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

[Ai Print]

I am tabling my efforts until I get more lenses, more film and more time to deal with it. I think I am driving my self crazy with it and my technique is off.

I’ll get my Freestyle shipment this week, the 250 looks to arrive tomorrow and the 360 on Thursday. I have a few commercial jobs this week so I gotta turn attention towards that for now.

On another note I went rummaging through my camera bag museum and found a nice oversized and largely unused Lowe Pro backpack that the camera and two lenses will fit in, so that is progress.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...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...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...

...this is a mint condition black copal 240A, as clean as it gets and was not an eBay purchase...

My 240A sample was purchased brand new and is the same version as yours. It's no better than yours. Among my Fujinon A-series lenses (180, 240, 300 and 360), and my Fujinon 250 f/6.7 -- all purchased new or, if discontinued at the time, pristine examples in original shutters -- the 240A and 180A are least sharp away from the center of their specified image circles. As always, given that we're decades away from the era when someone like you could go to a dealer and test 10 copies to find the best one, sample variation must be considered. Nonetheless, except for the 180A in its center (i.e. on roll film) and the 360A on anything up through 11x14, I've found these Fujinons to fall short of their reputations in terms of sharpness.

At the 240mm focal length, keep your eye out for an f/9 Germinar W. It runs rings around the 240 Fuji A with respect to sharpness, coverage and field flatness, even at near-infinity subject distances. Mine's not for sale.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I looked up Arne's ACTUAL tests of his own respective samples of 240/250's. One of his samples was an old inside-lettered version of a Fuji W which I cannot comment on. He had a very high opinion of the Fuji 240A clear up till around the full 80 degree coverage point, which precisely coincides with my own estimate. I use mine primarily for 4x5 and only once in awhile for 8x10, where caution must be used with movements if one expect exceptional sharpness in the extreme corners on BIG prints. Nobody would even notice the difference on a 16X20 print, much less a contact print. The 360A has a ton of wiggle room for 8x10, but I wouldn't consider it acceptable for 11X14 unless straight on, no movements. The kindred G-Claron 355 probably isn't any sharper at all, but being in a larger no. 3 shutter, has less mechanical vignetting, so will work for certain ULF purposes. The 360A is so sharp that I routinely use it not only on 8X10 and 4X5, but for 6x9 roll film backs too, which demand significantly more magnification in print. There was a 240 Germinar sold recently for around a $1000. Sal and I often differ in details of advice, to phrase it mildly. In the case of the above post, I'd take his usual cynicism with a grain of salt, since many other users of these superb lenses know better. You'd literally need a loupe to see all the detail in a 20X24 or even 30X40 print made on a polyester medium like Cibachrome or Fuji Supergloss from a color negative or chrome using a Fuji A anything, comparable focal length G-Claron, or Fuji 250/6.7, - and I've done many many of them. Talking about some other lens "running rings" around the other might be slightly true, but is visually irrelevant. I could say the same thing about Apo Nikkor lenses, which are also distinctly sharper and better corrected than ordinary taking lenses, but less practical in the field. If there is a blatant differential, perhaps the best investment is not another lens unless it's a better focus loupe! But I should add that I take 8x10 color shots with adhesive film holders that hold the film truly flat; and that variable by itself is far more important when making big enlargements than nitpicking between multiple high-end lens options.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I looked up Arne's ACTUAL tests of his own respective samples of 240/250's. One of his samples was an old inside-lettered version of a Fuji W which I cannot comment on. He had a very high opinion of the Fuji 240A clear up till around the full 80 degree coverage point, which precisely coincides with my own estimate...

Arne's tests of 240s/250s did not include a 240mm Fujinon A and, in any case, were all based only on 4x5. See pages 18 through 20:

http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf​

Arne did publish a paper on Docter Optics lenses in which he included images (again, on 4x5) of both the 240mm Fujinon A and 240mm Germinar W. Even in the center of its field, that Fujinon A looks less sharp than the Germinar W at f/22. Away from center, in my experience with my samples, the difference is much greater. See page 14:

http://www.arnecroell.com/docter.pdf​

...There was a 240 Germinar sold recently for around a $1000...

Perhaps the market has figured out how much better they are than the Fujinon 240A.

...Sal and I often differ in details of advice, to phrase it mildly. In the case of the above post, I'd take his usual cynicism with a grain of salt, since many other users of these superb lenses know better...

Post #52 includes not a trace of cynicism. It's composed entirely of facts about the performance of my lens samples.

Other users ought test their own lens samples and reach their own conclusions. That's what I did. While they won't know everything about everything like Drew claims to, they'll know the facts about specific equipment they use to expose film. Possessing such information is much more valuable than reading the umpteenth baseless rhapsodizing post about Fuji Photo Film's A series lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

My 240A sample was purchased brand new and is the same version as yours. It's no better than yours. Among my Fujinon A-series lenses (180, 240, 300 and 360), and my Fujinon 250 f/6.7 -- all purchased new or, if discontinued at the time, pristine examples in original shutters -- the 240A and 180A are least sharp away from the center of their specified image circles. As always, given that we're decades away from the era when someone like you could go to a dealer and test 10 copies to find the best one, sample variation must be considered. Nonetheless, except for the 180A in its center (i.e. on roll film) and the 360A on anything up through 11x14, I've found these Fujinons to fall short of their reputations in terms of sharpness.

At the 240mm focal length, keep your eye out for an f/9 Germinar W. It runs rings around the 240 Fuji A with respect to sharpness, coverage and field flatness, even at near-infinity subject distances. Mine's not for sale.

That's interesting Sal, here in the UK Fujinon LF lenses are quite rare, if they were imported new no-one I know ever bought one new or second hand. We always heard that Fujinon LF lenses weren't as consistently goof as Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon LF lenses.

I have a 240mm f5,6 Nikkor W I bought on 3 Forums (listed on three and I said yes I'll buy it on all 3), it's a superb lens great coverage. It's excellent for 5x4, my primary lens on my Kodak Specialist 2 Half Plate (7x5) camera, and a short standard for my 10x8.

Ian

 

[Alan Barton]

I completely agree with the comments on the need for movements/large image circles on 8x10. The G-Claron lenses have very large image circles and are relatively lightweight. I have the 305 and 355 and they are excellent lenses. The Fuji 600C is also quite small and has a large image circle. Unless you are in poor light the larger minimum apertures are no problem.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The notion that Fujinon lenses are of lesser performance than the very highest quality German ones is an utter ignorant myth, laughable, really. Once I actually sold off my German lenses to replace them with Fuji; I did it when the exchange rates were particularly favorable, but in every sense it turned out to be a performance upgrade too. At one point they were way ahead of Schneider in terms of both quality control and more modern engineering. Their selection was especially broad. Buy whatever you want. The chief difference between Fuji A and G-Claron is that the Fuji's are even more compact and are multicoated, whereas in one case, the larger G-Caron shutter has less mechanical vignetting. But Sal has badmouthed G-Clarons too. Japanese LF lenses (Fuji and Nikon) were not as aggressively marketed here in the US as Schneider and Rodenstock, but that did not make them lesser or minor manufacturers by any means. People just punish themselves with such ignorant prejudices. And the notion one has to test a dozen of them to find a keeper is utter BS. Hundreds of LF photographers know better and intelligently take advantage of Fuji optics, and consistently rely on them without complaint. I use a mix of brands. Shopping for used lenses is always a condition issue, and should be done with a reputable dealer or someone personally known; that's just common sense.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The notion that Fujinon lenses are of lesser performance than the very highest quality German ones is an utter ignorant myth, laughable, really...

Perhaps that's why there's nothing in this thread expressing that "notion." Deflecting much?

...Sal has badmouthed G-Clarons too...

Never. Not even once. In fact, this thread, where Drew performed extraordinary arm-waving deflection (and was also wrong), included a specific example of my praise for the 270mm G-Claron sample (purchased new) that I own:

https://www.largeformatphotography....hp?71322-f64&p=1321449&viewfull=1#post1321449​

Anyone with the patience and stomach to read the rest of that thread might get some sense of how a need to prove universal infallibility can negatively impact credibility.

...the notion one has to test a dozen of them to find a keeper is utter BS...

No one posited that extensive testing is required to find "a keeper." Rather, in #52 I commented that decades ago professionals could and did work with their dealers to select the best one among ten samples.

Methinks you do protest too much.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Spot pricing. Another absurd argument. When 240 Fuji A's happened to be in short supply, they too were routinely fetching around a $1000 dollars. Now a single dealer known for rather high prices has come up with a single rare Germinar, so why not charge a solid sum? It allegedly has better corner performance at 80 degrees on 8x10 film, and I have no reason to doubt that. There are relatively few compact options in that focal length for 8x10, so certain compromises are inevitable with field lenses where light weight and compactness are a priority. But intelligently used, both the 240A, 250 G-Claron, and Fuji 250/6.7 are also highly competent lenses for 8x10 film. No, NONE of them are going to be ideal for architectural shots requiring a considerable degree of rise on 8x10 film; but they are excellent for more routine usages. But Sal proves nothing when he stubbornly keeps re-posting half-baked lens tests with no real objectivity behind them to begin with, which many actual users of some of these lenses would instantly recognize as highly questionable results. Just more shoot from the hip BS, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ai Print]

Well aside from the back and forth, I do have some new findings. I did some studio type shots last using strobes last night at around F32-45 and still did not get sharp corners out of the 240 with practically no movements so on the chopping block it goes.

On another note I got the 250mm 6.7 today and even looking through the ground glass yielded a much sharper image, I did the fence line test across the diagonal and it stayed sharp corner to corner. The 360 and more film arrives tomorrow, I will do one final comparison test with my remaining 6 sheets of Catlabs 80 and then be done. I gotta get to making real pictures...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, something is indeed weird, because the 240 was not only marketed as a better corrected lens, but based on my many years of experience with both of them is indeed better in certain respects; but it's not enough of a difference to worry about unless macro performance or ultralight wt is a priority. The 250/6.7 is obviously easier to focus on 8X10 wide open, and should serve you well. I have a big Cibachrome on the wall I took with one doing the 47 switchbacks carved off the face of the cliff going right up from desert cacti to where one leaves the Pine Creek Pass trail at timberline for the real ice axe fun. Coming back down a week later, there were some LA types in shorts and T-shirts at the trailhead getting their gear ready under an immaculately blue sky. Then a horse packer went passed them starting up the switchbacks in rain slicker and with the mule packs all wrapped in plastic. They stared, looked up at the sky, stared some more, and apparently concluded the guy was nuts. Then they spotted me slowly coming down the switchbacks, and I finally walked past them still fooling around at the trailhead. And I still has snow clinging to my parka and top the my pack. The storm was just out of sight at the top of the grade. I got a number of wonderful shots with that 250/6.7 on that trip, at least two that were turned into 30x40 prints from 4X5 early Fujichrome.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...250 G-Claron...

Now there's a lens that might just cover 120 degrees and be "critically sharp" over its entire circle. Since I've never handled or tested one, you could be right about an optic that's apparently even rarer than a 240mm Germinar W. Is your 250mm G-Claron multicoated like your 250mm f/6.7 Fujinon W was?

...Sal proves nothing when he stubbornly keeps re-posting half-baked lens tests with no real objectivity behind them to begin with, which many actual users of some of these lenses would instantly recognize as highly questionable results. Just more shoot from the hip BS, as far as I'm concerned.

Just more "attack the messenger BS" perpetuating the same old deflect-and-avoid-the-facts tactics as far as I'm concerned. Readers can decide for themselves what information is reliable and reasonable.

Dan's testing his own lenses rather than taking anyone's word for anything. Smart.

 

[Vaughn]

The 250/6.7 has proven to be a nice 8x10 lens for me in the tight spaces under the redwoods...and it has been nice for a little wider 4x10 images when I poke my head out of the forests. I keep it to contact prints, but a friend scanned one of my 4x10 negatives (below) and made about a 3'x7' inkjet print that was pretty cool. Not bad with the wind blowing hard on top of Fort Point with the FujiW 300/5.6 on the Zone VI. The weight was nice to have!

Girders, Golden Gate Bridge
4"x10" Carbon Print

 

[DREW WILEY]

Allegedly the best coverage you're going to get from a compact 240 is the Kowa Graphic 240 f/9; but if you can ever find one, it's still going to be in a no.3 shutter, so not as light as the others mentioned, but certainly not a draft horse sized beast like the 240 Apo-Sironar S. G-Clarons (meaning the later plasmat variety) were all single coated. Superb lenses, but a tad less contrasty than Fuji A's. I sometimes thought about potential applicability of the 355 GC in the redwoods, where significant rise sometimes becomes an issue even for my 360A; but I really don't know the enlarged quality of that extra margin of image circle. I suspect it's just due to less mechanical vignetting of the bigger no. 3 shutter (vs the no.1 of the Fuji A). And since people who use the 355GC for its bigger coverage tend to do so as contact printers of 11X14, 12X16, etc, their assessment really doesn't help my own curiosity as someone doing enlargements. Doubt I'll ever buy one. I have 4 lenses in that general focal length already. I remember a very long night exposure of the Bridgeport Court House on the eastern Sierra squeezing all the rise I could out of a 250/6.7. But the first time I used it, I took some chromes in Kauai, where the air is extremely clear. Under the loupe there was a crisp orange/purple band or tiny fringe separation on the horizon. I thought there was something wrong with the lens correction. Then a few months later I saw the same effect with my own eyes when the sun started setting right behind Comb Ridge in Utah, where the air is also especially clear, and realized that it was the sharp edge of the ridge itself creating diffraction separation between two wavelengths, and the lens, after taking that shot and examining the result on the chrome through a loupe, was recording the actual effect with total precision! That's when I realized just how damn good a plasmat it really was. But unfortunately, it's the only lens I've ever had stolen. The Fuji 240A which replaced it is actually even better corrected in the color apo and sharpness sense. But it's the later MC version. I have no experience whatsoever with older single coated A's. As per lens tests, most DIY versions don't even know how to begin to do it objectively. There are quite a few variables to take under consideration depending on the intended application of range of applications of the lens. Just pointing at something and comparing results from a convention filmholder or using a set of tired eyes doesn't begin to do it. Refereeing things via a scan and web image is even worse.

 

[Ai Print]

Shot some more film today, compared the 240A to the 250 W 6.7. I also shot images with my new to me Nikkor W 360mm 6.5.

Once again the 250 6.7 blew the 240A out of the water, totally uniform and critical sharpness. But the Nikkor 360, wow what a lens, this is the image quality I am expecting out of 8x10!

I debated between the Nikkor 360 and a 355 G Claron which weighs 1.26 lbs lighter than the Nikkor and could not be happier with my choice even with the added weight.

Between the 250 6.7 and the 360 6.5 I am totally set now.

 

[Ian Grant]

Good to hear you've sorted out the issues and now have some good lenses Dan.

Ian

 

[Ai Print]

Good to hear you've sorted out the issues and now have some good lenses Dan.

Thanks, now the real problem...I am starting to want to replace one of my 4550 XLG’s with an 8x10 enlarger...;-)

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Once again the 250 6.7 blew the 240A out of the water, totally uniform and critical sharpness...

...now the real problem...I am starting to want to replace one of my 4550 XLG’s with an 8x10 enlarger...

The premise of this thread was "only contact prints." Based on my test of my own 250/6.7, I suspect you'd be looking for a 240 state-of-the-art plasmat if you were to begin enlarging your 8x10 originals. Or, if focusing/composing at f/9 is doable for you, a 240 Germinar W.

 

[DREW WILEY]

He HAS two plasmats fully competent for enlargements. I have no idea what that alleged 240A actually was, or it would have slightly outperformed his 250/6.7. Why do you perceive so much difficulty doing in the darkroom what I routinely do? You must be seriously under-equipped somehow in that respect. I have no problem endorsing the 250/6.7 or 240A for conservative 8x10 usage. Schneider marketed G-Clarons as superior to their general plasmats (at that time), and Fuji correctly termed their A series "super plasmats". The 250/6.7 comes close, but is a bit easier to compose wide open on 8x10. My own experience has confirmed that fact over and over and over again. But I've got some 8x10 film ready to enlarge right now, once the room is heated up a little. Actually, I have three 8x10 enlargers, but only one in the standard-ceiling darkroom which is easiest to heat, where the 5x7 machine also is. The other two are in a room with a 16 ft ceiling. Everything is exceptionally solid and precise. The easel alone for the biggest enlarger weighs 400 lbs and is both machined and pin-registered, so I think I know what a sharp print is, and is not.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I suspect most of this is really a technique issue. Working with a 240A Fuji with 8x10 format is quite analogous to working with a Fuji 125W on 4x5. There can be some mechanical vignetting due to the small shutter when viewing things wide open if movements are applied; but this does not necessarily degrade the results fully stopped down. What I do is stop the lens halfway down and recheck the focus with a loupe, then stop fully down to the shooting aperture (typically f/45 for 8x10), and make sure the total hexagon shape of the aperture is apparent from all four cut corners of the groundglass. That applies to the 250/G-Claron too when using it for 8x10. The 250/6.7 is somewhat easier to work with in this respect, or least for a beginner to 8x10. But in this instance, no sense beating a dead horse, since he's already got a decent wide lens, which is also light enough to make a wonderful hiking lens with smaller 4x5 format, in which case the 250/6.7 will provide an abundant image circle, while the 360 Nikor W will serve quite well as a chokestone to prevent a parked car rolling backwards, or as something distinctly authoritarian for knocking a pesky bear unconscious.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Why do you perceive so much difficulty doing in the darkroom what I routinely do?...

...the 250/G-Claron...

Ah, consistency. Denigrating the ability to see of those with whom you disagree and inventing lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks, now the real problem...I am starting to want to replace one of my 4550 XLG’s with an 8x10 enlarger...;-)

Well, that;s what happens once you've held some of your own 10x8 negatives

As I think I said earlier in my case i shoot multiple formats with some of my projects 6x6, 6x17, 5x4, a little 7x5, as well as 10x8. Contact prints from 10x8 negatives would be out of place alongside my regular slightly larger prints off 5x4, and the occasional much larger prints I include.

If you do get a 10x8 enlarger I recommend floor standing with a drop bed, something like a De Vere 5108.

Ian

 

[Ai Print]

Well, that;s what happens once you've held some of your own 10x8 negatives

As I think I said earlier in my case i shoot multiple formats with some of my projects 6x6, 6x17, 5x4, a little 7x5, as well as 10x8. Contact prints from 10x8 negatives would be out of place alongside my regular slightly larger prints off 5x4, and the occasional much larger prints I include.

If you do get a 10x8 enlarger I recommend floor standing with a drop bed, something like a De Vere 5108.

If I do decide to enlarge 8x10, I will be building the enlarger my self around a Heiland 8x10 LED light source. Finding and buying a good up to date 8x10 enlarger is tough these days, I have kept track of them and they far and few between.

I have a good design in mind that centers around the LED light source and an 8x10 monorail camera.

Nothing is set in stone since I have not even decided to enlarge it yet. But yes, now that I am actually seeing good negs, the temptation is there...

 

[removed account4]

Thanks, now the real problem...I am starting to want to replace one of my 4550 XLG’s with an 8x10 enlarger...;-)

why don't you just put your light source on an 8x10 camera and convert it to an enlarger .. graflarger backs used to do this back in the day. its also not hard to make a horizontal enlarger I mean its just a light source and lens in a box .. no need to worry about T-Distance &c. ... if you think of what contact prints and photographic enlargements were made with before the times we live in currently, I really don't think you should worry too much about getting super high end lenses. personally I'd hunt down what Carlton Watkins was using since he was exposing mammoth plates (18x22 I think ) and work your way up from there. there really is no mythology about lenses, its like cameras, the. best one is the one you have...

 

[DREW WILEY]

What a shame. A Couple years ago I was offered over a dozen pro 8x10 enlargers, and all went to the dump except one, and it was hell enough to move. View cameras themselves just aren't solid enough for serious enlarging work. Maybe a big stand camera or process camera. There are all kinds of issues. And unless you're strictly thinking about black and white images, I'm very skeptical about LED systems being either bright enough or accurate enough for serious color printing at this stage in their development. And frankly, a free enlarger is a lot cheaper than building your own, which can indeed be an interesting project, but can be a lot more involved and expensive to do well than you might think if you expect anything precise.