Shooting multiple formats (4x5 & 8x10) - separate lens sets, or one for both?

[MartyNL]

Naturally, if you know in advance that you're going to be working with both 4x5 and 8x10, then it makes a lot of sense to buy kit with both formats in mind.

However, in my journey, it was never quite so obvious and what makes it worse, and in no small part to this forum, I've gone head-first down the "historic lens' rabbit-hole, with the unexpected consequence of perhaps never wishing to use a 'modern' piece of glass to take a photograph ever again...

[Vaidotas]

12” Dagor
Fujinon 250/6.7
8 1/4” Dagor
Inherited and most favorable 165/8 Super Angulon
Wollensak Series III Ex.WA 159/9.5

All of them are in use from MF roll back to 18x24
Sure you’ll have some surplus light shattered inside the bellows and lower contrast, but they are good performers.

By building up my 5x7 set up I always had in mind possibility to shoot in bigger format.

[John Layton]

...a 305mm F/9 G-Claron can do "quadruple duty" as a lens for 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14! Does quite well with all of these formats in fact!

[waterlenz]

Important to keep in mind that the IC at 1:1 is 2x that of infinity and that at 1:1 one is shooting about an 8x10" area with 8x10. Thus one is using more bellows draw for 8x10 than 4x5 and smaller formats for the same subject. Those short FL lenses may be more useful than you think. It is mostly the short FL wide angles that are more format specific such as 65 to 90mm lenses for 4x5.

[paulbarden]

The data I've been able to find shows an image circle of 304mm at f16 and 317mm at f22 for the Commercial Ektar 12" (which I think was intended as a 5x7 lens originally, with the 14" version designed for 8x10).

I believe 8x10 needs about 312mm for full coverage, before movements.

I have the 12" f4.5 Ektar, (not the f6.3 Commercial Ektar), and its usable image circle is 361mm. So it's conceivable that the f4.5 version has a larger image circle (news to me, but I suppose it makes sense). I've found my 12" Ektar has more than enough image area to use substantial movements on 8x10.

[dave_whatever]

From the old Kodak brochures:

[6x6TLL]

Important to keep in mind that the IC at 1:1 is 2x that of infinity and that at 1:1 one is shooting about an 8x10" area with 8x10. Thus one is using more bellows draw for 8x10 than 4x5 and smaller formats for the same subject. Those short FL lenses may be more useful than you think. It is mostly the short FL wide angles that are more format specific such as 65 to 90mm lenses for 4x5.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand.

The IC doubles as the subject (or plane of focus) comes nearer, which requires greater bellows extension?

I have a 90mm Grandagon N, but expect it's only useable on the 4x5 setup, not anything larger. IC is 236mm at f22. Do you mean a 150mm or 210mm could be more useful on 8x10 when using more bellows draw (thus enlarging the image circle)? I.e. more close up work, macro, etc?

[AuditorOne]

I do not have what I would call a lens "kit" for my cameras. I guess I never really thought about it. When I find a lens I like I tend to stay with it for quite awhile unless something better pops up. I do like my 8 1/4 inch Dagor on both 4x5 and 8x10. It started on an Empire State 5x7 but it has been on my 8x10 since I sold the Empire State. I have been very happy with it as a landscape lens which is what I shoot most of the time, so no reason to change. Besides I have a particularly decent APO Symmar 150 L for the 4x5 so I am not exactly hurting.