210mm f5.6 Lens for 8x10

[braxus]

Im just wondering if I overlooked an option or two, but is the old version of the Fujinon W 210mm f5.6 lens the only real option for 8x10 cameras, when price is considered? Or is there other known name brand lenses of this focal length that will cover 8x10? Are they as good in quality as the Fujinon? What about price? Im guessing no to all of this, but I just want to see if there is another option before I pull the trigger on a lens.

 

[Bob S]

Rodenstock Sironar N MC, Apo Sironar N, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar W.

and non of these are WA designs so there is no need for a center filter. The first 2 above barely cover 810, the others more then cover.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but why does the 210 of your dreams have to be f/5.6? If you can live with f/6.8, there are 210 mm Dagors and clones such as the Boyer Beryl. I have a 210/6.8 Beryl that came to me in barrel. The cells are direct fits in a Compur/Copal/Prontor Press #1.

 

[braxus]

I can live with 6.8, but I wouldn't want to go higher then that. Daylight viewing isn't so easy with lenses stopped down too much. 5.6 just seems to be common.

But when price is factored in, the Fuji still is looking to be my best option (with a shutter).

 

[Dan Fromm]

Rodenstock Sironar N MC, Apo Sironar N, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar W. and non of these are WA designs so there is no need for a center filter. The first 2 above barely cover 810, the others more then cover.

Bob, where do you come up with this nonsense? A 210 that covers 8x10 has to cover at least 72 degrees, More if movements are to be used. The rule of thumb pushed by Rodenstock and Schneider is that center filters aren't needed until the coverage used exceeds 90 degrees. On 8x10 with minimal movements a 210/8 SA will give the same results as any Apo Sironar.

Re the lenses you named, claimed coverages are: Sironar N, 72 degrees; Apo Sironar N, 72 degrees; Apo-Sironar S, 75 degrees; and Apo-Sironar W, 80 degrees.

 

[138S]

Im just wondering if I overlooked an option or two, but is the old version of the Fujinon W 210mm f5.6 lens the only real option for 8x10 cameras, when price is considered? Or is there other known name brand lenses of this focal length that will cover 8x10? Are they as good in quality as the Fujinon? What about price? Im guessing no to all of this, but I just want to see if there is another option before I pull the trigger on a lens.

In practice, you will notice very little practical difference from 210mm to 240mm, and in the 240 focal you will find much more (cheaper) choices covering well 8x10"

Of the Sironar-N and Symmar-S early variants some are single coated, if you want them Multicoated ensure they are MC stamped.

 

[Vaughn]

Daylight, out-in-the-open, viewing with f8 or f11 is not difficult, although f11 can be challenging in low light (foggy days under heavy forest). One of the nice things about faster lenses is their shorter DoF, when wide open, makes it a little easier to set critical focus for older eyes, but I have enjoyed working with both 19" and 24" RDAs at f11. But YMMD and I have not minded hauling around my bigger f5.6 and f6.3 lenses (300mm and 360mm). The FujiW 250/6.7 is a sweet, small lens. It has replaced my 210mm barrel lens, as I tend towards longer FLs . And as mentioned not much difference between 210mm and 250mm

 

[braxus]

I already have a 300mm lens for 8x10, so I wanted something that is closer to wide angle for the camera, while still being a normal lens for 5x7 and usable on 4x5. This is sort of why I was choosing the 210mm focal length.

 

[Ian Grant]

I already have a 300mm lens for 8x10, so I wanted something that is closer to wide angle for the camera, while still being a normal lens for 5x7 and usable on 4x5. This is sort of why I was choosing the 210mm focal length.

240mm is probably your best bet, it's practical on 5x4 for Infinity to reasonable close up work, great on 7x5, and fine on 10x8 with room for some movements. Well at least my Nikkor W 240mm f5.6 is .

Ian

 

[138S]

I already have a 300mm lens for 8x10, so I wanted something that is closer to wide angle for the camera, while still being a normal lens for 5x7 and usable on 4x5. This is sort of why I was choosing the 210mm focal length.

Let me go a bit Out Of Topic, for the future...

There is a lens still I don't own but I would when I deserve it enough... I'm to get:



The Nikon SW 120 barely covers 8x10, being a really short focal for 8x10, I don't understand how such marvels can be that cheap... the SW 150 would be better for 8x10 but they are very scarce and expensive.

 

[dpurdy]

I actually often use a Nikkor 5.6 210 on my 8x10. I mostly use it for table top still life but I also use it for landscape at near infinite focal distance. Now the corners probably fall off for sharpness and density but I don't see it in my prints. Obviously you don't have a lot of movement available to you but My 210 Nikkor and my 210 gold dot dagor are two of my most used 8x10 lenses. The 210 Nikkor is cheap enough to give it a try... probably identical in design and quality to the Fuji.

 

[Bob S]

Bob, where do you come up with this nonsense? A 210 that covers 8x10 has to cover at least 72 degrees, More if movements are to be used. The rule of thumb pushed by Rodenstock and Schneider is that center filters aren't needed until the coverage used exceeds 90 degrees. On 8x10 with minimal movements a 210/8 SA will give the same results as any Apo Sironar.

Re the lenses you named, claimed coverages are: Sironar N, 72 degrees; Apo Sironar N, 72 degrees; Apo-Sironar S, 75 degrees; and Apo-Sironar W, 80 degrees.

All of the named Rodenstock lenses are 72, 75 or 80° coverage. So all cover at least 810.

 

[ic-racer]

Many 210mm lenses available for use on 8x10 format and of course, no other focal length used on 8x10 film gives the same angle of view at infinity as a 210mm lens.
This is a list I compiled about ten years ago. I don't know of any new ones designed since then.
Computar F9 = 325mm
Macro Sinaron = 350mm
Sinaron WS = 352mm
Fujinon W = 352mm
Super Symmar HM = 356mm
Schneider Angulon = 362mm
G-Claron WA = 391mm

 

[Bob S]

Many 210mm lenses available for use on 8x10 format and of course, no other focal length used on 8x10 film gives the same angle of view at infinity as a 210mm lens.
This is a list I compiled about ten years ago. I don't know of any new ones designed since then.
Computar F9 = 325mm
Macro Sinaron = 350mm
Sinaron WS = 352mm
Fujinon W = 352mm
Super Symmar HM = 356mm
Schneider Angulon = 362mm
G-Claron WA = 391mm

Sironar N, Sironar N MC, Apo Sironar N, Apo Sironar S, Apo Sironar, Apo Sironar W.
The Macro Sinaron above covers 810 T ratios from 1:3 to 3:1, it doesn’t cover 810 at infinity. Neither does the Macro Sironar which is what Sinar private labeled.

 

[braxus]

Reading all this, it seems to me the original Fujinon 210 5.6 is still my best option, when price is factored in.

 

[ic-racer]

Reading all this, it seems to me the original Fujinon 210 5.6 is still my best option, when price is factored in.

That is what I went with also, after compiling that list.

 

[Alan Barton]

I have an old 210 Schneider Angulon (not super Angulon) - coverage can handle some movements on 8x10.. Also very small/light.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Schneider data-sheet say the 210mm f6.8 Angulon covers 240mm x300mm which is 10x12 inches, and that with 10x8 there's 60mm displacement Vertical (rise/fall) and 49mm Horizontal (shift) that's in Landscape mode, that's quite decent movements. Image circle is 382mmm at f16

I was very surprised to find my 120mm f6.8 Angulon fully illuminates the screen on my 10x8 Agfa Ansco but it's like sharpness etc drops off rapidly outside the 211mm Image circle Schneider give.

Ian

 

[braxus]

I ended up going with my original plan of just sticking with the Fujinon 210mm f5.6 old version, as I received my copy this week. I just have to get a proper lens board and I'll be able to use it afterwards.

 

[Richard Man]

Yes, the Fuji 210 W with inside lettering is the lowest cost option, I think. I just sold one for a song (less than $250). Nuts

 

[DREW WILEY]

210 Kowa Graphic or identical Computar 210/f9. Yes, f/9. No big deal. But you might not like the asking prices. Or just step up to 240-250 range like Vaughn recommended, then you've got quite a few choices.

 

[Alan Gales]

210 Kowa Graphic or identical Computar 210/f9. Yes, f/9. No big deal. But you might not like the asking prices. Or just step up to 240-250 range like Vaughn recommended, then you've got quite a few choices.

Or shoot 4x5 when you need more focal length options. I bought a 4x5 reduction board for my 8x10. It comes in handy for shooting color too. Shooting 8x10 color is pretty expensive.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, 8x10 color film and processing is getting to be expensive, averaging around $30 a shot now. I still have enough in my freezer to offset most of that cost. In fact, 4x5 color film now costs about as much as I paid for 8x10 not terribly long ago. I shoot both formats, but in different cameras. I'm not doing any color printing at the moment because the chemistry is a bit irritating to my lungs, and it's still risky virus-wise. But I am shooting color some, mostly 6x9 and 4x5. I have plenty of 8x10 chromes as well as color negs shots on hand to work from, until I find a reason to thaw another box of 8x10 Ektar. In the meantime, I have plenty of black and white negs to print, and endless hours of drymounting until it gets too damp for that in a month of so from now.
Took the 8x10 for a walk yesterday, and just an hour ago developed some. But these are shots that will get the full unsharp contrast mask treatment too, and triple-toned MGWT prints. Quite a different look than all the cold tone mountain prints I've been making the past few months.

 

[Dennis-B]

Although I don't shoot 8x10, I do use a 190mm f/6.3 Wide Field Ektar on my 4x5. It's very sharp, and it has a 318mm circle of coverage. I know 8x10 states 325mm circle, it might work with little movement and stopped down.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

The 250mm Fuji f6x7 (image circle: 398mm) is inexpensive and not that different in focal length from a 210m.. On the other hand, wide 210mm lenses can be super expensive.

I had both, a 250mm f6.7 and a Computar f9, and I sold the latter. If I need wider than this, I use 4x5.