"35mm" focal for 8x10

<p>As far as i can see, the 35mm equivalent lens for the 8x10 should be the 240mm/250/270 aproxitamtely...<br>

but i noticed that all of lenses in that range dont have a really good circle...why?<br>

is a useless lens? i love the 35 on my 35mm camera...is not enough wide but is better than the normal 50 to me<br>

what is the best lens in the range 240-270?<br>

I already have a 360 sironar N so i would but a 300/305...sounds too close to 360...what do you think?</p>

 

<p> The exact equivalent in 8x10 to a 35mm on FF is 234mm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I know but it doesnt exist a 234mm lens as far as i know, the question was: in that range which lens is better (less worse?)</p>

<p>There isn't an exactly correspondence because 135 and 8x10 don't have the same aspect ratios.</p>

<p>Having a really large image circle for a focal length much shorter than normal requires a lens design other than plasmat or tessar, etc., For an approx 210--250 mm focal length, this means a large or heavy lens, and higher cost -- so reduced popularity even though this is a popular focal length. In the past there were 210/200 mm Super-Angulon or Grandagon -- very large and heavy. Currently manufactured is the 210 mm Super-Symmar-XL. In the archives of this forum you will find suggestions for out-of-productions lenses with image circles not quite as large, but still larger than most plasmats, such as one particular version of the 250 mm Fuji-W, the 210 Apo-Sironar-W, etc.</p>

<p>An ancient 7 inch F6.8 Dagor listed coverage as 8x10" at F44 and 5x7" at wider stops.</p>

<p>With ancient lens the "criteria" was often ILLUMINATION; not always balls to the wall resolution; since eons ago many just contact printed.</p>

<p>My grandfathers 1920's and 1930's 8x10" are contact prints are with short Dagors; they are tack sharp; but they are only contact prints and the negatives are long gone.</p>

<p>"There isn't an exactly correspondence because 135 and 8x10 don't have the same aspect ratios."</p>

<p>True. I should have said for the horizontal angle of coverage.</p>

<p> There was a 250/6.3 Wide Field Ektar that had a 422mm image diameter @ f/16. You can probably find one of these used.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fujinon-A 9/240mm, tiny lens, 336mm image circle.<br>

G-Claron 9/270, 335mm image circle. I have one, and it's one of my favourites.</p>

<p>Look for Apo-Kyvytar or Computar lenses (240, 270). Apo-Kyvytar lenses are convertible (240 converts to 422, 270 converts to 475). Hard to find, expensive, small and light weight, big image circles, stellar performers.</p>

 

<p>A 210 Angulon has more image circle than you'll likely ever need, around 240, the aformentioned Computar, and a not often heard 260 Hexanon GRII has an image circle that's downright huge as well.</p>

<p>As Luis suggested, the 250mm (10 inch) Wide Field Ektar is comparable to 35mm FL in the 35mm format. I use one on 8x10. It's a great classic lens, very sharp and with tremendous coverage. They can be found, but make sure the shutter is in good shape. For a slightly wider and more modern lens, a 210mm Angulon would also be a good choice. </p>

<p>There is no one direct comparison between the 135 format and 10 x 8. Reason? The aspect ratio just isn't the same. FF 35mm is 3:2 and 10 x 8 is approximately 5:4</p>

<p>If you want the multiplier for the long side angle-of-view, then it's 245/36 = 6.8, and 6.8 times 35mm is 238mm. Making 240mm the nearest preferred focal length.</p>

<p>Short side multiplier is 190/24 = 8 (near enough) which makes the equivalent FL 280mm.</p>

<p>Lens manufacturers (and nobody else) like to use the frame diagonal as a comparator, and in this case it works out to a multiplier of about 7.38, giving you a focal length of 258mm.</p>

<p>So, you can take your pick of 240, 260 or 280mm as the equivalent focal length to 35mm. Personally I'd go for the long side equivalent AoV, and plump for 240mm. Then you can use a Schneider G-Claron which is readily available in that focal length, fits a #1 shutter (if memory serves me correctly) and has a coverage angle of about 70 degrees at f/22. As Erie has stated the Hexanon GRII is a similar type of lens to the G-Claron and should be equally suitable.</p>