Confusion over 150mm lenses for 8x10

[Dr Croubie]

There's current'y a 210 Graphic-Kowa on eBay that has the correct number of reflections to confirm it's the same as a Computar. It's a very small/lightweight lens that covers 8x10 with movements. It's sharp too.

Hopefully you don't mean this one? For that price I think I'd rather a SSXL. Or there's one that's listed somewhere that doesn't ship to Aus that I'm not seeing.

Those Graphic Kowas and Computars look intriguing though, I might have to research them a bit more...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hopefully you don't mean this one? For that price I think I'd rather a SSXL. Or there's one that's listed somewhere that doesn't ship to Aus that I'm not seeing.

Those Graphic Kowas and Computars look intriguing though, I might have to research them a bit more...

That's the one. These are coveted for their performance but, more specifically, for their very small size and light weight. They're also fairly rare.

 

[StoneNYC]

That's the one. These are coveted for their performance but, more specifically, for their very small size and light weight. They're also fairly rare.

Thanks, looks nice and light, good thing I don't have the cash on hand (because I might be impulsive and buy it... Lol.

 

[Xmas]

Thanks, looks nice and light, good thing I don't have the cash on hand (because I might be impulsive and buy it... Lol.

'might'?
may be different in USEnglish?
but spondum certainty in UKEnglish

 

[AgX]

Graphic Kowa, Computar... Never heard of. What kind of lens is that (aside of being a WA)?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Graphic Kowa, Computar... Never heard of. What kind of lens is that (aside of being a WA)?

These are lenses for vertical process/copy cameras. Plasmat types, I think, but I could be mistaken.

 

[Xmas]

Metrogon

 

[jp80874]

There's current'y a 210 Graphic-Kowa on eBay that has the correct number of reflections to confirm it's the same as a Computar. It's a very small/lightweight lens that covers 8x10 with movements. It's sharp too.

If you read a bit back in the history, here and the LF Forum, there are two versions of 210 Graphic-Kowa. One has some reasonable coverage and the other has buckets. I don't remember if you can tell them apart by what they say on them. The advice I always read was, request a trial period to see if the one you are thinking of buying actually has the coverage you need. It may not be as important on your 8x10 as on your 11x14. Me, I like as much coverage as I can find on either 8x10 or 7x17.

John Powers

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you read a bit back in the history, here and the LF Forum, there are two versions of 210 Graphic-Kowa. One has some reasonable coverage and the other has buckets. I don't remember if you can tell them apart by what they say on them. The advice I always read was, request a trial period to see if the one you are thinking of buying actually has the coverage you need. It may not be as important on your 8x10 as on your 11x14. Me, I like as much coverage as I can find on either 8x10 or 7x17.

John Powers

One can tell by using a tiny flashlight or bare led and counting the reflections in the glass. I can't remember how many reflections per cell indicates which design is which.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi guys,

So I now shoot 8x10, but I only have 1 lens that has coverage for it. I really like the 90mm for a wide angle lens on 4x5, the translating focal length is 190mm or so for 8x10... well it doesn't seem like there's really a GOOD one, I don't want 210, it's too long for my tastes, and 200, there isn't one, 180 seems KIND OF like there are a few, but nothing with coverage and room for movements... I THINK I can deal with 150mm much better, and there are a few choices, 2 real good choices and I'm trying to understand them.

What it ultimately comes down to for me is WEIGHT and COVERAGE and MODERN COPAL SHUTTER.

So ... not buying one yet but want to educate myself... there's ...

Nikon 150mm SW

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikko...=100011&prg=10200&rk=2&rkt=10&sd=221489385730

and then there's the Schneider Super Symmar 150mm XL (I THINK that's the name... not sure if there is a non-super symmar 150 XL?) as seen on this listing.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Large-forma...549?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c7491aae5

and then I also found this with an older prontor shutter which I've never seen one before, seems odd looking, is this the SAME lens? it says ASPH (I assume aspherical? but is the other one the same?)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Linhof-Schn...182?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a8ddcf0c6

And I can't seem to figure out even though I've looked them up, what the weight of the schnedier is because there seem to be so many iterations of the same or similar name, that I'm unsure if I'm looking at the right thing.

So essentially, can anyone confirm which is the widest schneider 150mm that's also the lightest one that will cover 8x10?

I'm open to hearing about other modern lenses in the same focal length (and also open to hearing about some mystery 200mm) but lets not get too off track here, I know everyone has an opinion about what's better, but I'm just really looking for info on the shredder lens. Thanks!

A 150 on 8x10 is a massive troublesome handful in every way. My advice is use smaller formats for the ultrawides, this based on 25+ years using large format - the shortest lens I use on 8x10 is a 240/ 9.5". As far as 200~s go, there are many - but I've never yet seen a 210/8 1/4"Dagor that covers 8x10 well enough to enlarge, so beware - most of those Dagor legends are just that, although the f:9 Zeiss wideangle Dagor will do it at a very high price.

 

[Barry S]

My favorite wides for my 8x10 Chamonix are the Graphic Kowa 210mm and Graphic Kowa 240mm. Mine have the same coverage as the Computar-branded lenses, so they'll both cover 11x14. On the Chamonix, you'll run out of movements before you run out of coverage and they are sharp. The 210mm feels pretty wide on 8x10 and it's very compact and light.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

After all my research and buying lenses for 8x10 the following list is what I settled on. For my purposes I can think of no "better" lens kit for 8x10. Alas, I'm selling the 8x10 camera and all the lenses dedicated solely to it (150, 210, 305, 600) because I just can't carry that much gear anymore. I'm keeping the lenses shared with the 4x5 though (110, 450). The 150 and 600 are already gone to overseas buyers.

RE 150 Nikkor SW vs. 150 SSXL coverage: I've read many times that they're very nearly the same in real-world use due to Nikon very slightly inflating their specs vs. Schneider being slightly more conservative.

RE center filter for 150mm on 8x10: IMO, a CF is needed much of the time with any lens that wide. I don't know of any available for the Nikkor but Schneider makes one for theirs. And there's the weight issue to consider.

This is the lens kit I intended to use with my 8x10...
110 SS XL
150 SS XL
210 Graphic-Kowa (Computar)
305 Graphic-Kowa
450 Fujinon-C
600 Fujinon-C

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have a 210 Raptar that covers 8x10 with some movement. I want to say it's an f6.8, but I haven't used it in a while and would have to lay hands on it to verify. Nice thing is that it's small and light. Same with the Wolly 159 f12.5 that I have. I agree with what's been said - what sounds like it shouldn't be wide enough on bigger formats is actually wicked wide. The 159 is really too wide for 8x10 - I use it on my 5x12 because that format really benefits from the width. A 240mm for 8x10 feels more like a 90 for 4x5. And don't even think about going that wide on 14x17 - I have the 355 G-Claron for that and it just feels SO wide, even though it isn't that much shorter than my "normal" 450-M Nikkor.

In all seriousness, though, Stone, I'd just start off with a good 300-360mm lens for your 8x10 until you get used to the camera and the format. Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is not the same as going even from 35mm to 4x5 - It's a much bigger adjustment in all senses of the word. Get yourself a nice modern 300mm, or indulge a little and get a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar.

Thinking of the Wide-Angle Ektars (since someone else mentioned them) the 190 will cover 8x10. The 250 will cover 11x14. 250 on 11x14 is WIDE. Even 360 on 11x14 is like a 35mm lens on 35mm.

 

[eclarke]

A 150 on 8x10 is a massive troublesome handful in every way. My advice is use smaller formats for the ultrawides, this based on 25+ years using large format - the shortest lens I use on 8x10 is a 240/ 9.5". As far as 200~s go, there are many - but I've never yet seen a 210/8 1/4"Dagor that covers 8x10 well enough to enlarge, so beware - most of those Dagor legends are just that, although the f:9 Zeiss wideangle Dagor will do it at a very high price.

Well, my 150 ssxl is a breeze on my 8x10s 2 Arcas and a Chamonix.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Yeah, I don't see how 150mm on 8x10 is any different than 75mm on 4x5... at least regarding how wide they are. People use 47mm SA XL's on 4x5 just fine with no issues other than light fall-off. That's like shooting with a 95mm lens on 8x10. The 90 SA XL can "almost" cover 8x10, BTW, and the 110 SS XL just barely covers to the corners with just a bit of sharpness loss in the furthest extremes. A 110mm on 8x10 is about like a 53mm on 4x5.

 

[Tom Duffy]

I have the 150 SS XL, which I bought when it first came out. It is an incredibly sharp lens. Mine does triple duty - as an ultra wide on 8X10 (kind of like a Canon 35mm with a 24 tilt/shift lens ), a moderate wide angle with my 5X7 back (I can't need a tilt/shift adjustment that combination can't do), and as a normal lens on my 4X5 Technika.

On 8X10, I find that when you can't make an advantageous tilt, depth of field is sometimes a problem, since your included foreground is very close. With a 150mm on 8X10, you will need a bag bellows to take advantage of movements and to prolong the life of your regular bellows, which isn't designed to contort as a 150 requires.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have a 210 Raptar that covers 8x10 with some movement. I want to say it's an f6.8, but I haven't used it in a while and would have to lay hands on it to verify. Nice thing is that it's small and light. Same with the Wolly 159 f12.5 that I have. I agree with what's been said - what sounds like it shouldn't be wide enough on bigger formats is actually wicked wide. The 159 is really too wide for 8x10 - I use it on my 5x12 because that format really benefits from the width. A 240mm for 8x10 feels more like a 90 for 4x5. And don't even think about going that wide on 14x17 - I have the 355 G-Claron for that and it just feels SO wide, even though it isn't that much shorter than my "normal" 450-M Nikkor.

In all seriousness, though, Stone, I'd just start off with a good 300-360mm lens for your 8x10 until you get used to the camera and the format. Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is not the same as going even from 35mm to 4x5 - It's a much bigger adjustment in all senses of the word. Get yourself a nice modern 300mm, or indulge a little and get a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar.

Thinking of the Wide-Angle Ektars (since someone else mentioned them) the 190 will cover 8x10. The 250 will cover 11x14. 250 on 11x14 is WIDE. Even 360 on 11x14 is like a 35mm lens on 35mm.

Stone, that's very good advice. 8x10 is a huge jump from 4x5, far more than the 4x increase in film area might lead you to believe.
Get a 12"/300mm/30cm Dagor and don't look back. (yeah, I know. I'm biased.)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE Dagor-type lenses: That's good if size and weight are issues while speed is not but a newer Fujinon-C will have more usable coverage with similar size/weight.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

RE Dagor-type lenses: That's good if size and weight are issues while speed is not but a newer Fujinon-C will have more usable coverage with similar size/weight.

Fujinon -C 450/12.5? Ummm, the equivalent Dagor is f:7.7 or 8, but the Fuji is likely a better lens in some ways.
A 12" Dagor is about a half stop slower than a 300mm Symmar-S, has very slightly less coverage, and is far smaller and lighter. But the Symmar will be better value for the buck, Dagors often go for silly prices.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A lot of chatter here about various optical formulas, but not much about sheer logistics. When working with a field camera, you don't want to
buy a monster piece of glass unless you're confident your front standard will hold that kind of weight without vibration. Otherwise, there are
a lot of options. The smaller the shutter the better. This thread is about very wide angle options. But in the "normal" category, I think Dagors
are vastly overrated, esp at the obscene prices some people seem to ask nowadays. You get better coverage, close-range correction, and
acutance at strong tilts with more modern designs. Some dagors have a special nuanced look to them, which is nice sometimes. But don't count
out process lenses. They aren't common in shutter, but are one way to get superb optics on a budget.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

A lot of chatter here about various optical formulas, but not much about sheer logistics. When working with a field camera, you don't want to
buy a monster piece of glass unless you're confident your front standard will hold that kind of weight without vibration. Otherwise, there are
a lot of options. The smaller the shutter the better. This thread is about very wide angle options. But in the "normal" category, I think Dagors
are vastly overrated, esp at the obscene prices some people seem to ask nowadays. You get better coverage, close-range correction, and
acutance at strong tilts with more modern designs. Some dagors have a special nuanced look to them, which is nice sometimes. But don't count
out process lenses. They aren't common in shutter, but are one way to get superb optics on a budget.

As I said above, most of the Dagor legends are just that.
But, I'll keep using and enjoying mine none the less - they're really quite good in their way.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Fujinon -C 450/12.5? Ummm, the equivalent Dagor is f:7.7 or 8, but the Fuji is likely a better lens in some ways.
A 12" Dagor is about a half stop slower than a 300mm Symmar-S, has very slightly less coverage, and is far smaller and lighter. But the Symmar will be better value for the buck, Dagors often go for silly prices.

That's why I was suggesting a 12" or 14" Commercial Ektar. They're less than half the price of a comparable Dagor, and they're an f6.3 instead of an f7.7. Another good option that would give excellent bang-for-the-buck would be a Turner-Reich triple convertible - I have a 12-19-25 version, and aside from needing a lens shade (and a yellow filter when converted) it's a fine performer. They're tricky to shop for though as most of them have mild to severe balsam separation. The upside though is they're CHEAP. Like under $200 cheap. Most Dagors and Turner-Reichs are in very old shutters that may not have any flash sync at all, or if you're lucky, they have a bi-post sync plug. Look for a Caltar 300mm (which will be basically a re-branded Schneider or Rodenstock) and save another $200 over the brand-name label lens.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Large format lenses are like ladies: Do you want fast, cheap and quality?

Pick two and come back after you decide.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I really think the OP would be best served by getting almost any lens in the 240-360 range and seeing how he gets along with the format.
There's no shortage of good lenses out there...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I really think the OP would be best served by getting almost any lens in the 240-360 range and seeing how he gets along with the format.
There's no shortage of good lenses out there...

That's true but unless he wants to buy lenses 2x, 3x or 4x then he'd better consider the full range of focal lengths he may want and the minimum/maximum differences between those focal lengths. He seems to want to shoot very wide, hence his OP regarding 150mm. If he likes extremely wide then he may want something like a 110mm SS XL, 115mm Grandagon or 120mm Nikkor SW too. My gut instinct is he may be best served with the FL lenses I opted for... 110-120, 150-165, 200-210, 300-305, 450, 600.