Ultimate Lens Kit for 8x10

[BrianShaw]

So this is a "wishful dreaming" thread and not a real question?

 

[angusparkengusparker]

For a light kit with coverage, excepting the 110 which just hits corners and the 360 which is my favorite and I could leave behind!
110SSXL
210 f9 Computar
360 f10 A Fujinon
450 f12.5 C Fujinon
600 f12 C Fujinon

For under redwoods I'd switch to 5.6 in the shorter FLs.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

So this is a "wishful dreaming" thread and not a real question?

One can view it that way if they so choose but, no, the idea is to share personal opinions about lenses as described in the OP.

 

[gzinsel]

o.k. thanks for update or correction . Ya , I agree. It is nice to consider options for 8x10 regardless of price. But I think, other considerations start creeping in! like color or B+W, size of enlargement or contact. If its just shooting @ infinity or close to, b/w and contact, almost any lens will do, giving excellent results. Color work at 1:1, enlargements @ 32x40. Then "it all" changes. Its really hard to say. I have a fujinon 420mm L.its a tessar type. I do not feel I am at a 'disadvantage" with this lens. I wish I could add a 300 any would do, as long as, it doesn't produce sterility, or make me act in a way, thats not creative. I think some lenses have bad karma. I think that if your equipment "sends" signals to you that make you feel weird or awkward, then sell them. if you find equipment that makes you feel "special" buy it. I think its more important to have an emotional attachment with a lens, an "actual symbiotic relationship" where the lens "points you", kinda of like the Ouija board, then it is to have a lens, that can achieve in " lab tested results". Some anastigmats are great while other I have bought were el-stinko!!!! Its all about the "aura" , "the signal", "the synergy" a lens give you, its kinda like, "the force" in star wars. Every lens has its own Karma, no 600 C is the same. so its all about finding "special-ness" with whatever lens you pick up!

 

[gzinsel]

I would also contend. The buyer, the situation, and happenstance, into the equation. Buying a lens from "the dark horse" will not help you. That's bad Karma right there. IN that situation, the lens will need to go to rehab. a whole new phase or practice will have to eschew. then gradually, as you get comfortable with this new thing (lens), then you can put it into heavy rotation( daily use). I would never buy a lens, off of someone I never met, And use it right away. Thats horrible. that will zap you into a creative coma, that can last years!!!!!

In case any one of you all think I'm a batty, maybe I am. But I am serious about procedures, quirks, and idiosyncrasies.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Oh... but I do love to over-think things. It keeps me busy not doing anything.

 

[gzinsel]

with a grin and smile, and a pat on the back, I suppose I am guilty as charged, over thinking things and yet doing more damage to myself ( and maybe others) and sharing them. I suppose the response to the OP should be like a zephyr wind. kinda casual, keep it to the standard talking points of lens coverage, sharpness corner to corner, light in weight, but contrasty. . . . Boring. loosen up a little!!! lets get this party started!!!! BTW, I thought ALL discussion on the internet was "keeping me busy, while not doing anything!! Its so cold here in Wisconsin, All I can do is watch the . . . . . . hoping for something to change. Its kinda like at the laundry mat. Watching things go round and round, Waiting for the cycle to end!!!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

LOL... yeah, these forums can be just like watching laundromat clothes dryers spin round and round and round... but it's only entertaining if your drunk or high. I'm guilty of the former but never got into the latter.

 

[gzinsel]

im glad your havin' fun, cause I was too. But seriously(to the original post) I guess If I were to have a lens for 8x10 that I do not have now. if there was one that i could have it would be the 180 angulon/ super- angulon's. that with 300 w fujinon, with my 420 L . I would be pretty set. but I will still dream for that Angulon. Ironically. All this time spent dreaming, I could be doing something to make that money for the lens! LOL, Even if I found one- It probably wouldn't "speak to me" LOL
cheers

 

[GKC]

An 8x10 lens I'd want in my kit is a 10"/250mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar. Ansel liked 'em and I do too! It's great for architecture with acres of wiggle room. Once I had the front rise maxed out on the V8 and still no cut off. It's also good for rendering creamy skin tones for people photography.

 

[Vaughn]

So this is a "wishful dreaming" thread and not a real question?

The only problem is that for many of us, we have never had a chance to see hold or use our 'dream' lenses yet...so it is hard to really say what we would get! The Cooke Convertible does sound very nice...but until I work out how to use it in the field easily and effectively, I do not know if I would like it. Usually the less fuss the better.

I contact print, so the only reason to spend big bucks for me would be to lighten the load. Oh, and to get shutters on the barrel lenses I have so I can use them in the desert.

 

[karl]

I've got them.

210mm f9 Computar or 210mm f6.8 Angulon
311mm f6.8 Cooke Convertible Series XVa
30" f12.5 Goerz Apo Artar Red Dot (Aluminium barrel)

They all work quite well for 10x12 as well.

 

[Vaughn]

Karl, you must have a hefty set of bellows for that 30"! I use a 24" RDA with no problems, but I tried a TR at 29" and had both standards of my Zone VI 8x10 clutching the last cogs of the rails at infinity!

 

[karl]

It worked just fine on the 8x10 Canham (36" of bellows.) With the 8x10 Deardorff I have a 2" top hat lens board. Just so I'm not pushing the bellows to the limit. It's no trouble with the 10x12 Deardorff as it has 35" of bellows.

 

[GKC]

It worked just fine on the 8x10 Canham (36" of bellows.) With the 8x10 Deardorff I have a 2" top hat lens board. Just so I'm not pushing the bellows to the limit. It's no trouble with the 10x12 Deardorff as it has 35" of bellows.

Yeah, Ultimate ultimately depends on the camera----a studio camera could have a lens board measured in acreage, so a huge brassy might be no problem. A camera with bellows that go from here to there and back again can handle 30" Artar, but can it manage, say Nikon 120 SWA?
I'd say the camera would have a lot to do with the Ultimate lens selection.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, Ultimate ultimately depends on the camera----a studio camera could have a lens board measured in acreage, so a huge brassy might be no problem. A camera with bellows that go from here to there and back again can handle 30" Artar, but can it manage, say Nikon 120 SWA?
I'd say the camera would have a lot to do with the Ultimate lens selection.

I don't know about other cameras (there are several that can) but a Canham or Chamonix can do that and much more. Of course, these have interchangeable bellows.

 

[GKC]

I'd like one of these in my "ultimate" kit!
http://mthamilton.ucolick.org/techdocs/telescopes/36inch/index.html/

 

[DREW WILEY]

A friend of mine was in charge of that observatory for awhile, but I never took him up on visiting it during viewing hours, which were only
betweeen about 2:00 and 4:00 AM due to all the light pollution from San Jose. It's quite a drive up there from here or UCB - about 2 hrs, and
was of course a nice dark spot when it was built. But no more. One nice thing is that you can still look thru the thing with your own eyes if
you wish, unlike more modern telescopes which have to be viewed electronically.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You've got to consider not only the bellows length per se when putting a very long focal length lens on a camera, but whether or not your system, including the front standard, with even reliably support a huge lens without being wobbly. Things can get pretty clumsy, perhaps
mandating the use of two tripods. One reason why I capped off my own field lens selection with a 600C Fujinon, which is rather light and
compact for its focal length.