Process/barrel lens for 8x10 recommendations in 2020?

[RogerHyam]

I'm looking for a recommendation for a lens for use on 8x10.

I've started making my own silver gelatin emulsions on 4x5 plates and enjoying the resulting very long exposures. At 4x5 I think I'll stick to scanning the plates but I'd like to have a complete analogue workflow so am looking to make plates with my 8x10 Intrepid. As the exposure is so long I am liberated from needing a shutter and the somewhat lo-fi aesthetic means I'm not concerned with perfect sharpness. Currently I have:

• Schneider Symmar 240mm f5.6 in a just about serviceable shutter that just covers 8x10 (I use it on 4x5 too). It is a bit too wide for me. A 300mm or more would be better.
• Schneider Symmar-S 300mm f5.6 on a manual aperture Sinar board which fits my Intrepid - hence no shutter. Lovely lens, lots of coverage but weighs a ton, the Intrepid really only just supports it and not very portable.

What I would like is a process lens 300mm or over that is small enough to carry about and covers 8x10 moderately well. I'm guessing about f9. Also "affordable" is desirable!

But where do I start? Any suggestions would be most welcome. Especially something available in the EU / UK.

Attached example 4x5 image on my own emulsion.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use a single coated 360/9 Zeiss (Meyer branded) tessar barrel lens for long lenscap exposures with my 8x10. A 300mm equivalent would seem too scant an image circle to be very practical. It was cheap. I have a number of Apo Nikkor barrel lenses too, including 305 and 360; but those are dialyte design and just too clinically sharp for nice pictorial results. The Zeiss tessar is quite sharp itself due to being an f/9 process lens, but has much smoother out of focus rendering (bokeh). But you might find something like a Fuji L 300 tessar complete with shutter for a reasonable price. But these older tessars have thick elements and no.3 shutters, so are somewhat heavy despite being relatively compact.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Short answer, 305/9 and longer G-Clarons should do what you want. There are other process lenses, but most cover narrower angles. Avoid "WA" 4 elements in 4 groups double Gauss type process lenses like f/11G-Claron WAs and f/10 Process Nikkors (so badged); these perform poorly at distance.

Longer answer. Go to largeformatphotography.info and read the sticky "Where to look ..." in the Lenses and Acessories section. The first post in that discussion has a link to a collection of links to, among other things, process lens catalogs.

 

[138S]

What I would like is a process lens 300mm or over that is small enough to carry about and covers 8x10 moderately well. I'm guessing about f9. Also "affordable" is desirable!

For that situation the good choices you have are not process lenses: the Fujinon C and Nikkor M 300. A G-Claron 305 may not be cheaper.

Many process lenses will cover 40º to 45º, not covering the format with a 300 focal. If you can admit a 360 then the APO Nikkor may nearly cover nominally. If you want a process lens then I would bet for a longer 360mm. Process lenses are mostly 8x10 suitable in the long focals, at 300 it is difficult to find a better lightweight choice then the C or M. The C may be 500€, plus duties.

Having the Symmar-S 300 I would simply haul it around, this is 1kg more than the C, but that S glass is crazy good and anyway the rest of the gear "does not float in the air".

 

[John Earley]

A Nikkor Q 300, the single coated version prior to the M series is a good, inexpensive option. 325mm image circle.

 

[Vaughn]

Wollensak 8 1/4 " (210mm) f6.8 Graphic Raptar Wide Field Lens.

Cute little lenses...will cover 8x10 easily for 95% of landscape needs...if you ever want to go the other way (down from 240mm) Many a fine, sharp contact print from them.
In the other direction, look at the Red Dot Artars...do not know their availability in Europe. Perhaps the 19" is too long for you, but a mighty fine performer for 8x10. The 16.5" should cover 8x10 for contact printing. The 14" probably would be pushing it.

 

[138S]

A Nikkor Q 300, the single coated version prior to the M series is a good, inexpensive option. 325mm image circle.

Yeah ... the Q is around $300 in shutter, it can be a sound recommendation for OP. Not many alternatives are that lighweight, in shutter, that good and at that price. Single coated, but flare has to be controlled easy with some shade. It may have some field curvature, but this would not be a concern in the field.

 

[RogerHyam]

Thanks to everyone for the replies. Lots of useful stuff. Things that struck me are to avoid the WA versions, the lack of coverage of many process lenses at infinity and, biggest of all, that perhaps I should just lump my Symmar-S around with me. To get anything much better will require more luck and/or cash than I'm comfortable with. I'll keep shopping for lenses (it is addictive) but plan to work with what I have just now.

What I really need is for my work to pay for a trip to the USA so I can buy in the larger North American market. What appears reasonable in the US soon mounts up in the UK. A lens imported from the US or Japan will have about $50 shipping plus 20% VAT added (to shipping and lens) at the border and a £8 handling fee and a Paypal currency hike. None of that applies if it is just in your luggage on a return flight

 

[GKC]

FWIW, I've been have lot of fun with an f/5 15" Magic Lantern lens, IIRC it cost all of twenty bucks and turned out to be a Petzval to boot

 

[Dan Fromm]

https://www.ebay.de/itm/Fur-Linhof-...-f-360mm-Objektiv-lens-13-blades/154109442701

 

[RogerHyam]

https://www.ebay.de/itm/Fur-Linhof-...-f-360mm-Objektiv-lens-13-blades/154109442701

Nice! I'll watch it and see how the price goes.

 

[Ian Grant]

Roger, I bought a 360mm Apo Ronar CL earlier this year for less than £20, it's in a special barrel which eliminayes expansion and contraction of the Aluminium barrel in extremes of temperature aside from that optically it's the same as other Apo Ronars. It came with it's flange riveted to a large Toyo lens board and I realised it would fit an adapter I've made for the 20" RR and its lens board off my 12"x10" camera to use on my 10x8 Agfa Anscos.

I've checked it on the camera and it's easy to focus on the GG screen, I'll use it with a Thornton Pickard shutter, or a large Gitzo leaf shutter. Two stops faster is the Industar f4.5 300mm but you need to make sure it has a flange.

Ian

 

[138S]

it's in a special barrel which eliminayes expansion and contraction of the Aluminium barrel in extremes of temperature aside from that optically it's the same as other Apo Ronars.

hmmm... this is an interesting consideration... time ago I was told that many process lenses could have a worse athermalization than field lenses, as using a lens indoors would require a way narrower temperature range specified. Anyway my understanding (at least) is that athermalization may not target cancelling all barrel thermal expansion, but allowing that one which is optimal to keep performance after the concurrent glass expansion.

A kind of optical instrument requiring a very good athermalization is high end rifle scopes, as they may be operated both in polar and desert climates. In Pro astronomy they tend to heat/cool the optical sections to nail a fixed temperature when possible, if not they have to spend a lot of money in expensive materials or compensation systems to usually end in a lower yield than ensuring a fix temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athermalization

 

[RogerHyam]

for less than £20

Where in the UK does stuff go for this kind of price? If it had been on eBay I'd have outbid you - or maybe I missed it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Where in the UK does stuff go for this kind of price? If it had been on eBay I'd have outbid you - or maybe I missed it.

Surprisingly on Ebay, the lens was listed as having fungus or something and aside from a little dust inside (now removed) it's very clean optically and mechanically. I can't find any trace of the transaction on Ebay which is odd unless the seller deleted his account.

Ian

 

[reddesert]

IMO for the application the OP wants - 8x10", long exposures, portable - an older tessar type lens in barrel of 300mm or longer seems like a good candidate. It doesn't have to be a process lens as such, and Tessars have more coverage for the focal length than Artar/Ronar types. f/6.3 or slower tessar-types are moderate in size (f/4.5 would be very large at this focal length). In the US, B&L Tessars in barrel aren't rare, I don't know if they made it to Europe. There are also Zeiss Tessars and Russian Industars in barrels.

 

[RogerHyam]

IMO for the application the OP wants - 8x10", long exposures, portable - an older tessar type lens in barrel of 300mm or longer seems like a good candidate. It doesn't have to be a process lens as such, and Tessars have more coverage for the focal length than Artar/Ronar types. f/6.3 or slower tessar-types are moderate in size (f/4.5 would be very large at this focal length). In the US, B&L Tessars in barrel aren't rare, I don't know if they made it to Europe. There are also Zeiss Tessars and Russian Industars in barrels.

I've been looking at Tessars of various flavours including Industar 11-M. They usually have a coverage of 45-48 degrees which means 300 doesn't quite cut it on 8x10 at infinity a 360 would be the sweet spot. I nearly bought a 450mm Industar but that is really too long for my Intrepid to handle comfortably. The 360mm ones are rarer. It is a shame so many of the ones that come up don't have a mounting flange. Getting one made would be costly.

 

[138S]

Large Format Lenses from the Eastern Bloc Countries 1945-1991

https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hot glue, anyone?

 

[reddesert]

I've been looking at Tessars of various flavours including Industar 11-M. They usually have a coverage of 45-48 degrees which means 300 doesn't quite cut it on 8x10 at infinity a 360 would be the sweet spot. I nearly bought a 450mm Industar but that is really too long for my Intrepid to handle comfortably. The 360mm ones are rarer. It is a shame so many of the ones that come up don't have a mounting flange. Getting one made would be costly.

In practice, I think Tessars will generally cover somewhat more than their focal length, especially if you're contact printing and not enlarging. Slow ones, f/6.3 or slower, may have more coverage.

If you get a lens without a mounting flange it can be "screwed" into a tight-fitting wood board and/or glued in as Dan suggested.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've been looking at Tessars of various flavours including Industar 11-M. They usually have a coverage of 45-48 degrees which means 300 doesn't quite cut it on 8x10 at infinity a 360 would be the sweet spot. I nearly bought a 450mm Industar but that is really too long for my Intrepid to handle comfortably. The 360mm ones are rarer. It is a shame so many of the ones that come up don't have a mounting flange. Getting one made would be costly.

A more modern 300mm Tessar covers 10x8 at Infinity. I think you need to take into account the age of a Tessar type lens and it's aperture. I know in early pre-WWI literature Zeiss recommended longer focal lengths so a7" f4.5 for 5x4, of a 6" f6.3, and a 16" (400mm) f4.5 for 10x8, however optical glasses improved. By the 1920's Zeiss were selling 135mm f3.5 Tessars for 9x12 cameras.

The issue with Tessars and type designs are edge and corner sharpness at wider apertures, the best for overall sharpness are the f6.3 designs later used by Kodak for their Commercial Ektars, or the late Schneider Xenar 300mm f5.6. I wouldn;t be worried that a post WWII 300mm f4.5 Tessar type lens doesn't cover 10x8 at Infinity.

Ian

 

[138S]

In practice, I think Tessars will generally cover somewhat more than their focal length, especially if you're contact printing and not enlarging. Slow ones, f/6.3 or slower, may have more coverage.

What is clear is that a tessar has a low element count that won't allow enough variables to correct all well in a large coverage angle, with spheric elements. A way to get a bit larger well corrected coverage is to allow some distortion and/or field curvature. This is the case of the Nikon M field lenses that allow some field curvature, which may be irrelevant for most situations, but allow to shine this glass in the other capabilities.

In fact allowing a Tessar to have some field curvature to enhance other capabilities is a well known classic patch for designers.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Nikkor 300M (and probably the previous 300Q too) will provide a very crisp image at infinity on 8x10 film, but with little wiggle room to spare. So any significant front tilt, swing, or rise is going to show some loss of sharpness in the affected corners. Use rear tilt whenever possible instead. I really prefer 360 lenses for 8x10, or at least plasmat design for anything 300.

 

[removedacct1]

I've been looking at Tessars of various flavours including Industar 11-M. They usually have a coverage of 45-48 degrees which means 300 doesn't quite cut it on 8x10 at infinity a 360 would be the sweet spot. I nearly bought a 450mm Industar but that is really too long for my Intrepid to handle comfortably. The 360mm ones are rarer. It is a shame so many of the ones that come up don't have a mounting flange. Getting one made would be costly.

There's nothing wrong with the Industar lenses. Here's an 8x10 I made with the 300mm f4.5 Industar 37:

 

[RogerHyam]

There's nothing wrong with the Industar lenses. Here's an 8x10 I made with the 300mm f4.5 Industar 37: View attachment 257334

Nice photo.