Thoughts on wide angle 8x10 lens for architectural interior shots?

[Ian Grant]

The 165mm f8 Super Angulon is huge in comparison to the Wollensak 159mm Ex.W.A. I have both.

The third lens almost covers 10x8 and is a Ross Wide Angle Anastigmat 141mm f16, this one is marked A (crown) M, so Air Ministry. It's a Ross Zeiss WA "Protar", it covers Whole plate at f32.

Ian

 

[Whir-Click]

The commonly encountered Wollensak Optical Company 159mm (6.25”) wide angle lenses for 8x10” are either f/9.5 or f/12.5. A half century of name, design, and coating changes can be confusing, so here’s a quick chronological overview of the four variations and their identifying marks:

• From 1909-1945, the f/9.5 lenses were an 8/4 design, uncoated, and labeled “Velostigmat Series III.”
• From 1922-1946, the f/12.5 lenses were a 4/2 design, uncoated, and labeled “Series IIIa EX. W.A.”
• From 1946-1953, the f/12.5 lenses changed to a coated 4/4 design. These were labeled “Velostigmat Extreme W.A” (in 1946), then “Anastigmat Extreme W.A.” (for the balance of production).
• From 1952 until production ended, the f/9.5 8/4 design was brought back, modernized and coated, and labeled “Anastigmat Wide Angle” (from 1952-mid 1953) and then “Raptar Wide Angle” (for the balance of production).

 

[MTGseattle]

That's good info.

And, I'm a goof. Mine is the f9.5 "Anastigmat wide Angle."

 

[ssellars]

The 165 Super Angulon is excellent, has plenty of coverage etc, and is (relatively) not horrifyingly expensive (especially not compared to what they'd cost new today) - but it's huge (105mm or 110mm filters, makes 8x10 Sinar Normas look like 4x5's), heavy (1600g), and mostly in a #3 shutter (some earlier versions are in custom mounts in #1 Compurs). If you're not going to crash the front standard with the weight, it's the best balance of performance-to-price, as opposed to the desperation for ultimate light weight at the cost of performance - to the point that price parity between the old 6.25-6.5" ultra wides and some 165 Super Angulons is not far off - and I know which I'd prefer if you want edge to edge performance for the sort of documentary mode suggested by the OP (unless you have masochistic urges involving 8x10's and backpacks).

The various Super Angulon competitor lenses - Nikon 150/8 & Rodenstock 155/6.8 Grandagon, are a bit lighter and wider, persuaded into #1 shutters and quite expensive currently. The Super Symmar XL was supposed to be Schneider's latest and greatest and gained a stop of speed and a #1 shutter over the 165 - I'd also bet that they were overall less costly and demanding of assembly skill to make and thus had a lower QC rejection rate than the 165. None of them meaningfully beat the Super Angulon's coverage.

No such masochistic urges, at my age. And thanks for these other suggestions. Of course, the 159mm Wollensack I’d been eyeing on eBay for $600 dropped to $250 while I was on vacation and missed it!