210mm lens for 8x10?

[Bob Salomon]

Oslolens is right. The charts on the main site are helpful but not 100% of the story. Many lenses change coverage as one stops down. My g-claron is like that. If you look at it on those charts you’d never think it would be useful for 8x10. Other lenses have different versions with different coverage.

The only way to really figure it out and not stick yourself buying a very large, very expensive lens is to consult multiple sources of information. Check those charts. Search this site. Google it to consult other fora and resources. Put it all together to make your decision.

I narrowed my choice down to the 210mm g-claron and the older fujinon-w 210mm f6.7 w/printing inside the rim and a 58mm filter thread. Those last details on the Fuji-w make all the difference. I went to those two because they are small, inexpensive, and give me enough movements for my usage. I ended up finding a nice dagor type g-claron on this site and that made up my mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rodenstock, for instance, gives the coverage at the diffraction limited stop and that is stopped down.

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji 250/6.7 works well for 8x10, but that's obviously a different niche than a 210. It's more complex than head-on image circle, especially if tangential performance with tilts etc is involved. Then there's falloff issues. Maybe that's why I play chicken and avoid anything wider than 240/250.

[Tim V]

My dagor type G-Claron 210mm is great and at f45 allows for a good 1.5” of rise (landscape) before I start to worry about corners. Great lens, tiny and cheap!

[Corran]

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-for-8x10-quot

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...or-8x10-thread

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...enses-for-8x10

[Michael Kadillak]

The Computar 210mm as well as some Kowa 210mm's (which I have) cover 8x10 very nicely but command a market price that can break the budget at times. Sometimes stepping up slightly to a 240mm (for which there are more viable options and for which real life coverage for 8x10 with real life movements is improved) at a more reasonable cost and a willingness to take a step back in the field is a very manageable alternative. In the insatiable desire to balance cost, coverage, performance, as well as size/weight of optics we as photographers fortunately have a number of options to consider as there is no "perfect" set of solutions within a subset that also has to incorporate the cost of sheet film. I contend that a wee bit of compromise at times is not a bad thing.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm with Michael. A 210 on 8x10 sees same field of view as a 105 on 4x5, which isn't all that popular. 90s and 120s predominate in that range on 4x5, with the exception of the 110mm Super Symmar Aspheric. A 240 on 8x10 equals a 120 on 4x5, one of my favorite 4x5 focal lengths.

The great thing about 210s, is that there are so many of them out there. If you have one, or if you're getting one for 4x5, and you plan on also shooting 8x10, then a large coverage 210 makes a lot of sense. If, on the other hand, you're just getting a good lens for 8x10, 240/250 gives you a lot of options that have plenty of coverage.

Plus, some 240s covert into 450s on 8x10 by removing the front lens cell, another terrific focal length for the format.