210mm f5.6 Lens for 8x10

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, I noticed that. But really clean examples of 6.7's seem to be a thing of the past. I hope someone snatches it up; it's a really nice lens to have. 210 is just too wide an angle of view for me personally on 8x10; so the 240-250 range is the widest I carry for 8x10. But I use those far less for 8x10 than 4x5, where it's my own notion of a "normal" perspective, just like 210 formerly was for 4x5. I've never even owned a 150.

 

[Vaughn]

I drifted to using the Fuji W 250/6.7 from the Fuji W 300/5.6 as my most used 8x10 lens while at the same time doing something similar with 5x7...going to a Fuji W 180/5.6 from a 210mm (Computar 210/6.3).

But in Yosemite recently I did slip on the 26" f11 RD Artar on the 8x10 to change things up a bit. In a barrel, so can be awkward to use out in the sunshine.

I have used a 210 on 8x10 -- a small Graphic Raptar Wide Field Lens f/6.8. Fine for normal landscape movements. And seems fine for landscape work, though I rarely focus at or close to infinity in the redwoods. As a process lens, might be a little sharp for close portraits. They show up on flea bay for under $150.

On 8x10 it could be used in front of a packard shutter...something the OP might consider, especially to try out different lenses w/o shutters. Perhaps a universal lens clamp, too, to test lenses w/o lensboards. Always more money to be spent!

https://alphaxbetax.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1962-wollensak-raptar-lenses-for-the-graphic-arts_nmah.pdf

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Yeah, I noticed that. But really clean examples of 6.7's seem to be a thing of the past. I hope someone snatches it up; it's a really nice lens to have. 210 is just too wide an angle of view for me personally on 8x10; so the 240-250 range is the widest I carry for 8x10. But I use those far less for 8x10 than 4x5, where it's my own notion of a "normal" perspective, just like 210 formerly was for 4x5. I've never even owned a 150.

This is with a 159mm Wollensak:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This is with a 159mm Wollensak:

Do you find that this lens just covers 8x10? How are the corners? Does yours mount via retaining ring?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Do you find that this lens just covers 8x10? How are the corners? Does yours mount via retaining ring?

It covers with a small amount of movements. The corners do go soft before it runs out of illumination circle. Mine is in an Alphax shutter and mounted with a retaining ring on a Linhof-style board.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@TheFlyingCamera thank you.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

@TheFlyingCamera thank you.

It may not be a Nikkor 150mm f8 but it is the cheapest, smallest, lightest 150-ish out there that actually covers 8x10. I use it more on my 5x12 than on the 8x10, because the format is already really wide, and it doesn't often call for much in the way of movement if you're shooting horizontally. If I did a lot of vertical panos, I might think about the Nikkor, but even then, it doesn't have a lot more coverage, just better to the edge of the image circle.

 

[outwest]

Flying Camera, which version of the Wollie do you have, the 9.5 or the 12? I have the 12 and it is amazing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another pertinent question would be whether or not some of those older lenses would be as suitable for color photography as for black and white? Versatility in lens selection and investment is sometimes a priority.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I had a 159mm Wolly years ago and used it on my long-gone Kodak 8X10 2D. It was the f9.5 version and it worked fine for 8X10 B&W work. Not a lens of very high contrast, but reasonably sharp. The only problem I had was that the lens would fog after setting for a while. It seems the shutter was gassing out, and the inner elements of the front and rear groups would fog. I'd simply unscrew them and wipe the film, and it was fine until the next time I used it. I probably should have cleaned the shutter, but it was so simple to just unscrew and screw the front and rear groups back in. I've been watching for the f12.5 version, but the market seems to have dried up on that lens. Must be other folks want a fairly cheap extra-wide-angle lens for their 8X10 also? I think I'll probably end up getting the inside lettering 180mm Fuji if I can't find a decent f12.5 159mm Wollensak.

 

[Vaughn]

I have a Wollie 159mm/12.5

My example is okay...not particularily sharp, esp. in the corners of 8x10. Very different look than plasmats, of course. In the decade or so I have owned it, I have taken only one good image with it...and that was quite sweet. Just not my usual way of seeing.

 

[MTGseattle]

Every time the Wolly 159mm comes up I feel like I need to run down to my camera case since I can never remember if I have the 9.5 or 12.5 version. At any rate, I've been happy with mine. No problem focusing out in the daylight.

Am I missing something by not having a 210mm lens? I have a 180 and a 240. I guess it's all down to the "look" we are chasing.

 

[Vaughn]

I consider my 250mm to be close enough to 210mm on 8x10 not to own a shuttered 210mm version. The larger image circle makes life easier, also.

It would be nice to fine a cheap Fuji W 250/6.3 (the newer version) for my 5x7. I have my Computar Symmetrigon 210mm/6.3, but prefer using the Fuji W 180mm (older version), esp since I dropped the Computar on the rocks of Zion in 2018, alas. While in Chile for a month with the 5x7, I carried both the 210mm and the 180mm just in case one shutter failed or I dropped a lens (as I did later in Zion).

 

[blee1996]

Wollensak EWA's are ok in terms of image quality, with the main benefit of being ridiculously small and lightweight. If I can carry a bit more and can afford the price, modern lenses are noticeably better.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Fuji A 180 should handle 5X7 decently. The circle of illumination covers 8x10, but with quite a bit of image degradation toward the corners.

Better to drop your lens into a chasm than yourself.

 

[Whir-Click]

Setting individual preference aside, user experience with Wollensak 159mm lenses is all over the map because over several decades the company offered four quite different 6.25” (159mm) extreme wide angle lenses to cover 8x10”. Two are f/9.5, and two are f/12.5.

Both f/9.5 lenses are an 8/4 design. Older, uncoated versions are engraved “Velostigmat Series III” and usually found in a Betax shutter. Later coated versions (engraved “Raptar” or “Anastigmat”) are usually in an Alphax or Rapax shutter. Coating goes a long way to improving contrast with this many glass/air interfaces. The older versions are sometimes found with moisture trapped in between the air-spaced groups.

The older, uncoated version of the f/12.5 lens is a 4/2 design engraved “Series IIIa EX. W.A.” The post-war coated version is a 4/4 design engraved “Extreme W.A.”

All are wonderfully small, all offer movements on 8x10. In my personal experience, the coated versions are sharper, hands down.

 

[StefantheHun]

I own the Fujinon 210/5.6 as widest (affordable) lens for 8x10 and am happy with the results

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on what one plans to do with the results. A contact printer can get away with a lot more detail loss out toward the corners of the image circle than a person making big enlargements.

 

[Dani]

I have a Computar 165mm that covers 8x10, how the previous owner did it was that he mixed the front cell of a 210 and the rear of a 150. I think you can do something similar with the G-Claron. I might be misremembering that, or you’d need an adapter for the rear element of the 150 to fit the shutter of the 210.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Flying Camera, which version of the Wollie do you have, the 9.5 or the 12? I have the 12 and it is amazing.

I'll have to get it out and look, but I think mine is the 12 also.

 

[Vaughn]

This is with a 159mm Wollensak:

Thanks for sharing the image. I went back into my negatives to find a 159mm example. I had thought this was with the 210mm, but it was the 159mm. This was a relatively tight space, I probably did not have the 210mm with me, and had actually expected a much much tighter space.

I could have made this work with the 210mm, but it would have been a much sharper image with a very different feel. The 'natural' darkening and softening of the corners by the lens brings out the pyramid. My previous walks up this creek were stopped by a 15 foot vertical plug/wall of material which I was going to photograph my three boys against...but recent storms had blown the plug out and allowed us up to this spot. The 159mm certainly helped to bring out our discovery, wonder, and mystery of the place for me.

Three Boys, 2006
Wollie 159mm Ex. Wide Angle f12.5
f45 at 15 seconds on 8x10 Arista 125 (FP4+)
Dev in Ilford Universal PQ
Platinum/palladium print

...quick iPhone reproduction...

 

[GregY]

Braxus, you began by talking about portraiture. When i owned an 8x10 camera i had an 8 1/4" gold rim Dagor..which in theory would cover.... but honestly i never even mounted it on the camera.
If I was shooting landscapes i preferred the proportions of my 5x7"....and i did use a 4 3/8" Dagor...

 

[braxus]

Braxus, you began by talking about portraiture. When i owned an 8x10 camera i had an 8 1/4" gold rim Dagor..which in theory would cover.... but honestly i never even mounted it on the camera.
If I was shooting landscapes i preferred the proportions of my 5x7"....and i did use a 4 3/8" Dagor...

I did yeah. Its also in another post. I will probably stick to a 300mm for portraits. Anything higher gets pretty pricey.