What is the SMALLEST Focal Length you can use on a 8x10 camera?

[ryan_mcintosh]

I have a Calumet 8x10 Monorail camera. I really like wide angle lens

for landscape photography that I do, but now that I jumped up from

4x5 to 8x10...I need to know what is the widest focal length I can

use? I was thinking a 7 1/2" (190mm) would work, but I dont think it

will. What is the smallest someone can use?

[george_verbryck]

I have used my super angulon 120mm I think the 75mm hypergon is the widest that will cover 8x10. Cheers George

[kelly_flanigan1]

OT; the old Metrogon Aerial lens in 6"/153mm would cover 9x9inches.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The shortest focal length sold today which the lens manufacturer specs as covering 8x10 is probably 150 mm: 150 mm Nikkor-SW, 155 mm Grandagon-N, 150 Super-Symmar-XL. These would be equivalent to a 75 mm lens on 4x5. Photographers have reported that the 110 mm Super-Symmar-XL will just cover, though with substantial light falloff in the corners. The subject of short focal lengths for 8x10 is a popular one, you might want to check previous discussions in the

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=1547&category=8x10%3a+cameras+and+lenses">

8x10: cameras and lenses</a> section of the archive of this forum.</p>

[richard_ilomaki]

Ryan

 

I have used teh Nikkor 120 SW on my Cambo 8 x 10. Not much room for movements tho.

 

BTW focal lengths are longer or shorter, not smaller or bigger.

 

The focal lenght of a lens is not the sole determinant of coverage. The designed-in coverage area or circle is. It is much harder to make a lens that covers 4 x 5 evenly, let alone 8 x 10, than for 35 mm. Many WA lenses for LF need centre filters to counteract the fall-off at the edges. I have a 150 5.6 that barely covers 5 x 7.

 

Cheers

[mark_blackman1]

"BTW focal lengths are longer or shorter, not smaller or bigger."

 

Hmm, so 150mm is not smaller than 210mm?

 

Back to your question, Ryan. Why do you ask - is there a particular application you have in mind? Using the smallest (or shortest!) lens possible is not always the best solution, and as others have said you will get increasing fall-off at the edges.

[richard_ilomaki]

MARK

 

The focal length IS SHORTER or LONGER, but the number (150 or 210) is SMALLER or LARGER. Basic convention of English usage.

 

Cheers

[martin_reekie]

Ryan,

 

Like Richard I use the 120mm SW Nikkor on my Zone VI, great lens with the coverage - just and little noticeable light fall off in the corners. You don't get any movements 312mm at f22 vs 312.5 for the 8x10 format. I'm sure this is the widest lens on sale these days for 8x10.

 

I'm not sure about George?s comments about the 120mm Super-Angulon as it only has an image circle of 288mm and certainly the 75mm won't have a larger image circle.

 

Best information is at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

 

Attached a photo taken with the 120mm in a confined space.

 

Martin<div></div>

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

The 121 Super Angulon does indeed cover 8x10, so I'm sure George is right about the 120.

 

How about the Grandagon 115? Specs say 291 image circle.

[anthony_j._kohler]

Ron Wisner is still offering a new-made 84mm Hypergon which he says will cover (barely) 11x14. On 8x10, that should roughly equate to about a 14mm lens on 35mm. Of course, it's not cheap.

 

I doubt that anything shorter is being today for 8x10.

[pete_caluori]

Greetings,

 

The Schneider 110 XL does indeed cover 8x10 when stopped down to f22. If you search this forum about a year ago I made two posts; one with a picture showing that the 110 does not cover (that's because there was a stepup ring mounted to the lens which I overlooked) and a second post with a picture showing it does indeed cover. There's about 1 stop loss from center to edge - that's a guess I haven't measured it.

 

Regards, Pete

[donald_brewster]

Theory and practice can be two different things. On an more economical basis (i.e., Hypergons aside), many of us use the 6.25" Wollensak 8x10 WA. Very tiny compared to other 8x10 wide angles, quite affordable (available on Ebay for ~$300), and performs quite well.

[tedharris]

Again, many of us use the Super Symmar XL 110 on 8x10 and stopped down it does cover.

However, it is no tjsut a function of the lens, it is a functionof the lens and yoru bellows. I

can;t comment on your Calumet but I suspect you will not be able to get your standard

bellows closed tightly enough to focus this lens. A bag bellows would be another story.

[felix_ackermann]

if you need significant movements for architectural photographs, I think that the Super Angulon 165 mm is the shortest usable wide angle lens...

[tim_atherton9]

Felix, what's wrong with the 150mm Nikkor SW or the Grandagon 155mm... or the the Super Symmar XL 150mm? :-) (apart from price and weight - which goes for all of them)

[chad_jarvis1]

Goerz Hypergon 90mm.

[peter_mcdonough3]

I have seen the 60mm Hypergon advertised as just covering 8x10.

Happy Shooting

[daniel_smith6]

I have used a 47mm Angulon on my 8x10. The results looked good.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>I've never heard of a 47 mm Angulon, though perhaps such a thing was made for a medium format camera. The shortest Angulon that Schneider lists under vintage LF lenses is 65 mm (see <a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/">http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/</a>), and they don't have any Angulons on the small format vintages lenses page (<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/small_format_lenses/">http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/small_format_lenses/</a>). The consensus on the internet seems to be that the 90 mm Angulon delivers acceptable image quality over an area only a little bigger than 4x5. It doesn't seem possible for a 47 mm Angulon (if it exists) to cover 8x10, unless perhaps it is stopped so far down that it is really a pinhole and the lens doesn't matter.</p>

 

<p>Perhaps one of the Super-Angulons was meant: the previous 47 mm f5.6 and f8 Super-Angulons (<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/">http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/</a>) and the current 47 mm f5.6 Super-Angulon-XL (<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/">http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/</a>). The largest coverage claimed by Schneider for any of these is 166 mm diameter, 120 degrees, for the XL. Even for a 47 mm Super-Angulon-XL, I'm sceptical of coverage to 8x10, which would need X1.8 the coverage cited by Schneider. I'd like to see a scan.</p>

 

<p>Optics books cite the Goerz Hypergon as covering about 140 degree -- for a 60 mm focal length this would be circle of 330 diameter, easily covering 8x10. A propeller device had to be used in front of the lens for part of the exposure to block some of the light from the center. Without this the corners would receive (according to the cosine to the fourth law) only 1.3% (6.2 stops difference) of the exposure of the center.</p>

 

<p>Schneider specs the 110 Super-Symmar-XL as covering 288 mm, so it is not such a stretch to believe that it might be judged acceptable to many to 300 mm to cover 8x10. Schneider's pdf file on the lens (available from <a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-symmar_xl/">http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/super-symmar_xl/</a>) shows a graph of the relative illumination out to a 145 mm radius, the edge of Schneider's coverage spec. At that point the relative illumination (uppper solid curve for f22 and focusing on infinity) is 13%, which is 2.9 stops down from the center. The curve is well fit by the cosine-to-the-fourth law, so it is easy to extrapolate to a 300 mm diamter circle, at the edge of which the illumination would be 12% (3.0 stops down) of that in the center. The falloff will seem less on film since film is normally developed to a contrast of less than one.</p>

 

<p>At least to me, some of these lenses seem very special purpose -- probably very few would buy a 60 mm Hypergon for 8x10, if it were recreated today. Ryan, it might be more useful to mention what focal lengths you like as wide-angles in other formats, particularly for 4x5, and then people could suggest 8x10 lenses for the same effect. Obviously the focal length difference by lenses for 4x5 and 8x10 is a factor of two.</p>

[mark_gatehouse]

I imagine it was probably a 47mm super angulon or SA- XL. Neither the original poster, nor Daniel actually said the lens had to cover the whole negative...

 

I know of folks who use some of the very wide S Angulons - 47mm 56mm etc on 8x10 Hobos and other cameras to get a nice circular image - which, of course, has along tradition in photography. After all, there is no really calid reason why a photogorpah needs to be rectangular (unless one is possesed of a completely linear and anal retentive outlook on life....)

[ryan_mcintosh]

I have a Wollensak 7 1/2" 190mm lens. Will that cover 8x10? I currently use it on my 4x5 camera, but now that I got into 8x10...I need a lens and would prefer something that is more wide angle.

 

I also have someone willing to sell me a 8?" (215mm) f4.8 Ilex Acuton in Bo.3 Acme Synchro shutter. How will that cover a 8x10?

 

I really dont understand how someone can use a 75mm lens or 110mm lens, when I have tried to use even a 75mm on my 4x5 camera...and it wont cover! How is it possible that such a small lens..will even cover that?!

 

Maybe I dont understand lens well. I thought the smaller the focal legnth, the smaller area of coverage.

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

?I thought the smaller the focal legnth, the smaller area of coverage?

 

I am, by no means, an expert in optics. The way I understand it is that image circle is dependent on degree of coverage and focal length. Focal length alone will not determine the size of the image circle. Some lenses cover 75 degrees, some 90, some 140. The degree of coverage is determined by lens construction. Therefore, a short lens with 140 degrees coverage would have a larger image circle than a slightly longer lens with 90 degrees coverage. With some lens types the degree of coverage increases quite a bit when stopping down. A lens might not cover wide open but will when stopped down. For example, the 355 G Claron specs state something like a 442mm image circle; but I?ve read in a <a href="http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/498823.html" >recent thread</a> that this lens just covers 12x20, which is around 592mm. The only way you?re going to know for sure if a lens is going to cover is to search & ask on forums like this or to try it out yourself.

[bert_sharp]

hypergon, but for a great "little" lens that will fit in a copal ) shutter would be the 130 rodenstock perigon, great little lens for

b&w if you want to take the 8x10 anywhere out in the wilderness.