Ultimate Lens Kit for 8x10

[Old-N-Feeble]

What "modern" lenses would you choose if money was no object for use on 8x10 with "plenty" of room for movements, sharp center-to-corner and as "relatively" small/lightweight as is practicable given the other criteria?

Focal lengths from approximately .33x to 2x.

My choices:
110 SSXL
150 SSXL
210 SSXL or (210 Apo Sir.-W) or (210 Computar or early Graphic-Kowa)
300 Apo Sironar-W (or 305 Computar or Graphic-Kowa)
450 Fuji-C
600 Fuji-C

 

[wildbill]

I'd hate to see what you consider large/heavy if you say the 210xl and 300 sironar are small/light

I use these:
165mm super anglon f8, stays in the car.
210 fujinon which I'd trade up for the 210 sironar W
250 fujinon 6.7 which I'd trade up for the 240 sironar-s, not small!
305 g claron
450mm M nikkor
600 fujinon-c

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'd hate to see what you consider large/heavy if you say the 210xl and 300 sironar are small/light

I use these:
165mm super anglon f8, stays in the car.
210 fujinon which I'd trade up for the 210 sironar W
250 fujinon 6.7 which I'd trade up for the 240 sironar-s, not small!
305 g claron
450mm M nikkor
600 fujinon-c

Modified my OP slightly.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ultimate boredom, eh?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ultimate boredom, eh?

I dunno... it could be, I suppose. I'm still trying to decide what format to settle on and this largely teeters on the lens kit due to both weight and cost. Other factors are the cost and availability of 5x8 cameras and film holders but that's another topic.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm playing fast and loose with the term "modern" because lenses for 8x10 have been around since the 19th century. Some of these are truly "modern" in the sense that they are in Copal shutters. Others, just from the 2nd half of the 20th century.

159mm Wollensak f/12 (again, funky shutter but super-wide, covers the format, and weighs very little).
210mm Wollensak Raptar f/6.8 (it may be in one of those Rapax shutters, but it's a very compact lens that covers 8x10 with movement)
240mm Docter f/9 (Copal 1 shutter, acres of coverage, weighs next to nothing).
300mm Kodak Commercial Ektar f/6.8 (just a fantastic all-around lens, not too big, not too heavy, but very nice for the format)
355mm G-Claron f/9 (big boy, but it will cover even my 14x17 with movement, so you'll never run out on 8x10)
450mm Nikkor-M f/9 (see above)

 

[ic-racer]

small/lightweight

That is joke right?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That is joke right?

Perhaps I should have written, "as small and lightweight as is practicable with modern high performance 8x10 lenses".

 

[ic-racer]

I guess it depends on where you go or what you want to do. I just don't see myself carrying around a 210 Super Symmar in its own suitcase. Like which extra hand am I going to use to carry that and the monorail 8x10 to go with it?

 

[GKC]

Modern? What is this modern of which you speak?
19" RD Artar
15" B&L Petzval
14" Commercial Ektar
12" Dagor
10" WF Ektar
240mm G Claron
159mm WA Veostigmat "yellow dot"

 

[Alan Gales]

A 14" Commercial Ektar is all you need. Any additional lenses are just icing on the cake!

 

[GKC]

A 14" Commercial Ektar is all you need. Any additional lenses are just icing on the cake!

It was Edward Weston's favorite!

 

[Alan Gales]

It was Edward Weston's favorite!

The 14" Commercial Ektar was a favorite of Yousuf Karsh as well.

Now if I can just figure out how to get my lens to take as wonderful photographs as Weston and Karsh's lenses did.

 

[DREW WILEY]

EW made wonderful contact prints. If you enlarged them much at all, lots of them would look like utter mush. Ever see even Ansel Adams famous 8x10 pics enlarged to even 30x40? Hardly sharp. That was why he taught that big prints should be printed softer on matte papers - just the opposite as his stereotypical routine. Otherwise they'd look awful. Don't pine for the old day. We've got way better films, lenses, and enlargers today. Most of this stuff was archaic even back then, that is, in comparison to what real commercial labs had. Commercial Ektars are still quite desirable for certain old school color portraiture qualities; but there are much more ergonomic and crisper alternatives for most kinds of work. In other words, a big draft horse might be nice for classic Budweiser commercials, but other breeds are more appropriate for the Kentucky Derby.

 

[BrianShaw]

... Don't pine for the old day. We've got way better films, lenses, and enlargers today. Most of this stuff was archaic even back then, that is, in comparison to what real commercial labs had. Commercial Ektars are still quite desirable for certain old school color portraiture qualities; but there are much more ergonomic and crisper alternatives for most kinds of work. In other words, a big draft horse might be nice for classic Budweiser commercials, but other breeds are more appropriate for the Kentucky Derby.

Hmmm, interesting perspective but bad equine analogy. The requirements for a KY Derby contender are very different from a Bud commercial, but I'm not sold on the notion that Commercial Ektars are only capable of "certain old school color portraiture qualities", despite their somewhat archaic design. But I'm not trying to be argumentative; just pointing out that I get just as good results with a CE as I do with a more modern lens... if the 1980's counts as "modern".

 

[DREW WILEY]

Their shutters are as big as a draft horse. That alone has repercussions for any camera not built like a freight wagon. That affects sharpness via potential vibration risk. It's not all about optical design. And it has a somewhat soft rendering - not necessarily a bad thing - just different from many multicoated lenses. I'm a bit of a fanatic about lenses in the 14" focal length. For example, I've owned 14" Kern multicoated dagors, which are the highest contrast lenses I've ever used in any format (that's logical, with only four air/glass surfaces). The contrast was so high that I became almost unusable for chromes in open light. The Compur shutter also had a distinct buzz to it that would affect exposures on any but a heavily built camera. I have since switched to a single-coated Kern dagor in a Copal 3s. But even that is still a much more contrasty lens than a CE. My sharpest lens in this focal length is a 360 Apo Nikkor process lens. My best bokeh, a 360 Zeiss
tessar (also a process lens), my most versatile, and best overall, esp closeup, a 360 MC Fujinon A, which is especially nice due to its no.1
shutter, making it lightwt to carry and very low vibration - ideal not only for 8x10, but for long extension use on a 4x5 monorail. In other words, there is no "best". Each of these has their specially desirable aspects.

 

[GKC]

The 14" Commercial Ektar was a favorite of Yousuf Karsh as well.

Now if I can just figure out how to get my lens to take as wonderful photographs as Weston and Karsh's lenses did.

Alan, the problem with these old lenses is that I think most of them were used and one time or another by EW, Karsh, Adams and other famous photographers. They'd take all the really gret images out of these lenses and sell 'em off to us when they couldn't squeeze out any more.
That's why

 

[GKC]

If we're talking about a small lightweight lens for hiking, a 240 G Claron is very nice. A 12" Dagor is only a little larger but faster and has a different look some people prefer. Another favorite of mine is a 19" RD Artar. For such a long lens I find it's very do-able (hike-able?) The 450 Nikon M as well.

 

[BrianShaw]

Their shutters are as big as a draft horse. That alone has repercussions for any camera not built like a freight wagon. It's not all about optical design. And it has a somewhat soft rendering - not necessarily a bad thing - just different from many multicoated lenses. ... In other words, there is no "best". Each of these has their specially desirable aspects.

Yes, indeed!

 

[Alan Gales]

Alan, the problem with these old lenses is that I think most of them were used and one time or another by EW, Karsh, Adams and other famous photographers. They'd take all the really gret images out of these lenses and sell 'em off to us when they couldn't squeeze out any more.
That's why

Thanks! I feel a little better now.

 

[Vaughn]

A lot of my work is under the dark redwood canopy, so faster lenses are nice (5.6 to 6.8)...and one can get away with barrel lenses with exposure times in the minutes.

My 210mm/6.8 Wollensak Wide field Graphic Rapter must be a close cousin to FC's 210mm Wollensak Raptar f/6.8. If mine had a shutter I would use it more, but it has been basically replaced with the longer 250mm/6.7 Fuji W.

The 250mm/6.7 Fuji W is a great 8x10 lens. Perhaps skip the 300mm, and get a 360mm to go between the 250mm and 450mm. Or have an ultimate kit with just one lens.

 

[Alan Gales]

A lot of my work is under the dark redwood canopy, so faster lenses are nice (5.6 to 6.8)...and one can get away with barrel lenses with exposure times in the minutes.

My 210mm/6.8 Wollensak Wide field Graphic Rapter must be a close cousin to FC's 210mm Wollensak Raptar f/6.8. If mine had a shutter I would use it more, but it has been basically replaced with the longer 250mm/6.7 Fuji W.

The 250mm/6.7 Fuji W is a great 8x10 lens. Perhaps skip the 300mm, and get a 360mm to go between the 250mm and 450mm. Or have an ultimate kit with just one lens.

Vaughn, I agree with you about the Fuji W 250mm f/6.7 being a great lens. Besides my 14" Commercial Ektar I have the Fuji 250 and a 19" Artar. Icing on the cake.

Old-N-Feeble said money is no option so along with the Fuji 250 he could ad the Cooke XVa triple convertible at 311mm, 476mm and 645mm. Two lenses and four focal lengths.

 

[GKC]

I find the 19" Artar is really useful. I've found it makes a nice companion to my 240 G Claron (or similar focal length lens) in the landscape with both wide and long ends of the spectrum covered.

 

[gzinsel]

I think "buying" a lens, because of its "social" standing is absurd ! In my artistic/professional- opinion, I believe you are "looking" down the wrong alley. It is not "the lens" or the "camera" that makes an image. it is "you " THAT MAKES THE IMAGE, (metaphorically speaking) . whether shot with an ektar or a fujinon does not make an image, ( both metaphorically and literally) , YOU DO. time, place, setting, mood , intuition. .. . . the breath of your humanity does. NOT how many line pairs/mm. not angle of view, not coated or uncoated, not symmetrical/ non symmetrical lens. I find your position to to be troublesome. listing these choices.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I think "buying" a lens, because of its "social" standing is absurd ! In my artistic/professional- opinion, I believe you are "looking" down the wrong alley. It is not "the lens" or the "camera" that makes an image. it is "you " THAT MAKES THE IMAGE, (metaphorically speaking) . whether shot with an ektar or a fujinon does not make an image, ( both metaphorically and literally) , YOU DO. time, place, setting, mood , intuition. .. . . the breath of your humanity does. NOT how many line pairs/mm. not angle of view, not coated or uncoated, not symmetrical/ non symmetrical lens. I find your position to to be troublesome. listing these choices.

I think we can all agree this is true. The idea behind this discussion is to share what lenses each of us would own and use if money was of no concern. Money definitely is a concern for me but that's outside the circle of this thread. What is the best of the best (for our personal needs/wants) regardless of cost... $10 or $10K doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion. It would be nice to share why we prefer those choices for reasons having nothing to do with cost.