10x8 ideal lens kit

[Neil54]

Hi,

I am currently a 5x4 user, but i am intending to build my own 10x8 camera, and was hoping for some advice on what would a good selction of lenses to go for.

On 5x4 I mainly shoot lanscapes, but do some close up shots. I have a 90mm, 150mm and 210mm, and would like to have a similar selection on 10x8, but I am not sure of which lenses would give enough coverage and so on.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Ian Grant]

Neil a 165mm Super Angulon, and a 300mm Symmar or Sironar would be my ideal lenses.

But I have a great, coated, 12" Dagor instead of the Symmar, which came with my camera and its superb. Unlike you I prefer wide-angle lenses and now need a lens wider than my 165mm Super Angulon, but that will be expensive.

Ian

 

[User Removed]

This will have you covered....

165mm Super Angulon (Wide angle)

210mm-Yours might cover...what is it? (Decently wide)

300mm Nikkor-M or Fujinon-C (normal)

450mm Nikkor-M (abit longer than normal)

24" Red Dot Artar or 600mm Fujinon-C (Long)


Personally, I use the 450mm as my standard lens on 8x10. The 210mm serves as my close-up lens, and the 24" Artar is just my favorite.

Think about what lens you use the most with your 4x5, and purchase the equal focal length for 8x10 first.

If you let this thread go for too long, you will slowly have every LF APUG'er suggest practically every lens on the market.

All the best,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

 

[User Removed]

Neil a 165mm Super Angulon, and a 300mm Symmar or Sironar would be my ideal lenses.

But I have a great, coated, 12" Dagor instead of the Symmar, which came with my camera and its superb. Unlike you I prefer wide-angle lenses and now need a lens wider than my 165mm Super Angulon, but that will be expensive.

Ian

Ian,

You can get a 150mm that covers 8x10 for quite cheep in barrel, but that is not THAT much wider.

 

[Pinholemaster]

For the longest time I simply used a Nikkor 240 mm and a Cooke XVa for cover most of my needs in 8x10.

 

[removed account4]

hi neil

i am a fan of old glass, and i would suggest a triple convertible.
probably not as sharp as a process lens, or a nikon, schneider &C
the one i have is a wollensak 12/20/25 ...it is in betax shutter,
and for contact prints it gives me no worries. it'll even cover ( from what i have been told ) a 11x14, so no worries about coverage ...

goodluck!
john

 

[John Kasaian]

Niel,

john has a good deal going with that triple convetible. The Wolly was one of the better ones.

Other lenses to consider for the 8x10 would be any G-Claron from 240mm on up to the 355mm, though I too am a fan of vintage glass and some of my favorites are the 19" Artar, 14" Commercial Ektar, 12" Dagor, and 10" Wide Field Ektar. IMHO, any of these in good condition with working shutters rival modern lenses.

For an extra wide lens my choice is the 159 Wollensak WA "yellow dot" It does a good job and they go for reasonable prices

 

[John Kasaian]

Neil a 165mm Super Angulon, and a 300mm Symmar or Sironar would be my ideal lenses.

But I have a great, coated, 12" Dagor instead of the Symmar, which came with my camera and its superb. Unlike you I prefer wide-angle lenses and now need a lens wider than my 165mm Super Angulon, but that will be expensive.

Ian

Ian,

A 120 Nikkor SW might be worth considering.

 

[Ole]

If you let this thread go for too long, you will slowly have every LF APUG'er suggest practically every lens on the market.

Precisely. I tend to use wider lenses the bigger the film, somehow ending up using 210mm most on all sizes from 4x5" to 12x16"!

So I would pick 121mm f:8 Super Angulon (or newer equivalent)
165mm f:6.8 Angulon (the Super Angulon is too big to carry)
240mm f:5.6 Symmar (convertible to 420mm)
355mm f:9 G-Claron

I didn't include the 210mm f:6.8 Angulon - they can be difficult to find. Mine is an uncoated pre-WWII one.

 

[coriana6jp]

I have been shooting 8x10 for a few months now. Up to now I have been using : Nikon 120mm SW F/8
Nikon 150mm SW F/8
Fuji 300mm CMW F/5.6 as well as Fuji 300C I was using for 4x5.
Nikon 450mm F/9.

Honestly I dont think you can do wrong with the Nikon 450mm and any new 300mm lens. I just added a Cooke XVa to my arsenal, so I will be getting rid of the Fujinons and the Nikon 450mm.

Hope it helps.

Gary

 

[User Removed]

I'm suprised at how many people use wide lenses on their 8x10's. Pretty much the only time I do is when making close-up images.

It's really handy to have a few long lenses on hand when photographing. I highly suggest, and several others have too, on getting at least a Nikkor-M 450mm. I absolutly love my 24" (600mm) Red Dot Artar, but lots of people don't thing they need a lens that long.

Personally, I don't think it's needed to have 2-3 "wide angle" lenses. You should really try to spread out and try some different things.

 

[reellis67]

Ryan, I think it (wide angle) has to do with personal shooting style and personal tastes. I have a triple convertible on my 8x10 and just got a 210mm because the 12" triple was not wide enough for my tastes. While I problably wouldn't get multiple wide angle lenses for any of my cameras, I do think that I would be lost without one in the round up. For what it's worth, on my 4x5 I primarily use the 127 Ektar, although I have a 152 and 203 as well.

- Randy

 

[Markus Albertz]

Hi Neil,

I usually carry 3 lenses in my 8x10 camera backpack: a 210mm wide angle (Kowa) that stays in the front standard when the camera is folded, a 250mm wide angle (Kodak wide field), and a triple convertible ca. 310mm-480mm-660mm (Cooke series VX). So, effectively, this is 5 lenses... This set of optics has kept me in good shape so far when I am out in the field.

I got the Kowa to replace a Schneider Claron because the Kowa has a little more coverage. My first triple convertible was a Wollensak with quite similar focal lengths as the Cooke. Both of these are excellent for starters and can be found for good deals sometimes on ebay. In fact, I believe Jim Galli has a 210 Claron listed as we speak. Good luck.

Best, Markus

 

[User Removed]

Ryan, I think it (wide angle) has to do with personal shooting style and personal tastes. I have a triple convertible on my 8x10 and just got a 210mm because the 12" triple was not wide enough for my tastes. While I problably wouldn't get multiple wide angle lenses for any of my cameras, I do think that I would be lost without one in the round up. For what it's worth, on my 4x5 I primarily use the 127 Ektar, although I have a 152 and 203 as well.

- Randy

Randy,

Absolutly, lens choice has to do with your personal shooting style and what type of subject matter you photograph. That is why I asked him what type of lens he uses most on the 4x5.

A triple convertible is a great idea to have three lenses in one...however, it's a shame that nearly all covertible lenses are so poor quality. I have yet to use a convertible that even came close to the quality of a single focal length lens. Possible the new Cooke lens is good, however...the results I've seen are still visually less sharp and contrasty, even in a 8x10 contact print! I guess the Protar that Adam's used is quite good however.

What type of convertible are you using?

 

[raucousimages]

2X your current focal length for the 8X10 equilevalent (aprox).

90mm in 4X5=180mm in 8X10
150mm=300mm
210mm=420mm

My 8X10 set is

210mm
300mm
480mm

I sometimes add a 150mm and a 250 Imagon.

 

[removed account4]

hi ryan

i agree with randy - it is all a personal taste sort of thing.
... not everyone has the same reasons for the lenses they have and use for any format (i have a handful of lenses between 90 and 150 for my 4x5, 5x7) and i use them if i can't get far enough back to to use 150 (or 210 in the case of the 5x7), some folks just like "the look" of a short focal length -- and not everyone wants to have razor sharp images


--john

 

[Ole]

Ryan, I think you would be surprised at how "poor" (by modern standards) most of Ansel Adams' lenses were.

I've used convertible Symmars in all sizes, and while not quite as good as the complete lens they are quite usable with a little bit of care.

I've got hold of two nice Protar's too, so I'll be doing a comparison in a while.

 

[reellis67]

What type of convertible are you using?

I've seen your work, and it's impressive, but your lenses are way out of my budget range. I've got a Turner-Reich triple that came with my camera when it was new, the 12.5", 19", 25" version, which shows almost no edge separation at all. It's there, to be sure, but you have to get right up close to see it. So far I like the results, but I mostly use it 'un-converted' as it were, at 12".

- Randy

 

[Will S]

I sometimes add a 150mm and a 250 Imagon.

Does your 250 Imagon cover 8x10? I thought it was for 4x5.

Thanks,

Will

 

[climbabout]

8x10 lens choices

I sometimes travel a long way from my vehicle when photographing - so size and weight are a big consideration for me. I usually carry the following lenses with me - although they don't cover 8x10 by a large margin, they are more than adequate as I am only making contact prints:

159mm wollensak
240 fujinon A
14" red dot artar (my heavy lens)
450mm fujinon C

I also sometimes add a 300mm nikkor

If I could afford one, I would sell the artar for a 360 f10 fujinon, but I see one just went on ebay for over 800.00$
Climbabout
Tim Jones

 

[User Removed]

I sometimes travel a long way from my vehicle when photographing - so size and weight are a big consideration for me. I usually carry the following lenses with me - although they don't cover 8x10 by a large margin, they are more than adequate as I am only making contact prints:

159mm wollensak
240 fujinon A
14" red dot artar (my heavy lens)
450mm fujinon C

I also sometimes add a 300mm nikkor

If I could afford one, I would sell the artar for a 360 f10 fujinon, but I see one just went on ebay for over 800.00$
Climbabout
Tim Jones

What about a 355mm G-Claron? Those usually sell for around $500.00 range. However...I do not know how much smaller or ligher weight it is!

EDIT- I just remembered the 360mm Apo-Ronar would be a good replacement for your 14" Artar. It's smaller and lighter than a G-Claron. You see them on Ebay once in awhile mounted in a shutter.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rodenstock-APO-...ryZ30076QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sinar-Rodenstoc...ryZ15247QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[jp80874]

I see that this is your first post. Welcome. You have already received a lot of good opinions. Both this form and the Large Format Form have many threads on just this sort of topic. You can search here and there for more threads of interest. If you have MS Excel this link will lead you to a 2002 spread sheet with specs for many of these lenses. The prices are a bit dated , but the other details are current.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

Good luck with your plans. We love to talk about these things. Hope it helps you.

John Powers

 

[Ole]

What about a 355mm G-Claron? Those usually sell for around $500.00 range. However...I do not know how much smaller or ligher weight it is!

With a bit of patience, luck and "tactical bidding", I got my 355 G-Claron for about $100.

The lens (in barrel) was one of a set of three "old graphics industry lenses" - a 150, a 210 and a 355 G-Claron. Total price $40. Then it was just a question of finding a very bad lens in a good #3 Compound shutter (after making sure that was the shutter this particular G-Claron would fit in. Price about $80 - a shutter alone would cost more than poor lens in a good shutter.

Then I burned off what I'd saved by buying a brand new Copal shutter for the 210mm G-Claron...

 

[climbabout]

What about a 355mm G-Claron? Those usually sell for around $500.00 range. However...I do not know how much smaller or ligher weight it is!

EDIT- I just remembered the 360mm Apo-Ronar would be a good replacement for your 14" Artar. It's smaller and lighter than a G-Claron. You see them on Ebay once in awhile mounted in a shutter.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rodenstock-APO-...ryZ30076QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sinar-Rodenstoc...ryZ15247QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The G-claron is at least as heavy and bulky as the artar I have - the ronar would not be a bad choice, but neither lens is as small as the fujinon, from what I've heard.
Thanks
Tim Jones
Climbabout

 

[mark]

Posts like this make me really angry. I have yet to catch a good lens deal on ebay.

With a bit of patience, luck and "tactical bidding", I got my 355 G-Claron for about $100.

The lens (in barrel) was one of a set of three "old graphics industry lenses" - a 150, a 210 and a 355 G-Claron. Total price $40. Then it was just a question of finding a very bad lens in a good #3 Compound shutter (after making sure that was the shutter this particular G-Claron would fit in. Price about $80 - a shutter alone would cost more than poor lens in a good shutter.

Then I burned off what I'd saved by buying a brand new Copal shutter for the 210mm G-Claron...