Best normal lens for 8x10

[don mills]

Among Schneider and Rodenstock, what are the highest quality top 2-3 normal lenses for 8x10 shooting?

Am I wrong to assume the Fine Art XXL isn't really meant for 8x10?

[Gene McCluney]

A 300 to 350mm lens is considered "normal" for 8x10. Any of the top offerings from Schneider or Rodenstock (read: Most Expensive) in those focal lengths would be state-of-the-art for 8x10 shooting, although those lenses are big and heavy. A large majority of 8x10 field shooters prefer smaller lenses, many of which have been discontinued.

I should add though, that when you get into 8x10 or larger formats, "Best" does not always mean "Sharpest" as in a contact print a lens with lower resolving power will still produce more detail on the negative than is viewable on the print. Many people shoot with older, "less sharp" but smaller lenses. Ansel Adams and Edward Weston shot a large body of work on lenses that would be considered quite inferior by todays optical standards.

[Ben Syverson]

I've used the Fujinon 300C and 300A... The C is absolutely tiny as 8x10 lenses go, and the A is only marginally larger. I loved the C, which allows a decent amount of movements, but wound up with the A to get that extra little bit of coverage.

They're both outstandingly sharp and contrasty.

Edit: I meant to add that I like the 300mm perspective on 8x10 quite a bit, especially for portraits.

[Don7x17]

Among Schneider and Rodenstock, what are the highest quality top 2-3 normal lenses for 8x10 shooting?

Am I wrong to assume the Fine Art XXL isn't really meant for 8x10?

Fine Art XXL 550 works fine on 8x10 but isn't "normal" for 8x10 (about 2x "normal").
The Fine Art XXL 1100 won't work with just the long bellows and a meter bridge rail (extension bracket) -- not enough bellows for infinity. I've made it work by taking a third function carrier and 171x171 format carrier plus a 4x5 bellows from another camera, but you have to be very careful of cuttting the light cone between lens and film.

Try any of the 300mm lenses by fuji-rodenstock-nikor-schneider or even older lenses. You'll have to tradeoff availability, cost, and performance.

[Mark Woods]

I really like my Turner-Reich triple convertible (12" 21" 28"). I've lately added a 210mm ReproClaron F/9 into the mix. It just covers 8x10 at infinity. I also like the distortion I sometimes get in the corners when the lens is shifted slightly. For close up work, it's incredible. I just shot a pear at about 2x life size and it's stunning.

[Walter Calahan]

My Cooke XVa!

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/xva.html

[Jan Pedersen]

A nice coated 300mm/12" Goerz Dagor is really all you need!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Apo-Sironar-S 300

[E. von Hoegh]

A nice coated 300mm/12" Goerz Dagor is really all you need!

The 355 MC Gold Dot Kern Dagor is nice, too............

[Vaughn]

I put up easily with the extra size and weight of a 300mm f5.6 lens (Fuji W in my case) because of the majority of my photographs taken in low light situations (under the redwoods.)

If most of my work was under open sky, then something more along the lines of the slower Fuji A's and C's would work fine. I do use a 19" RD Artar and at f11 is okay, but definitely harder to focus than the f5.6 when under the redwoods.

Just something to keep in mind.

Vaughn