Pick n' Mix

[Black Dog]

Just sorting out my lens selection for 8x10 ( Canham or Wisner Trad, possibly Phillips if I can get hold of one). I'll be using b&w, contact printing and hiking, often over mountainous/rough terrain (The Cuilins, Cairngorms, Knoydart etc). Here are the lenses I was considering:

1) 159mm Wollensak WA/165 mm Angulon/ WA Dagor

2) 210mm/240mm G-Claron/Dagor

3) 450mm Fujinon CS (might go for the 600, in which case I'll also need a 350mm, probably another Dagor)

BTW, does anyone know of a website with info on Phillips cameras (an email address would be great too)-of course the 450 would then be a better bet than the 600 with the Phillips. Thanks for any pointers you can offer.

 

[rogein]

Phillips can be reached at: rhphill@concentric.net

If you are considering the Phillips Compact II then either the 450 or 600 will work fine - the camera has 28" of extension. The Phillips Explorer has only 21" of extension.

Choice of focal lengths is really a personal decision - what works for some won't work for others. If you already use 4x5 base your 8x10 decision on what you use now.

Cheers,
Roger...

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[georgep]

I've had my Phillips 8x10 for over 12 years now and I love it. Can't beat it for hiking! Fujinon 300 AS is GREAT for close up work and small and light, huge coverage. The 600 might be heavy...check the weight.

George

 

[cjarvis]

I used a 159mm Wollensak for a number of years. I like it. It's small and light but offers little with regard to movements. For straight landscape applications, it'll serve you well, but architectural shots will be problematic. I've had better luck with my 6.5 inch Goerz Pantar (call it a Dagor). Same goes for my 223mm Pantar...it's my standard lens for 8x10.

In the longer lengths, don't overlook the Goerz Artar. There seems to be a glut of them in the 16 inch range, which has driven the price down to bargain levels (around $200). These lenses are sharp as a tack and high contrast but are heavy in their original brass barrels.

 

[Marco Peereboom]

I used a 159mm Wollensak for a number of years. I like it. It's small and light but offers little with regard to movements. For straight landscape applications, it'll serve you well, but architectural shots will be problematic.

I've gotta check if i'm understanding (cause english is not my first language[*]) what you say: What you say, is about the 159mm Wollensak, not about the Phillips Compact II? Am i right?

If you are considering the Phillips Compact II then either the 450 or 600 will work fine - the camera has 28" of extension.

Can you advise the Phillips Compact II for architecture-photography? I've read of an field-camera (don't know which company/type anymore), but for architectural photography it couldn't get the extreme mendings.


[*] BTW: I'm dutch.

 

[Ole]

The 159mm Wollensak WA, like the 165mm Angulon, has really no spare coverage. Both cover 8x10" with minimal movements, but nowhere near enough for tall buildings.

Same with the 210/240mm lenses mentioned in the first post.

I use a 165mm Angulon and a 240mm Symmar; both are great for my purposes although there are some shots I just can't do due to lack of coverage (I shoot landscapes; but Norwegian landscape is often vertical).

In case of emergency I have a 210mm Angulon (uncoated, "old" formula) with 500mm image circle. That's enough that the limitations are in the camera, not the lens.

At present my "normal" lens is a 300mm Hugo Meyer Aristoplan which is about a century old. Plenty of coverage, but the lack of a shutter is sometimes irritating. But for € 25 I can live with that for a while!

 

[John Kasaian]

I've no experience with the Fuji, but for a long lens thats very light you might also consider a 19" RD Artar in an aluminium barrel.

The 240 G Claron is IMHO a fine lens with plenty of coverage for landscape work. I don't think you can go wrong with this lens. Its the one I take when a long hike is on the horizon. A 270 or 305 G Claron would be just as desireable, so take your pick.

The 159 Wolly is a good deal when it comes to very wide angles that will cover 8x10. True there isn't much coverage but they are little---you can't say that about a 165mm Super Angulon---and they are ridiculously cheap for what your getting.

Since I own and used both the 240 G and the 159 Wolly, and they are the lenses I often use when hiking for taking B&Ws for primarily contact prints (as you are planning) I think you'll be pleased with either one or both.

 

[Ole]

John - note that the lens discussed so far was the 165mm Angulon, not the Super Angulon. The Angulon is nice and compact, usually in a #2 Compur shutter. The same size shutter as the 240 Symmar, incidentally

 

[John Kasaian]

Ole,

Yes, but when I was looking for a wider wide for my 8x10 I seriously cosidered a 165mm Super Angulon. Its "super" after all I didn't even know the "regular" 165 Angulon covered 8x10. It would be interesting to compare coverage offered by the 165mm Angulon, 159mm Wollensak WA and EWA, and 165 WA Dagor on an 8x10 to see what gives the most wiggle room.

Cheers!

 

[Ole]

John - a "wider wide"? My 121mm SA barely covers - no wiggle room, going softer in the corners - but you won't find a much wider wide for 8x10"!

 

[lee]

I have heard that the 110mm Scheinder will cover also without much movements


lee\c

 

[vet173]

..

Aggie, yer drivin me crazy. Well I guess i'm drivin the bus. I've seen this before in your post. What does it mean? John

 

[Ole]

Look at the date of that post.

It stems from a time when Aggie deleted all her posts - "ancient history".