Best starter normal-wde 8x10 lens?

[AndrewH]

I am trying to price out a 4x10 system. I want to see what lenses might cost. Any ideas of good used starter lenses that will cover 10 on the long side?

 

[Vaughn]

There are lots of them. The standard question for you is what focal lengths do you like to use...based on your proposed subject matter and what focal lengths you like to use on smaller formats.

From there we can recommend lenses based on your preferences.

Vaughn

Edited to add: Since others have been naming lenses, I do shoot 4x10 (using a cut darkslide on my 8x10). I use my 300mm Fuji W f5.6 a lot -- I photograph in the forest a lot, so the f5.6 is really nice. I also use a 210mm Wollensak Apo-Raptar that FlyingCamera recommended and it is nice -- as well as a 159mm, which is tougher to use, but also nice (f12.5). But I also have used my 19" RD Artar with 4x10.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For a "Normal", a 12" Commercial Ektar would be a nice option. For Normal/wide, something in a 10" (250 mm) would be good - a Nikkor 240 f5.6 (not cheap) or a 10" f6.8Dagor (also NOT CHEAP). On the wide end of your specified spectrum, a 210mm would be the last stop. Keep your eyes out on Ebay for a 210mm Wollensak Apo-Raptar or Wide-field Raptar. It is a nice, reasonably fast (f6.8) super-sharp lens that covers 8x10 with movements. In barrel, they are sometimes found for under $150. If you get lucky, you can find one in shutter for under $250.

Regardless, do not overlook classic/antique glass as an option, as there are a ton of sleeper lenses out there with first-rate quality, but don't have the name recognition or the glitz of modern glass.

 

[jimgalli]

My vote is for the 270mm G-Claron. Looks like a 135mm on a 4X5 but with LOTS of coverage. I have one for sale, contact me off line if any interest.

 

[Ole]

For 4x10" I'd go straight to a 210mm plasmat - just about any 210mm Plasmat. A G-Claron is small and light, a Symmar (+any letters) bigger and heavier.

The narrow aspect ratio of 4x10" looks good with wide lenses - and coverage demand is quite a bit less than 8x10" (2" vertical shift extra compared to 8x10").

Any of my 8x10" lens selection would do - 121/8 Super Angulon, 165/6.8 Angulon, 210, 240 or 300 Symmar, 210 or 355 G-Claron.

 

[ineffablething]

250mm f6.7 Fujinon. Really beautiful lens, though single coated.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Best starter normal-wide lens for 8x10 would be a lens of 240-300mm. There are literally dozens of choices. For new, Schneider, Rodenstock and Fuji all make them. So did Nikon (recently discontinued). For a starter first lens, it probably is good advice to get a modern coated lens in a modern shutter. Once you learn the camera fairly well, and are getting good negatives, then is the time to experiment around with vintage lenses.

 

[wilsonneal]

I think my Caltar-N 240mm f5.6 is an undervalued sleeper. It's by far the lens I wind up using more often than not, and I have a 165mm Super Angulon and a 360mm Caltar-N as well. The 240mm sort of feels like a 40mm lens on 35 SLR to me. The 240 Caltar is also pretty inexpensive when it comes up on eBay (like $275 to $400), which bewilders me as it's truly a re-badged Rodenstock lens, it's very sharp and contrasty, has great coverage. I agree with ineffablething that the Fuji 250 6.7 is a great choice, but it typically brings more money.
YMMV,
Neal

 

[kirkfry]

Very wide would be a 5X7 Zeiss protar V (110 mm). It will be hard to see and focus. At f32 and up it will cover. Modern glass, would be a 115 mm Rodenstock, or 120 ( 121mm) mm super angulon or Nikkor 120 mm SW. k

 

[User Removed]

Fujinon-C 300mm
Nikkor-M 300mm.