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

[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?

[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?

[carterwj]

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.

[carterwj]

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

[Greg Y]

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.

[Bernice Loui]

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

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?

[John Kasaian]

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.

[Greg Y]

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.

[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.

[paulbarden]

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!)