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

[Vaughn]

Walking about with the 8x10 and pod for me is around 60 pounds -- the above tree is about a mile in, but a good climb at the end to get to the ridge top. perhaps the next time one of my boys is in town, I'll get him to help -- and be my model...it is a steep drop down to the tree from the trail/camera position!

 

[Ai Print]

I once hiked with Hugo Zhang of Chamonix as he carried his 16x20 camera kit to the top of Uhebe crater in Death Valley. But that is pretty close to sea level, I start my hikes at 8,000 feet and higher in my neck of the woods.

I suppose I might be able to cobble together a pack and if I am just carrying the 250/6.7 and 350/11 and not more than 6 film holders I could pull it off. If it comes down to it, I would be looking at a lighter camera than a P2 but man would I miss those geared movements, it’s a joy to use.

On another topic, I am wondering about tilts as they relate to image circle now. The test photos I shot more recently were from my balcony about 12 feet off the ground. I aimed for the asphalt driveway as the bottom and closest part of the frame about 25 feet away and on to some trees in my neighbor’s yard across the street. I tilted the camera downward instead of using fall and used only rear tilt with the 240. I stopped the darn thing down to f45 and still got very soft corners.

I am about to put it on a 4x5 and see if I can get a sharp image out of that...it’s been over a year since I have shot in that format so I am not recalling what I am used to seeing.

 

[Ian Grant]

Even with a limited image circle tilts aren't an issue as long as you use the right amount of rise or fall to compensate, it's not something I've ever found an issue I do it on the fly hand held with a 90mm f6.8 Angulon and that's a lens with a very tight tight image circle for 5x4,

Un-sharp lenses do exist and get through quality control, I have a Carl Zeiss 150mm f4.5 Tessar (West German) and it's not sharp at any aperture, these lenses were only made for Linhof, my East German Carl Zeiss Jena 150mm f4.5 Tessar is superb at f22.

When I began shooting in the 1960's there was an underlying assumption in books I read that MF and particularly LF lenses didn't need to have the resolution of 35mm lenses. That's based on smallish prints, reality is we want high quality regardless of the format, it's not what most of us want.

You may have a "dog" of a lens, I bought one 90mm f6.8 Angulon late 1980's which was awful, borrowed another just as bad, then bought a third which is superb.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's no substitute for year-round physical conditioning if you're working at altitude with large cameras. The P system has a couple of handicaps in the outdoors. One is obviously unnecessary weight. The other is the susceptibility of all that gearing to sand and grit. Since Sinar components are largely interchangeable, it might be wise to look at the older Norma system if something in good condition shows up. There are real advantages to simplification when the elements come into play. I wouldn't dream of going into the mtns for even a day hike without warm waterproof gear in the pack too. Every year people make that mistake and come back in a body bag. Take it from someone who's walked over 15,000 mi in the mtns with Sinar gear.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A "dog" of a Fuji lens is about as common as a giraffe with swimming flippers, unless someone has sold a bait and switch lens with mismatched front and rear elements. The 250/6.7 allows moderate movements on 8x10 film well stopped down. It is not a true wide angle design, but a relatively modern 80 degree plasmat, and a very good one. But this sounds like a technique issue. Did you realign the rear standard to vertical, and only afterwards adjust the front tilt?

 

[Ai Print]

But this sounds like a technique issue. Did you realign the rear standard to vertical, and only afterwards adjust the front tilt?

This is what I am thinking, I'll revisit technique in the coming days, looks like the 250mm 6.7 might show tomorrow as well as three more film holders so that will afford me some tasks...

The Sinar will not become a hiking camera for a host of reasons, not even sure if 8x10 will be. Now 4x5 and medium format ( in addition to digital ), that is near daily. As far as year round conditioning, how about I have done this high altitude work ( 8,000-14,000 feet) near-daily for 22 years. For example, for my work for the local ski areas, I am getting up at 4AM, skinning uphill 3,000 vertical feet and getting sunrise landscapes on average three days a week.

I'm patient, I need stellar results and that only happens when everything comes together.

 

[Vaughn]

Excellent -- you'll like the 250/6.7. With 8x10, even a bad day of photography is a good day of exercise.

"I am getting up at 4AM, skinning uphill 3,000 vertical feet and getting sunrise landscapes on average three days a week." I am twisted enough to imagine looking up at 3000 vertical feet of blood-stained snow blending with the colors of the new day.
And I can not even blame it on a typo! I do not tend to hike with the 8x10 anymore -- I tend to wander instead. Of course, sometimes when the light dies I might find myself a couple miles from the van. I try to plan it so that it is level or down hill at the end of the day. I have a large travel pack (internal frame) that can hold the camera, two or three lenses, meter, darkcloth, etc, and up to seven 8x10 holders in a pinch, but prefer five. Toss in some water, leave the 360mm/6.3 at home, and it will be about 45 pounds in the pack, plus 15 to 17 pounds of tripod/head in my hand. I usually have the tripod extended (Ries A100) so that when climbing/stepping up or down, I can place the pod on the ground by its spikes so that I do not have to lift that weight with my knees.

With the pack at 45 pounds, I am carrying 18% of my weight, and add the tripod it is about a quarter of my weight...and a lighter pack I would take for a week of backpacking (damn camera equipment...) The 11x14 really is not much heavier...about the same if I only take two holders. A bit more awkward, as I have not finalized the padding for it in the canoe portage pack that can hold the beast!

 

[Ai Print]

Excellent -- you'll like the 250/6.7. With 8x10, even a bad day of photography is a good day of exercise.

"I am getting up at 4AM, skinning uphill 3,000 vertical feet and getting sunrise landscapes on average three days a week." I am twisted enough to imagine looking up at 3000 vertical feet of blood-stained snow blending with the colors of the new day.

Nice twist...

The term "skinning" clarified...

 

[Vaughn]

Got a phone call while editing my post, so got a little behind you -- I belately remembered the term "skinning" as it relates to getting uphill. At 65 yrs, I can only admire the energy levels of folks like you and my sons. I'll keep wandering...

 

[Ian Grant]

A "dog" of a Fuji lens is about as common as a giraffe with swimming flippers, unless someone has sold a bait and switch lens with mismatched front and rear elements. The 250/6.7 allows moderate movements on 8x10 film well stopped down. It is not a true wide angle design, but a relatively modern 80 degree plasmat, and a very good one. But this sounds like a technique issue. Did you realign the rear standard to vertical, and only afterwards adjust the front tilt?

My Linhof 150mm Zeiss Tessar doesn't even focus to a sharp image, I was given it for the cost of postage from Australia by a late member here on that basis.

It's not unknown for second-hand lenses to come with the wrong rear cells, there was a case on this Forum a year or two ago, so the OP's idea of photographing a brick wall is a good test, it's a rare occurrence and usually done deliberately. While it's unlikely it's better to be sure.

Ian

 

[Bob S]

My Linhof 150mm Zeiss Tessar doesn't even focus to a sharp image, I was given it for the cost of postage from Australia by a late member here on that basis.

It's not unknown for second-hand lenses to come with the wrong rear cells, there was a case on this Forum a year or two ago, so the OP's idea of photographing a brick wall is a good test, it's a rare occurrence and usually done deliberately. While it's unlikely it's better to be sure.

Ian

When we replaced Berkey Photo Marketing as the USA distributor for Rodenstock a condition of our contract was that we had to take over their existing inventory of lenses.

I had the great job of opening and inspecting every lens in their inventory.

found some with mismatched lens groups. Some with no rear group, some with no front group, some with humongous fingerprints on the glass and one with a cracked front cell. All had been shipped to us as new stock from Berkey which meant that they were selling returned, uninspected lenses to dealers as new stock,

 

[DREW WILEY]

Reminds me of when we were supplying the military with huge quantities of industrial paint. The cartons on the top of the stack would be correct, but then all kinds of containers below might be mismatched - their way of attempting to foist screwed up product on the next dealer unawares. And then there are those monorail cameras on the auction site cobbled up from random parts and deceptively labeled. I've never received a Frankenlens or Frankencamera because I carefully check the details and expect to see pictures of the actual item, not a catalog shot.

 

[Bob S]

We lived a few miles from Picitinney Arsenal in NJ. They put out a contract for special military spec bolts, washers and nuts. A local guy won the contract and filled the order by going to a local hardware store and buying and then selling the Army Research Center off the shelf hardware.
He made a mint on the contract but didn’t think to check that an Army lab would test them.
He is still getting free room and board.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well supplied lumber to military bases all over the Pacific too and had an entire sales division specialized in it. A competitor wanted in on the game, so would come to us and buy a token amount of specified grade product, then use that as a veneer over banded pallets of junk lumber. The Navy never caught on. But because he didn't know the highly specific paperwork protocol of selling to the military, he never got paid either!

 

[Ai Print]

Well I am a member of the bowling ball plasmat club, just ordered a Nikkor W 360mm 6.5.

 

[DREW WILEY]

At least there will be some solid rock somewhere. I gave up on big clunker lenses in the mountains back when I was still a teenager in my mid-40's.

 

[Ai Print]

At least there will be some solid rock somewhere. I gave up on big clunker lenses in the mountains back when I was still a teenager in my mid-40's.

I still have the 350mm Tele Xenar in Copal-1, about 400gr. And I also have a lot of willing assistants who are still rather embryonic at age 19-22...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm 70 and talked my 44 yr-old hiking companion into carrying an extra 3lb bear bag of food for me last summer, so I'd have enough room in my pack for my view camera while on a two-weeker in the Wind Rivers in Wyoming. But that's about all the pity I've gotten so far. My favorite 360 is a Fuji A in no.1 shutter, which I use on everything from 6X9 roll film backs up to 8X10; but I have three others lenses in that focal length too, each for a different kind of look. I use an old Zeiss 360 single coated process tessar when I want a combination of selective sharp detail with dreamy out-of-focus areas. My classic 14" Kern dagor was mainly used for portraiture, but sometimes for landscapes; a fine lens, but now way overpriced on the market due to unrealistic cult status.

 

[Ai Print]

I have not done the wall test on film yet, still waiting on my 250mm 6.7 to get delivered and I am about out of film until my order arrives.
However I did take my time viewing the wall in the ground glass and even a nice level field to do proper tilt on. What I am finding is that the 350 is great, perfectly sharp to the corners wide open on the wall and the near-far tilt. I used my 4x Schneider loupe and a little 10x.

But the 240 A is not flat field at all. Even with no movements it is out of focus in about the last 25% of the image circle on the ground glass. This is on a wall at 30 feet away, did not try close up which seems to be this lens's forte as documented. So I figure I either got a bunk lens with a swapped cell or what this guy says in the last post of this thread is ringing true.

I might setup a couple of hot lights on some artwork and see what it delivers at something more like 5 feet away but as it stands right now...I think I have a dog lens. I would hate to not be able to use it so if this turns out to be the case, I wonder if i can shim it at all?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have hundreds and of both negatives in multiple formats, clear up to 8x10, and prints up to 30X40 inches, taken with a 240A. Many people prize the 240A. If you are shooting 8x10 with it, you of course need to have it stopped down to around f/45 or f/64 to get sharp detail out in the far corners with moderate movements. Viewing through this lens wide open won't provide you with that information. It should be very very very sharp all the way from near-macro to infinity at the center from maybe f/11 all the way down till diffraction starts setting in around f/64. Even then, the degree of image loss should be almost invisible unless you're planning on making really big prints. I doubt you have a "dog" lens. The biggest dealer of Fuji in this area during the apogee of large format in the 80's told me that Fuji quality control was more consistent than any other brand, and they had never had a single Fuji complaint. But someone along the line could have pulled a bait and switch trick substituting a rear component from something else. Now as per coverage... Fuji literature does tend to list image circles a bit too optimistically, whereas the German specs for analogous G-Claron lenses are ridiculous conservative due to these being originally marketed for graphics standards far more stringent than those for general photography. But having used several of these lenses extensively, I feel quite comfortable stating that the real-world images circles comparably stopped down for the 240 Fuji A, 250 G-Claron, and 250/6.7 Fuji W are very similar. You might find a Computar f/9 or Kowa Graphic or rather rare Apo Germinar f/9 with somewhat improved corner performance in a lightweight package. You could also fit a 240/9 Apo Nikkor into a no.3 shutter, but it would be sheer overkill and a more bulky. I omit the 250 Apo Sironar S because it's as big as a draft horse; and once you get into true wide angle lenses you get more serious distortion and falloff issues.

 

[Ai Print]

Thanks Drew, I appreciate the input and I also submit that I likely don't have a dog lens or even a swapped cell but have to hone the technique down a bit more, this is a mint condition black copal 240A, as clean as it gets and was not an eBay purchase.

I was just surprised at the difference I saw between the 240 and 350 wide open on a flat subject and it kind of went hand in hand with me not being able to net a sharp image with the 240 the other day even at F45. I have to be crystal clear about some things thus far though. I have made sure my lenses are perfectly centered on the film, I know this because I carefully measured and calibrated my scales on the front and rear standards, it is accurate to less than one millimeter. And so far for these tests on the 240, I have used no rise, fall, shift or front tilt, only rear tilt as to not move the cone of projection around.

I just need to understand where this lens's performance envelope is in this format. For example, if I shoot a brick wall ( no movements at all ) wide open with the 240 in 8x10, I can expect soft corners. If I stop down to at least F45, I can expect things to even out?

I'm trying to sort this out, new to the larger 8x10 format and once I have known quantiles I can count on, I can get on with actually making meaningful images rather than tests to problem solve...

 

[Bob S]

I have hundreds and of both negatives in multiple formats, clear up to 8x10, and prints up to 30X40 inches, taken with a 240A. Many people prize the 240A. If you are shooting 8x10 with it, you of course need to have it stopped down to around f/45 or f/64 to get sharp detail out in the far corners with moderate movements. Viewing through this lens wide open won't provide you with that information. It should be very very very sharp all the way from near-macro to infinity at the center from maybe f/11 all the way down till diffraction starts setting in around f/64. Even then, the degree of image loss should be almost invisible unless you're planning on making really big prints. I doubt you have a "dog" lens. The biggest dealer of Fuji in this area during the apogee of large format in the 80's told me that Fuji quality control was more consistent than any other brand, and they had never had a single Fuji complaint. But someone along the line could have pulled a bait and switch trick substituting a rear component from something else. Now as per coverage... Fuji literature does tend to list image circles a bit too optimistically, whereas the German specs for analogous G-Claron lenses are ridiculous conservative due to these being originally marketed for graphics standards far more stringent than those for general photography. But having used several of these lenses extensively, I feel quite comfortable stating that the real-world images circles comparably stopped down for the 240 Fuji A, 250 G-Claron, and 250/6.7 Fuji W are very similar. You might find a Computar f/9 or Kowa Graphic or rather rare Apo Germinar f/9 with somewhat improved corner performance in a lightweight package. You could also fit a 240/9 Apo Nikkor into a no.3 shutter, but it would be sheer overkill and a more bulky. I omit the 250 Apo Sironar S because it's as big as a draft horse; and once you get into true wide angle lenses you get more serious distortion and falloff issues.

240 Apo Sironar S, not 250mm

 

[DREW WILEY]

thanks, Bob.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, back to the 240A. Without movements, as long as you can see the full aperture of the lens through the cut corners of the groundglass, you should expect exceptionally good sharpness corner to corner. But if the stopped-down aperture is somewhat curtailed by mechanical vignetting, you're obviously not stopped down enough. Anything wider than f/32 is likely to be problematic in the far corners. Your 350 is a significantly longer focal length, so you should expect it having a bigger image circle, though certainly nowhere near as big as the Fuji 360 A or especially a 355 G-Claron. If you are doing near to far focus using 240-250 lenses, you want to employ rear tilt more than front tilt because it allows you to use more of the extant image circle.

 

[Ian Grant]

Something not mentioned but I know Bob S and others can confirm is often lenses have spacers shims to optimise cell spacing my 90mm f6.8 Grandagon N has a couple. If those spacers are left out or lost that can compromise image quality. This spacing can vary depending on the front and rear cells it's most critical with wider angle lenses, it's a factory calibration job.

I know that the late Dean Jones (Razzledog an Australian technician who also made Polaroid conversion) discovered that the reason for poor performance of some early 90mm f6.8 Angulons was due to inconsistent tube lengths of the Compur shutter, he machined them to the correct length and found that cured the poor sharpness issue. He'd begun collecting tube lengths in the months before he died. Schneider themselves had resolved the issues by SN 5,***.*** 1057.

Ian