How do I recognize lenses that will cover an 8X10 plate with no vignetting

I am new to large format, but am fairly experienced with medium format. I am considering getting into an 8X10 large format system. Probably with an adapter for 4X5 use also. I have questions on how to chose suitable lenses.

I see there are a large selection of large format lenses available at very reasonable prices in eBay. However, it is not always easy to identify if a lens suited for 8X10 without vignetting or generally poor performance on the edge. For example I understand that a 360 mm focal length lens is pretty typical for a standard lens for the 8X10 format. Logic says I should be able to get something of roughly half that focal length for wide angle applications in the 8X10 format. There are 180 mm lenses labeled (by the seller) for 4X5 use. Some just say that they are for large format. Most do not publish the image circle diameter.

So there is little information for me to use when choosing.

So does anyone have any advice for picking and choosing lenses for the 8X10 format? Is there any published information that I can rely on before purchasing a 2nd hand lens?

Use the charts at largeformatphotography.info as a good starting point.

The home page of this very site may have the info you're looking for. ;)
While it is not an exhaustive list of lenses that cover 8x10, it should cover the newer ones: https://www.largeformatphotography.i.../LF8x10in.html
There are certainly older lenses that aren't listed (i.e. those by Kodak, Wollensak, Goerz), and ones made by smaller manufacturers (Computar, Docter), but searching older posts on this very forum will often come up with an answer to "Will X cover 8x10?"

look for the listed image circle to be larger than 325mm. Keep in mind:

- at 325mm you will have zero room for movements
- you usually need to be stopped down to ƒ22 to get the listed image circle
- if you focus closer than infinity you will get a bigger image circle than the listed amounts, so borderline lenses may cover if you focus closer.

On a 35mm camera or a medium format camera, you can be pretty sure that if the lens has the correct mount, it has enough image circle (unless you buy digital era lenses for APS-C), but LF doesn't work that way since almost any lens can be mounted on almost any camera, so you need to do more deliberate research on each and every lens, and aside from focal length, you'll be constantly looking for a lenses image circle before buying.

159mm Wollensak f/9.5 is a great lens IMHO. not too huge and I've been happy with the results. Not huge. A tad dim, but has worked well for me

Thank you. The table was helpful.

Yes. That is good information. Unfortunately the sellers often list their lens as being for LARGE FORMAT, but don't bother giving an image circle. Actually I would be willing to tolerate a little vignetting on the corners. It is easy enough to crop out.

Thank you. The table helped. I will try the search query also.

Thank you everyone for your suggestions

The table is good; but, it's focused on modern lenses. There are many other lenses known by reputation to cover 8x10 or larger formats.

For example, a Fujinon 250mm f6.7 covers 8x10 with decent movement, even though the more recent Fuji 250mm f6.3 has a much smaller image circle. In fact, the f6.7 version sells for reasonable prices. A Kodak Wide Field Ektar 250mm lens will cover with even greater movements. Or, a 12" Dagor, f6.8 will cover with some, but limited movements. But, none of these lenses are listed in the table. Loosely, the longer the focal length, the more likely a lens will cover 8x10. For example, my Repro Claron 610mm lens has huge coverage. There are many other examples.

If you have an interest in a particular focal length, you're in the right forum to ask.

OP, if you want to be obsessive, especially about older lenses, the first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.i...mainly)-lenses discussion has a link to a list of links to information of interest to LF photographers, including lens catalogs. I update it fairly often. The lists you've been directed to are fine as far as they go but they're all out of date and incomplete.

Forget about 180mm unless for macro and tight portrait use, the widest you get is a Fujinon-W with inner ring-text which vignetting unless focused on 2-3m and still not sharp in the 25mm closest to corner.
A 210mm will be better, and a 240mm will give you movements.
Else there are wide angles, the bigger the better.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

I am new to large format, but am fairly experienced with medium format. I am considering getting into an 8X10 large format system. Probably with an adapter for 4X5 use also. I have questions on how to chose suitable lenses.

I see there are a large selection of large format lenses available at very reasonable prices in eBay. However, it is not always easy to identify if a lens suited for 8X10 without vignetting or generally poor performance on the edge. For example I understand that a 360 mm focal length lens is pretty typical for a standard lens for the 8X10 format. Logic says I should be able to get something of roughly half that focal length for wide angle applications in the 8X10 format. There are 180 mm lenses labeled (by the seller) for 4X5 use. Some just say that they are for large format. Most do not publish the image circle diameter.

So there is little information for me to use when choosing.

So does anyone have any advice for picking and choosing lenses for the 8X10 format? Is there any published information that I can rely on before purchasing a 2nd hand lens?

---

Not listed on that chart is the 190mm Wide Field Ektar by Kodak. Its my default wide angle lens for 8x10. Its only drawback (IMO) is that this doesn't have a large enough image circle for anything more than the smallest movements. As Neil suggested, the 250mm Wide Field Ektar would have more versatility, but its also going to be a more expensive lens. (The Wide Field Ektars are all expensive, but very good)

Effective image circle involves not only the actual stopped-down aperture at the time of the shot, but the amount of rise and tilt or swing likely to be employed. So in effect, you ideally want a significantly larger image circle than just the nominal minimum required diagonal to cover 8x10 film corner to corner. When in doubt about real world applications, rather than just brochure specifications, simply ask about the specific lens in mind on this forum; somebody will probably already have practical experience with it.

But first, it might help to narrow your preferences down. Do you tend to gravitate toward wide-angle lenses, or conversely to longer narrower perspectives, or more the "normal" range in between, or perhaps an ideal starter trio of all the above? You'll get a lot of opinions, regardless. So soliciting just one focal length at a time might save a few hundred posts of conflicting suggestions!

Most of my fun with LF is experimenting

Let YOUR eyes judge

A 120mm lens can cover and make a good result

Many here only shoot outside

I mostly inside

Or you could Google the coverage

Wide lenses for Architecture with an 8x10presents an interesting challenge.
Nearly every Architecture specialist who shoots 4x5 has a 90mm in the stable
You can bet money on that.
Similar WAs on an 8x10 often give considerable distortion. There is an example of a shot of a library interior
in Steve Simmons Using The View Camera taken with a 165mm Super Angulon.
IIRC there is a photo somewhere on this forum taken with a 120mm Nikon SWA
Do a search and check 'em out---if that's what you're after, then fine:)

Hedrich Blessing of Chicago did exemplar work with 8x10 exclusively and while I don't know for a fact I strongly suspect that 250mm/10" WF Ektar received a lot of use
from Hedrich Blessing photographers. Check with your local library for---
The Architectural Photography of Hedrich-Blessing, edited and with an introduction by Robert A. Sobieszek, Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1984)

For landscape lenses, I found The Making of 40 Images by Ansel Adams loaded with practical examples of photos taken with classical glass
https://youtu.be/EEzyrpfrPEI

~What are your image goals?

~Why 8x10 film format?

Lenses for 8x10 have always been less common with the most desirable (for various reasons) being pricy and these days not easy to obtain due to the current fashionable endeavor of 8x10 and larger view camera images.

Historically, lenses that work good on 8x10 or larger have been made for over a century. They all have their place as image making tools. Question remains, what are the image goals?

In the case of wet plate and similar vintage Foto emulsions that are UV light sensitive, choosing lenses that have good UV transmittance will make a significant difference in exposure times for these Foto emulsions and would be highly preferred.. even if there could be slight shifts in lens focus at UV light wave lenghts.

Foto emulsions coated to plastic film used to record B&W or color images are often not happy being exposed to UV light. This is why modern view camera lenses have been specifically designed to greatly reduce the transmission of UV light wave lengths by coatings and optical glass choices during the lens design process.
UV stopping coatings were also used on higher power electronic strobe flash tubes to further limit UV light from acting on these Foto emulsions.

Then there is the question of lens focal length.. Typical "normal" lens focal length would be about 300mm to 360mm or 12" to 14". Longer than normal focal length begins at about 420mm and more. Shorter than normal lens focal length would be 240mm and less. These shorter than normal lens focal lengths will have light fall off depending on the shortness of lens focal length to cover the 8x10 film format. Shorter and larger angle of view greatly increases the light fall off problem and greatly increased the difficult and cost to produce a GOOD lens to meet these requirements.

Lens circle of illumination is not the same as specified performance lens image circle. Sure, there are plenty of lenses that will illuminate the image circle needed for 8x10, but the optical performance will not be as good as the designed for proper lens performance lens image circle..

It is a false economy to believe low cost 8x10 lenses are easy to obtain today due to what has happened to the view camera market. Cost of lens, camera and all related must be considered with the cost per sheet of 8x10 film or Foto emulsion needed to record the image. Beyond this, lies the entire world of print making... another cost that cannot be denied in the image making process.



Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

I am new to large format, but am fairly experienced with medium format. I am considering getting into an 8X10 large format system. Probably with an adapter for 4X5 use also. I have questions on how to chose suitable lenses.

I see there are a large selection of large format lenses available at very reasonable prices in eBay. However, it is not always easy to identify if a lens suited for 8X10 without vignetting or generally poor performance on the edge. For example I understand that a 360 mm focal length lens is pretty typical for a standard lens for the 8X10 format. Logic says I should be able to get something of roughly half that focal length for wide angle applications in the 8X10 format. There are 180 mm lenses labeled (by the seller) for 4X5 use. Some just say that they are for large format. Most do not publish the image circle diameter.

So there is little information for me to use when choosing.

So does anyone have any advice for picking and choosing lenses for the 8X10 format? Is there any published information that I can rely on before purchasing a 2nd hand lens?

---

In other words

are you going to capture mountains, trees, people, or tiny things

the only way forward is take the first step

and go IRL

Bernace is an expert

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulbarden

Not listed on that chart is the 190mm Wide Field Ektar by Kodak

---

Real sleeper is a 200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON Cooke Series VIIB WIDE ANGLE ANASTIGMAT. "100 degrees at f/32. Classic WA gauss 4 element air spaced Cooke lens" per their vintage brochure. Covers 11x14 with actually a little amount of movement possible. Using it on 8x10, I have yet to run out of coverage when raising the lens. Way, way smaller than a 210mm Super-Angulon or a 200mm Grandagon, and to be had for a fraction of the costs of either of these two lenses. S K Grimes mounted mine recessed into a Copal #3.

I have a 360 mm, which is standard for 8X10. I would like a nice wide angle. I am thinking something under 200 mm. Not many choices that I can find with the right coverage for 8X10.

I am thinking mostly outdoor scenic views. Ansel Adams type of subject matter. I think I will use mostly the standard (360mm) and wide angle. So I am searching for a good wide angle for 8X10. Why 8X10. I already have experience and equipment for medium format (6X7 cm). I wanted to jump a little larger than 4X5. I suppose 5X7 would be a good compromise. I don't mind lugging around bulky equipment. I appreciate your response. Good input. I like a good sharp enlargement, but I think most of my negatives would be scanned.

120/8 Nikon will do it with mm to spare, i.e., no movements.

So will the 120/14 Berthiot Perigraphe VIa. Look for them on leboncoin.fr and ebay.fr. These lenses are in barrel, can be stuffed into the front of an Ilex #3 shutter. Uncommon but they show up from time to time.

120/8 Fujis won't quite do for you.

120/8 SA won't do, 165/8 will and with movements. So will 150/5.6 SS XL.

115/6.8 Grandagon won't quite make it, 155/6.8 will.

I got to play with a 165mm Super Angulon once.
IIRC, it weighed as much as my first automobile LOL!
A Wollensak 159mm EWA will cover 8x10 with little or no wiggle room.

5x7 sheet film format can offer the largest variety of lenses made. Many 4x5 lenses will properly cover 5x7 that cannot cover 8x10. Beyond this, 5x7 camera size is smaller, lighter and often easier to obtain than 8x10 and larger sheet film format.

If projection enlargements are considered, a GOOD 5x7 enlarger like Durst 138 is very manageable while a GOOD 8x10 enlarger like a Durst 184 is no longer a small dark room enlarger.

Debate and discussion has been made many times over film availability for 5x7 _ 13x18cm sheet film format. This is not a big an issues as it has been made out to be as once a given film emulsion has been settled on with enough print making mastery, keeping a stock of 5x7 _ 13x18cm sheet film in cool storage often resolves this question easily.

It can also appear 5x7 is not much larger than 4x5 limiting the image quality to lesser than 8x10. This is not always true as each film format size are a set of trade-offs dependent on image making needs.

Once lenses have been decided upon based on image goals, the camera choice can be made knowing what that camera must do to accommodate the lenses to be used and where-how the lens/camera/camera support and all related will be used.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

I am thinking mostly outdoor scenic views. Ansel Adams type of subject matter. I think I will use mostly the standard (360mm) and wide angle. So I am searching for a good wide angle for 8X10. Why 8X10. I already have experience and equipment for medium format (6X7 cm). I wanted to jump a little larger than 4X5. I suppose 5X7 would be a good compromise. I don't mind lugging around bulky equipment. I appreciate your response. Good input. I like a good sharp enlargement, but I think most of my negatives would be scanned.

---

Maybe it's a bit obvious, but I haven't seen it come up in this thread yet. As a reasonable way to recognize older wide angle lenses, I often look at the shape. If the lens is flat and wide, there is a good chance that it has a large image circle. Is the lens narrower and tall? there is a good chance that the angle of view is quite small. In this way you can quickly estimate whether you should do more research into the image circle or whether you should look further.
Example:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a0739b33_b.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

I am thinking mostly outdoor scenic views. Ansel Adams type of subject matter. I think I will use mostly the standard (360mm) and wide angle. So I am searching for a good wide angle for 8X10. Why 8X10. I already have experience and equipment for medium format (6X7 cm). I wanted to jump a little larger than 4X5. I suppose 5X7 would be a good compromise. I don't mind lugging around bulky equipment. I appreciate your response. Good input. I like a good sharp enlargement, but I think most of my negatives would be scanned.

---

Carter, The difference from 6x7 MF to even 4x5 is substantial. If you intend to contact print then the sky is the limit and 8"x10" is a great place to start. 5x7" is a fantastic place to land in terms of lenses, as Bernice suggested. If you intend to enlarge, then 8x10 enlargers are costly and harder to find than those for 4x5" and much larger. I'll allow my biases to show here and say, if you're going to scan ....then what's the point? Even for those who've used 4x5".... 8x10" is a jump.... DOF is shallower. Everything is much larger to handle. Film flatness can also be more of an issue. For landscapes, a modest long focus or telephoto lens is very useful. Since you mention Ansel Adams, if you go to the Tetons or Yosemite, some very appealing views of the Tetons or Half Dome aren't readily photographed with a 360mm on 8x10...but a 450mm on 4x5! Coming from MF....to using an 8x10 is a quantum leap. It's also worth considering that a lot of Ansel Adams later work was done with a Hasselblad.

If wanting to venturing into 8x10 as the first time into view camera image making, starting out with a 8x10 sheet film camera is not a good idea as the learning curve with smaller sheet film like 4x5 is already WAY steep. Expect to waste many sheets of film before gaining some traction on learning curve.

Using a view camera is not a lot like using a 6x7 or any roll film camera.

Highly recommended to begin the view camera sheet film or similar Fotographic emulsion based journey with 4x5, then moving on to other sizes once the basic skills have been gained, refined and well learned.

This video, while humorous and fun in many ways illustrates nicely some fraction of what often goes so side-ways with using and making view camera images.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZAqD9bAzYc&t=75s


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

If wanting to venturing into 8x10 as the first time into view camera image making, starting out with a 8x10 sheet film camera is not a good idea as the learning curve with smaller sheet film like 4x5 is already WAY steep. Expect to waste many sheets of film before gaining some traction on learning curve.

---

I definitely second this. I have shot 4x5 for ~3 years, and am pretty comfortable with it. I’ve just started in 8x10, and even just that jump is difficult. (It works the same but the larger scale has costs and additional effort, and some things are just plain harder.) My only reason for shooting 8x10 is for contact prints with alt processes. I get everything else I need with 4x5, plus I can fit a 4x5 enlarger in my dark room. An 8x10 enlarger would require a bulldozer and construction crew.

Thank you. I see your point. Perhaps it is better to start with a 4X5, but if I am going invest in lenses I would like to seek lenses that will cover the 8X10 format. Yes, a 360 mm lens is standard for the 8X10, but would be a telephoto for the 4X5. It is quite a bit to consider.

Hello Greg, thank you for your response. I have been looking at 8X10 enlargers. I doubt I would ever have a place big enough for them. Although if I also go with 4X5 I think there are plenty of suitable enlargers available. Beseler makes one that I like. I thought for the time being I might scan the negatives. There are plenty of scanners that can do incredibly detailed scans of even a negative that large. I think there are issues with the software and transferring such monstruous files. What are your thoughts on scanning plate film?

Thank you for the example. Those lenses are very interesting. How is the performance with those compared to modern ones? Obviously there are no multicoatings. Are you happy with them overall?

For the standard lens I bought a Caltar II-N 360mm MC F6.8 I found on eBay. It is a rebranded Rodenstock lens. A very large heavy lens. It weighs nearly 4 lbs. It sure is a thing of beauty though. I so love precise German glass.

I like your EB White quote. Did you know he wrote a number of children's books too? Like Charlotte's Web. Thank you for your response.

Yes. That is good advice. Fortunately there are many more 2nd hand 4X5 systems available. Very reasonable prices too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

Hello Greg, thank you for your response. I have been looking at 8X10 enlargers. I doubt I would ever have a place big enough for them. Although if I also go with 4X5 I think there are plenty of suitable enlargers available. Beseler makes one that I like. I thought for the time being I might scan the negatives. There are plenty of scanners that can do incredibly detailed scans of even a negative that large. I think there are issues with the software and transferring such monstruous files. What are your thoughts on scanning plate film?

---

Carter, I don't own a scanner and have no useful thoughts about scanning. In several threads, Bernice, has advised people looking to get into large format to think backwards from the output rather than beginning with the camera/lens. I have both a Durst 138 and a Beseler 45MXT. My photography is tied more to the print than the camera. Sometimes i use a 4x5" or 5x7", some time i use a 6x6cm or 6x7cm....in all cases i print the photograph in a darkroom. Even 'incredibly detailed scans' result in a very different output than a silver chloride or silver gelatin print. Apart from commercial applications, i can't see going to the effort of making a large format negative and then making a digital print. It's another question altogether, but one worth asking if you're looking at getting started in large format....especially 8x10 & up.

Previously discussed post# 8..
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...e-fancy-lenses

"Historically, there were few if any "hobbyist" grade view camera lenses as historically a view camera was used and intended for Foto folks that were relatively serious about making images. That said, optics designs for view camera lenses are made to a different standards for a market that once were majority photography knowledgeable folks. View camera lenses do not have back focus compensation and similar added optical complexities that roll film mirror reflex viewing cameras are required to have.

This said, question again what are your image goals knowing lens or camera or film or print making as a single factor will NOT make any magical images on their own. What might be best for now (as been said numerous times previously) would be pick a modern 150mm to 210mm f5.6 Plasmat and a 90mm f? from any of the big four view camera lens brands in a proven and verified good shutter. Burn film, make images. Differences in lenses at this point in the learning curve is IMO, simply not relevant, making images using a view camera to develop the skills required IS what's important."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Virtually every lens for view camera made is of high quality (dud lenses can and does happen due to Ooopsies over the history of a given lens) and intended for serious image making. Some of what makes the generation of view camera lenses before their production ended has to do with market demands and exceptions. Know the vast majority of the market for view camera images and all related commercial advertising images. AD images from that era was much about hard hitting, eyes being "poked" for attention to what is to be sold style of images. This resulted in high contrast, as much of the image in focus, "sharp" and... These market demands essentially drove that generation of view camera lens design and market offerings. This is why modern f5.6 full aperture Plasmat view camera lenses from Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider, Nikkor (Nikon) are far more similar than different in their optical performance as the market would never accept any lesser optical performance.. and these Foto Folks know lots about what they want and expect from a view camera lens.

Previous generation of view camera lenses were different in their optical performance. View camera lenses like Kodak Commercial Ektar, Xenar, Heilar and such were much about out of focus rendition, smoother and longer tonal range at larger apertures. Not about "sharpness" as even view camera lenses from 1900 and before can be more than enough "sharp".

Dagor formula made by a long list of view camera lens manufactures offers large image circle at f16 and smaller apertures, up to about 80 degrees well past f22 then into lens diffraction as the trade off. Quite a remarkable achievement and optical performance in such a small lens. Dagor lens designs tend to be soft at full aperture due to residual spherical aberration which also results in possible focus shift at full aperture -vs- taking aperture. Yet, the Dagor remains one of the all time view camera folks Fave lenses for a very long list of image quality qualities. Any wonder why the Dagor remained in production for over a century?
Dagor was made into a wider angle variant known as Wide angle Dagor, Angulon and similar which offers about 90 degrees -vs- 80 degrees at ~f32/f45.

Others are four element air spaced Dialyte lenses often used for APO "process" camera lenses which offers excellent optical performance from infinity to 1:1 life size trading off image circle size. Tele photo designs which offers shorter bellows/camera draw for a given effective lens focal length. Wide angle lenses born from Biogon/lamegon lens design and LOTs more.

Sorta Focus (soft focus lenses) are a universe much their own...

Highly recommended to get a copy of:

A History of the Photographic Lens 1st Edition
by Rudolf Kingslake (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/History-Photo.../dp/0124086403


~Once the image goals are known and established, lenses, film format, print size or digital file goals and such have been established then a choice of camera and related can be made.



Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

Thank you for the example. Those lenses are very interesting. How is the performance with those compared to modern ones? Obviously there are no multicoatings. Are you happy with them overall?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

Thank you. I see your point. Perhaps it is better to start with a 4X5, but if I am going invest in lenses I would like to seek lenses that will cover the 8X10 format. Yes, a 360 mm lens is standard for the 8X10, but would be a telephoto for the 4X5. It is quite a bit to consider.

---

There are good lenses that will work nicely for both 4x5 and 8x10 formats
240mm G Clarons and 14" Artars are common enough, as are 159mm Wollensaks and the 300mm Nikon M. Of course a lot would depend on how long the bellows your 4x5 can grow and the lenses I've mention will be s-l-o-w (f9) which shouldn't be an issue since buildings and mountains tend to stand still and not wiggle around much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kasaian

There are good lenses that will work nicely for both 4x5 and 8x10 formats
240mm G Clarons and 14" Artars are common enough, as are 159mm Wollensaks and the 300mm Nikon M. Of course a lot would depend on how long the bellows your 4x5 can grow and the lenses I've mention will be s-l-o-w (f9) which shouldn't be an issue since buildings and mountains tend to stand still and not wiggle around much.

---

I used to own a Fuji 450 C & used it both on 5x7 & 8x10. a very nice small lens. The Nikon 450 M is a fine lens too but in the larger Copal #3 shutter.

OK Everyone. For now I have settled on two lenses.
1) Caltar II-N 360mm MC F6.8 (a rebranded Rodenstock lens)
2) Schneider Super Angulon 165mm F8.
I think this will get me started on either 8X10 or 4X5. I realize I would need a shorter one to get wide on 4X5.
I cannot begin to thank everyone enough for the suggestions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

OK Everyone. For now I have settled on two lenses.
1) Caltar II-N 360mm MC F6.8 (a rebranded Rodenstock lens)
2) Schneider Super Angulon 165mm F8.
I think this will get me started on either 8X10 or 4X5. I realize I would need a shorter one to get wide on 4X5.
I cannot begin to thank everyone enough for the suggestions.

---

You've priced the 165mm Super Angulon, yes? And you're aware that its a very heavy lens? (about four pounds!)

Schneider 165mm f8 Super Angulon was introduced to the market circa 60's then remained in production until well into the 90's.
First offerings were single coated, in Compur shuttern and similar. Much later versions were muti-coated often in Copal# 3 shutter. There were Linhof select versions, Sinar select versions and more.. In all cases this is a whopper large lens that can just cover 11x14 stopped down.

This is an early barrel version made for Sinar to be used with a Sinar shutter. Next to this 165mm f8 SA is a Schneider 150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL which is another BIG lens..
Attachment 219977

Whopper lenses like this demands a proper camera to support it or there will be problems in more ways than expected. While the 165mm f8 SA easily covers 4x5, the way excessively large image circle will project plenty of extra light inside the bellows causing flare and reflections inside the bellows that will reduce film contrast to varying degrees. This is why largest image circle is not always the ideal fits all lens solution.

Consider carefully before making this lens choice.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carterwj

2) Schneider Super Angulon 165mm F8.

---

OK
I'll play the devil's advocate.
If shooting 8x10 black and white is what rocks your boat, shoot 8x10.
You already have the lens, so go for it.
You'll likely waste a few sheets of 'spensive film, however the learning curve isn't as bad as it's made out to be since
playing with expensive toys tends to slow one down and take extra care to avoid repeat mistakes
and you'll save a wee bit by contact printing 8x10 over enlarging or scanning 4x5 with less gear to spend $$$ on.

If that's the format you're destined for, then take to bull by the tail :rolleyes:
You'll also need a camera, some film holders (three is enough to start with)---a box of film and another box of paper---and a tripod that can take the weight
Once you're over the initial price shock, the world is your oyster. Have fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abruzzi

An 8x10 enlarger would require a bulldozer and construction crew.

---

If your camera is strong enough, add a 9x11" light table, a bag bellows of some sort to darken the stray light, plain ground glass with corners and a film holder with a 8x10" rectangular hole and a 210-240mm lens and you are good to go.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

Yes. It is expensive and heavy. I went for it. Maybe a mistake. I got the lens for $1300 used (obviously).

I got a Toyo View 810 G. I need to get film holders. I already have a Bogen Tripod that I think will do the trick. For now I am thinking of scanning my negatives rather than enlarging. It will be a while before I can afford an 8X10 enlarger and have a place to put it.

I went ahead and bought the 165 SA. There doesn't seem to be many out there and I thought I might miss it. I got it for US$1300. I also got an 8X10 view (Toyo 810 G). So I think that will resolve the reflection in the bellows issues. However, I never thought of that. I do appreciate your detailed input.

I read that the Toyo View 810 G is sturdy, but I have nothing to compare it to. Do you think that body will be adequate to support the 165 SA? My standard lens (Caltar II N 360 mm) is even heavier. That is a rebranded Rodenstock. It sure is a beautiful piece of glass.

Thank you John. That was my thinking exactly. And I did go for it and bought an 8X10 camera. I am eager to start shooting with it. Small problem though. I live in Jackson Mississippi right now. I am not sure if there is anything local that will be interesting to shoot. I make many trips to Texas, Arizona and California though. Lots of good subject matter in those states.