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

[ssellars]

I’m new to this forum, so apologies if this topic has been discussed previously. Just getting started with 8x10, and will using my recently purchased grey Ansco for a project that will include exterior and interior shots. For the former, I have a Kodak Commercial Ektar 12 in. f6.3. But I’m trying to decide how wide I should go for interiors? And how wide could I go given the limitations of an old view camera without removable bellows.

I’d prefer to lean towards lower cost, initially, so am thinking of vintage lenses like the Wollensak Series IIIa 6 1/4 in. f12.5 EX WA 8x10. Is that going to be too wide given my bellows limit? I expect I’ll need room for some camera movements depending on the space involved, so guess the Kodak Wide-Angle Ektars may not be ideal?

And at least at the beginning, I’m planning to stick with contact printing.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

Stephen

 

[Kino]

I have the 5x7 version of the Series IIIa lens (Wollensak Velostigmat Wide-Angle Series III F/9.5 (121mm) lens) and can say, at least for that lens, there is practically no chance of movements without hitting the lower definition portion of the image circle.

My front standard is pressed tightly to the rear standard at infinity and anything below f22 starts to show image degradation toward the edges of the frame.

That being said, it is a very sharp lens when stopped down to f22 and is not terribly bad with flare when shaded properly.

I am shooting a similar style Gunlach Korona field camera, so I would expect roughly the same experience with the 8x10 lens, but I have no first hand experience to confirm that suspicion.

IMHO, it's a really amazing lens when you stop to think it was marketed as early as 1909 and if you can buy one for a reasonable price, well worth adding to the arsenal.

Edit: you should also know you need a GOOD ground glass magnifier to focus this lens. You cannot focus sharply without one...

 

[grahamp]

If you want wide with movements on 8x10 you will have a limited selection. See largeformatphotography.info and scroll down to the lenses section. It helps to know the minimum extension of your camera, and what the functional minimum is while applying some movement. That should give you some candidates.

 

[blee1996]

I found this guide quite useful, although the wide angle suggestions tend to be on the expensive side

The 8x10 Lenses I Recommend the Most

The bigger your film size, the harder it is to find lenses that work well. For 8x10, the largest common film format, that rings especially true. So, what should you look for in an 8x10 lens? There are a lot of factors, from coverage to lens sharpness. Today, I'll go through those factors and...

photographylife.com

 

[Kino]

Velostigmat Wide Angle Ser. III f9.5 | Wollensak – only images

apenasimagens.com

 

[MTGseattle]

https://alphaxbetax.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1949-raptar-telephoto-and-wide-angle-lenses.pdf

I'm trying to get the more recent F9.5 manufacturer info as well. It may/may not be relevant unless the lenses architecture changed.

 

[ssellars]

Thanks for the input. If I can get one of the Wollensak f12.5 Ex WA at a reasonable cost I think I'll give it a go. It's nice to think this stuff is even older than me and still totally useable.

 

[MTGseattle]

Camera Eccentric: Info

web.archive.org

The velostigmat wide angle f9.5 is still listed as a 90 degree field of view.

I own a yellow dot f12.5 version. (all it means really is most recent version and a "cold-weather" balsam/glue) I haven't used it in an alley or building foyer yet. I think the most common complaint with these lenses is a lack of significant movements and light fall-off. I haven't used mine enough yet to bump into these issues. " A large circle of illumination..." sounds really good but doesn't necessarily equate to a large circle of acceptable sharpness.
I paid about $500 for my sample which probably sounds crazy until you compare it with the price of the more modern (and huge) 165mm that covers 8x10.
I think someone has a modern 150mm that "just" covers, but again, big and expensive. Super-symmar XL maybe for the 150mm and Super-Angulon for the 165mm ? I hate posting vague info, but lens data is scattered all over in the forums and there have been various adjustments to lens names/series over the years.

 

[Kino]

I only paid $115 for my 5x7 version, but fewer people shoot 5x7, so that explains the lower cost.

This shot illustrates light fall-off with a mild front lens swing (forgive the light leak from an old film holder on the right). Shot this before I really understood the limits of the lens; found out!

As the advertising literature seems to emphasize, it was made for banquet and large group shots made indoors with no concern for camera movements.

 

[qqphot]

One advantage you have is that even higher-end LF lenses (particularly for formats bigger than 4x5) are dropping into the "affordable" category pretty quickly these days.

I have a 155mm f/6.8 Grandagon-N and I see KEH recently sold one for $600 - in a bad shutter, but having it re-shuttered by SK Grimes probably wouldn't break the bank. This was a $3k lens a few years ago.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I did own a Nikon 120mm f8 in the past that worked well on 8x10. Not much for movements but the lens was great. The version I bought was a bit rough looking but had clean glass and the cost wasn't that much.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would look for a Fujinon W 180 (the older ones with writing on the front). They cover 8x10 nicely when stopped down to f/22. It's the equivalent to 90mm lens on 4x5. For extreme wide angle, I use a Nikkor SW 120. The downside with these two lenses? They don't give you much in the way of movements. You want movements when doing architectural work.

 

[Ian Grant]

Camera Eccentric: Info

web.archive.org

The velostigmat wide angle f9.5 is still listed as a 90 degree field of view.

I own a yellow dot f12.5 version. (all it means really is most recent version and a "cold-weather" balsam/glue) I haven't used it in an alley or building foyer yet. I think the most common complaint with these lenses is a lack of significant movements and light fall-off. I haven't used mine enough yet to bump into these issues. " A large circle of illumination..." sounds really good but doesn't necessarily equate to a large circle of acceptable sharpness.
I paid about $500 for my sample which probably sounds crazy until you compare it with the price of the more modern (and huge) 165mm that covers 8x10.
I think someone has a modern 150mm that "just" covers, but again, big and expensive. Super-symmar XL maybe for the 150mm and Super-Angulon for the 165mm ? I hate posting vague info, but lens data is scattered all over in the forums and there have been various adjustments to lens names/series over the years.

I have both the f9.5 and f12.5 versions of the 159mm EX.W.A. essentially they are identical except for the aperture scale, both focus at the same aperture. My f9.5 has severe separation, which is an issue with these lenses.

Ian

 

[MTGseattle]

I only paid $115 for my 5x7 version, but fewer people shoot 5x7, so that explains the lower cost.

View attachment 371181

This shot illustrates light fall-off with a mild front lens swing (forgive the light leak from an old film holder on the right). Shot this before I really understood the limits of the lens; found out!

As the advertising literature seems to emphasize, it was made for banquet and large group shots made indoors with no concern for camera movements.

View attachment 371180

In this image, do you swing a bit towards the sign? Another problem I have while still "learning" this lens/focal length is letting way too much foreground into the frame. In your example, you would have been standing in the street to minimize it, but I have a frame where I could lose a full third of my image and be happy. I had no excuse. I thought it was ok on the ground glass but it looks pretty bad on the light table.

 

[Kino]

In this image, do you swing a bit towards the sign? Another problem I have while still "learning" this lens/focal length is letting way too much foreground into the frame. In your example, you would have been standing in the street to minimize it, but I have a frame where I could lose a full third of my image and be happy. I had no excuse. I thought it was ok on the ground glass but it looks pretty bad on the light table.

Yes, I was trying to place the lens board more parallel to the front of the building for sake of focus. It was my first outing with the lens, so naively I tried to treat it like a lens that had enough coverage to make some swings and tilts. In retrospect, with the f-stop I used, the movement was not required or even photographically possible; live and learn.

It IS hard to judge just how wide the resulting image will actually turn out with this lens. I too was taken aback at how much foreground showed-up, but wrote it off on inexperience. Add to this the inherent difficulty of using an older, dim ground glass and I only tend to see about 1/4 of the image at any one time with my head under the dark cloth, so I have to "bob and weave" my head to try to a idea of full ground glass coverage.

It's going to take some time to get proficient with this lens/camera combination.

I wonder if this lens would not be more suited to a 3D printed "point and shoot" 5x7 body; might be worth exploring some day.

Older buildings in this area tend to abut right up to the roadway; a legacy of horse and carriage roads being paved with no offset. This along with utility wires and other modern junk make for a frustrating experience when trying to shoot "clean" photos of older buildings.

 

[MTGseattle]

I fully agree regarding power lines and other modern detritus intruding into the image. Sometimes all of that stuff can add an interesting linear element, but more often it would be nicer if it wasn't there.

It's funny with view-camera work that even knowing certain concepts (shallow depth of field) doesn't always translate to dealing with it well while photographing. I was trying to capture a certain portion of a really odd stump/dead-fall tree on the coast in March. I exposed 2 frames, and my point of focus changed between the 2. I know I introduced a tiny amount of front swing, but my ground-glass evaluation was lacking. Practice practice practice as they say. I need to do another round of scanning. I'm still not seeing any drastic light falloff with my sample of the Wolly Ex Wide angle. I will chalk that up to using very limited movements so far and not to some fluke within a given lens.

 

[jimjm]

I have the 6.25" f:9.5 Wolly Velostigmat WA Series III that I've been using on an 8x10 Deardorff. It's surprisingly small and sharp for an old lens and was a relative deal compared to other wide lenses for 8x10.
Definitely some fall-off in the corners but I'm still able to use some movements. I've still got about 5cm of bellows available when the lens is focused at infinity. It's also nice that I can fit 43mm screw-in filters on it.
It does give a much wider view than I anticipated. I had to get really close to this 12-ft cactus and use some front rise to fill the frame. This was shot at f11 with an orange filter on Delta 100.

 

[ssellars]

I have the 6.25" f:9.5 Wolly Velostigmat WA Series III that I've been using on an 8x10 Deardorff. It's surprisingly small and sharp for an old lens and was a relative deal compared to other wide lenses for 8x10.
Definitely some fall-off in the corners but I'm still able to use some movements. I've still got about 5cm of bellows available when the lens is focused at infinity. It's also nice that I can fit 43mm screw-in filters on it.
It does give a much wider view than I anticipated. I had to get really close to this 12-ft cactus and use some front rise to fill the frame. This was shot at f11 with an orange filter on Delta 100.

View attachment 371338

This is great information, thank you! And I love this photo.

 

[ic-racer]

I have used the 150mm Nikkor, but it is probably not what you want. One would need a monorail to take full advantage of its coverage. I think the 150mm Nikkor is more suited to comercial work, where one's income from the lens can offset its high cost.

A wide, modern formula, inexpensive lens is the Fujinon 180mm. Used to be less than $200 on ebay. After trying the 150mm Nikkor, I bought the Fujinon 180 instead.

 

[MTGseattle]

@jimjm Nice image. I wonder if there are any 43mm center spot filters hiding in the world?

 

[jimjm]

This is great information, thank you! And I love this photo.

Thanks! I was pleasantly surprised at the performance of this tiny and relatively cheap uncoated lens.
Good luck with your search!

 

[jimjm]

@jimjm Nice image. I wonder if there are any 43mm center spot filters hiding in the world?

Thanks! Yeah, a center spot is definitely worth looking into.

 

[MTGseattle]

The ebb and flow of the used lens market is so strange to me. Akin to French Bistro mathematics for any of you Douglas Adams fans. When I sourced my 159mm there was a pretty rough, un-coated one for sale for $400-ish, and then the one I bought which looked amazing in the pictures for $500. I let both auctions run out while I was making my decision. Luckily, they both got re-listed.
Fast-forward one year and it seems like there are 5-8 samples of the lens for sale right now.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you can find a good clean example of the 190mm Wide-Field Ektar, that's a great option for 8x10 interior architecture. I have one of the Wolly f9.5 lenses and it will work well also, but you might find it difficult to focus and/or use on your camera.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I paid about $500 for my sample which probably sounds crazy until you compare it with the price of the more modern (and huge) 165mm that covers 8x10.
I think someone has a modern 150mm that "just" covers, but again, big and expensive. Super-symmar XL maybe for the 150mm and Super-Angulon for the 165mm ?

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.