Modern Equivalent to 250mm WF Ektar?

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by timothy_blomquist|1, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Other than the hard to find Fuji 250mm W f6.7, is there another
    lens that provides adequate coverage for 8x10 and still provides
    a good sharp wide angle view? My current primary lens is a Schneider
    300mm Symmar S.

    Timothy Blomquist
  2. Hi Timothy,

    You might find some answers at the link below. A couple of weeks ago, I asked for advice on lenses of that focal length with sufficient coverage for an 8x10 camera, and I received many helpful responses. Most were recommendations on the Fuji 250mm f/6.7 and the Kodak WF Ektar 250mm though (which I ended up buying).

    Best, Markus
  3. Timothy,

    I'd say the Fuji - I love it.

    They aren't too hard to find. They come up failry regualry on ebay.

    ALso Jim at Midewst Photo usually either has one or two in, or if you talk to him personally, he can usually track one down on his buying trips to Japan.

    Give him a call (I see he actually has one listed for a very decent price)

    tim a
  4. How about a 240mm Computar, 240mm Dagor, or 240 G-Claron? Not quite 250mm, but close.

  5. jbq


    Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock all have a 240/5.6 lens (Rodenstock actually has 2). I have a 240/5.6 and I'm very happy with it.
  6. Though most of the 240mm 5.6 lenses lack the coverage of both the Fuji (398mm) and the Ektar (422mm).

    Doing urban landsacapes/cityscapes I often find I come pretty close to using th efull image circle on the Fuji. Not quite so much with "rural" landscapes - so it depends what you are doing and how you work as to how much image circle you might need.

    In addition, the Fuji 250 can usually be had for somewhat less than the 240mm 5.6 lenses for an Exc+ used example

    As you can guess, I really like my 250 6.7 - probably my most used lens (along with my 210 Kowa 6.8) . The Ektar is nice, but it has a honking big shutter, needs series filters and the lens coating is often prone to scratches/cleaning marks.

  7. I'm with Tim A. as I have a Fuji 250/6.7 and love it. Modern shutter and takes 67mm size filters.
  8. Timothy,

    I really don't think that there is that much to be gained in the differece between the 300mm lens you use and a 250mm lens. My experience is that I need at least 100mm difference in focal length in an 8x10 lens to offer a truly useful advantage. YMMV, and there will slways be exceptions of course. If you are looking to replace your 300mm, or feel the need to pack a "back-up" then by all means look at a 250/240. OTOH, If you're looking to expand on your lens "deck of cards" you might want to look at something wider.
    My 2-cents:)
  9. John,

    I'm not really sure I agree 100% - though it does depend quite a lot on what sort of photography you are doing.

    My three most used lenses are (in order) 250mm, 210mm, 159/165mm followed by quite a way by the 300mm and then the 370mm

    I often find enough differences in view between the 210 and 250 that I have to make a decision as to which one I will use for a scene - they are rarely interchangable. And when I can't decide which and end up taking the pohotograph with both lenses, I end up with two images which are, to my eye, usally two quite different photogoraphs.
  10. There is a difference.

    Symmar S 300/5.6 has an angle of view of 70 degrees @ f22 (1975-Calumet Catalog).

    Fujinon 250/f6.8 has an angle of view of 80 degrees @ f22 (View Camara Magazine and Modern Photography 1974 review by S. Sint)

    When Mr.Thalman wrote his excellent review about Fujinon lenses in a recent issue of View Camera Magazine, the 250/6.7 specifications were not mentioned. I was disappointed.

Share This Page