Pacific Optical 18" F4

[Mark Sampson]

That lens might cover 8x10 at portrait distances. It was meant for very high-resolution aerial work on 5" roll film, but who knows how big the image circle might actually be?
And of course, no one has ever worried about sharp corners in a portrait. Nor are darkened corners (if it doesn't cover completely) usually an issue.
And as an aside, my friends and colleagues who shoot tintype prefer 6"x8" plates.
Can you tell that I'm acting as an enabler here? Go for it!

[Dan Fromm]

OP, since you want to shoot 8x10 wet plate, why don't you just get a longish Tessar type? They're around, they have the coverage you need and they can cost much less than and are lighter than aerial camera lenses. If you want an aerial camera lens that will cover 8x10, go back and use the link I gave you. The list of USAF lenses isn't complete, but ...

For 300 mm aerial lenses that cover 8x10, think 12"/6.3 Metrogon and 12" or so Aero Ektars. If you need much longer, as I said, stick with lenses made for terrestrial cameras.

If you don't have a copy of A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum, get one and see what it says about "Military Optical Ordinance." On the whole discouraging.

On the other hand, if you have the funds, are willing to make a mistake and understand that lenses can be resold, get the lens you asked about and try it out. The worst that can happen is that you'll lose some time and money.

[Mark J]

Dan's advice is sound. This lens, without camera, weighs 18.6 lb , according to the catalogue.

I don't really understand the values in the last sentence because I simply don't know much about the theory behind a lens design. Could you translate that to language I might understand?

It's just the amount of detail in line pairs per millimeter ( on the film ) that the lens can resolve. The performance quoted there in the catalogue is as good as the best 35mm lenses nowadays, but over a much bigger negative.

[domaz]

A fast Tessar really is the way to go. For example, a Gundlach Radar Anastigmat 12 inch 4.5 is basically the same speed as this aero lens, is fairly common and inexpensive and usually comes in a shutter making it easy to use on 8x10.

[Mark J]

Anyone who wants to do their portraits from further away, could always try the Perkin-Elmer 144" f/8 pentac, which covers 18 x 36" format.

[Knackebrod]

That lens might cover 8x10 at portrait distances. It was meant for very high-resolution aerial work on 5" roll film, but who knows how big the image circle might actually be?
And of course, no one has ever worried about sharp corners in a portrait. Nor are darkened corners (if it doesn't cover completely) usually an issue.
And as an aside, my friends and colleagues who shoot tintype prefer 6"x8" plates.
Can you tell that I'm acting as an enabler here? Go for it!

Dan's advice is sound. This lens, without camera, weighs 18.6 lb , according to the catalogue.



It's just the amount of detail in line pairs per millimeter ( on the film ) that the lens can resolve. The performance quoted there in the catalogue is as good as the best 35mm lenses nowadays, but over a much bigger negative.

Thanks for the explanation!

[Knackebrod]

Thank you all for your thoughts and help with getting some details on this lens! Very much appreciated.

I've got all the information I need and will give everything some thought!