Why no 180mm's for 8x10?

[tim atherton]

How much coverage do you get Walter?

(you need a bag bellows for a 180mm with the Canham?)

[Jim Galli]

Our modern lens designs come with stock coverage angles. 70 degrees + or - for our beloved plasmats, and 105 degrees for our 8 element SA type wide angles. At 70 degrees your just breathing on 8X10 with a 210mm lens. With 105 degrees you've got so much coverage at 180mm that it's dumb not to tweak it a bit to 165mm. Which they did. There's nothing modern in the gap between our modern 70 and 105 degree coverage designs. 100 year old Dagor's that are somewhere around 82-85 degree angle would make it. Barely. The 110 degree Protar V 183mm covers in spades. But it's an antique with all caveats included. But the answer to your question lies in modern lens design. Didn't Zeiss make a beautiful little f9 WA Dagor that was 180mm? Probably cost you more than a 150XL but it might be worth it.

[Michael S. Briggs]

Jim, I think along with you that it has to do with design types, but your theory doesn't account for the existence of the 210 mm Super-Angulon and the 200 mm Grandagon.

I think that Schneider and Rodenstock (and later Fuji and Nikon) took their designs for a wide-coverage lens and made it into a series of closely spaced focal lengths. The spacing was selected to give photographers many choices, but not to be so fine as to have too many lenses to make or to stock. For example, for Schneider, the classical LF Super-Angulons were available as 65, 75, 90, 120, 165 and 210 mm. The focal lengths are roughly x1.3 apart. It just ended up that the series didn't have an entry that was twice 90 mm.

It's another guess.

[Walt Calahan]

Tim, right now I've got a bag bellows on order. When it will arrive is anyone's guess?

I'm using the standard bellows which is a big pain. You must be very careful not to get the bellows in the frame. It can be done, but then you get almost no movement of the lens.

That's why I recommend the bag bellows. Once the bag bellows shows up, I'll learn how much movement I really have with the manufacturer's published 260 image circle.

Yesterday (1o-31-2005) I used the Fujinon to make what I hope is a really fun Halloween Picture. I pretty much had to keep everything on the camera in a straight line, and pull the bellow as far forward as possible with the two fabric loops found on either side of the standard bellows. All the edges on the ground glass were clean, but I'll probably have a slight edge cut off on the film that one can't see on the ground glass due to the bellows.

Stay tune. Good luck.

[carterwj]

I am not an expert with LF, but I can answer from my engineering background. It is one thing to have a lens of a relatively short focal length to cover a small LF (i.e, 4X5). To have that same lens cover an 8X10 requires a much more sophisticated lens design. By more sophisticated design I mean more elements, more advanced glass combinations (i.e., ED elements), and perhaps deeper curves. All these things will make this lens much more expensive than the simple design that can cover a 4X5. The Schneider 165 mm Super Angulon is such a lens. And the price reflects it.

[Lachlan 717]

Yeah, but the Schneider 120mm SA also covers (just/arguably) and is a relatively cheap lens. The Nikkor 120mm, whilst more expensive, certainly covers, yet is significantly cheaper than the 165mm SA.

So, not sure that I agree that this is the reason.

[David Lindquist]

Sixteen year old thread but in any case I have a piece of Bausch & Lomb literature that includes a listing of their Series V "Wide Angle Protar" focal length 7 3/16" = 182.6 mm for 8 X 10.

David

[unityofsaints]

My Fujinon CMW 180 mm f/5.6 works well with my KB Canham 8x10 lightweight wood field camera. Get a bag bellows.

True but it's got to be the one with the writing on the inside of the barrel, the other one has a smaller image circle and doesn't cover at infinity.

[ic-racer]

Nice lens. In fact it is on my camera right now, it was the last lens I was using.

[carterwj]

I need to make it clear what I was responding to. In the Opening Post they pointed out that a 240mm covers 8x10, but that his 180mm doesn't. I don't believe that person was accounting for the differences in lens design that can yield considerable differences in the size of the image circle. So I tried to explain that.