Wide field 8x10 lenses

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by troyammons, Dec 10, 2005.

  1. I already have a G-Claron 240mm lens and have owned a G-Claron 210.
    I sold the 210 for some nutty reason. Should have my head checked.

    At any rate I am shopping for a few more.

    Also a priority is a sharp lens and that is the reason I like G-
    Clarons. Also sub $400 and lightish would be nice.

    On my WA 8x10 list are........

    Wollensak 159mm
    Kodak WF ektar 190mm

    Also I understand the 165 angulon is soft at the edges. Is that
    correct ??

    Are there any other sharp lenses I should consider from 120mm to
  2. Troy,
    Sorry to hijack your thread, but I'm in a quandry for a lens in the 200-210 range and stuck between the 200 F8 NIKKOR-M COPAL and a 210 F9 G-CLARON COPAL. The G-claron is cheaper by over $100 and according to you plenty sharp. I guess I just just need reassurance because I don't see test numbers for the claron, but the test numbers for the Nikkor look real good. It's for a 4x5 BTW. Thanks for your thoughts.

    I guess I could throw that 200 F8 Nikkor-M out for your consideration as well :)

  3. I've owned two of the Wollensak 159s, f9.5, and both have been fine for contact prints. I've never enlarged negatives made with either of them but they're pretty hard to beat for a combination of low price, light weight, and small size. I too used the 210 G Claron and liked it but it's only a moderate wide angle for 8x10, I often needed something wider especially for interiors. The Wollensak filled the bill nicely.
  4. Thats okay. The G-Claron 210mm and 240mm lenses are 2 of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. You cant go wrong there. All of the G-Clarons are supposedly very sharp. The 210 and 240 are very sharp WO. The 150 works best around F16 or F22. The 210 is tight for coverage. I only used it on 4x5. This is the center crop of a 4000 dpi scan reduced to 3000 dpi. Its an 8x10 film scan. This test shot is from a G-Claron 240mm lens. The 210 is identical sharpness wise. What amazed me is that I used very old Kodak wood film holders so i expected some film flatness problems, but this is very sharp for 8x10. this is basically 700 MP ++. You might ask, whats the use of that type scan since its too big to work on, and at that time I was interested in seeing how much i could pull out of an 8x10 for doing 4x10 panoramics printed at 4 feet x 10 feet, and possibly a stitch of 2 8x10's for a 6 foot x___ (huge) print similar to the gigapixel guys. The 240 has good edge sharpness for 8x10. I am not sure about the 210 edge since it is close to the limit. http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/47776191 Here is a link to some #'s The 210 and 240 is not there, but they are a bit better than the 150, and at least on par with the 305. http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html Here is a crop target.
  5. I have a 168mm Goerz Dagor that I use on a 4x10 camera. I think it will cover 8x10 with no movements. You can usually find one on Ebay...I gave $115.00 for mine.
  6. Joseph,

    My understanding is that the Nikon 200M f/8 has only a 210mm image circle and will not cover 8x10. It is more of a lightweight 4x5 field lens.


    The hard-to-find 210mm f/9 Computar (also goes by a couple other names) appears to be an attractive lightweight 210mm solution for 8x10. Image circle is reportedly 380mm and weight is reportedly 245g. I have never owned one and cannot vouch for its optical performance, and have no idea as to its price these days. See these threads:



    Also your previous thread:

  7. Re: Computars

    I own a few Computars and have been very happy with thier performance (a 210mm Computar will actually cover 11x14), unfortunately the word is now out on these compact little lenses and the prices have been steadily escalating (i.e. have a look at auction #7568710116 from last week). The Graphic Kowa lenses do not appear to have quite the coverage of the Computars, but an equally compact 210mm f9 Kowa will still cover 8x10 and would probably be available for a more reasonable price.
  8. Eric,
    You are right. My apologies. I should be more careful reading these charts.

    Thanks for the info!

  9. Troy; long ago some folks used a surplus 6" F6.3 Metrogon for meteor photography and astrophotography, with an 8x10" sheet. The lens covers a 9x9 frame. It is a double Gauss design in a 4 element symmetrical arrangement designed for aerial photography. Once these were dirt cheap in price in the USA, a a favorite for experimenters. Steve Grimes once put one of these in a number 4 shutter. Decades ago these lense often came still mounted in the lens cone and were so heavy that they were shipped FOB by railcar of truck.
  10. Ah ha, a heavy muther.

    I ran into a thread that mentioned a RAF aero lens mounted somehow on a SD9/10. He think he really has something going and probably does, except its the chip is 54 lp/mm and APS size. No knocking the SD9/10 though. Its my favorite digital 35mm camera. Very sharp if you have a lens that can keep up.

    Still waiting on the next iteration.
  11. Here is the Grimes conversion, with a link to the story:

    The curvatures are abit wide! maybe like a clear cueball?

  12. Good Lord !!!
  13. Kelly:

    Great link - I would really like to see that lens in use - would like to some some images from it as well
  14. "The 210 is tight for coverage. I only used it on 4x5"

    I used the 210 G Claron extensively for 8x10. It actually has very decent coverage for 8x10 when you stop down to F32 or smaller.

Share This Page