A Lens For 8X10, Cost Less Than $100, That You Use Regularly?

[desertrat]

This was inspired by the thread, "If you could only have one".

Mainly because, if you could get a few lenses for less than $100 each, or equivalent in other currency, you wouldn't have to limit yourself to just one.

In the past year, I've managed to buy several lenses on Ebay for less than $100 each, and have enjoyed cleaning them up, getting the shutters to work well enough to be usable, and trying them out. They give images entirely satisfactory for my needs, though for some them only in certain situations.

The lens I've used the most recently is a Wollensak series I Velostigmat in a single lever pneumatic shutter.

So if you are using a lens fairly regularly that you paid very little for, tell us about it if you're not ashamed to.

This might give me ideas on what to look for on my next Ebay bottom trawling expedition. :D

[Jody_S]

9-1/2" German Dagor in non-working shutter, about $45 - my main go-to lens
240mm Rodenstock Apo-Gerogon, about $40 -process lens, but razor-sharp and a great wide angle for when I need movements
6" Darlot lever-stop wide angle, about $75

I've never paid more than $100 for a LF lens, with one exception (my SA 90/8).

[jcoldslabs]

One of my favorite lenses for 8x10 is a Bausch & Lomb 9" Cinephor projection Petzval. Paid about $25, I think. This week I bought an 11" R&J Beck whole plate rapid rectilinear for $40. We'll see how that one does.

I wish I'd known years ago how affordable getting into 8x10 on the low end can be. My camera (Kodak 2D) cost me $150, most of my lenses less than $50 per, and my sheets cut from rolls of old aerial film work out to pennies each. It is cheaper for me to shoot 8x10 than 4x5 these days!

Jonathan

[Dan Dozer]

My Ilex Projection Petzval I got from Jim Galli for about $65. I use only the front half as a meniscus type of lens and love it for portrait work.

[desertrat]

Very cool! I thought I was pretty good at scrounging, but I see I've been beat by a mile. I was happy to get my lenses for less than $100, but there were no dagors or Rodenstocks. They were Wallys and off brands.

About the whole plate RR, I got a whole plate Wally RR in an early 2 blade shutter Regno for less than $20 because some of the shutter parts were in a separate bag. Somebody had broken the shaft off the cocking lever but I was able to make a replacement out of a piece of thick mild steel wire. After getting the shutter back together and getting it working, I mounted it on the 8X10 Seneca. The glass was in great shape, and it illuminated the whole GG just fine. But as might be expected, image quality at the edges and corners wasn't the greatest because the lens just wasn't designed to be a wide angle. At f64 the edges didn't look too awful bad, and I intend to shoot with it to see what a print looks like.

I should have bought some expired Aero film when it was available. But X-ray film is pretty cheap. If I can find any more aero film at a good price, I may buy some.

[jcoldslabs]

Yeah, my Beck RR gets mushy in the corners wide open, but that isn't always a bad thing, especially for portraits.

The old aerial film is hit or miss. Some of it is meant for producing direct positives and doesn't work well with regular chemistry, and most of the stuff I use is painfully slow (EI 1.5.) and is blue-sensitive. But, like x-ray film, it is cheap and fun to experiment with. I save my "real," four-bucks-a-shot Kodak and Ilford film for those times when I need full tonality and faster speeds.

Jonathan

[Frank Petronio]

A better question would be which ones in a working, usable shutter are under $100? And which of the old, oddball shutters are good bets for functionality?

[ruilourosa]

I bought a 240mm g-claron in barrel for around 40€ and a compur 1 for the same value and i just tranfered the cells for the shutter, cheap and high quality!

[E. von Hoegh]

9-1/2" German Dagor in non-working shutter, about $45 - my main go-to lens
240mm Rodenstock Apo-Gerogon, about $40 -process lens, but razor-sharp and a great wide angle for when I need movements
6" Darlot lever-stop wide angle, about $75

I've never paid more than $100 for a LF lens, with one exception (my SA 90/8).

If your Dagor is marked "9 1/2" " it isn't German.

I got a 9 1/2" Goerz New York Dagor at a camera show, it was marked $49 but I traded a Nikkor 35mm lens for it. With flange, in an early Compound. The only problem was a 5/16" gouge right in the center of the rear glass, I filled that with india ink, and it performs the same as a 240mm CPG Berlin Dagor (in barrel) of the same vintage

[John Kasaian]

A Rapid Rectilinear for $40, which I took apart and can't get back together--I lost three of the itty bitty screws:(
Then there is the 15" B&L pretzel which cost me all of $20.
The 240mm G Claron in barrel was just under $100 but the cost of putting it in a Copal shutter put it over the the top.

[desertrat]

A better question would be which ones in a working, usable shutter are under $100? And which of the old, oddball shutters are good bets for functionality?
I only have a few data points, but I'll share what I have.

All of my under $100 lenses came in Wollensak pneumatic shutters. None except one of them were working properly as received. The earlier shutters have two external cylinders, the later ones have cylinders inside the shutter. They are fairly easy to work on, but getting them to work more or less properly requires a lot of tinkering. Sometimes the screws holding the two halves together have to be not quite snug, or the blades will drag. One of mine had shims between the two halves, very difficult to keep in place while assembling the shutter, and it wouldn't work properly without them.

Most of the slow speeds are fairly consistent, but nowhere near the marked values. The speed cams on the dial set models do not have steps, so intermediate speeds can be selected.

If you like or need the precision of a Copal or Compur, you will not be happy with these shutters. If you are comfortable working with a Packard, most of my cheap pneumatic shutters work fine on T, B, and at least one instantaneous speed, which I think is the rough equivalent of a Packard. One of my shutters, missing a lot of parts, works only on B, but I figured how to lock it open with a small screwdriver for focusing.

I do have one pneumatic shutter that worked perfectly as received. It is my oldest one, marked Rauber & Wollensak Opt. Co. After examining the lens, shutter, and flange, I don't think it was ever mounted on a camera or used. The flange doesn't have a mark on it, the shutter only has some dust. The R.O.C. symmetrical lens unfortunately has some small circular scratches on the center of the rear element, probably from improper storage. The cell rims don't extend quite far enough beyond the lens crowns to protect them.

[jnantz]

i have a few, that i paid less than 50$ for
but now they have a value that is well over 50$

[premortho]

My God...I'm a spendthrift. And I was so proud of myself for getting a Turner-Reich triple convertable 12-21-28 for $110.00 plus a Packard shutter for $28.00...My father was right when he told me I understood as much about economics as a pig understands about Christmas----oh woe is me

[Stephanie Brim]

I was looking at that lens on Ebay a while ago. There's one going for $225 BIN, with a $150 starting bid. I know it covers 8x10. It's tempting, but I don't have the dosh at the moment. Heh. How is it?

[premortho]

Couldn't have been this one, I've had it 2-3 years. Mine is a barrel lens. That one must have a functioning shutter for that kind of money. Mine takes good photos, but it's of course un-coated, so you have to watch out for flare. I only do contact prints in 8X10, and it's pretty awsome for that. In all three focal lengths. It really works well with paper negs and x-ray film, because it was made for orthochromatic film. The 28 inch length is an really not an anastigmat, so focuses better for ortho than for pan film. For pan film, you should set the lens back about .04 (If I remember correctly) of the bellows extension you are using in order to focus the red light rays correctly. The easier way to do this in landscapes at the kind of distances you'd use a 28 inch lens would be to focus right smack dab in the middle of the in focus range, then shorten it up until you are close to going out of focus, and shoot it from there.

[desertrat]

I was looking at that lens on Ebay a while ago. There's one going for $225 BIN, with a $150 starting bid. I know it covers 8x10. It's tempting, but I don't have the dosh at the moment. Heh. How is it?
I just looked at that auction. I think that lens is overpriced for a 5X7 T-R triple. Also, based on my experience, it may not cover 8X10 using both cells. I have two of these, and the later ones don't cover as wide an angle as the early ones. The single cells probably would cover 8X10, but you would need to stop them well down to get decent image quality. I would recommend getting an 8X10 T-R. They come up fairly regularly, but as with most old LF lenses, only one in 10 or 20 has a decent starting bid. You should be able to get a nice one for about $200, and an ugly but working one for a little over a $100.

There's a lot of old classic glass in 12" to 13" focal length that would give you good images:

Ilex Paragon f 6.3
Ilex-Caltar f 6.3 (same lens as above)
Wollensak Velostigmat series 1 or series 1a in f6.8 or f6.3
The series 1 is a Royal Anastigmat, renamed. The series 1a is a copy of a Zeiss series VIIa Protar.

If you're patient, several of these should turn up in the next couple of months on the 'bay.

There are lots more old classic lenses than these, but many have 'cult' status and collectors and enthusiasts bid them up to outrageous amounts. The ones I mentioned aren't desired by the collectors, but can give good images, if you get one that doesn't have any serious problems.

[Kirk Fry]

I have bought G-Clarons 355, 240 and 210 for all for less than $100 back in the day before they were "discovered" during the period when all the copy cameras were trashed. The one surprise was a Zeiss 210 Tessar from pre-1920 in a vintage dial set copal that surprisingly also covers 8X10 that I got for less than $100. All of these lenses make nice images on 8x10.

[Stephanie Brim]

I just looked at that auction. I think that lens is overpriced for a 5X7 T-R triple. Also, based on my experience, it may not cover 8X10 using both cells. I have two of these, and the later ones don't cover as wide an angle as the early ones. The single cells probably would cover 8X10, but you would need to stop them well down to get decent image quality. I would recommend getting an 8X10 T-R. They come up fairly regularly, but as with most old LF lenses, only one in 10 or 20 has a decent starting bid. You should be able to get a nice one for about $200, and an ugly but working one for a little over a $100.

There's a lot of old classic glass in 12" to 13" focal length that would give you good images:

Ilex Paragon f 6.3
Ilex-Caltar f 6.3 (same lens as above)
Wollensak Velostigmat series 1 or series 1a in f6.8 or f6.3
The series 1 is a Royal Anastigmat, renamed. The series 1a is a copy of a Zeiss series VIIa Protar.

If you're patient, several of these should turn up in the next couple of months on the 'bay.

There are lots more old classic lenses than these, but many have 'cult' status and collectors and enthusiasts bid them up to outrageous amounts. The ones I mentioned aren't desired by the collectors, but can give good images, if you get one that doesn't have any serious problems.

The 300mm Tessar-type I have is a Bausch & Lomb. I've been looking for that particular company, too, since they're not really sought after. There's an interesting RR in Unicum shutter on there right now ending Monday, but there's no mention of focal length which makes me not want to jump on it.

I think that people are seeing that people will pay big for brass lenses and they're starting to list what appear to be no-name ones at outrageous prices. Heh. I don't have time to stalk Ebay anymore, but I've added a couple more to my watch list. :P

[jnantz]

SNIP

I have bought G-Clarons 355, 240 and 210 for all for less than $100 back in the day before they were "discovered" ...
exactly .
in the 80s + 90s a lot of barrel lenses sold for nothing ..
now, the same lenses sell for large sums ...
if i was to buy the optics i use these days,
i wouldn't be able to afford it .

[premortho]

Yes, jnanian is right. If I had to spend what that e-bay guy wants for a Turner-Reich Triple Convertable, I'd be out of the market. I'd be looking for a rapid rectilinear, maybe barrel mounted for short money. Or an acromat landscape lens, maybe with rotary stops or even waterhouse stops. They all take pictures. It's a rare photographer that uses an 8X10 for snapshots...so how fast a lens is, or how many instant speeds it has can all be worked around by choice of negative emulsions. Maybe because I've used a Packard shutter for so many years, I take a lighthearted look at more sophisticated shutters.

[desertrat]

I've seen a few bargains on Ebay in the last several months. I saw two 14" f9 (or f10) process lenses in barrel go for less than $10 each. One was an Ilex, the other was made by Brown Manufacturing Company. The glass looked fairly decent in each. I think 14" is about the minimum focal length in a process lens that will cover 8X10 decently.

If I didn't already have a 15" Wolly process lens, I would have bid on one or both of them.

The bargains are still there on Ebay, they just don't come up very often. I think a bargain 8X10 lens comes up about once a month.

I recently won an auction for a 6-1/2 X 8-1/2 T-R triple in a pneumatic shutter for about $85. It has a pretty ugly looking separation in the front group, leaving only about 1/2 the lens diameter clear. But the separation is at the rear of the group, quite close to the diaphragm, so it doesn't cause a problem with the lens stopped down. It covers 8X10 better than I hoped. No vignetting and at f22 the image quality in the corners is more than satisfactory for the contact prints I make. No problems with low contrast.

If I want the equivalent of a 270 mm lens for an 8X10 negative, that's the one I'll use.

[Frank Petronio]

I wonder how many of the $$$$$$$$$ gems sold by Galli, Eddie, Tribe were purchased for less than $100? I'll duck now....

[C. D. Keth]

I wonder how many of the $$$$$$$$$ gems sold by Galli, Eddie, Tribe were purchased for less than $100? I'll duck now....

Plenty, I'm sure. I left LF for a few years and in those few years I've noticed lenses that were $50-$100 selling now for $300-$400. An example would be a nice looking but unnamed projection petzval.

[Thebes]

I have a Repromaster 1:9.25/213 that I think I paid about 60 plus shipping for from fleabay.
Huge coverage (nearly covers 11x14), sharp and contrasty, absurdly good. If it came in a shutter it would have cost ten times as much.
The only thing I don't like is the five bladed iris, if I'm using a barrel lens I expect a nicer iris.
Still, its been my most used 8x10 lens.

[Jody_S]

I have a Repromaster 1:9.25/213 that I think I paid about 60 plus shipping for from fleabay.
Huge coverage (nearly covers 11x14), sharp and contrasty, absurdly good. If it came in a shutter it would have cost ten times as much.
The only thing I don't like is the five bladed iris, if I'm using a barrel lens I expect a nicer iris.
Still, its been my most used 8x10 lens.

I have one of those too, in fact I got a batch of 4 similar lenses for some ridiculous price 2 years ago. I think $7 or something. It is an amazingly good lens for the price, and they still come up under a couple of names fairly often.

[Mark Sawyer]

The repro/process lenses can almost always be found at relative bargain prices; I'm fond of Konica GR II's and Eskofot Ultragons. But given the commitment (other equipment, effort, full darkroom, skill/knowledge acquisition...) it takes, it would seem a shame to short yourself on one of the most important variables in the whole equation. Everyone should have one or two fine lenses that fit their way of seeing without compromise.

One fortunate thing about large format photography is that it is still enough of an anomaly that when you run across an 8x10 lens in the "real world" (away from ebay, this forum, etc.), it can be quite a bargain. Keep your eyes open, they're still out there...

All that said, my first (and only for many years) 8x10 lens was a $50 (in 1978) Velostigmat 9.5" Series II in a Studio Shutter, and I never felt held back. It's still an often-used favorite, though I have an embarrassing wealth of "better" lenses.

[MMELVIS]

Got a great deal from a board member on a 210mm F9 Eskofot Ultragon for $75, the lens is in mint condition. Mounted the lens in a Frank J Curry 4s Flap Shutter.

[erie patsellis]

One fortunate thing about large format photography is that it is still enough of an anomaly that when you run across an 8x10 lens in the "real world" (away from ebay, this forum, etc.), it can be quite a bargain. Keep your eyes open, they're still out there...

All that said, my first (and only for many years) 8x10 lens was a $50 (in 1978) Velostigmat 9.5" Series II in a Studio Shutter, and I never felt held back. It's still an often-used favorite, though I have an embarrassing wealth of "better" lenses.

Yup, just last week I bought a 12" Wollensak Anastigmat (with a fuzzalator
Dial) a Betax for $25.00. It needs a good cleaning, oil on the innermost elements and the shutter needs a CLA. A fluke,but I'm not complaining.

[cyberjunkie]

Wow!
25 USD for 12" Wolly soft-focus is a true steal, even if it's in need of a good CLA!
I thought i payed very little for my very clean one... but it was 10 times more expensive.

I have my own extra-good deal, though:
if we turn $ into €, i payed 100 euros a very good Cooke knuckler (10.5" series IIE)... PLUS a 4x5 Kodak Master View, a 135mm convertible Symmar, and a medium sized Brandani universal lens holder.
That was 2 years ago, on Ebay. Not a private sale!

Recently there are less bargains, and there is an increase of professional vendors selling at inflated prices.
The main culprit is Ebay itself, which allows endless relisting, practically free.
The bulk of LF lenses are sold that way, so many casual sellers are brought to think that's easy to get those prices.
Nevertheless, there are still good finds. The previous posts seem to confirm it.
Better snatch them when it's still possible. :)
Lately i even purchased a wide angle for a non-existant (future?) 11x14" camera: €40 for a Rodenstock Apo Graphigon 270mm.
I must remember that the border between bargain hunting and GAS is VERY blurred :)

cheers

CJ

[erie patsellis]

It gets better CJ, three weeks ago, I met with an older couple about her grandfather's old studio equipment that had been sitting in an attic for over 30 years. For $200 and 3 mounted and matted prints I bought a Century 4a, with a semi centennial stand, a(nother...) 12" wolly SF, a 159 12.5, 8 1/2 and 12 inch Commercial Ektars, 3 boxes of other cameras (including 5 Yashica TLRs, a Lynx 14 and about a dozen older folders, some with film still in them!!!!), several split backs, a Conley shutter, the list goes on. Time to buy a lottery ticket I think.

[Andy Eads]

I once bought a Burke & James 4x5 camera on eBay. The description said nothing about a lens but the photos showed a hint of what appeared to be a large lens. The photos and description were both bad so it sold for a bargain $65. The camera did indeed have a lens, a 240 mm Caltar (Symmar S) f/5.6 in a Copal 3 shutter. It had a thick layer of second hand smoke and dust on it but it cleaned up just fine. There are a number of minor coating marks but they don't seem to affect anything. It's a perfect portrait focal length on 4x5 and covers 8x10 with limited movements by f/22. I have to chalk up my good fortune to a bit of a gamble but it is a lens that cost me less than $100.