Wide Lens for an 8x10

Hello! I'm still looking for a wide lens(155-165mm) for use on an

8x10. I am very impressed with the coated versions of the Wollensack

159mm in f9.5 and f12 and also the Goerz WA 6 3/4" f8 Dagor. I'd

like to know if anyone has had any experience with these lenses that

woud lead them to prefer one over the other, especially in regards

to image circle(both Wollys and the Dagor seem to be pretty tight)

and performance when enlarged. Thanks for any insights!----Cheers!

No idea about the Dagor...

 

My uncoated 159mm f/9.5 Wollensak cost me $100 and is worth maybe $100 in my estimation. Light falloff is significant starting about 4" from the center and the edges don't look like a good bet for enlarging. I would seek out an f/12 Wollensak just from the perspective of better coverage, or perhaps a 141mm Protar V, which seemed to have good coverage when I tried it out. I think the lens I have is marginal for 8x10.

I was in a similar place about a year ago, looking for either of these. I ended up finding the Dagor first, for $300.

 

F8 is pretty dim. F12 I wouldn't even touch. How can you photograph what you can't see or compose? Just my humble opinion, because I like to do more than blazing sunny landscapes.

 

Further, if your camera is equipped with a fresnel, you'll have a heck of a time seeing the image with this lens. This issue is dealt with well elsewhere in the forum. My Beattie seems optimized for the normal lens, and performs well with the 18", but there seems to be nowhere I can stand in order to see the whole image with the wide.

 

Without a fresnel, you'll see the falloff on the ground glass wide open. After processing, a shot at f22 will exhibit some falloff. Let me post again after some test shots at other apertures. I'm eager to hear from others, but I think you'll appreciate the wider aperture.

 

Boy, is this lens sharp, though. Ow.

If new is also an option, have you looked at the Schneider 150mm Super Symmar, John? I believe it covers 8x10. (386mm image circle) Badger has them for around $1500. I've used the 110mm on 4x5 and have been very impressed with the lens.

Interesting, another virtue of the 8x10 Polaroid... Seems there's a perfect zone for this Dagor! The shot I talked about above was actually f11/16, which is not a smart stop because of the falloff.

 

Tonight, with strobe, I shot at f32, then ran the shot. Practically made the grain curdle, which indicates resolution loss due to diffraction. Viewed from 12", the print appears sharp, but on closer inspection, in this deep shot of my kitchen, nothing is really sharp. Maybe f22 is the sweet spot... Maybe I should use a film with better MTF characteristics for such a 'test.' But when compared to other shots on this material with my other lenses, something is fishy. I know it sure wasn't subject or camera movement that caused the hit in resolution.

 

I've read that these lenses have zonal spherical aberration, and it was recommended that focus be checked after stopping down, so I was extra careful to do this. But a focus shift wouldn't cause uniform unsharpness in depth.

 

Thanks for prompting me to check out this lens again. I've been using my 240 Symmar mostly, because I'm not so cramped for movements, and because it's small and friendly.

 

I'm pleased that the uneven illumination has been mitigated by the smaller stop, but an 8x10 contact print ought to look sharper than this... Happy with the color, though. That was a surprise, for such an old lens!

I think what I find is really confusing is that I've seen Wollys referred to as either the Dagor-type or Double Gnauss(or is it Dialyte?) type. I suppose if it were a Dagor type I could just as well look for a Dagor and get similar results. I've seen some really nice images taken with the f9.5 on the web. I'm wondering if anyone has compared the image circles of the f/8 Dagor with the f/9.5 and f/12 Wollys? I haven't found anything yet after checking out the very useful and abundant information on the web. As for getting a new lens: only in my dreams! Thanks for all the generous information you've all provided! -----------Cheers!

Just to throw in another option, my early Ser. III 168mm/f:6.8 Berlin Dagor also just manages to cover 8x10". Later versions of this lens don't cover, or so I've heard, so test if you can.

 

Another great wide lens for 8x10" that's not too costly is the 120mm/f:14 Berthiot Perigraphe. It shows some visible coma in the corners, but it's not too bad--surprisingly sharp overall when stopped down. It comes with wheel stops and can cover 8x10" with slight movements. I've had mine mounted in an Ilex #3, which seems to have reduced the coverage slightly, but it still covers.

I have the Wollensak 159mm F9.5 and it's been an excellent lens for the contact prints and scans for which I've used it. A friend had the F12 and got rid of it because of difficulties viewing on the ground glass, which is to be expected with F12 and a lens this wide on 8x10. I have no viewing problems with the F9.5 but I do have a Bosscreen installed on my Deardorff which is a big help, especially with wide angle lenses.

I owned a Wollensack 159mm f/9.5 for a couple of months, and was quite pleased with its image performace; several images I made with it I took up to 16x20 and they printed quite well (certainly nothing to complain about). That said, I quickly changed to a 150mm f/5.6 XL because of the need for a brighter focusing image. The increased coverage of the XL was wonderful too, but the main reason to change was the difficulty in focusing at f/9.5

 

e.

I have used the 6 1/2 Dagor for years and can heartily recommend it. Obviously a lens like the 155 Grandagon is a lot easier to use -- brighter, and a flat field of focus (the Dagor's field is far from flat -- you have to play around with it. Having said that, I have done several books - on Paris, the Mexican border, a small town in Alberta and the work of FL OLmsted with this lens, and have made prints up 50 inches with no problem. There should be not huge diffraction problem at F32, though F22 is the optimum. I also like the lens' compactness, something you can't say for the Grandagon or the 165 S. Angulon. Having said that, I have just fallen in love with a 180 Carl Zeiss Jena WA Dagor -- it is very sharp, with gobs of coverage. Got it in EBay, but you do not see a lot of them. Good luck.