210mm f5.6 Lens for 8x10

[GLS]

The Schneider-Kreuznach Apo Symmar L 5.6/210 will cover 8x10 with a little wiggle room for movements. See the image circle chart on page 12 of this PDF:

http://www.rodklukas.com/resources/Schneider_large-format-lenses.pdf

 

[braxus]

Im getting back into 8x10 and rebuilding a kit for it. I sold my Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5 and I'm focusing on getting an Intrepid Black 8x10 with a 5x7 and 4x5 reducing backs. The Fuji L 300mm f5.6 will be my main lens. I have a liking for Fuji lenses due to their quality and low cost. Im debating to also again get the Fuji W 210mm f5.6 but because I already own the Fuji W 180mm f5.6 (older version), im thinking maybe I should get the Fuji W 210mm f5.6 again to equal 35mm in 35mm full frame range. Any thoughts on that Fuji? Andy uses a Nikkor 210mm lens for his 8x10, but i think that lens can be pricey. Im still on a budget. What is the lens factor to equal 35mm lenses for 8x10? I think you divide by 6 correct? Also what image circle do I need again for 8x10 bare minimum?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Good luck trying to find a Fujinon W 210 (older ones with lettering on face plate). I've been happy with my Nikkor W 210 for decades... I also love the 240W.
I believe the factor is 6x. So multiply your 35mm lens by this number.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A 210 G-Claron will barely do it. What you really want find is a 210/9 Apo Kyvttar or f/9 Computar or Kowa Graphic mounted in shutter. These are different brand labels for quite similar lenses of more generous coverage.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Drew, he's on a budget. Those lenses are very pricy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, a 210 GC shouldn't be terribly expensive; but like I said, it will barely cover. A 250 GC is much more realistic for 8x10, and itself wonderfully portable.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

G-Clarons are excellent lenses. I cherish my 355. Sadly, 210 is hard to come by, although there is one on ebay as we speak ($600 CAD). In regards to the 250 GC, it's as rare as hen's teeth...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and snakes with armpits.

 

[abruzzi]

...and snakes with armpits.

really? I ended up with two by accident--one is an older Dagor style, but I fount the 355 and 270 the hardest to come by. The 240 is also common, and the 150 isn't hard to find. There are a lot mounted in enlarging barrels for under $100. Just find a #1 shutter to mount it in, and you're good:

Schneider G-Claron 210mm F/9 for sale | eBay

Get the best deals for Schneider G-Claron 210mm F/9 at eBay.com. We have a great online selection at the lowest prices with Fast & Free shipping on many items!

www.ebay.com

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

really? I ended up with two by accident--one is an older Dagor style, but I fount the 355 and 270 the hardest to come by. The 240 is also common, and the 150 isn't hard to find. There are a lot mounted in enlarging barrels for under $100. Just find a #1 shutter to mount it in, and you're good:

Schneider G-Claron 210mm F/9 for sale | eBay

Get the best deals for Schneider G-Claron 210mm F/9 at eBay.com. We have a great online selection at the lowest prices with Fast & Free shipping on many items!

www.ebay.com

That's the G-Claron I believe is the one that I referenced...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another option in that focal length range (easier to find here in the US) would be a Kodak Wide-Field Ektar 190mm. It covers with very limited movements stopped down, but it does cover. And they're relatively inexpensive. I found mine at an online estate sale where the sellers didn't really know what they had and I snapped it up for under $300 US. I got a similarly great deal on a 250mm Wide-Field Ektar that covers 11x14 with limited movement wide open. Those are both (the 190 and the 250) in the f6.3-f6.8 range. Another good one that goes cheap if/when you can find it is a Wollensak Raptar 210 f6.8. Tiny little lens with bigger than 8x10 coverage. If you want to go crazy wide on a budget, a Wollensak 159mm is a great option (the downside is they're not fast lenses (there are two versions, one an f9 and the other an f12.5) but they're tiny.

Thinking of WA lenses for 8x10 and bigger, I need to go find where I put my Docter Optic 240mm f9 Germinar-W. Fits in a Copal 1, covers 5x12 with movement. They're quite rare, so expect to wait a long time to find one and pay a chunk when you do.

 

[blee1996]

The G-Claron 210/9 for 8x10 is at the sweet spot of decent coverage, lightweight, and not too expensive. I found one recently, and it was not particularly difficult. You just need to wait and search for a few months.

Fujinon 210/5.6, even the older inside letter ones, will not have much movement for 8x10. The 250/6.7 inside letter has more coverage, but not as wide.

I guess a 210/6.8 Dagor will work nicely too in terms of coverage and weight. They are not difficult to find in shutter, but most are older ones without coating.

 

[Vaughn]

Just to keep it simple, the Fuji W 250/6.7 is the easiest, cheapest quality option out there for good 8x10 coverage, IMO.

...and it is a fast lens (for 8x10) and there is not a significant difference in 210mm vs 250mm on 8x10..

 

[DREW WILEY]

Those 6.7's are getting scarce. Mine was stolen long ago. And if color photography is involved, yellowing of the glass occurs over time (thoriated glass?). Gosh that lens did some nice work. But either a 250GC or 240 Fuji A series lens have the same amount of coverage, and are even smaller and even better corrected. None of the three has pleasing "bokeh" for out of focus areas, if that kind of thing is a criteria.

 

[abruzzi]

That's the G-Claron I believe is the one that I referenced...

That $600 one in the list I linked is actually both a 210mm and a 240mm but with a single sutter between them. It looks like the aperture on the one included shutter doesn't match either though. Those $80 enlarger G-Clarons are, I believe, the earlier Dagor style. I ended up with mine for $60 or so, and found a spare #1 shutter that I threw it in. The shutter is a bit intermittent, so I don't really use it much. I have a later plasmat G-Claron in a perfectly working shutter that I prefer.

I'm a little confused by the talk of a 250mm G-Claron. I've seen it mentioned before, but all I've seen are lenses marked as "vario G-Claron" and are ƒ5.6, so it seems to be something else entirely:

Schneider Vario G Claron 250mm f/5.6 8x10 Large Format Lens with Durst 138 Board | eBay

Click here to see description.

www.ebay.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

Claron and G-Clarons were a long series which included graphics applications and different lens formulas. They were also once used for enlarging. That listed item is an enlarging oddity and I'd be suspicious of it in this case, for general shooting.

All the later G-Clarons which came in factory shutter were of smaller max aperture (nominally f/9) and were close-range corrected single-coated plasmats, and marketed for tabletop studio photography (although they are superb at infinity too). But some people shoot with older dagor formula GC's. My plasmat-style 250/9 is in a late Copal 1 shutter; it's been a dependable workhorse for 8X10 and 4x5, and is plenty sharp for even 6x9 roll film backs.

GC's are "comfortable" with 8X10 in the 250mm focal length. A 210 would be somewhat cramped unless your anticipated view camera movements are minimal. Either way, you need to use them well stopped down to obtain realistic coverage.

 

[abruzzi]

My plasmat-style 250/9 is in a late Copal 1 shutter; it's been a dependable workhorse for 8X10 and 4x5, and is plenty sharp for even 6x9 roll film backs.

I guess my confusion is that I've never seen a plasmat 250mm G-Claron, or for that matter any 250mm G-Claron, and I'd love to see one. The data sheet I'm familiar with:

https://125px.com/docs/manuals/lenses/large_format/schneider/gcn.pdf

lists the relatively common sizes: 150, 210, 240, 270, 305, 355.

The 270mm and the 355mm seem to be the hardest to find, but the 150mm, 210mm, 240mm, and 305mm are relatively common.

I know there are some that aren't on that list, so I'm not doubting the existance of a 250mm. I still kick myself for not buying a 355mm ƒ11 on eBay a couple years ago. You lose 2/3 a stop of light compared to the 355mm ƒ9 but you get a much smaller lens in a Copal #1 shutter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, that's what all the later ones look like, right on that brochure. Every one of those is a highly corrected plasmat. But one thing you have to realize about the specs in that, is that they're given with respect to graphics applications, apparently due to the Claron graphics trade lineage, and that those standards in terms of angle of view and circle of coverage, are far more stringent than what is acceptable for general photography. Yet also get 1:1 as well as infinity coverage specs, at f/22. But 8X10 photography generally uses smaller stops anyway.

You have to be careful about 270's. There were two versions of them, and only one of them was corrected for both close range clear out to infinity.

355 in a smaller shutter? Never heard of that. It must be a private modification. The Fuji 360/10 A series lens is very similar, except multicoated and in a no. 1 Copal shutter standard - ample 8x10 coverage, but dicey for 11X14. It has always been my opinion that the significantly greater coverage of the 355GC is probably due to its avoidance of mechanical vignetting due to its larger no. 3 shutter. But what is the image quality in those nether regions of the image circle? It's hard to say, because people who use that degree of coverage seem to all be contact printers, who don't need high resolution for the print to look great.

 

[outwest]

My early 210 G-Claron (Dagor type) works great on 8x10.

 

[abruzzi]

355 in a smaller shutter? Never heard of that. It must be a private modification. The Fuji 360/10 A series lens is very similar, except multicoated and in a no. 1 Copal shutter standard - ample 8x10 coverage, but dicey for 11X14. It has always been my opinion that the significantly greater coverage of the 355GC is probably due to its avoidance of mechanical vignetting due to its larger no. 3 shutter. But what is the image quality in those nether regions of the image circle? It's hard to say, because people who use that degree of coverage seem to all be contact printers, who don't need high resolution for the print to look great.

No they're real. the front lens element on the outside says 355mm ƒ11. There was some discussion on LFF. Then I came across one on eBay from a japanese seller, and it was definitely designed fro that size. I'd definitely take a smaller 355.

EDIT: Here is an image:

 

[DREW WILEY]

But is it the same optical configuration as the standard model? - or different, as in the dual option 270 case? That would be my concern. The standard 355 simply won't fit into a smaller shutter (I have the schematics); it would have to be different from the get go. So, unless someone here owns one, we have no idea of its real-world coverage. An intriguing question, for sure; but since I already use and love the 360 Fuji A, I'm not a candidate for purchase even if one of those mystery GC's does show up again.

The posted example sure has its fair share of "Schneideritis", but that's rather common with well-used GC's, and nothing to worry about performance-wise.

 

[abruzzi]

Yeah, I would assume that the IC would be reduced, but for 8x10 purposes it would be more than sufficient. I've never used one. The weird 270 I'm aware of was marked as a WA G-Claron, but this one doesn't seem to be, so I expect it is a normal plasmat version, but they are uncommon enough that its hard to say without one in hand. As I mentioned--there was a thread on LFF about the 355/11. Anyway, this is a huge digression from 210 lenses, for which a G-Claron is still a good (and still affordable) option along with some of those hard to find Graphic Kowa or Computar lenses if you can afford one. The early Fuji W lenses will work as well with about 3cm of movement total at infinity (15mm up and 15mm down from center)--at least based on the spec sheet.

 

[braxus]

Another option in that focal length range (easier to find here in the US) would be a Kodak Wide-Field Ektar 190mm.

I like the Ektar lenses, though Im not sure how the look would compare against the Fuji 210 I mentioned? Im actually getting another Ektar 127mm to use for 4x5 on this camera (with reducing back). I was using that same lens on my Speed Graphic 4x5 for many years, but had to sell it with that camera recently. I just purchased another one. I find the Ektars render very nicely for the price, though Im not sure about the coatings or sharpness compared to more modern lenses.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I like the Ektar lenses, though Im not sure how the look would compare against the Fuji 210 I mentioned? Im actually getting another Ektar 127mm to use for 4x5 on this camera (with reducing back). I was using that same lens on my Speed Graphic 4x5 for many years, but had to sell it with that camera recently. I just purchased another one. I find the Ektars render very nicely for the price, though Im not sure about the coatings or sharpness compared to more modern lenses.

They came from a time when Kodak was such an industrial giant they could afford to make the best, just to prove a point. No lens that covers 8x10 is going to have the resolution of a lens that is made for 35mm, because they don’t need to.

Here’s an example from the 190 Ektar, originally on 5x12 but cropped because of bad composition on my part:

The Aha, Harbor Springs

The Aha, a steel steam ferry from Lake Michigan. Today on display at Shay Park in Harbor Springs (so named after its inventor, Ephiram Shay).

www.photrio.com

 

[Vaughn]

Those 6.7's are getting scarce....

One went up for sale here and on LFPF yesterday, from very reputable Japanese member, for under $400. So they are around...