are anti-apochromatic (if that is a word!LOL!) Blue light is focused in a much different plane than the other wavelengths. Eliminate much of the blue light and one eliminates much of the problem (and gain darker skies, if so desired)

It is a contact print -- I suppose using a single cell on a 4x5 and trying to enlarge to 16x20 might show excessive softness...but I did not notice any softening in the platinum/palladium print (which are not the sharpest way to reproduce an image to begin with).

I used the 28" cell to photograph a lunar eclipse (5x7 back on the 2D), no filter used and the cell behind the shutter. An exposure every 10 minutes. On the 5th exposure, the cold night air (just outside Yosa-mighty) froze up the shutter and it did not close, the shutter stayed open for ten minutes -- I discovered it trying to start the next exposure. So, a few images of the moon coming out of totality, then a long white streak! Your Packard shutter could probably handle it. I'll put on a filter just to protect my shutter from the cold and damp next time!

Minimilist is a valid approach. In a universe of infinite possibilities, any 'restrictions' placed upon oneself by limiting one's gear will still result in an infinite number of possible images!

Vaughn

Me waiting to take the photo of the Falls (image from the Fresno Bee):

David R Munson
21-Oct-2012, 11:04
240mm somethingorather

rkmiec
21-Oct-2012, 13:51
I don't mind the high jacks,I like learning and for those that are hard pressed to decided I don't mind a second choice.

Vaughn
21-Oct-2012, 15:54
Without the hijacks, many a thread would be sooooo boring! :)

For the record, i try not to hijack a thread until the question is well answered or is getting long in the tooth.

Erik Larsen
21-Oct-2012, 16:05
A couple of 'issues' with using it at 28":

Bellows! On the Zone IV, at infinity, I have to put the front and back standards on the very last tooth of the geared rails. (But my Kodak 2D will allow for closer focus).

I did use an orange filter (taped onto the front of the shutter, cell mounted behind the shutter). The single cells are anti-apochromatic (if that is a word!LOL!) Blue light is focused in a much different plane than the other wavelengths. Eliminate much of the blue light and one eliminates much of the problem (and gain darker skies, if so desired)

It is a contact print -- I suppose using a single cell on a 4x5 and trying to enlarge to 16x20 might show excessive softness...but I did not notice any softening in the platinum/palladium print (which are not the sharpest way to reproduce an image to begin with).

I used the 28" cell to photograph a lunar eclipse (5x7 back on the 2D), no filter used and the cell behind the shutter. An exposure every 10 minutes. On the 5th exposure, the cold night air (just outside Yosa-mighty) froze up the shutter and it did not close, the shutter stayed open for ten minutes -- I discovered it trying to start the next exposure. So, a few images of the moon coming out of totality, then a long white streak! Your Packard shutter could probably handle it. I'll put on a filter just to protect my shutter from the cold and damp next time!

Minimilist is a valid approach. In a universe of infinite possibilities, any 'restrictions' placed upon oneself by limiting one's gear will still result in an infinite number of possible images!

Vaughn

Me waiting to take the photo of the Falls (image from the Fresno Bee):

Nice skirt you're wearing there Vaughn:)

premortho
22-Oct-2012, 04:24
HAH...maybe it's a kilt, or some other Celtic article of clothing.

Vaughn
22-Oct-2012, 07:24
HAH...maybe it's a kilt, or some other Celtic article of clothing.

LOL! Just my usual hiking shorts.

But if it would not be so unusal and stand-outish (and if I was Scottish, and not of half English/half German descent), I would wear a kilt -- seems totally practical to me. As it is I wear shorts about 330 days a year.

neil poulsen
22-Oct-2012, 21:32
Probably a 355 G-Claron. It would be a nice compromise between bellows draw and using a (moderate) wide-angle for all photos.

SAShruby
23-Oct-2012, 06:38
Lens for 8x10 which would you choose. Keep it under $1000 though.
Curiousity has set in after reading what some were saying about the fujinon 250 w 6.7 lens here.

Is it for landscape or portrait work?
For landscape you want wider lens. For portrait you want longer lens, preferably soft focus lens. Aim for two. if you're patient you can by both cheap than averave ebay price. Even Hermagis or Cooke. it's only one odd misplaced Ebay thread on italian Ebay site :).

Arne Croell
25-Oct-2012, 09:47
I'd keep the 270mm G-Claron I bought brand new, from Schneider's last stock, a few years ago for just over $700. Since I'm an "everything in sharp focus" person, the G-Claron's reported less than perfect out of focus rendering doesn't impact my work. It has all the coverage I can use when it's stopped down, even for 8x10, and is light weight (in a Copal 1 shutter). I have no idea what the used price would be today; mine's not for sale.

It is unfortunate that there are no other 8x10 lenses, at least that I'm aware of, in this focal length. Just like a 135mm on 4x5, a 270mm on 8x10 is 7/8 of the format's diagonal. That provides the angle of view I like best for rendering space.
Docter Apo-Germinar S 270mm f/11, 75° coverage.

Sal Santamaura
25-Oct-2012, 09:56
Docter Apo-Germinar S 270mm f/11, 75° coverage.From a post of yours here more than seven years ago:


"There was a Germinar S that was a 270mm f/11 (not f/9), covering 75° and multicoated. It needs some adaption work to be put into a shutter though, its not a direct fit. S stood for specialty lens, so if the Germinar W is rare, the S is the rarest of the rare. I have never seen one personally."

So I guess I'll stick with the (slightly brighter) 270mm f/9 G-Claron I've got. Unless you've since found that Apo-Germinar S and want to sell it to me for a song. :D

Tracy Storer
25-Oct-2012, 15:29
There are lots and lots of choices, depending on what you like to shoot. My most used 8x10 lens lately is my 11 3/4" Heliar, but that's because I like the short focus near wide open. If I were doing more scenic type work, a 10 3/4" Dagor or 305 G-Claron would probably be it. If you can only afford one, choose based on the work you want to do.

Arne Croell
25-Oct-2012, 23:27
Re Germinar S 270mm:

I've seen two on the German ebay last year, of which I own one. But I am not selling.... They need a Copal 3, front cell is a direct fit, the back cell needs a machined adapter.

Vaughn
26-Oct-2012, 06:21
And there is the line from a song sang by Bob Denver...

I'd no more love just one kind of woman
Than drink only one kind of wine.

Erik Larsen
26-Oct-2012, 08:15
And there is the line from a song sang by Bob Denver...

I'd no more love just one kind of woman
Than drink only one kind of wine.

Gilligan was a genius!:)

Alan Gales
26-Oct-2012, 10:40
Gilligan was a genius!:)

He wasn't that smart. Two single women on the island and he slept with the skipper!

Alan Gales
26-Oct-2012, 10:47
I like my Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar best. My Fujinon 250mm F/6.7 is a great lens though and only cost me half as much money!