I desire to browse this selection of lenses
Attachment 159430
Printable View
I desire to browse this selection of lenses
Attachment 159430
I need to send the little green men to that chap's house.Quote:
Originally Posted by stawastawa
I have one that looks rather like the lens by his left hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by stawastawa
.
I need to shoot 8x10 more. 4x5 is so much easier for hiking that I default to it, and with good technique and my Cezanne the resolution increase from 8x10 IMO is practically nil when shot 2-3 stops smaller for DOF concerns.
That said my Nikkor 120mm f/8 is probably my most-used lens, or equally used has been my Graphic Kowa 210mm f/9. I have been favoring more normal lately so 210/300 probably will be more common now in my new environment.
Most desired? I really would love to try a 75mm Hypergon on a custom P&S style camera. Probably not going to happen unless I luck into one at an estate/garage sale, but that's how I've gotten a lot of rare stuff so you never know. Would be better in the swamps than the mountains I think though. I could probably shoot nothing but ultrawides in the swamps of Florida and be happy.
The Lens stash................Attachment 159445
Most used on 8x10: 12" Golden Dagor, 9 1/2" Golden Dagor, 6 1/2" WA Dagor, 16 1/2", 19", 24" & 30" Artar.
On 5x7: 9 1/2" Golden Dagor, 8 1/4 Golden Dagor, 4 3/8" WA Dagor, 14" 19" Artar.
on 4x5: 8 1/2", 6" Golden Dagor, 4 3/8" Dagor, 9 1/2", 12", 14", 16 1/2", 19" Artars.
Makes a great door stop doesn't it? I think I have one too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net
My current most used for the 8x10 'dorff:
240 Schneider G Claron----Lightweight, and in a modern shutter plus takes common size screw in filters from my Nikon SLR. It's small enough to ride inside the 'dorff with the lens board reversed, qualities I find most advantageous for hiking. Very sharp, too.
250 Kodak WF Ektar----A lovely lens with a huge image circle, great for architecture as well as portraits, IMHO. Fast enough for low light photography.
12" Goerz Dagor----Hey, it's a Dagor! Like the G Claron it is small enough to stow aboard the camera.
14" Commercial Ektar----Another lovely lens with a huge image circle and fast enough for low light.
19" Goerz Red Dot Artar----the long lens in my kit. Very sharp! This one also fits in situ in the 'dorff.
I've collected some others over the years, but these are my most used.
I wonder how they might print on orthochromatic film? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Galli
MY most used lens on 8x10 is 10 3/4" Dagor. Coming in second is the 14" Dagor. The 12" Dagor stays in the case most of the time. The 19"Artar gets a little use. Other than these I use my no name,shutterless brass lenses usually.
I own three 8x10 lenses: Fujinon 250mm f/6.7, 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar and 19" Red Dot Artar. My most used is my 14" Commercial Ektar.
If I win the lottery I'd like to try out a Cooke Triple Convertible, a 14" Dagor and a 14" Heliar.
The lens I use the most on 8x10 is not even supposed to cover the format.....APO Symmar 210 5.6 @ F-22 or F-32.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
The Fujinon W 180mm covers 8X10 as well as many of their longer lenses. I would not call it SUPER wide, but it's pretty wide. It has an 80 degree angle of coverage! There is a chart/graphic at:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/fujigraph.htm
Probably 90% of my LF work is done on 5X7. But I use the 8X10 Rochester Commercial View occasionally. I have two lenses for it. One is a Russian version of a Zeiss which is too heavy for my camera. So,in reality, I only have a Turner-Reich triple convertable in 12, 21, and 28, which has a Packard Shutter controlling exposure. The Packard is an IBT shutter.
the most used: Commercial Ektar 6.3 12"
the most loved: Universal Heliar 4.5 300mm
I am surprised you recommend the 30cm Universal Heliar (which I have) for 8x10 as the catalogues say the 36cm is the right lens for this size. But Voigtlander may be being anal and the corresponding Cooke soft F4.5 lengths are given better coverage.
Yes Steven, I know Voigt data say 30cm Universal Heliar is for 16x21cm. I used Universal Heliar 36cm until I check by myself coverage for 8x10 at portrait distance with 30cm. And I assume there is no vignetting. And so now, the UH36 was sold and I use the lighter and smaller UH30 with a front mounting Gitzo shutter
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...pswpv8onht.jpg
My most used is the 155mm Grandagon f 6.8 just in front of the Sinaron SE 240mm f 5.6 for landscapes and architectures 3. Nikkor SW 120mm !
For portraits the Universal Heliar 360mm f 4.5 and 2. the 480mm f 4.5 Schneider Xenar 3. 300mm Zeiss Jena Tessar f 4.5
Amen!!
At you, Luis... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis-F-S
I posted this image several years ago (2007?...)
Attachment 159770
Don't ask me what they are...
Will,
Don't underestimate the weight over this table!
The other day I had the idea to lift a small furniture used only for the lenses, and I was surprised by its weights - even having much less lenses in there then you do,
Cheers,
Renato
On 8x10 I shoot portrait on paper negative and wet plate so uses barrel lens with lens cap shutter,
at the moment I am shooting with a 330mm/f3.6 Liesegang Anastigmat lens, and moving up to a Euryscope Portrait lens soon.
Attachment 159773
I would love to have a Cooke XVA or Universal Heliar or Commercial Ektar or Dallmeyer 3B/4A!
This is all I use on my Deardorff 8x10.
Kodak Wide Field Ektar 10" = "1948"
Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" = "1947"
Attachment 161770
Thats a nice brace of Rochester lenses you got there!Quote:
Originally Posted by valdormar
Thanks John, The only other lens I would like to own for my Deardorff 8x10 is the Kodak Portrait Lens 16".Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kasaian
From my days as a practicing Architectural Photographer:
121mm F8 Schneider Super Angulon (covers 8x10 when forward-focused)
165mm F8 Schneider Super Angulon
240mm F5.6 Schneider Symmar
300mm F5.6 Schneider Symmar
360mm F5.6 Schneider Symmar
480mm F9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar
600mm F9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar
590mm F9 Zeiss Apo Planar
790mm F11 Rodenstock Apo Ronar
All used on 8x10 Sinar Normas with Sinar Norma Shutter
Here are the 8x10 lenses I use in the field, in order from most often to least often:
250mm Fujinon-W f/6.7
150mm Schneider Super Symmar-XL f/5.6
355mm Schneider G-Claron f/9
600mm Nikkor T-ED f/9
800mm Nikkor T-ED f/12
121mm Schneider Super Angulon f/8
I probably use mostly:
12" Dagor
9 1/2" Dagor
19" Artar
6 1/2 WA Dagor
After reading this thread, went back to try two of my lenses on my 8x10. My 180mm f/5.6 FUJINON-W and my 210mm f/5.6 Nikkor W which up to today I was only using on my Whole Plate camera. Manufacturer's published coverage specs on both these lenses indicates they should not cover 8x10. Shot both stopped down to f/64. To my surprise both lenses fully covered the 8x10 format and with some movements even possible. The image quality was excellent in the corners. I also assumed that by stopping down to f/64 I should see some loss of sharpness due to diffraction... I really didn't see any loss.
greg,
This was judged on contact prints, or..?
Best,
Cor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg
12.5" x 16.5" LED light boardQuote:
Originally Posted by Cor
Initially use a large Horseman Precision Lupe 4X
Image evaluations done with a Peak Optics SKS Stand Microscope 25x
http://www.peakoptics.com/index.php?...roducts_id=136
Attached image (rough scan) shows what i shot with the 210mm Nikkor.
Negatives shot with an 8x10 Sinar Norma on a Linhof Heavy Duty tripod. With the Sinar I know the standards are parallel and in alignment, and with The Linhof Heavy Duty tripod know vibration not to be a factor. I shoot all my lens test images from the covered porch of our town's museum. Building and porch were part of the Collins Co. factory complex and industrial strength. Building protects me from the wind. Focus is on the stop sign probably 60 feet away. Bricks of building on the upper right of the negative great for judging sharpness. Lettering in window of building behind the stop sign great for judging diffraction. Branches in upper left great for judging how the lens records "nature".
I ID my negatives by noting cars passing through the intersection... simple and foolproof.
Ilford FP4+ processed in Rodinal in JOBO tanks.
Don't like to compare contact prints cause I don't have a contact printer with a vacuum frame.
Once the weather warms up a bit up here in New England, will shoot with same lenses on an 11x14 which should show me their actual coverage.
thanks for asking
Greg
This is what interests me. I've asked in the past, and it appears to me that claims of huge image circles for these lenses, for the Computar f9's, Kowa Graphics, etc., are for contact prints. But, I wonder how some of these claims would fair if an 8x10 image were enlarged?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cor
Of course, making claims only for contact 8x10 prints is certainly legitimate, given their acceptable viewing size and their prominence. But I suspect most mfg image circle claims take into account some degree of enlargement. (Not sure what? Is there a standard?)
Neil, if there are standards for measuring coverage they're not in the common language. When posters here talk about circle covered some mean circle illuminated, whatever that means, others mean circle with adequate image quality at the edges, whatever that means. Both concepts have room for ambiguity.
In addition, what sellers mean by "covers" isn't always what users mean. The clearest case is that of a person who posted here and sold on eBay as landarc. landard sold 180/6.8 Dagors on eBay with the claim that they covered 8x10, started a long and hilarious discussion here with a complaint that his 180/6.8 Dagor didn't cover 8x10.
At one time I thought that a lens maker would apply the same coverage standard to all of its lenses. I can't prove it. For example, Rodenstock seems to have used an MTF-based standard to estimate coverage. Coverage stops where the MTF at some resolution or other is low, whatever that means. Then I looked in some Rodenstock brochures. The Apo-Ronar brochure shows, for example, MTFs that are high and don't decline much across the field for, e.g., 1000/16 and 1200/16 Apo-Ronar CLs, MTFs that drop nearly to zero at the edge for, e.g., 480/9 and 600/9 Apo-Ronar CLs. The 75/4 Apo-Rodagon-D's MTF curves are very high and very flat across the field; I've had one, b'lieve that a field stop limited coverage, i.e., IIRC the lens put no image outside of the circle R'stock claimed it covered.
There's a semi-standard about what constitutes sharpness in the final print. ~ 8 lp/mm at reasonable, whatever that means, contrast. Assuming a perfect enlarging lens, and how much the negative is going to be enlarged its easy to calculate what this means for resolution in the negative.
ULF is often contact printed, but not always. For example, Clyde Butcher prints enormous from 11x14. I've been to his Big Cypress shop, noticed that the subjects in his prints' corners have little detail. That's one way to finesse a lens' lack of coverage (in the sharpness at the edges of the circle sense). People who post images here to show their lenses huge coverage often do the same.
Sharpness is considerably overrated. It can be quantified, so is easy to pay attention to. Some of my most effective prints are soft all over. Strong image can beat fuzz. Sometimes.
For me am more and more making Digital Negatives for printing on Printing Platinum/Palladium. I have been making the Digital negatives based on Dan Burkholder's The New inkjet Negative Companion including a step tablet to the side of the image. This allows me to crop and enlarge the initial image. For me I base my criteria of judging my negatives for sharpness with the assumption that I will be able to reproduce the image by 200%. This is one reason I do not judge the performance of my lenses by making contact prints. After some practical tests, I know how much sharpness the negatives must have to be possibly "enlarged" by 200%. Most measurements for coverage listed by manufacturers is for f/22. My maximum enlargement of 200% allows me to stop down to f/64 with my lenses of 180mm and longer and this gives me greater coverage measurements.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil poulsen
Recently did a lot of research for a second time on Computer f/9s, Kowa Graphics, etc. and decided not to go in that direction. Seems like there were several undocumented changes in the generations of these lenses, plus they seem to command rather high prices now. Only had a chance to try one of these optics long time ago, and my particular sample did not cover 11x14 even though I know of others using the "same" lens on 11x14 and experienced full coverage.
Really great source of info is in "The use of Historic Lenses in Contemporary Photography" by Paul Lipscomb.
Would also love to know the answer to your question: "Is there a standard?" So far it's alluded me....
+1!!! The less experience, the sharper they want the lens they buy to be! :confused: LQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Agree with Dan Fromm's longish very well done post. I once worked with a photographer (also a RIT graduate like I), who used to test his aerial lenses by shooting USAF lens test charts from 12 feet away, but then went to actually used his equipment shooting from planes.
"The human eye generally is considered to have a resolution of 10 to 14 lines/mm at a viewing distance of 10 in." Page 117 from Stroebel's VIEW CAMERA TECHNIQUE
I think my comments are more muse than pointed discussion. Summarizing, I generally feel comfortable with mfg specs, which I think must assume some degree of enlargement. With some notable exceptions (e.g. G-Claron?), they seem to work in practice.