Lenses for 8x10, only contact prints as finals...

I think I already know the answer to this but here goes...

I just recently purchased an 8x10 conversion kit for my Sinar P2 4x5 camera, already own a Jobo 3005 drum that I have had for some time now so the 8x10 bug might finally be biting.

I own and use both a 240mm F9 Fujinon A in Copal 0 and the somewhat rare Schneider 350mm F11 Apo Tele-Xenar Compact in Copal-1.They have been great longer than normal lenses for 4x5 but I am now intrigued by using them potentially for 8x10 format, specifically contact prints since I don't plan on adding a 8x10 enlarger to my toolset.

I imagine at some point I would like to get a proper 300mm 5.6 in Copal-3 but the fact I already have these two lightweight and compact gems has me thinking they will be more than fine for contact prints even if the 240 is fairly limited in terms of movements for the format.

Am I thinking correctly here or are there other lenses I should be looking at even if only doing contact prints?

You need movements even more with 10x8 than 5x4, both lenses have limited coverage but with careful use of rise/fall to keep the film within the image circle with any tilt you should be OK.

My guess is you'll be frustrated by the limitations of movements caused by the lenses coverage, I was lucky my own 10x8 camera came with a 12" (300mm) f6.8 Dagor which has been coated, good movements and sharp and excellent contrast. I had intended to do contact prints but as soon as I held my first 10x8 negatives I wanted to enlarge them. There was also the issue of contact prints not fitting alongside my images made with 5x4 and 6x6 cameras, I print my 5x4 negatives slightly larger than 10x8 to be hung in 20x16 frames. I bought my De Vere 5108 when the market had dropped to it's lowest and there were always plenty on ebay.

Ian

I say if you can go then do...school is to learn and you might just have that one teacher that blows your mind plus you have a setting where there is free flow of ideas and exchange
You dont hey that sitting home alone reading a book

Don’t know what you plan photograph but 240mm is kinda wide. I think you’ll wind up with a 12-14” lens being most useful. But you already know that!

Let us know how those lenses work for you. Are you able to post examples of your contact prints?

I'm not familiar with the Schneider lens you mention, but I've used a Fuji 240A on 8x10 for years; great lens! Compact lenses for 8x10 are nice because they reduced the overall bulk and weight of the kit. Whether this matters to you or not will center around how far you plan to carry the outfit. I'd highly recommend adding a Fuji 450C lens to your kit which will complete a new range of focal lengths--wide(ish), basically normal, and long(ish). Several 8x10 shooters that I know also have a Nikon SW 150mm and Fuji 600C, but IMO that's hitting more specialized focal lengths and, depending on what you plan to shoot, may not be needed.

Dan, my eyes are 66 years old. I don't know how old yours are. This is a matter of visual accommodation. My 8x10 Phillips has a Maxwell fresnel combined with a Satin Snow ground glass, and I own both lenses you listed.. I still prefer faster lenses for composing/focusing, even using a BTZS focus tube. You might be fine, or you could yearn for larger-aperture, Copal 3-mounted plasmats. The only way to know is try. Since you already own the 240A and 350 Apo, that should be easy.

Thanks everyone, I will give them a shot!

btaylor said:

Don’t know what you plan photograph but 240mm is kinda wide. I think you’ll wind up with a 12-14” lens being most useful. But you already know that!

Click to expand...

A 240mm isn't that wide on a 10x8 camera, with 5x4 most people jump from a 150mm Standard lens to a 90mm wide Angle, if you think of 35mm equivalenst a 24mm equates to a 40mm a slightly wide standard lns.

Myidea of wide is a huge 165mm f8 Super Angulo, or a small 159mm Wollensqack EWA

I do use a 240mm f5.6 Nikkor W, it's a lovely lens, nice for 5x4, it's my standard lens for 7x5 (with my Koadk Specialist 2 half plate camera), and it's great with my 10x8 cameras as well. I've made adapter boards for my Kodak Specialist 2 and 10x8 Agfa Ansco sos I cn leave it on my Wisya/Linhof lens board.

Ian

I decided I really did not want to run out of coverage above all else so I just picked up a clean Fuji 250mm 6.7, about as an affordable lens for 8x10 as one could hope for and a bit brighter than my F9 and F11 lenses.

I bet I will be set with that and the 350mm for awhile, maybe even for good with just doing contact prints.

I have the Fuji 250mm 6.7 to, has oodles of coverage and plenty sharp. Even use it for my 24 x 30 and 14x17 stopped down.
Have a 350mm raptor tele, but that hasnt any movements for 8x10, will up grade one day.
Just bought a Fuji 420mm L, also a cheapy, That covers me for awhile.

If your intent is to stick to making contact prints (a practice I enjoy myself), then in reality you could use almost any lens that provides sufficient coverage for the format. My personal preference is for lenses with a maximum aperture if no less than f5.6, for ease of viewing, and my f4.5 lenses and the Petzvals with apertures of f3.2 and f4 get the most use. I am one of those people who think that if you acquire a 12” Kodak Ektar (I have the f4.5 version, not the commercial lens) then you may never need another “normal” lens in your life.

Bah Humbug. There are several lightweight lenses in the 240 to 250 lens that easily cover 8x10 format with movements, including the 240A. The question really is what kind of subject matter and movements do you anticipate? It makes little difference whether you're contact printing or enlarging unless you want some dreamy semi-focused look for studio portraiture, in which case you might want a bigger lens with a much larger max aperture like Paul just mentioned. Depends on your style. I rarely use a 300 for 8x10. Jumping from 250 to 360 works quite well for me. But you made a smart buy picking up a Fuji 250/6.7. It's not quite as well corrected as the 240A, especially for extreme close-ups, but is brighter viewing, and a damn good lens in its own right. I've got an immaculate 30X40 inch Cibachrome print on the wall right now taken with a 250/6.7 that you really would need a loupe to see all the detail packed into it. I don't know why on earth you're conceiving of it only worthy for contact prints. So far, all your lenses appear to be high-end lightweights excellent for field use. If you're just working in the studio, then you can select from big clunker bargain lenses too, which doesn't necessarily mean they deliver inferior images, but just aren't in as much demand right now due to their big shutters and extra weight. Don't overthink this. Just start shooting and printing, and go from there.

paulbarden said:

If your intent is to stick to making contact prints (a practice I enjoy myself), then in reality you could use almost any lens that provides sufficient coverage for the format. My personal preference is for lenses with a maximum aperture if no less than f5.6, for ease of viewing, and my f4.5 lenses and the Petzvals with apertures of f3.2 and f4 get the most use. I am one of those people who think that if you acquire a 12” Kodak Ektar (I have the f4.5 version, not the commercial lens) then you may never need another “normal” lens in your life.

Click to expand...

+1

i had been trying to think of how to say it and paulbarden said it so well i didn't have to ..
even older lenses stopped down are sweet and sharp so just find anything that covers...
AND if you find something in a barrel, packard shutters work great...

For now it is just contact prints as I have no way of enlarging an 8x10 negative and I am not about to start down the rabbit hole of trying to amass the equipment in order to do that, all three of my enlarger stations ( my capacity ) are filled with LPL 4550 XLG’s.

At the moment I am working through a box of 25 sheets of Catabs X 80 in 8x10 to get the workflow down and see what I can or can not do with my two existing lenses. If I really take to the format for the purposes of contact prints and the other special project I have for it, I will likely pick up a Nikkor W 300mm 5.6 down the road for low light, big movement stuff and call it good.

If you want large movements, you're going to be far better served by something in the 360 or 14 inch category than 300mm. But before you just start jumping at image circle figures you need to discover what kind of look you're after in these prints. Everything you've obtained or mentioned so far has a distinctly modern hard-sharp looks, but without particularly smooth out-of-focus background effect. Older lenses and shutters can offer an alternative to that.

The beauty of formats like 10x8 and larger is quite old lenses can still produce excellent results particularly for contact prints but at moderate enlargement as well.

I have my Grand-mothers 1910 wedding photo's and the quality is superb even by today's standards, they were shot on 12"x10" and 10"x8" cameras and most likely with Rapid Rectilinear lenses. While I have quite a few Rapid Rectilinear lenses most cover Quarter plate, Half Plate (just under 7"x5") and Whole (Full) plate - usually 10" sometimes 12" then I skip to 20" for 15"x12" or 12"x10".

paulbarden said:

If your intent is to stick to making contact prints (a practice I enjoy myself), then in reality you could use almost any lens that provides sufficient coverage for the format. My personal preference is for lenses with a maximum aperture if no less than f5.6, for ease of viewing, and my f4.5 lenses and the Petzvals with apertures of f3.2 and f4 get the most use. I am one of those people who think that if you acquire a 12” Kodak Ektar (I have the f4.5 version, not the commercial lens) then you may never need another “normal” lens in your life.

Click to expand...

I don't have issues with f8, f9 and even f14 lenses on my 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View but then I jave a Beattie Intenscreen (came NIB unused with the camera) , however I've used my 141mm f14 Ross EWA (Protar) on my Universal View and a plain GG screen but it's bright compared to the original.

Here in the UK shutters for brass lenses aren't an issue we have excellent Thornton Pickard roller blind shutters, front mounted or between lens and lens board, I have many 50+ of various sizes so never short of a shutter I also have a few focal plane shutters, and a TP Half Plate Triple Extension Dual shutter field camera so 1/10 to 1/1000 as well as Time

We need to have open minds and revisit the past, just look at the print quality from the late 1800's and realise if you don't look back you can't go forward

Ian

btaylor said:

Don’t know what you plan photograph but 240mm is kinda wide. I think you’ll wind up with a 12-14” lens being most useful. But you already know that!

Click to expand...

My 240mm Rodenstock is a really nice WA for my 'old and much exerienced' 8x10 Burke and James "woodie' but you don't get much in the way of Rise or Shifts on either Lens or Film planes....

Ken

KenS said:

My 240mm Rodenstock is a really nice WA for my 'old and much exerienced' 8x10 Burke and James "woodie' but you don't get much in the way of Rise or Shifts on either Lens or Film planes....

Ken

Click to expand...

Depends on which Rodenstock 240 you have. Sironar, Sironar N, Apo Sironar S or a process lens.

Well no matter what I do, F22. F45, I am getting soft corners, especially with the 240A.

I did a test wide open on the 350 F11 and it back focused a bit, about 6 feet back on something I had focused on about 60 feet away. I also noticed the film is a bit odd too ( Catlabs X 80 ) in that it bows out from the emulsion side center when I was loading it, could explain the back focus but not soft corners at F45. I did calibrate my front and rear standards on the P2 since I am using the 8x10 conversion kit and the stock markings to not center it up quite right in terms of rise / fall and shift so I am sure the lenses are centered. I also did a depth gauge measurement and the screen is spot on to the film surface in the holder.

I am not doing any rise / fall or shift either, very little front tilt and only modest rear tilt. But in the case of the infinity landscape none at all. Good thing this film is the cheapest I can get, I am going to go through all of it trying to figure this out...

I shoot an 8x10 Phillips without any screen brightener or fresnel, and have no problem at all with focus and composition with f/9 lenses or even the 450/12.5 C. It's more likely going to be a shorter wide-angle lens that causes viewing issues. The 240A or 250/6.7 W are not true wide-angle designs, but 80 degree normals, so have relatively modest falloff for this focal length usage on 8x10. You need quite a bit of enlargement to see any visible loss in corner detail with either if you are well stopped down to begin with; but I use the 240 only once in awhile for 8x10 and consider it mainly my personal idea of a 4x5 "normal" perspective.

I only contact print and have not seen any loss of sharpness in the corners with the FujiW 250/6.7 with 8x10 and moderate movements (rarely use more), and the FujiW 300/5.6 has been my main lens, again plenty of coverage for my landscape needs (often in tight places).

Perhaps the OP could do a little test...photograph a flat textured surface (side of a building, etc), exaggerate rise/fall and shift, and line up the edge of the image circle near the center of the film. Expose a sheet of film to see how the image softens and dims as one gets near the edge of the image circle. Pick an aperature you'll be working with. Might be educational.

Vaughn said:

Perhaps the OP could do a little test...photograph a flat textured surface (side of a building, etc), exaggerate rise/fall and shift, and line up the edge of the image circle near the center of the film. Expose a sheet of film to see how the image softens and dims as one gets near the edge of the image circle. Pick an aperature you'll be working with. Might be educational.

Click to expand...

I think I am going to have to do the brick wall test regardless just to really rule out some things. I hate to waste film like this but I have to get this pinned down, If it comes down to it I will forgo the two lenses I have in favor of a pair with larger image circles and brighter viewing. I will get the 250mm 6.7 next week and I might just say to heck with it and spring for a Nikkor W 360mm 6.5 in order to get the right spread and be done with it. Another thought is a 305mm F9 G Claron.

DREW WILEY said:

I shoot an 8x10 Phillips without any screen brightener or fresnel, and have no problem at all with focus and composition with f/9 lenses or even the 450/12.5 C. It's more likely going to be a shorter wide-angle lens that causes viewing issues. The 240A or 250/6.7 W are not true wide-angle designs, but 80 degree normals, so have relatively modest falloff for this focal length usage on 8x10. You need quite a bit of enlargement to see any visible loss in corner detail with either if you are well stopped down to begin with; but I use the 240 only once in awhile for 8x10 and consider it mainly my personal idea of a 4x5 "normal" perspective.

Click to expand...

I can't see really ever going wider than 240mm on 8x10 but I do see using the focal length quite a bit. I could see the soft corners with my reading glasses, I did not even need a loupe.

I'll get this pinned down, these are both great lenses even if somewhat coverage limited.

My Fuji W 360/6.3 is a fearsome beast! It normally lives with the 11x14, but shares the Sinar board with my 8x10. Depending how far one wants to hike into the mountains of Colorado, its weight should be taken into consideration. The Nikkor W 360mm 6.5 is a touch over 3 pounds...and a slightly larger image circle. I do have an 4x20 image image in mind (actually two vertical 4x10s, one on top of the other) that I might be using the 360mm to the edges of its image circle. I'd like to make another rendition of one of my favorite redwoods, previously photographed with a 4x5 a few decades ago...but use rise/fall more to be able to keep the back vertical.

Tree and Jackie
Two 4x5 contact prints, but the bottom negative has disappeared, alas.

Vaughn said:

My Fuji W 360/6.3 is a fearsome beast! It normally lives with the 11x14, but shares the Sinar board with my 8x10. Depending how far one wants to hike into the mountains of Colorado, its weight should be taken into consideration. The Nikkor W 360mm 6.5 is a touch over 3 pounds...and a slightly larger image circle. I do have an 4x20 image image in mind (actually two vertical 4x10s, one on top of the other) that I might be using the 360mm to the edges of its image circle. I'd like to make another rendition of one of my favorite redwoods, previously photographed with a 4x5 a few decades ago...but use rise/fall more to be able to keep the back vertical.

Tree and Jackie
Two 4x5 contact prints, but the bottom negative has disappeared, alas.

Click to expand...

The Nikkor 360 a huge lens, no doubt and the near 494mm image circle is most certainly overkill so a 355 G Claron could be a more manageable weight and fitter size. The Schneider 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar is fabulously sharp on my 4x5 with plenty of coverage at 350mm. One person on LFF claimed to have seen it give him more like 375mm of coverage when at F32 but that was only one claim. But the Fuji 240 A might be just too tight at 336mm and it is showing readily with trace if any front tilt and modest rear tilt.

I have read hours worth of banter on lenses in the range of 240-360mm on 8x10 and the consistency seems to be that to overcome the often soft corners associated with smaller coverage, one needs to simply get into larger image circles.

As far as hiking with a beast like a 360 plasmat, I wont be doing that solo, I would need a crew of 3 or more...the Sinar P2 in 8x10 form on it's tripod is already approaching 30 pounds not counting the film holders. The subject matter will be close to the rig which can go some pretty rough places.

I never had any intention of going from the highly portable not to mention printable 4x5 format to 8x10, but already having the Jobo drum to process it and then having the unused condition 8x10 conversion kit come my way for a reasonable price changed that. In addition to contact prints, I am going to be doing another project I have wanted to do for a long time but found 4x5 too small for and that is making B&W display transparencies via contact printing on litho film. I have done some on 4x5 and they come out pretty amazing with the right subject matter, but again, too small to serve the markets I do. 8x10 however opens that image up quite a bit and will look stunning.

I also can't rule out needing to make a very large print via a scan down the road, I have 12' foot murals hanging in Denver via 4x5 so I am not going to be OK with less than stellar results from 8x10 when the film cost so much more.

I'll get it figured out, likely more tests tomorrow...