8 x 10 lens recommendation

[markbau]

I'm in the market for an 8 x 10 camera. The biggest format I've ever used is 4 x 5.

First of all, what 300mm lenses are the ones to go after and which ones should I avoid?

Secondly, an 8 x 10 De Vere has come up for sale and I can't find much info about this camera on the interwebs. Is it too old to consider or is it a great camera that is hard to come by?

 

[mshchem]

I use Kodak Ektars on my Deardorff. My lenses were produced in the early 1960s.

 

[Alan9940]

IMO, there's no need to avoid any lens for 8x10, unless you plan to enlarge to billboard sizes. Also, a lot depends on what you plan to do with it. If something like landscapes, you probably want a nice sharp more recent plasmat; if studio portraits, for example, you may want something that blurs the edges/corners a bit and draws a softer image. If you want sharper, I doubt you'd be dissatisfied with Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji, etc. Make sure you check the image circle size because 300's don't tend to throw a large circle which would limit camera movement.

 

[removed account4]

What kind of photography do you plan on doing ?
Razor sharp f22 and be there ?
Pictorialist stuff ?
Do you have $$ ? Do you want something without a shutter or a guillotine shutter / packard shutter?
There are lots of options and lots of lenses.

Wollensak 1a triples are a bargain ( as are Turner Reich ), Reinhold's Wollaston's are a bargain too !
As Alan said, you can't go wrong with just about anything you find.
John

 

[Luis-F-S]

Most 810 lenses were made for professional use so it’s hard to find a bad one . My personal preference is the 12” Dagor.

 

[B.S.Kumar]

I have an excellent Nikkor-M 300mm f/9 lens here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fs-nikkor-m-300mm-f-9-lens.167711/

Kumar

 

[Vaughn]

If weight is an issue, then the slower but smaller f9s will do you well. I have a Fuji W 300/5.6 which I love -- the weight does not matter to me as much as easier viewing of the much brighter 5.6 image on the GG in the dense forests I work. Not as much of an issue out in the open. Plenty of coverage for 8x10 -- for landscapes I have never run out of images area.

 

[KenS]

I'm in the market for an 8 x 10 camera. The biggest format I've ever used is 4 x 5.


My 240 mm works 'nicely' as a wide angle on my B&K 'woodie"

Ken

 

[Ian Grant]

My 240 mm works 'nicely' as a wide angle on my B&K 'woodie"

A 240mm is more of a short normal lens on a 10x8 camera, it's the equivalent of a 40mm rather than a 50mm on a 35mm camera. It's a nice focal length as it's great on a 5x4 camera as well, or a 7x5. I have a 240mm f5.6 Nikon W that I use for all 3 formats, I've made adapters to allow the lens which is on a Linhof/Wista board on my Kodak Pecialist 2 and Agfa Ansco 10x8 cameras.

My favourite 10x8 lens is the coated 12" f6.8 Dagor (Am Opt) that came with my Agfa Ansco Commercial View.

Ian

 

[juan]

A Rapid Rectilinear, of course.

 

[ic-racer]

If you want sharp pictures, avoid brass lenses. If you want to make blurry pictures, avoid anything with a black anodized shutter.

 

[markbau]

Thanks to all that have replied.

It looks like I will have the choice of one or two of the following from a deceased estate.
Schneider 210mm f6.8 Super Angulon (don't think this covers a 8x10)
Schneider 240mm f5.6 Symmar
Schneider 300mm f5.6 Symmar
Rodenstock 240mm f9 Apo Ronar
Rodenstock 360mm f9 Apo Ronar

I want to do mainly landscape work but would like to also be able to do still lifes, not really close up but maybe a full frame photo of say a vase of flowers.

Any lens in the list that jumps out?

 

[Alan Gales]

We really can't give you a definite answer about lenses because it's such a personal choice. Do you want razor sharpness or something else? For my normal focal length I went with a 14" Commercial Ektar. Kodak also made a 12" version if you prefer 300mm to 360mm. It's not the sharpest lens out there but has a nice way of rendering that I like.

Some people own several "normal" focal length lenses. They want different looks for different subjects. For example, a Heliar gives a totally different look than a modern sharp lens.

Here is some information from the Large Format Photography Forum's Home Page. I realize it is about portrait lenses but it will give you some idea of what a variety of lenses there is out there.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

 

[Alan9940]

Thanks to all that have replied.

It looks like I will have the choice of one or two of the following from a deceased estate.
Schneider 210mm f6.8 Super Angulon (don't think this covers a 8x10)
Schneider 240mm f5.6 Symmar
Schneider 300mm f5.6 Symmar
Rodenstock 240mm f9 Apo Ronar
Rodenstock 360mm f9 Apo Ronar

I want to do mainly landscape work but would like to also be able to do still lifes, not really close up but maybe a full frame photo of say a vase of flowers.

Any lens in the list that jumps out?

If the 210mm you mention above is really a f/6.8 lens, then I suspect it's an Angulon not a Super Angulon. The 210/6.8 Angulon will cover 8x10, but with limited room for camera movements. It will most likely be soft in the corners, too. However, if you use this lens for still life shots which will probably require some bellows extension you should be fine. Similarly, the 240mm Schneider also doesn't leave much room for movements. I'm not familiar with the Rodenstock Apo Ronar's, but the Schneider 300mm would be a nice choice, IMO. Bottom line...you probably couldn't go wrong with any one of those lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

The 210mm f6.8 Angulon covers 12x10 stopped down, the 210mm f8 Super Angulons covers 16x12.

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

210mm Angulon has massive coverage 8x10 format. I'd go for that one (I have one).

 

[Ian Grant]

Secondly, an 8 x 10 De Vere has come up for sale and I can't find much info about this camera on the interwebs. Is it too old to consider or is it a great camera that is hard to come by?

A 10x8 De Vere monorail camera is quite heavy, not very portable, I had a Whole Plate De Vere for nearly 40 years but didn't use it after 1986, they are rugged robust cameras, my camera also came with a Half plate and a 5x4 back . Be aware my comments are based on using my Whole plate De V.ere with it's 5x4back. You need to se one before buying.

Ian

 

[juan]

I’d.begin with the “normal” 300mm. Use it for a good while, and you’ll learn whether you wished you had a longer or wider lens.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I love my Fuji 300 C lens. It has a 52mm filter thread. When you get into the fast 5.6 lenses then the filter is about 105mm and impossible to find. I shoot b&w landscape so I use a filter all the time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Many of us never have used the "normal" focal length. The only reason I've ever been tempted to shoot a 300 on 8x10 is that I bought one for 4x5 use and got curious once. Just once, then back to the 4x5 kit. But I much prefer the bigger image circle and narrower perspective of a 360 and even longer lenses. Some people only shoot wide-angle lenses. No rules, just as long as the lens does the job and accommodates your own idea of vision, and fits the range of your bellows extension. You could use a Coke bottle for a lens if you wanted to.

 

[Vaughn]

Isn't 360mm closer to 'normal' for 8x10 than 300mm? I find 300mm to be a slightly wide 'normal'.

 

[Alan Gales]

Isn't 360mm closer to 'normal' for 8x10 than 300mm? I find 300mm to be a slightly wide 'normal'.

I don't know what the math says but I agree with you. I like my 14" lens for 8x10 and my 180mm for 4x5. They look normal to me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Normal" is equal to the film diagonal, which is about 150mm for 4x5 and 300mm for 8x10. Our personal idea of normal might be otherwise. When my older brother was studying commercial photography and most students were struggling with finances, they told them just to buy two lenses for their 4x5, a 90 for architecture, and a 210 for everything else, since 150 is too short for typical portraiture work. So I took that advice myself and came to think of 210 as "normal". Later I switched to 250 as my idea of normal for 4x5, and 450 for 8x10, since not many 500's exist. But the "official" definition of normal is always the diagonal. No big deal. A decent film stretcher can make anything fit.

 

[Vaughn]

Just measured a negative -- about 315mm for the full neg...image area a little smaller, so 300mm would be closer. So I guess 300mm could be a wide normal and the 360 a long normal. But why be normal? I much prefer to be Abbie Normal.

 

[Ian Grant]

With 5x4 normal is anything between 135mm and 180mm, it's a matter of preference. Personally I'd find a 180mm on 5x4 or 360mm on 10x8 a fraction too long as my main lens. I'm actually using a 135mm on my 5x4 camera at the moment because I'm often tight for space (I'm abroad in Turkey at the moment). I do have a 90mm ^ 203mm with me as well.

It depends what and where you're shooting.

Ian