360mm Lenses for 8x10

[Bernice Loui]

The entire "contrasty thing" is why I've absolutely stop using modern multi coated Plasmants, that look was driven by the need of commercial photographers for ad and similar work. It is very much a personal style and preference thing. As an extension to this, I've gone back to using a 115mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandgon in place of the 110mm f5.5 Schneider Symmar XL (also caused the 150mm f5.6 SSXL to become parked by a 165mm f6.8 Scnheider Angulon). While the 110mm SSXL has higher contrast resulting in "visually" sharper subjectively, the overall rendering of the 115mm Grandagon is preferred. Poking into the eyes of the viewer to get an response by using high contrast, high visual impact images grows tiresome over time viewing these images. They can be effective for a short time, but become a visual boring experience over time.

Solution for the shutter as been mention countless times here is to use a Sinar shutter with these vintage lenses in barrel or shutter. This absolutely flatten the shutter problem and preserves the round iris commonly found on vintage lenses. This is likely not important to image makers who commonly use a taking aperture of f22 and smaller, for others, it is of prime importance.

The "3 pound" camera reference is pointed to the idea-fantasy of always wanting the lowest weight view camera with the largest film format. This is IMO, total nonsense as weigh in the proper places results in stability which can go a long ways to stopping camera movement during film exposure. One other very significant reason for the preference towards a monorail over any flatbed camera has to do with ability to adjust the weight balance of the camera loaded with lens then set up on the tripod. Given the majority of flatbed cameras have essentially a fixed rear and tripod mount, once the bed and bellows is extended to be used with a longer focal length lens, overall camera balance is a problem resulting in camera-setup stability problems. For a monorail, the front -vs- rear standards can be easily moved and adjusted with the lens and bellows extension to be used achieving a good balance for the camera-lens and overall set up. This is a often little appreciated aspect of using a monorail camera with
various length rails that can be added to subtracted as needed.


Bernice

Commercial Ektars have their own look - generally less contrasty than current multicoated lenses. They're also pretty big. Don't forget Fuji L tessars - thicker elements and heavier than Nikkor M's, but kinda intermediate in rendering and weight. Osaka Commercial was not a rebranded Commercial Ektar but an independent lens line made for Ken Bromwell, mostly 4-element dialytes rather than tessars, perhaps from the same factory as Congo, but I'm not sure. Some Caltar lenses were re-branded actual Ektars. Only certain Ektars were tessar formula, especially the wider f/4.5 ones; a lot were themselves air-spaced dialytes. Modern Fuji and other major brand multicoated plasmats are going to be more contrasty with sharper edges. My concern with using certain older lenses in Acme and Ilex shutters would be whether or not they're predictably accurate enough in speed for chrome films. There's not a lot of forgiveness for exposure error in that category; and 8x10 color film is getting damn expensive. I wouldn't want to waste any shots.

[Vaughn]

...For a monorail, the front -vs- rear standards can be easily moved and adjusted with the lens and bellows extension to be used achieving a good balance for the camera-lens and overall set up. ...Bernice

The sliding block of my Eastman View No.2 does a nice job of this -- and stiffens the connection between the main camera body and the front 'rails'.

The entire "contrasty thing" is why I've absolutely stop using modern multi coated Plasmants

I believe you are saying that the contrast of the MC plasmats can not be reduced (through film development and/or printing) to give the same feeling of contrast native to other lens types. Correct?

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe I should start looking for investors in my helium-filled bellows patent. The bigger the view camera, the lighter it is!

[Vaughn]

Maybe I should start looking for investors in my helium-filled bellows patent. The bigger the view camera, the lighter it is!

One would think our hot air would be sufficient!

[Drew Wiley]

Good idea, now that helium is in short supply.

[sperdynamite]

I will likely be ordering a Bellatrix Gibellini soon, and I have to choose a first lens.

The 14" Commercial Ektar looks like a marvelous optic, but I do worry about the shutter for chromes. I will be shooting E100 and Provia as much as I can.

I'm thinking the Fujinon 360/6.3 might be a good option for me. I'm open to more recommendations, however. Am I right in assuming there is little significant difference between the Schneider, Nikkor or Fuji Plasmats of the era?

[sperdynamite]

I will likely be ordering a Bellatrix Gibellini soon, and I have to choose a first lens.

The 14" Commercial Ektar looks like a marvelous optic, but I do worry about the shutter for chromes. I will be shooting E100 and Provia as much as I can.

I'm thinking the Fujinon 360/6.3 might be a good option for me. I'm open to more recommendations, however. Am I right in assuming there is little significant difference between the Schneider, Nikkor or Fuji Plasmats of the era?

[Peter De Smidt]

That's, a 360 f/6.3, going to be a monster lens on a light camera.

[Bernice Loui]

Light weight camera often implies outdoor images. If this is the case, would a lens with a full aperture of f5.6 or f6.3 really be needed? For most 8x10 folks taking outdoor images, their taking aperture will typically be f22 and smaller. This negates the advantage and real need for a full aperture of f5.6 or f6.3. Add to this, light weight field cameras lack the precision of something like a Sinar P which has the precision and stability to easily use lenses with a full aperture of f5.6 or larger with ease. Beyond the camera precision and stability problem, there is the problem of precise alignment each time the lightweight camera is set up.

There is also the problem (which has been discussed lots recently on LFF) of keeping a sheet of 8x10 film flat in the film holder and more problems related to dealing with big sheets of film.

Also discussed was how these 8x10 images will be used post process, optically printed in a traditional wet darkroom or scanned to digits?

Point being, do you really need a lens with a full aperture of f5.6 or f6.3 given these very real limitations? There are variety of f9 and smaller full aperture lenses in a copal or similar shutter that could prove to be a better choice for a 8x10 lightweight camera. Yes, a larger full aperture can make focusing easier, if the other problems induced by a large full aperture lens is worth the problems created.

Only you can decide this, but keep in mind the very real limitations of the 8x10 film format and any 8x10 light weight camera.

Personally, the choice for color transparencies would be a Kodak Ektar due to it's excellent color rendition and color balance, tonal and contrast rendition which is lower and helps to reduce the inherent high contrast of color transparency film and overall optical performance. Others will absolute dis-like lenses like the Kodak Ektar (Tessar made with low dispersion lanthanum glass) due to their lack of "punch and snappy" color-contrast. Again, only you can decide and make this choice.

Shutters are a side issue, yes a big Ilex# 5 often tops out at 1/30 second while a Copal, Compur and similar# 3 shutter tops out at 1/125 second, do know the Ilex# 5 has a LOT bigger shutter opening than a # 3 shutter resulting in a slower max shutter speed. Accuracy is not too big an issue if the shutter has been serviced and calibrated. If low shutter speed is an issue for using large taking apertures, apply ND filters as needed. What is more common, longer or slower shutter speeds are more useful and important for big sheet film than max shutter speed.

There was a time when I had a Sinar digital shutter which had the same size shutter opening as the manual Sinar shutter except it had a max shutter speed of 1/500 second. Quite amazing for a shutter with such a large opening.... Never once was any imaged taken at 1/500 seconds over the years this Sinar digital shutter was used. Turns out, the most common shutter speeds are 1/30 second and much slower.


Bernice

[Tin Can]

As Vaughn wrote, some shoot in low light outside needing fast glass. Some also have glaucoma.

I have a couple cameras with lightweight Packard shutters for use with barrel lenses or failed shutters.

I would trade broken shutters for barrel mounts in a moment.