8 x 10, 240mm lens

[awty]

Hi
I am in need of a 8 x 10 lens with a bit of movement in the 240mm range. I have picked a few from ebay, just wondering if someone can have a quick look for me and make sure they are for the right for the job. I think they are, but I have made mistakes before.
Than you.
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NEA-MIN...038205?hash=item239add1fbd:g:pVEAAOSwt6RahRgU

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Nikon-N...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Schneid...m=152923187183&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Fuji-Fu...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

[shutterfinger]

Lens coverage is determined by the diameter of the image circle the lens produces at f22. Some lens produce a larger circle of illumination but with a soft image. The image circle is the acceptably sharp area in the circle of illumination.
The lens image circle must match the format diagonal to cover that format and exceed it to allow for movements. The diagonal can be based on the Nominal format dimensions or on the actual image size on the negative. Film is about 1/16 inch smaller in each dimension to allow it to fit into the holder with the actual image area an additional 1/16 less to allow for the retaining lip of the holder. 1 inch =25.4 millimeters.
The nominal diagonal of 8x10 is 12.8 inches/325.28 millimeters.
Schneider Optics https://www.schneideroptics.com/ vintage lens data shows the Symmar S to have a 337mm image circle https://www.schneideroptics.com/inf..._format_lenses/symmar-s/data/1,5,6-240mm.html
I find the pictures of this lens to conveniently not show the APO and only the tail edge if the Symmar S but the full Schneider Kreuzanch.
The Symmar data page https://www.schneideroptics.com/inf...arge_format_lenses/symmar/data/5,6-240mm.html shows it to have a 336mm image circle.
Either of these lens will cover 8x10 with movements.
I cannot comment on the prices of these listings.

Edit:
I pulled my 8x10 negatives out and measured the image area, its 7 13/16 x 9 13/16. converting to millimeters that's 233.5625 x 296.3625 giving a diagonal of 296.2889 millimeters. A 336mm image circle will have 19.85555 mm movement any direction from center.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Paul, you're asking in the wrong forum. Not to denigrate Photrio, but it isn't the best anglophone forum for LF. Go to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum for more and better help.

There's a sticky in the lenses section -- http://www.largeformatphotography.i...to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses -- that contains a link to a list of links to, among other things, lens catalogs. Use it and you'll be able to feed yourself.

 

[mdarnton]

They will all work, but the Fujinon-W 250/6.7, which you didn't find, is usually cited for this purpose because it has a few extra degrees of coverage--a 398mm circle!-- and is an excellent lens, available dirt cheap. Not the 6.3 version of the same lens.
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

 

[Ian Grant]

I have the 240mm f5.6 Nikon W which is a superb lens but it's quite large and heavy, the 240mm Symmar won't be much different I handled two on Sunday (one was a later Symmar S).

The 240mm f9 Fujinon A is a much small lens in comparison, you need to decide whether the slower maximum aperture would be OK if you go for a lens like this.

Ian

 

[BradS]

Paul, you're asking in the wrong forum. Not to denigrate Photrio, but it isn't the best anglophone forum for LF. Go to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum for more and better help.

There's a sticky in the lenses section -- http://www.largeformatphotography.i...to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses -- that contains a link to a list of links to, among other things, lens catalogs. Use it and you'll be able to feed yourself.

The post above yours supplies rather strong evidence to the contrary. APUG is a fine place to ask about large format....and it's a friendly place too.

 

[removedacct1]

awty, I have the Schneider Symmar-S 240mm on my 8x10 Deardorff, and I find it does the job nicely. It offers a very reasonable amount of movement and is in every way an excellent lens. I paid $350 usd for mine a year ago.

 

[Vaughn]

They will all work, but the Fujinon-W 250/6.7, which you didn't find, is usually cited for this purpose because it has a few extra degrees of coverage--a 398mm circle!-- and is an excellent lens, available dirt cheap. Not the 6.3 version of the same lens.
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

An excellent lens I use on 8x10.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Fujinon is a good option for an intermediate size lens. I have one. To me, though, the holy grail if you can find one, is the Docter Optics 240mm f9 Apo-Germinar (this is the latest version, not the Zeiss Jena version that is more common on Ebay). It's small, light, directly fits in a Copal 0 shutter, and has massive coverage (in excess of 400mm - I use it with movements on my 5x12). At the other extreme would be a Kodak Wide-Angle Ektar 250mm. It comes in a #5 Ilex shutter IIRC, so depending on your camera's front standard, it might not be a good fit. A Graphic-Kowa 240 is another good option - they cover far in excess of 8x10.

 

[BradS]

When I was doing 8x10, I only had two lenses that would cover...one was a 240mm Sironar-N and the other was a 300mm Xenar. Neither gave much room for movements but they both did a fine job.

 

[Alan Gales]

I own the Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 lens. It is a single coated lens and comes in a Copal 1 shutter. I wouldn't let the single coating bother you. Many of the popular 8x10 lenses are single coated. I paid $300 for mine a few years ago. Since then I have seen them sell for $250 and even as low as $200. They are a bargain!.

The Fuji 250 f/6.7 used to be a favorite of Jock Sturges. Here are some sample photos of his. Warning there is nudity.

https://onlinebrowsing.blogspot.com/2010/03/jock-sturges-danny-lyon-and-sturges-was.html

 

[shutterfinger]

The other characteristic of the lens not yet discussed is the Angle of View.
The angle of view for the Schneider lens in question is 70°. Take a common protractor, place the center point at the shutter or film plane and go 35° either side of the center point to get an approximation of what will be in the scene at the camera to subject distance in use for that exposure.
You can also put the center point just in front of you, mark the angle edges and approximate what an image made there with a lens of that angle of view will be to help determine if that lens will work for you or not.

 

[Sjixxxy]

Another vote for the Fujinon-W 250/6.7. I don't worry at all about coverage until I'm at the very limits of my camera's movements.

 

[awty]

Thanks very much for the replies.
The last lens I bought I didn't read the advertisement properly and missed a letter in the description and it turned out to be the wrong one. I know the Fujinon 250mm f6.7 works but the 6.3 doesn't, so I just wanted to make sure before I made a selection.

Couldnt find a Fujinon f6.7 yesterday, but have located a few just then when I looked.
I have a couple of old lens that just cover a 210 and a 15" and just want something wideish that I can play with, no point in setting up a stupidly big camera and not have some room to move.
Funny thing I was using it (8x10) in a park yesterday and someone said "is that a film camera?", "is it 35mm?"

 

[ic-racer]

I also use the 250 6.7 Fuji.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The first three lenses you cite a big heavy studio plasmats in large no3 shutters. The last - the Fuji 240AS, is a tiny little gem, but that particular one appears to be the older single-coated version, which I don't have any experience with. The later multi-coated version easily covers 8x10. Several people have already mentioned the 250/6.7 - another excellent lightwt choice. But don't confuse it with the 6.3.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you're looking for something in the really wide arena for 8x10, there are two very compact lenses worth looking into, although they're not common. A Wollensak 159mm f12.5 (there's also an f9 version, the difference being the f9 doesn't have as restricted an iris - optically they're identical I believe), or a Wollensak 210 Raptar f6.8. I have both - they cover 8x10/5x12, the 210 with movement. The 159 covers with a little movement when stopped down past f/32. They're both in 1950s shutters, so the shutters will most likely need servicing.

 

[mdarnton]

The f/9.5 and f/12.5 Wollensaks are different, optically. Wollensak pushed the first for good performance wide open, but not a lot of extra coverage, and the second for more coverage, but the need to stop down for sharpness. I have the 9.5 but haven't tested it's coverage. That's pretty wide, though, for someone who's looking at 240mm.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The Fujinon is a good option for an intermediate size lens. I have one. To me, though, the holy grail if you can find one, is the Docter Optics 240mm f9 Apo-Germinar (this is the latest version, not the Zeiss Jena version that is more common on Ebay). It's small, light, directly fits in a Copal 0 shutter, and has massive coverage...

I have a 250mm f/6.7 Fujinon W as well as a 240mm f/9 Germinar W in Copal 1. Is that the Germinar you're referring to, or do you really have a 240mm Apo-Germinar? According to Arne Croell's article

http://www.arnecroell.com/docter.pdf​

even the Docter infinity image circle specification (which he questions with respect to whether it's sharpness- or merely illlumination-based) of 280mm for a 240mm Apo-Germinar wouldn't cover 8x10.

My pristine sample of the Fujinon is, of course, brighter for composing/focusing, but the Docter Germinar W has similar coverage when stopped down to f/32 or smaller, and it's sharper than the Fujinon. Usual caveats about sample variation apply.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Published image circles can be misleading because different lines of lenses might have different standards applied, with Apo lenses first marketed for graphics applications being much more stringently defined than general photographic taking lenses; furthermore, the typical standization of image circles based on f/22 is unrealistic for 8X10 photographers who commonly resort to even smaller apertures to get sufficient depth of field, and hence get much larger usable circles.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...the Docter infinity image circle specification (which he questions with respect to whether it's sharpness- or merely illumination-based) of 280mm for a 240mm Apo-Germinar wouldn't cover 8x10...

Published image circles can be misleading because different lines of lenses might have different standards applied, with Apo lenses first marketed for graphics applications being much more stringently defined than general photographic taking lenses; furthermore, the typical standization of image circles based on f/22 is unrealistic for 8X10 photographers who commonly resort to even smaller apertures to get sufficient depth of field, and hence get much larger usable circles.

Yes, Drew, I'm well aware of that. Which is why my comment pointed out that Arne is questioning whether the lens even illuminates, much less is sharp enough for, 8x10.

 

[thornhill]

I don't think anybody has mentioned the 240 G-Claron, another lens that covers a lot more than the manufacturers figures would indicate.
Sharp and only needing a #1 shutter, it might be worth researching.

 

[shutterfinger]

f22 is an arbitrary reference point chosen for the sake of standardizing specifications between manufacturers so the less technically savvy photographers could determine if a given lens would work for them. Some manufacturers are generous, others may not be.

 

[Ian Grant]

f22 is an arbitrary reference point chosen for the sake of standardizing specifications between manufacturers so the less technically savvy photographers could determine if a given lens would work for them. Some manufacturers are generous, others may not be.

It's not really arbitrary, that's the aperture most LF lenses are optimised for and goes back to pre-WWII Carl Zeiss Jena data.

Ian

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I don't think anybody has mentioned the 240 G-Claron...

Yes they have. It's just that they added 10mm to the focal length.