Lenses for 8x10

[AZLF]

Not that I am really considering moving up mind you......No really I'm not. I'm not,I'm not...NO,NO,NO,NO.

But....

What is considered a "Normal" lens for 8x10? A wide angle? And a telephoto?

And if I somehow were to come across an 8x10 camera would my Schneider Zenar f-6.1 210mm lens have the coverage? Would my Optar 150mm currently used on a Crown Graphic have any use?

Just passing the time of day mind you.

I HAVE NO INTENTION OF MOVING UP TO AN 8x10!

Sigh.......

 

[Donald Miller]

Normal lens for an 8X10 is 300 mm. Lenses that are normally considered wide angle are those in the range from the Wollensak 159 to 210 mm in older lenses. There are some others as well. Long lenses are limited by the bellows draw of the camera. I have a 450 for my long lens.

You need to check the size of the image circle of your existing lenses. A minimum of a 300 mm image circle plus additional for movements is needed to adequately cover the format.

But since you are you are only chewing the fat this should occupy your fantasy for the evening.

 

[AZLF]

You need to check the size of the image circle of your existing lenses. A minimum of a 300 mm image circle plus additional for movements is needed to adequately cover the format.

How would I go about checking this? Is there a chart by Schneider showing the image circle for their lenses I can find online or is it something more arcane.

Thanks for the info....

 

[Petzi]

Yes the info for Schneider and Rodenstock lenses is online on their webpages. If you want to find out about older lenses, you have to search the Schneider archives or try to locate the info elsewhere. There is a list at this URL: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/ which is mostly correct and covers some lenses which are out of production.

 

[AZLF]

Thanks. A quick check shows that neither of the lenses I mentioned has sufficient coverage for 8x10.

 

[Petzi]

Sometimes the actual coverage is a bit larger than what the manufacturers say. This is a matter of definition. Of course the coverage is limited by the lens barrel. This is a hard limit, the light can not pass through that. But the coverage is also limited by resolution. If you require a certain resolution, then this limits your coverage, because beyond a certain image height, the lens can not deliver that resolution, but it will still project an image on your film. If you find that tolerable, then your usable image circle is extended.

But I don't mean to say that you lenses are usable for 8x10". The Xenar 210 might be close, but even if it worked, there would be no allowance for movements.

 

[AZLF]

Thank you one and all for your information. The 8x10 that I wasn't looking at and wasn't going to buy will have to stay "not bought" for the present. My wallet is still recovering from getting my 4x5 setup to the level I wanted. I can see I will have to start from ground zero and build from there in terms of 8x10. And that won't be in the near future.

 

[bill schwab]

Not that I am really considering moving up mind you......No really I'm not. I'm not,I'm not...NO,NO,NO,NO.....

Yeah... that was me a few short weeks ago. Now I'm playing with 2 8x10s, antique lenses, etc. Haven't touched the Hasselblad in going on 2 months now.

Have fun with your new gear when you get it!

Bill

 

[rbarker]

As mentioned, 300mm is considered "normal" for 8x10. But, you may find (once the bug has taken a second or third bite) that your focal length preferences may change with 8x10. My preference on 4x5, for example, leans toward the longer-than-normal, while on 8x10, I lean toward wider-than-normal. Thus, 240mm is my most-used lens on 8x10, and I like the 150mm SS XL a lot, too.

 

[Ole]

Xenar lenses are very much "normal" lenses, and cover not much more than the focal length. I had a Xenar 300mm f:4.5 once - a huge piece of glass in a huge shutter. Plenty of coverage, but limited as to what cameras could handle it due to size and weight.

On my 18x24cm plate camera (almost 8x10") I use 165mm most, followed by 240, 121, 300 and 500mm. It has 80cm of bellows...

 

[Pinholemaster]

When you have the money, get one of these:

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.ns...7fe9d6d60bdcf96a85256e8600546ed2?OpenDocument

The Nikkor 120mm f/8.0 covers 8x10. Similar to an 18mm on a 35mm system.

The longest is another convertible lens. The Nikkor 600/800/1200mm.

http://www.europe-nikon.com/details.aspx?countryId=20&languageId=22&prodId=528&catId=151

Throw in a Nikkor 240mm, and your set.

http://www.europe-nikon.com/specifications.aspx?countryid=20&languageid=22&prodId=513&catId=149

 

[jp80874]

Thank you one and all for your information. The 8x10 that I wasn't looking at and wasn't going to buy will have to stay "not bought" for the present. My wallet is still recovering from getting my 4x5 setup to the level I wanted. I can see I will have to start from ground zero and build from there in terms of 8x10. And that won't be in the near future.

...and well it should stay "not bought". That is the practical and sensible approach. In the interest of APUG diversification it is rewarding to know that we have at least one practical and sensible member. ... but we don't believe you.....

This is probably not the time to mention that the 8x10 Satin Snow ground glass looks like a well lit movie set after my 4x5 BossScreen, or that the negative really is F-O-U-R times BIGGER. Little details to file away for that time, when it comes. “If” it comes is no longer a factor.

John Powers

 

[AZLF]

...and well it should stay "not bought". That is the practical and sensible approach. In the interest of APUG diversification it is rewarding to know that we have at least one practical and sensible member. ... but we don't believe you.....

This is probably not the time to mention that the 8x10 Satin Snow ground glass looks like a well lit movie set after my 4x5 BossScreen, or that the negative really is F-O-U-R times BIGGER. Little details to file away for that time, when it comes. “If” it comes is no longer a factor.

John Powers

Get behind me devil!

 

[John Kasaian]

A 240mm like the G Claron would give you great service on both your 4x5 and that 8x10 you're not going to get. I'd consider it a "medium-wide" 8x10 lens and I've found mine to be very useful. Your meter, graduates, and probably your filter kit would work on that 8x10 you're not getting, so you aren't really starting from zero if you did stumble on to an 8x10(which of course you'd never do) and it also happens that the 4x5 size Ries "J" tripods will handle the lighter 8x10s (in case you've got a "J" in your kit already) Just a little food for thought---not that you'd consider an 8x10 of course.

 

[dphphoto]

...and well it should stay "not bought". That is the practical and sensible approach. In the interest of APUG diversification it is rewarding to know that we have at least one practical and sensible member. ... but we don't believe you.....

This is probably not the time to mention that the 8x10 Satin Snow ground glass looks like a well lit movie set after my 4x5 BossScreen, or that the negative really is F-O-U-R times BIGGER. Little details to file away for that time, when it comes. “If” it comes is no longer a factor.

John Powers

Unfortunately, the film is also F-O-U-R times as expensive. (What a drag.) But then, you don't have to enlarge. Dean

 

[epatsellis]

well, you don't HAVE to own a LF camera either, personally, there's just something about enlarging an 8x10 neg that gets you right there....


erie

Unfortunately, the film is also F-O-U-R times as expensive. (What a drag.) But then, you don't have to enlarge. Dean