8X10 Holder Weight and Why 8X10 is called 8X10???

[Really Big Cameras]

Here's my recommendation for a four lens set of ultralight lenses than cover 8x10 with room for movement:

159mm f12.5 Wollensak Extreme Wide Angle - Post WWII, coated sample in Rapax shutter

210mm f9 Computar - Coated in Copal No. 1 shutter, gobs of coverage on 8x10. For a little less coverage, but still plenty for most applications, try its cousin the 210mm f9 Graphic-Kowa

300mm f8.5 Fujinon C - Multicoated in Copal No. 1 shutter

450mm f12.5 Fujinon C - ditto, and you'll never run out of coverage on 8x10 with this lens

These are all shutter mounted lenses that weigh between 8 and 10 oz. each (or a little over 2 lbs. for the four lens kit). They all cover 8x10 with room for movement (the 159mm f12.5 has the smallest image circle, but still allows a fair amount of movement on 8x10).

Of course, there are several other excellent compact lenses than cover 8x10 (various Dagors and wide angle Dagors, Angulons, G Clarons, Fujinon A series, etc.) but this is a nice focal length spread for landscape photography. It includes and ultrawide, a wide, a normal and a long lens.

If you favor really tiny ultrawide lenses the Series V Protar and it's derivatives are downright diminutive and cover up to 110 degrees when stopped down to f32 or smaller. There was a 141mm (or 14cm) focal length that was originally made for the Whole Plate format, but it covers 8x10 stopped down. Unfortunately, I've never seen a coated sample in this focal length. Probably because the Whole Plate format went out of style (or shall I say went dormant as there has been a recent revitalization) before lens coatings were developed. The Rodenstock f12 Weitwinkel Perigon is a derivative of the Series V Protar and was made in the late 1950s and is single coated. I have a 130mm sample that is a direct fit in a Copal or Compur No. 0 shutter. In a late model Compur 0 it barely weighs 100g (about 130g in a Copal No. 0). It covers 8x10 with room to spare (although illumination fall-off starts to be an issue if you use too much front rise). I don't know if I've ever seen a smaller lens that covers 8x10.

Oops, I just saw Don Hutton previously recommended almost the exact same set of lenses (great minds and all that, Don). The only difference is he recommended the 158mm f6.5 Cooke Series VIIb as an ultrawide. I went with the 159mm f12.5 Wollensak instead as it's much more common, affordable and usually comes in a shutter. The Series VIIb was originally sold in barrel and was not a direct fit in any standard shutter. On rare occasion, one shows up mounted in a shutter, but it's a re-mount job. Of course, shutters were a huge part of Wollensak's business. So, it makes sense that most of their general purpose taking lenses after WWII were sold mounted in shutters.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[Mike Castles]

At first, thought you had been looking in my lens bag, Kerry. The Fuji 300mm and 450mm are there, but a 240mm Germinar in place of the 210mm (Thank you Kerry). What is missing is the Exterme Wide lens. Do have an old unmarked Series III lens (most likely a Wollensak) in a Regno shutter that has lens cells for a 61/2 and 8 inch. Would be great except the Regno is sort of a pain to work with, and are not coated.

All cover 8x10 and double as a nice set for the 7x11. Hoping to add a more modern Exterme Wide Angle after the wallet recovers from the new 8x10/7x11 Ritter camera

Thanks for the info on the EWA, it will help when I start looking.

[Ole Tjugen]

My "ultralight 8x10 lens kit" requires slow film and poor light - there's not a shutter in sight!

150mm Busch WA Aplanat
270mm Meyer Aristoplanat
300mm Rodenstock Hemianastigmat
The longer cells and combinations of a Vade Mecum casket set
Not lightweight, but a 640mm Suter Aplanat ser. B no. 6 is nice too.

But I'm more likely to carry a 121mm f:8 super Angulon (clips the corners of 8x10", but covers 18x24cm well), 165mm and 210mm f:6.8 Angulons, a 300mm f:5.6 Symmar, and a 355mm f:9 G-Claron. I don't carry the 360mm f:5.6 Symmar anywhere.

[tim atherton]

Here's my recommendation for a four lens set of ultralight lenses than cover 8x10 with room for movement:

159mm f12.5 Wollensak Extreme Wide Angle - Post WWII, coated sample in Rapax shutter

210mm f9 Computar - Coated in Copal No. 1 shutter, gobs of coverage on 8x10. For a little less coverage, but still plenty for most applications, try its cousin the 210mm f9 Graphic-Kowa

300mm f8.5 Fujinon C - Multicoated in Copal No. 1 shutter

450mm f12.5 Fujinon C - ditto, and you'll never run out of coverage on 8x10 with this lens

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

Mines' pretty similar

except a 210mm Kowa Graphic and a 165mm WA Dagor

I use the Phillips Compact II instead of the Explorer (Explorer was nice and light and small, but just not quite flexible enough for me - and I couldn't justify two... not even to myself, never mind the missus)

+ a dozen or so Mido holders (slightly finicky, but very light)

[RichardRitter]

My "ultralight 8x10 lens kit" requires slow film and poor light - there's not a shutter in sight!

I carrier neutral density filters and stop down on barrel lenses.

On a second note it felt so good yesterday to be able to pick up the 15 pound tripod and the 12 pound 8 x 10 camera and throw it up over the icy snow bank onto the road. Lens was in my back pack safe and sound. Cremation services will be this summer sometime.

Now I need a new 8 x 10 something lighter. So I can use a lighter tripod.

[Gene McCluney]

8x10 is called 8x10 because an 8x10 negative will print an 8x10 contact print with standard 1/4 " white borders (if you mask) with only minimal cropping. The same can be said for all the sheet film sizes 5x7, 11x14, etc.

In my collection of film holders, I have found that the oldest standardized wood film holders are the lightest, by a significant amount. They are (of course) not the most robust. Generally the vintage film holders that are externally finished in natural wood finish are the lightest, rather than the later wood black colored holders. These earlier (but standardized) holders are often not as long in external dimension, particularly in the light-trap area, and often have fibre centers, rather than the later metal center septum. But can work just as well as later holders, and do conform to the correct dimensions for current 8x10 films and cameras.

[audioexcels]

As a habitual ounce counter, I went through a similar exercise several years ago. Here's what I recall...

I weighed several Kodak wooden 8x10 holders. These were well made holders and not too terribly ancient. They were wooden body, but had a thin metal septum dividing the two halves and metal plates across the light traps where the rib lock is located. I weighed several and they were all in the 18.5 - 19 oz. range.
Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

These are the ones with the "plastic" darkslide, all silver parts along both sides and at the end of the holder to hold the film (silver septums)? And this type in the photo weigh in at 18.5-19.5oz?

See attached photo.

[audioexcels]

8x10 is called 8x10 because an 8x10 negative will print an 8x10 contact print with standard 1/4 " white borders (if you mask) with only minimal cropping. The same can be said for all the sheet film sizes 5x7, 11x14, etc.

In my collection of film holders, I have found that the oldest standardized wood film holders are the lightest, by a significant amount. They are (of course) not the most robust. Generally the vintage film holders that are externally finished in natural wood finish are the lightest, rather than the later wood black colored holders. These earlier (but standardized) holders are often not as long in external dimension, particularly in the light-trap area, and often have fibre centers, rather than the later metal center septum. But can work just as well as later holders, and do conform to the correct dimensions for current 8x10 films and cameras.

Gene,

See the photo I posted, or I'll just post again and ask if you have used/measured the weight on this type..

Thanks guys for all your recommendations on holders, lenses, etc. It's greatly helpful!!!

[Ole Tjugen]

8x10 is called 8x10 because an 8x10 negative will print an 8x10 contact print with standard 1/4 " white borders (if you mask) with only minimal cropping. The same can be said for all the sheet film sizes 5x7, 11x14, etc.

Nice theory, but proved wrong by the size of old glass plates. The paper sizes are the same as the glass plate sizes, not the other way round.

[Clay Turtle]

Why is a 2x4 called a 2x4? It once was 2x4 and not 1 1/2 x 3 1/2.

I believe the rough cut lumber is 2x4 but in the process of cut & dry, the smooth finish is reduced to the standard size.