Thinking of Getting an 8x10 View Camera

[5x7shooter]

Sironar N, Sironar N MC, Apo Sironar N?

Sironar-N MC in late model black Copal shutter

 

[Ian Grant]

I agree with Drew about post-WWII Dagors. The 7" US-made Dagor, factory coated, is one of the best lenses that I've used - fully equivalent to my multicoated Sironar-N of the same focal length.

Both of my post-WWII Kodak 8"/7.7 factory-coated Kodak Ektars are also very good and are Dialyte designs similar to the later Fujinon C. Multicoating would have been nice on the Dialyte-design Ektars, but doesn't seem necessary for the later Dagors. T

The Cooke is, as I recall, 8 elements in four groups, two groups in each cell, with an air-space. In the broadest sense, one could consider the Cooke to be vaguely akin to the Dialyte but with each Dialyte element consisting instead of a cemented pair. Alternatively, you could consider the Cooke to be a Plasmat with the single rear element of each cell split into a cemented pair.

Ian - my late model reverse-Dagor design 120mm Angulon is decent but the multicoated 125mm/5.6 Fujinon NWS fully air-spaced Plasmat is markedly superior.

The 203mm (8") f7.7 Ektar was made by Eastman Kodak in the US and also Kodak Ltd in the UK, Having had 5 of these lenses (I still have 3) there's a definite change in the coatings over the years they were produced. Early British 203mm Ektars are in Kodak Epsilon (Ross Ensign) shutters the "Blooming" is soft and easily scratched but that's the same on early 127mm Ektars made in the US, later 8" Ektars in Prontor SVS shutters have far superior coatings as do late rare ones in a Compur #0. It would be similar with US made Ektars, the only US made one I have is in a Compur #1 and the coatings are similar to the later British ones.

I shoot with a 90mm f6.8 Angulon as well as a 90mm f6.8 Grandagon-N or 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon so I'm fully aware of comparative differences and not all 90mm Angulons are good as I know from past experience. However the advantages of the Coated Angulons is their size and weight, my 90mm is used with a light weight 5x4 kit alongside a 135mm Symmar S and a 203mm Ektar. The 120mm Angulon was a 90 euro bargain as it's in mint condition, it's to be part of my light weight 7x5 kit.

My first Dagor was actually the last to be made (with one rare exception) - the multicoated Kern 14 inch. It had the highest contrast, best microtonality, and purest hue rendition of any lens I've ever had, in any format. It was quite sharp, but not as sharp as my equivalent focal length Fuji 360A "Super Plasmat".

When I first used my 12" Dagor it was the micro tonality that impressed me, I'd use the term micro-contrast, in terms of overall contrast it just matches my modern MC lenses.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Wow did this thread go off topic. Anyway the only old lens I have for large format is the Ektar 127mm for 4x5. But I can't use this lens on anything bigger. Most of my lenses are Fujinons.

With 10x8 weight and portability can become important particularly if you use the camera out in the landscape or any distance from a car. My 12" Dagor is way smaller and lighter than a 300mm Nikkor W or Symmar S, a 165mm f.6.8 Angulon is tiny compared to a 165mm f8 Super Angulon. There's no way I could carry my 165mm Super Angulon out backpacking but a 159mm f12.5 Wollensack EWA is practical (focussing aperture is an unmarked f9) but I'd prefer a coated 165mm Angulon.

There may be other advantages like smaller shutters having faster top speeds something I've found more critical with a current project, with 5x4 I can use a Speed Graphic's FP shutter to 1/1000 but with 10x8 shutters ma only go to 1/100 or 1/125, sometimes lower like a Betax #4 or#5 1/50. So there;s a lot to consider.

Ian

 

[138S]

Sironar-N MC in late model black Copal shutter

In general a plasmat like the Sironar series is optically superior to the Dagors. In fact they are very close, but the Plasmat arragement allows more freedom to the designer to optimize the glass performance.

The Dagor was optimal in the times coatings were poor or absent because the two additional cementations content flare.



If you cement the inner elements of the Plasmat to the external groups you just have a Dagor... But once you have MC then those cementations are not that useful because MC does that job, and uncementing the inner elements has an advantage. The advantage is that two variables are added for the design optimization in each cell, one is the separation distance and the other is one curvature of one of the surfaces, a cementation requires that both surfaces are equal, once the cementation is separated designer can adjust curvature independently.

This is the reason why Dagor design was abandoned. With the plasmat you have 4 more variables that are worth for the design optimization, Also there is a trade between the cementation cost and the two MC coating operations that are required in susbtitution. Even in some cases you may even vary the separation distance in the production for each individual sample for a fine tunning (no idea about when this was used or not).

Another thing is if you notice or not the Plasmat advantage in your shooting experience, in not many practical situations the Dagor is to come short... but a Plasmat for sure has a better Coverage vs Averaged Performance balance, and a MC Plasmat has of course less flare than a not MC Dagor. Once lenses are MC all of them are mostly equal regarding glass generated flare, that flare source is well supressed, while other sources like rays bouncing in a too extended or compressed bellows do remain.

Still a Dagor is an extraordinary lens... personally I prefer more looking at the OOF rendition than at the ultimate optical performance when a whole lot of that comes for free with any wooden camera .

 

[DREW WILEY]

Schneider owned the marketing to the last of the dagors made by Kern in Switzerland. They told me the reason for discontinuing them was that they were difficult to make and require very fussy matching of elements, and that their G-Claron plasmat line was better corrected for most purposes. At that point, their general purpose plasmats (Symmar S) were not as well corrected. The next-to-the-last variation of 14 in dagors, the single coated version, is every bit as resistant to flare as the latest MC optics.
Even G-Clarons were single-coated. Why? Schneider told me that it was because it's all they needed. I'd agree; the contrast level was ideal for chrome films, anything more would have been over the top.

 

[138S]

They told me the reason for discontinuing them was that they were difficult to make and require very fussy matching of elements

Drew, the reality is that the plasmat is a more capable design than the dagor, but the dagor had less flare than the plasmat which was an advantage until "single coating" was well in use. As you mention Schneider... see what they did in reality, first Symmar lenses were Dagor but they soon (around 1952) moved to Plasmat design for good reasons related to performance.

In the Symmar convertible case, moving to the Plasmat has an additional motivation: the Dagor conversion was inferior. The Plasmat design adds 4 variables (over the Dagor) for the optimization of the full lens, but with the conversion the 2 variables added are pure gold, because a lens with 3 elements has severe limitations regarding what you can optimize.

 

[Ian Grant]

Schneider owned the marketing to the last of the dagors made by Kern in Switzerland.

Zeiss also have the rights to the Dagor design and did make some in the 1930s.

They told me the reason for discontinuing them was that they were difficult to make and require very fussy matching of elements, and that their G-Claron plasmat line was better corrected for most purposes..

I think this matching of elements was an issue with Goerz (Berlin) dialyte designs as well and why there were a few different Dialytes with the same FL and aperture from the well matched Celor/Dogmar lenses to much cheaper lenses for bottom end cameras.

When it comes to LF lenses I've never had flare issues with coated lenses, I use a 1953 T coated CZJ 150mm f4,5 Tessar and it doesn't flare in conditions where my Canon zooms do. it's coatings are rather blue though so would need correction for colour work. aside from my early Schneider 65mm f8 SA I've always found Schneider's coated lenses excellent for B&W and Colour and indistinguishable to later MC versions.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

Flare is of course a predictable plague with wide angle lenses on smaller cameras that are difficult to properly shade when aimed toward the sun, no matter how many coatings they have. The only time it bothers me in view camera photography is potentially with my Sinar 4x5 box bellows and the massive image circle of the 450 Fuji C dialyte aimed toward something with a lot of open sky. But I always have a compendiums bellows shade in place, so that pretty much tames things; and I now primarily use the tapered Norma-style bellows instead of the later box bellows, which also helps. On the 8x10 camera, it's much less of an issue. Sometimes I want a tad of flare somewhere in the scene in a compositional sense, so the ability to precisely control it using a compendium combined with view camera movements is a fun feature to work with. Some of the old blue-sensitive glass plate masters learned how to dance eloquently with flare, since they couldn't ever fully control it. But nowadays everyone acts like a robot programmed to only appreciate hard numbers and believe in half-baked web reviews.
Otherwise, Schneider was having dagors made by Kern up to around 1980. Toward the end there was a 210 and 360 single coat, then during the very last decade or so, only the 360 (14inch) multicoated Kern dagor. A momentary revival was the very expensive limited edition example for ULF usage; but I don't know exactly where that was made.

 

[Lachlan Young]

They told me the reason for discontinuing them was that they were difficult to make and require very fussy matching of elements, and that their G-Claron plasmat line was better corrected for most purposes.

And of course the G-Claron went through a transition from Dagor layout to Plasmat too. The literature suggests that the Symmar also started out as a Dagor & went to Plasmat sometime in the 1950's. What does intrigue me is why Fuji went to full air-spacing latterly on the 6-element lenses, but no-one else did. I wonder if it was done to show off how good the EBC coating was supposed to be - and that it allowed the theoretically 'best' setup of the Plasmat type of design?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Among later general-purpose plasmats, it would be really difficult to detect any significant functional difference between Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider. In certain focal lengths, Fuji experimented with several plasmat variations over time. With those plasmats more highly corrected for close-range use, the Fuji A series has a little higher contrast due to multicoatings, versus plasmat G-Clarons. The latter were marketed in shutter for tabletop photography (but are also superb at infinity). The previous dagor style G-Claron was intended for graphics applications, and a few were used on enlargers too (not ideal), and a few got mounted in shutters, but I don't personally know if the dagors were ever offered in shutter by the factory itself. My literature doesn't go back that far. But Schneider did offer one focal length of their Componon enlarging lens in shutter for tabletop studio use prior to the G-Claron plasmats taking over that role.
Otherwise, I wouldn't try to speculate on Fuji's specific engineering choices. It might well have involved specific glass types available to them as well their proficiency in coating. Although it took view camera users awhile to realize that Fuji was easily equal to any German offering where products lines overlapped, their reputation was already very high among TV and video photographers. But Fuji is remarkably cryptic about all what lies behind any number of their product decisions, whether it be lenses or color printing paper.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't personally know if the dagors were ever offered in shutter by the factory itself. My literature doesn't go back that far. But Schneider did offer one focal length of their Componon enlarging lens in shutter for tabletop studio use prior to the G-Claron plasmats taking over that role.

From what I've found, the Dagor model G-Claron's were listed along with their matching shutters (though watch out for the 305 - it is listed for a Compur #2, at least in the document that used to be on Schneider's website) - and as the barrels are largely identical to those used for barrel mount Componons, Symmars & Angulons, there are no reasons why they shouldn't (within reason) be able to go into shutters or iris barrels interchangeably. I know that the cells from a chrome 150 Componon will go straight into a Compur #1. Even the Componon S lenses from 100mm upwards seem to have been potentially available in Compur shutters - 100/135/150 in #0, 180/210 in #1, 240/300/360 in #3.

 

[ic-racer]

Well my 300mm f5.6 Fujinon lens came yesterday.

Fujinon 300mm 5.6 is my go-to lens recently. It is a little on the big side, but I only carry one lens at a time. I have a lot of 8x10 lenses. You may get others lenses too. But one could also have an entire 8x10 photographic career with that lens.
(Oh, I see you have the "L" lens. I have never owned that one, but I'm sure others can chime in with their experience with that lens.)

 

[Vaughn]

The same lens as ic-racer shows has been my go-to lens for 8x10 for a long time...my only 8x10 lens for the first 15 or so years. A FujiW 250/6.7 is seeing almost equal use these days. I got use to the size of the 300/5.6 when my back was 25 years younger...but I did notice the jump to the FujiW 360 -- it would look pretty sweet on that camera above!

If I take the 360mm, I leave the 300mm behind and keep the little 250/6.7 in the pack.

While not covering 8x10 at infinity, the Computar Symmetrigon 210/6.3 is a four-element airspaced design (covering 72 degrees at f22?). I wrote somewhere it is multicoated, but can't find my source. The lenses came with their own screw-on lens shade. If I used the shade on the 5x7, I got the nicest negatives of any lens I have used for alternative printing, where a little kick in contrast is often appreciated.

 

[5x7shooter]

An interesting and comprehensive thread that prodded me to check the hardware rather than going by memory. None of the lenses mentioned below show any damage, nicks, nor scratches. All are factory mount shutters.

My 305 G-Claron comes in a Copal 1 shutter. I found Schneider and Grimes data that I squirreled away as PDF files that state that the 210-305 G-Clarons are all direct #1 shutter drop-ins. The 150mm GC was a #0 shutter and the 355 a #3.

One of my G-Clarons, a 240mm, is definitely an early Dagor-style GC and optically not quite up to the Plasmat-style 210 and 305 GCs nor Fujinon W Plasmats.

My only Compur 2 shuttered lens is a Voightlander 115/5.5 Ultragron UWA. That #2 Compur is a dialset, the Ultragon is about mid-1950s. A competent lens but I think that my later model 120mm reverse-Dagor Angulon may be a bit better on 5x7. Both are factory single-coated and rated to cover 5x7, but the Ultragon corners are mushy on 5x7. Neither has any visible nicks or damage and both are factory shutter mounts.

Of the 2 Kodak 203/7.7 Ektars, one US-made in 1947 (ES.. ) and one nicely made in the UK, neither has any optical scratches at all, so I suspect that the US coatings were more than hard enough by 1947. I think that I prefer the Supermatic shutter to UK Mount 370 Ektar's Prontor. The Supermatic did have a very recent CLA, though, and just feels like a better-finished product. Both 203s have virtually identical optical performance, very good to excellent and up to modern standards.

My 90mm Georz American Optical WA Dagor does not appear to be coated but still seems optically as good or somewhat better than the late model coated 90mm Angulon.and seems to cover more.

Overall, with the exception of the 7" US-made Dagor, the newer multi-coated Plasmat design lenses seem to produce generally better measurable results than older Dagor and Protar VIIa fully cemented lenses that I compared. I'll not discuss the "look" or "personality" as that's significantly more subjective and dependent upon specific situations.

 

[braxus]

(Oh, I see you have the "L" lens. I have never owned that one, but I'm sure others can chime in with their experience with that lens.)

The L version Im told is the more desirable lens, as it produces better bokeh, has a slightly softer look without losing much sharpness, and overall looks better in the picture. Its compared to having a look of older lenses. The W lens could be said to be too clinically sharp, losing the life the L version had. And in 8x10, it doesn't need to be so sharp as to cut something with it. The L seems to have a creamier look. But I have yet to use my 8x10 setup, as I am still getting stuff for it that is on my list. I believe I have the lenses I need now, though to be safe, Im switching my 210mm lens to the older version for more coverage. I still need to get a larger dark bag, an 8x10 flatbed scanner, a dark hood for shooting, and possibly a couple other items including negative sleeves from Printfile. I have enough film for now. I even managed to aquire some 8x10 Velvia 50 for not a bad price.

 

[138S]

My 90mm Georz American Optical WA Dagor does not appear to be coated but still seems optically as good or somewhat better than the late model coated 90mm Angulon.and seems to cover more.

In fact, IIRC the angulon is a reversed dagor...

Overall, with the exception of the 7" US-made Dagor, the newer multi-coated Plasmat design lenses seem to produce generally better measurable results than older Dagor and Protar VIIa fully cemented lenses that I compared.

Tipically Dagors have a large deal of "zonally uncorrected" spherical aberration, this provocates a lower performance (softness) when openned to the largest apertures, and it also provocates focus shift, focus moves when stopping the lens from wide open apertures. As the Dagor is stopped it improves because spherical aberration falls. My understanding is that the plasmat corrects way better spherical aberration in the large apertures, this may be the main effect of uncementing the inner elements and using the resulting curvature and distance variables to deal with that inherent spherical aberration of the dagors when wide open. Of course, in many situations the Dagor may match a Plasmat, in most practical situations we are not to obtain the peak performance, real photography is not shooting flat targets in a Lab

As we all know... Schneider met again the dagors when they acquired Goerz-U.S. around 1972 (20 years after they changed the Symmar from Dagor to Plasmat), conserving the product line and supply chain for several years. The german Goerz merged with others to form Zeiss Ikon in 1926, but Carl Zeiss had a majority stake and ruled the others in the merge had to stop lens production, Goerz-germany included...

I even managed to aquire some 8x10 Velvia 50 for not a bad price.

This is an impressive asset !!

 

[DREW WILEY]

With the Kern dagors, any alleged abberation issues or focus shift disappears less than a stop down, even before f/11. As per Fuji L's, they're sharp thick-element tessars, but with gentler edge rendition and background blur than most plasmats, so generally better suited for portraiture, but with less image circle for general applications. The only thin element LF tessars I can think of are Nikkor M's, although the previous single-coated Q series might be similar; I dunno.

 

[138S]

With the Kern dagors, any alleged abberation issues or focus shift disappears less than a stop down, even before f/11. As per Fuji L's, they're sharp thick-element tessars, but with gentler edge rendition and background blur than most plasmats, so generally better suited for portraiture, but with less image circle for general applications. The only thin element LF tessars I can think of are Nikkor M's, although the previous single-coated Q series might be similar; I dunno.

Of course the Gold Dot dagors were quite loved by many owners because of their charming bokeh. There are not many technical evaluations but those available were pointing 50 Lp/mm (for the 355). Reportedly "micro-contrast" improved until f/16 was reached.

For portraiture a too sharp-contrasty lens may be a mistake, this was realized well more than a century ago. The dagor delicacy when well open would make those glasses a great choice for portraits, but and as you stop them in the field for DOF in the landscape you get a contrasty lens, so it may be considered a dual purpose glass. A the end the Universal Heliar has an special ring to throw a controlled ammount of spherical aberration, that was sold since 1926.

A true artist tends to be a master of his tools, and exploiting the little flaws of a glass can contribute to an impressive result.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I personally think late dagors have horrible bokeh. They do have a certain kind of edge rendering that is sharp but in a different manner than current plasmats, which some people have referred to as more "rounded". These lenses are great for a certain kind of portraiture, especially for when black and white work and smooth complexions are involved, at wide stops. I had certain tricks to both achieve superb midtone to highlight micotonality and keep the overall print soft and glowing. That combination is harder to achieve today, now that certain classic graded papers are gone, because "snatch" development was involved, and required a very high silver content. I didn't have to worry about bokeh because I did Dagor portraiture in the studio with cloth backdrops. But out in the field for landscapes, I employed 8x10 tilts and small f-stops etc to pretty much keep everything in acute focus.

 

[Lachlan Young]

My 305 G-Claron comes in a Copal 1 shutter. I found Schneider and Grimes data that I squirreled away as PDF files that state that the 210-305 G-Clarons are all direct #1 shutter drop-ins. The 150mm GC was a #0 shutter and the 355 a #3.

One of my G-Clarons, a 240mm, is definitely an early Dagor-style GC and optically not quite up to the Plasmat-style 210 and 305 GCs nor Fujinon W Plasmats..

It's certainly interesting that the move to the Plasmat design seemingly enabled the 305 to go into a #1 shutter, rather than having to go up to a #3. Up to the 270mm, I don't think there are any shutter size differences between the Dagor/ Plasmat variants.

My only Compur 2 shuttered lens is a Voightlander 115/5.5 Ultragron UWA. That #2 Compur is a dialset, the Ultragon is about mid-1950s. A competent lens but I think that my later model 120mm reverse-Dagor Angulon may be a bit better on 5x7. Both are factory single-coated and rated to cover 5x7, but the Ultragon corners are mushy on 5x7. Neither has any visible nicks or damage and both are factory shutter mounts.

How tight do you find the 120mm Angulon's coverage on 5x7? I bought mine for 4x5 use mainly, but keep wondering about acquiring a 5x7.

That combination is harder to achieve today, now that certain classic graded papers are gone, because "snatch" development was involved, and required a very high silver content.

Highly unlikely to have been anything to do with silver content (seems to have been much less variance in amount of silver coated post-1950's than Picker's & others' marketing BS wanted to mislead everyone into believing - in fact I recollect noticing that 1990's Agfa papers weren't coated at a significantly different quantity of silver per m2 than was disclosed in the BIOS/ FIAT reports in the 1940's), much more likely to do with the curve shape/ tone effects of trace (possibly environmentally toxic) elements & the fundamentals of how the emulsion's grain structure was made. It would not surprise me if the paper in question had a much higher percentage of slower developing AgBr than today's very high AgCl content/ controlled grain growth emulsions. No reason a paper with similar behaviour couldn't be made today with better technology - got a spare million USD for R&D? Everyone likes to fixate on the silver price at the end of the 70's, because it's easier to rationalise away rather than having to deal with the messier reality of a sequence of much more complex engineering changes that seem to have happened earlier in the decade - namely, the removal of Cd salts from many emulsions, the move to almost all paper emulsions being washed emulsions (for RC compatibility), and the gradual move towards more high tech crystal growth structures and methods (away from traditional chlorobromide emulsions to high chloride ones better suited for making multicontrast papers) amongst the major manufacturers. The irony was that the very lack of investment that forced certain smaller manufacturers to keep producing their old formula papers was probably what kept them alive after they were discovered by fine art printers looking for behaviour that had been engineered out by the majors.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm quite aware of Picker's proficiency at snake oil marketing. But that was a complete waste of time because he actually had a few excellent products that could stand on their own merit. And I could snatch develop Brilliant Bromide with a success which no subsequent paper could match, especially no VC paper - even the best of them turn out blaah if you try. EMaks graded was a distant second option. (I'm not referring to "lith" development, but to a very subtle refined kind of control). Cd salts were still being used, and their ban probably accounted for not only the loss of Portriga Rapid, but of the rich version of Seagull G which many of us so admired. I don't know what went into the French formulation of Brilliant. But i'ts undeniable that the attempt of the Hunt Brothers to monopolize the silver commodities market gave manufacturers the incentive to rethink silver quantities in their formulations. Cadmium was inevitably going to get restricted once its toxic nature became fullly apparent. It's the reason entire square miles of shoreline around here are capped in concrete and asphalt, along with lead and chromium compounds (previously paint factories, shipyards, etc). I've seen some terrible cadmium poisoning among artists and industrial painters, or those who fooled around with contaminated soil.

 

[ic-racer]

The L version Im told is the more desirable lens, as it produces better bokeh, has a slightly softer look without losing much sharpness, and overall looks better in the picture. Its compared to having a look of older lenses. The W lens could be said to be too clinically sharp, losing the life the L version had. And in 8x10, it doesn't need to be so sharp as to cut something with it. The L seems to have a creamier look. But I have yet to use my 8x10 setup, as I am still getting stuff for it that is on my list. I believe I have the lenses I need now, though to be safe, Im switching my 210mm lens to the older version for more coverage. I still need to get a larger dark bag, an 8x10 flatbed scanner, a dark hood for shooting, and possibly a couple other items including negative sleeves from Printfile. I have enough film for now. I even managed to aquire some 8x10 Velvia 50 for not a bad price.

Those L series are tessar type with smaller image circles, maybe like the older Fujinar tessar lenses. I have a Fujinar tessar lens, but have only used it for enlarging with it stopped down where it is extremely sharp, so can't comment on how it renders images on film, though I have wanted to try it to see.

 

[5x7shooter]

I How tight do you find the 120mm Angulon's coverage on 5x7? I bought mine for 4x5 use mainly, but keep wondering about acquiring a 5x7. .

My 120 Angulon covers 5x7 OK but without any significant movement. Schneider rates sharp coverage as about 83 or so degrees and that seems about right in my experience. The 120 Angulon's edges are OK at f/22 on 5x7 and even reasonably good on-axis but the corners may be somewhat soft. I got mine for a very light outdoor 5x7 outfit and I think that it does well in that role. As you already have one, it's worth running your own 5x7 test. The extreme corners are not as sharp as the 120mm/8 Fujinon SW (inside writing) that has loads of spare coverage but that's a much bigger and heavier lens.

 

[Vaughn]

I remember reading an article where a fellow compared silver content against the black that paper could achieve. It is only one characteristic and silver content probably affects far more than that, but he found no correlation between silver content and the richness of the black. This was a few decades ago before the internet and all that.

 

[Ian Grant]

My 120 Angulon covers 5x7 OK but without any significant movement. Schneider rates sharp coverage as about 83 or so degrees and that seems about right in my experience. The 120 Angulon's edges are OK at f/22 on 5x7 and even reasonably good on-axis but the corners may be somewhat soft. I got mine for a very light outdoor 5x7 outfit and I think that it does well in that role. As you already have one, it's worth running your own 5x7 test. The extreme corners are not as sharp as the 120mm/8 Fujinon SW (inside writing) that has loads of spare coverage but that's a much bigger and heavier lens.

There's more variation with Angulons than later WA lenses like Super anhulons. I think it would be interesting to see how a 120mm Angulon behaves on a 10x8 camera, I just put mine on my 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View, this is where having made a conversion lens board to take Linhof/Wista boards makes lfe easy with the bellows fully compressed it focused at infinity

Amazingly the 120mm f6.8 Angulon illuminates all the screen at f6.8 and also fully stopped down, I'd expected vignetting but there will be fall off. So it's a case of where does sharpness drop off to a point that's unacceptable and that varies between manufacturers.

Some time ago I was surprised that a Ross 105mm f3.8 Xpres lens fully illuminated a 5x4 screen at all apertures, but so can a 105mm f4.5 Tessar. But I know from practical experience that a 135mm Tessar or Xenar is really pushing it and best at f22 if you want sharpness to the edges and corners.

I think Dan Fromm's ask -the lens, try it, - is a good way forward, unless you try you don't know.

How tight do you find the 120mm Angulon's coverage on 5x7? I bought mine for 4x5 use mainly, but keep wondering about acquiring a 5x7.

It's designed for 13x18 and so also 7x5 and Half Plate. Ironically I bought a Kodak Ltd 10x8 to Half Plate reducing back for £12 a few weeks ago, it's Universal so also 7x5, but offsets the film plane backwards so no use at infinity on my Agfa Ansco 10x8 cameras.

Ian