f/5.6 or slower 300mm for 8x10?

I'm in the market for a lens in the 300mm range for my 8x10 Burke & James, which has been in storage and unused for nearly 40 years. The lens currently on the camera is an unlabeled piece of junk in an unreliable shutter. I've owned and used three different 4x5 cameras at various times prior to 1990, but only exposed a few frames of 8x10 film. Today, most of my work is done with a modern 35mm format digital camera.

There are always compromises when choosing tools. A 300 f/5.6 can weigh 2-3 pounds in a Copal #3, while a 300 f/9 in a #1 is less than a pound. Filters are bigger and more expensive for the faster lens, too. On the other hand, a f/5.6 lens lets in twice as much light, so should be easier to focus, particularly in somewhat dim conditions. The big question, for those who own(ed) and use(d) both, is the brighter f/5.6 lens significantly easier to compose and focus? Worth the extra size and weight? Unfortunately, there's no convenient way for me to personally compare the two side by side on the same camera.

I'll be using this camera/lens combo both in the studio and in the field, probably mostly with B&W film and at least initially making contact prints. A largish image circle is important as I expect to do some architectural work.

I have been using a FujiW 300/5.6 on an 8x10 for 25 years. I have used other focal length lenses with max aperture of f/11 (19" and 24"). All under the redwoods, often on cloudy days -- low light.

Under these conditions, a fast f/5.6 lens is very nice and noticeably easier to compose and focus compared to the f/11...and just a bit easier than f/9s. Out under the sky, the differences in ease of viewing are greatly reduced, with the main advantage of a f/5.6 lens being a little easier focusing due to the reduced DoF when wide open -- not a significant problem, just easier.

The f/5.6 lenses will likely be cheaper. The weight differences between 300mm lens is not significant when factoring the weight of the B&J camera, holders and tripod. If one has lightweight gear to begin with, then the weight differences between the lenses might become significant.

I think having the right kind of grind on the groundglass is important. I've never had an issue with f/9 or even smaller apertures on 8x10. But it's all relative. I shoot in the redwoods too, but probably not as often as Vaughn. Big studio 5.6 plasmats tend to go for bargain pricing these days, whereas smaller lenses tend to fetch a premium, being more in demand for their sheer portability. Either will do the job; but will your back, lugging it around?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Turner

I'm in the market for a lens in the 300mm range for my 8x10 Burke & James...A 300 f/5.6 can weigh 2-3 pounds in a Copal #3, while a 300 f/9 in a #1 is less than a pound. Filters are bigger and more expensive for the faster lens, too. On the other hand, a f/5.6 lens lets in twice as much light...

---

Actually, more than twice as much light. One and one-third stops more, to be precise. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Turner

...The big question, for those who own(ed) and use(d) both, is the brighter f/5.6 lens significantly easier to compose and focus? Worth the extra size and weight?...

---

My 8x10 is a Phillips Compact II. It's equipped with a Satin Snow ground glass and a Maxwell fresnel. The latter's focal length is optimized for normal camera lens focal lengths, such as 300mm.

I have both 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W and 300mm f/9 Fujinon A lenses. I suspect your B&J's viewing screen is substantially less bright than the combination in my Phillips. Even with the bright, directed screen, focusing and composing is significantly easier when using the f/5.6 Nikkor than the f/9 Fujinon. To me, especially considering the total weight of camera, lens + lens board, tripod, light meter and film holders, it's definitely worth the extra size and weight compared to the f/9 Fujinon. Your mileage may vary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Turner

...I'll be using this camera/lens combo both in the studio and in the field, probably mostly with B&W film and at least initially making contact prints. A largish image circle is important as I expect to do some architectural work.

---

The proportion of your studio vs. field work might be significant when making this decision. The more field, the greater possibility that you'd be willing to suffer with darker composing and focusing. Good luck!

I have not had issues with the f/11 lenses under the redwoods...I still can closely check the image under the redwoods at f/22 and inspect small areas for sharpness at f/45. It is just a matter of ease and comfort. Spending 10 to 20 minutes under the darkcloth is just far more enjoyable with more light, is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Turner

I'm in the market for a lens in the 300mm range for my 8x10 Burke & James...

---

The B&J is a fairly heavy camera, at the far end of what most people would consider a "field camera". Trying to save weight on the lens is wandering into the area of diminishing returns, like converting a 1964 VW bug to independent suspension to improve handling. Yeah, I guess it'll help, but is it worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Turner

The big question, for those who own(ed) and use(d) both, is the brighter f/5.6 lens significantly easier to compose and focus? Worth the extra size and weight?

---

Either lens is reasonable for focusing in reasonable light with a reasonable loupe. But wide open, the f/5.6 will accentuate the out-of-focus areas so you can correct with movements, then shut down. And composition will be easier, of course. A 300mm f/5.6 Fujinon L in a Copal 3 would be a good intermediate-weight solution. A later 300mm f/6.8 Dagor would also be nice.....

For close-up shooting (near macro, whether studio tabletop or something natural in the field), either a Fuji A or G-Claron will outperform general purpose 5.6 plasmats. The A is wonderfully lightweight due to a no.1 shutter and is optically superb all the way from close-up to infinity (although I personally use a 360A instead of the 300). But who says the B&J is the end of the camera discussion? A more portable field camera might hypothetically be down the line too; so why not think long term?

I have several lenses with maximum apertures of f-9 -f-18. They require a little more time under the dark cloth, but I can still organize the picture and focus in rather low light on plain ground glass. As a point of info - I will be 92 in 5 weeks and don't often get in a hurry, particularly with the cameras.

One greatly overlooked optic for 8x10 is the 12 inch f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat in a Betax No. 5. Have been using one since the early 1970s on my 8x10. Lens actually isn't all that large and the max f/4.5 aperture makes it a pleasure to focus on the GG. Stopped down the optic is impeccably sharp. Full disclosure though is that I've never used it with color film nor used one of its variable soft-focus settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer

The B&J is a fairly heavy camera, at the far end of what most people would consider a "field camera". Trying to save weight on the lens is wandering into the area of diminishing returns, like converting a 1964 VW bug to independent suspension to improve handling. Yeah, I guess it'll help, but is it worth it?

Either lens is reasonable for focusing in reasonable light with a reasonable loupe. But wide open, the f/5.6 will accentuate the out-of-focus areas so you can correct with movements, then shut down. And composition will be easier, of course. A 300mm f/5.6 Fujinon L in a Copal 3 would be a good intermediate-weight solution. A later 300mm f/6.8 Dagor would also be nice.....

---

Yes, the B&J is a rather heavy camera and I don't expect to be hauling it on my back too far into the field. Good point about diminishing returns. I also hadn't thought about the 5.6 making focusing easier due to less depth of field wide open.

I appreciate the other comments in this thread, too.