Confusion over 150mm lenses for 8x10

[DREW WILEY]

The problem with a twelve or fourteen inch commercial Ektar on a camera like this is going to be the weight, if the lensboard even fits to begin with. He's talking about a Chamonix field camera here folks, not a big heavy Elkdorff. A fourteen inch Dagor is fairly compact, but not really a
lightwt contender. The only reason I'm down on these is that I never paid even half of what people expect nowadays for em, even brand new.
Yeah, I do use one, but more often prefer either a 450 Fuji C or 360 Fuji A for my "normal" focal lengths on 8x10, at least in the field. I actually
use several different 360's, cause each has a slightly different personality.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I keep forgetting what camera he's using. True enough - the 14" Commercial Ektar would be a bit of a beast for the Chamonix. The front standard will support it, but it would take a custom flange to get it mounted on a Linhof board. The 12" C.E. will be fine though - it's in a #4 Ilex and it fits on a Technica board without special machine work. I have one that I use regularly on my Canham 5x7 woodfield and that holds it just fine. But probably better to get something in a modern Copal 3 shutter that is less finicky until he's comfy with the format - playing around with vintage shutters is not for the uninitiated.

 

[Barry S]

The 8x10 Chamonix takes Sinar boards and the 14" Commercial Ektar doesn't tax the front standard in the least. I have one mounted in a Chamonix carbon fiber lens board and think it's a great choice for a normal lens. The Chamonix front standard does a better job handling large lenses because the front tilt locks, compared to the friction lock of a Deardorff.

 

[Alan Gales]

I keep forgetting what camera he's using. True enough - the 14" Commercial Ektar would be a bit of a beast for the Chamonix. The front standard will support it, but it would take a custom flange to get it mounted on a Linhof board. The 12" C.E. will be fine though - it's in a #4 Ilex and it fits on a Technica board without special machine work. I have one that I use regularly on my Canham 5x7 woodfield and that holds it just fine. But probably better to get something in a modern Copal 3 shutter that is less finicky until he's comfy with the format - playing around with vintage shutters is not for the uninitiated.

You are thinking about the 4x5. The 8x10 Chamonix uses Sinar boards. At least that's what it says on their website.

The 14" Commercial Ektar was my first 8x10 lens and if I could only keep one lens for 8x10 that would be the one. Stone wants modern lightweight lenses for the most part and has been interested in the Fuji's. He is coming to realize (as the rest of us have) that the wide angle choices for 8x10 are quite limited compared to 4x5.

 

[StoneNYC]

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

So Essentially the two lenses I would want from you right now are sold! such is life...

My planned kit is close at this point...

150 SS XL
300 Fujinon-C (owned)
450 Fujinon-C
600 Fujinon-C

I don't necessarily see the point in getting the 210 when the 300 is so close, and because I'll be hiking I feel like I want to keep the kit to 3-4 lenses only.

However the order of IMPORTANCE for me, goes like this...

600 Fujinon-C
150 SS XL
450 Fujinon-C

IF I already had the above, I would probably want some kind of ...

900-1200 type lens for non-hiking work.
210, possibly the 210 Graphic-Kowa (Computar) you have.

I think the 110 is just too wide for most of what I might do, it would be something I would get if it fell into my lap at a ridiculous price. I'm going to PM you anyway, and thanks for the advice.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

There's only 50 percent difference between 300 and 450 and only 33 percent between 450 and 600. So why have a 100 percent difference in FL between 150 and 300? A 200-210 is a nice fill between 150 and 300. You're only adding one more lens to the group with the 210.

If you really only need double FL between lenses then just buy a 150, 300 and 600... the 450 doesn't fit your needs.

I personally don't like such wide gaps in FL limiting my options but many people do prefer fewer lenses and lighter weight. That's just not me. IME, there's a very significant difference in perspective at 50 percent difference in FL.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My assumption is that if someone is shopping for a lightwt field 8x10, they would naturally like something matching in lenses - relatively lightwt. Big klunkers in either category are cheaper to obtain these days, at least in more normal focal lengths. In ultrawides, there are only so many choices. And things like Commercial Ektars have quite a different rendering than modern multicoated lenses. Big shutters regardless, and that inevitably affects sharpness if you're enlarging a lot. My least favorite were actually the later no.3 Compurs, which had so much "buzz" to them
that I'd hesitate to use them on monorails.

 

[jamespierce]

I second the notion about changes in FOV. The difference between 210 to 300 feels bigger than 300 to 450. 150 to 300 is a huge jump. 150 is really quite wide.

 

[StoneNYC]

I second the notion about changes in FOV. The difference between 210 to 300 feels bigger than 300 to 450. 150 to 300 is a huge jump. 150 is really quite wide.

Yes I've now realized you're right.

Ironically, I sort of took a journey through focal leg the, and ended up at 200mm and that took me to available 8x10 with movement and gave have me choices in 180mm that seemed good and I said "oh 20mm wider isn't so bad" and then I was looking at the 180mm when I came upon suggestions about the 150mm and said "oh 30mm wider than 180mm I can live with, that will work. Without remembering that I started with 200mm... Hah!

So now I'm back to accepting that what I really need is a nice 200-210mm like everyone else and just need one that's sharp and light, the one old-n-feeble has looks interesting and I like that it covers 11x14 since I also use that format.

So any other super light modern shutter 200mm or 210mm that also covers 11x14?

Or generous 8x10 coverage I should consider?

Why Fuji never made a full like of Compact lenses I'll never know, it's the best and I wish they had made a wider range... 200 C and 900 C would have been so great!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

A 200-C would have been a fine tiny lens but it wouldn't have covered 8x10... just 5x7 with a little wiggle room. All the Fuji Compact series are dyalite derivatives. If you want lenses to cover 8x10 with lots of room (enough to be usable on 11x14) then, in focal lengths shorter than about 400mm (maybe 360), stick with plasmats and maybe double-gauss types. There may be others but those two styles are your best bet.

If you want to know how a 200mm Fujinon-C would have performed (had it been made) then look into a 210mm Repro-Claron or 210mm Apo-Nikkor (not Process-Nikkor or Wide-Angle Apo-Nikkor). Those are dyalite designs. They're fine lenses but they don't have the extreme wide-angle capabilities you desire.

EDIT: There are very few lenses (especially modern versions) capable of excellent ultra-wide performance that are also small and lightweight. Also, if you think you'll like 200-210mm on 11x14 then you'd like 150mm on 8x10 just as much.

 

[StoneNYC]

A 200-C would have been a fine tiny lens but it wouldn't have covered 8x10... just 5x7 with a little wiggle room. All the Fuji Compact series are dyalite derivatives. If you want lenses to cover 8x10 with lots of room (enough to be usable on 11x14) then, in focal lengths shorter than about 400mm (maybe 360), stick with plasmats and maybe double-gauss types. There may be others but those two styles are your best bet.

If you want to know how a 200mm Fujinon-C would have performed (had it been made) then look into a 210mm Repro-Claron or 210mm Apo-Nikkor (not Process-Nikkor or Wide-Angle Apo-Nikkor). Those are dyalite designs. They're fine lenses but they don't have the extreme wide-angle capabilities you desire.

EDIT: There are very few lenses (especially modern versions) capable of excellent ultra-wide performance that are also small and lightweight. Also, if you think you'll like 200-210mm on 11x14 then you'd like 150mm on 8x10 just as much.

Thanks for the info.

Just to clarify, I tend to use different formats in different ways, and I would certainly be more prone to using an almost ultra-wide angle lens on an ultra large format camera like the 11x14 as I will be using it in different locations/settings.

I would use the 600mm for 8x10 but a 900mm or 1200mm on 11x14 based on it's current purpose I wouldn't use it.... However a 14x17 I would use less wide... It's just how I work. So you can't assume that what works for 4x5 will work for 8x10.

That's what made me realize I won't need the 150mm right now, after all of this... It's not what I need FIRST it's what I would get LAST. Lol.

 

[Ponysoldier]

FWIW... for many years my most frequently used "shorter-focal-length" on 8x10 was a 210mm f6.8 Angulon. I later opted to acquire a 165mm Super Angulon and hated it with a passion! I have heard all of the comments re: quality variance with Angulons but I must have gotten lucky (and I was in Germany when I acquired both a 165mm f6.8 and a 210mm f6.8 during the early '60's). If I recall correctly the 210 was 388mm @f16.

Joel

 

[StoneNYC]

FWIW... for many years my most frequently used "shorter-focal-length" on 8x10 was a 210mm f6.8 Angulon. I later opted to acquire a 165mm Super Angulon and hated it with a passion! I have heard all of the comments re: quality variance with Angulons but I must have gotten lucky (and I was in Germany when I acquired both a 165mm f6.8 and a 210mm f6.8 during the early '60's). If I recall correctly the 210 was 388mm @f16.

Joel

Thanks, though the weight of that must be pretty extreme.

 

[Eric Leppanen]

So any other super light modern shutter 200mm or 210mm that also covers 11x14?

Or generous 8x10 coverage I should consider?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?44442-210-for-8x10

 

[darkroom_rookie]

OK, here's a question for y'all. Can you DIY a 150mm triplet lens that would cover 8x10 well AND give an acceptably sharp image? Say you use lens elements with a 4-5" diameter.

 

[Dan Fromm]

OK, here's a question for y'all. Can you DIY a 150mm triplet lens that would cover 8x10 well AND give an acceptably sharp image? Say you use lens elements with a 4-5" diameter.

Almost certainly not. There have been very few w/a triplets. The only one that comes to mind is the TTH Ser. VII/VIIa (f/6.5, around 80 degrees, you want a 90 degree lens), made in a variety of focal lengths. According to the VM it was made for a relatively short time before being replaced by the legendary Ser. VIIb, a 4/4 double Gauss types.

There has to have been a reason why early w/a anastigmats for LF were Dagor derivatives and 4/4 double Gauss types. There has to be a reason why recent w/a lenses for LF are all more complex.

All that said, if getting curved pieces of glass and playing with them pleases you and fits your budget, by all means play. I'd love to be proven wrong about w/a triplets.

 

[darkroom_rookie]

Almost certainly not. There have been very few w/a triplets. The only one that comes to mind is the TTH Ser. VII/VIIa (f/6.5, around 80 degrees, you want a 90 degree lens), made in a variety of focal lengths. According to the VM it was made for a relatively short time before being replaced by the legendary Ser. VIIb, a 4/4 double Gauss types.

There has to have been a reason why early w/a anastigmats for LF were Dagor derivatives and 4/4 double Gauss types. There has to be a reason why recent w/a lenses for LF are all more complex.

All that said, if getting curved pieces of glass and playing with them pleases you and fits your budget, by all means play. I'd love to be proven wrong about w/a triplets.

Dan, thanks for your answer. Here are the lenses I have and am thinking of tinkering with:



Left to right : front element, spacer, middle element, spacer, rear element. A little under 4" dia. elements.
Assembled in the original configuration:



...give a cca. 14-inch f4 lens (front element on top). More details of the lenses:

Front element:



Middle element, first the front-facing surface, then the rear-facing one:



And the rear element:



Think it could be worth trying changing the spacing to get a 6-7" FL?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

For someone who just wants to experiment with wide-angle on 8x10 I was going to suggest looking for one of the old Soviet double-gauss 20cm aerial spy lenses. I dunno... they might even illuminate the corners on 11x14 but I never tried it. They use to sell for just a few dollars. However, I looked can't find any plus they don't even show up on a google search. I wonder what they'd sell for now.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Think it could be worth trying changing the spacing to get a 6-7" FL?

I have no idea. Just try it.

What do you plan to use for a shutter?

 

[darkroom_rookie]

What do you plan to use for a shutter?

Lens cap or a hat. This is for a sliding box WA camera I'm building around 8x10" Fidelity holders and Sinar lensboards. Primarily for paper reversal positive experiments (Supra Endura) and copying film (CDU-II, some Agfa aero stuff from 9,5" rolls).

 

[Xmas]

Lens cap or a hat. This is for a sliding box WA camera I'm building around 8x10" Fidelity holders and Sinar lensboards. Primarily for paper reversal positive experiments (Supra Endura) and copying film (CDU-II, some Agfa aero stuff from 9,5" rolls).

Triplets style lenses are normally the building block for zooms, if you increase or decrease the separation keeping the same proportions you will vary the focal length.

But performance will suffer and vignetting... Zooms have more elements than periodic table - almost.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[AgX]

Almost certainly not. There have been very few w/a triplets. The only one that comes to mind is the TTH Ser. VII/VIIa (f/6.5, around 80 degrees, you want a 90 degree lens).

There had been european fish eye and super-WA lenses made of three elements. Though I would not call them triplets.

 

[Dan Fromm]

There had been european fish eye and super-WA lenses made of three elements. Though I would not call them triplets.

Please name names.

 

[AgX]

-) "Sky Lens" by Robin Hill, 180°

-) "15cm Weitwinkelobjektiv" by Zeiss Jena, 110°

-) "Sphaerogon 1935" by Willy Merté, 165° (4E/3G)