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.