8*10 lens for 4*5 shooting

[david_clark]

dear large format experts, i have a question! suppose a person got the idea to use a very large lens mounted in a very large shutter (made for 8*10 of course) on a 4*5 camera, is there any reason this would not work? are there any issues related to aperture or exstension that i'm not aware of which would make this idea a photographic impossibility? it seems to me that the larger circle of illumination would provide unlimited circle of illumination for effects??? thanks.

[c_matter1]

Unlimited..no much larger , for sure..and, of course...the longer the

focal length, the larger the image circle and the greater range of

camera movements available.. Where you might run into problems

is in how closr e the lens will focus..The only other restriction I

can think of would be the physical size (and perhaps weight ) of the

lens. If you can get your board drilled to fit it try it. a 90mm on

a 4x5 produces a round image...very pleasing effect showing the

fall-off towards the edges. Look at Emmet Gowin's work.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I think C.Matter means try using a 90mm lens on 8x10 not on 4x5.

[marv_thompson]

One problem I see would be the shutter being to big for the lens

board on the 4X5. An Ilex 5 is to large for a 4" board, otherwise if

you have the bellows for them they will work fine on a 4X5.

[c_matter1]

Yes, (thank you) C Matter did mean using a 90mm on an 8x10. f8 is f8

regardless of the focal length of the lens

[david_clark]

thank you all

[burton]

The projected image diameter of any lens must be adequatly large to

cover the diagonal corners of the film at an absolute minimum; and

additionally larger to allow for shifts and tilts of the lens and

film standards. Given any focal length, the optical desgn may be

adequate for 4x5 but the image circle inadequate for 8x10. However, a

lens designed for use with 8x10 film will work with any smaller film

size. The design of modern large format camera standards and bellows

allows this flexibility. But one must understand the relationship

between film size (format) and the performance of lenses of different

focal lenses. Consider that a 150mm lens on a 4x5 format is a

"normal" lens, while when it is used with 8x10 format this lens is a

"short", or so called "wide" lens. Further, the normal 300mm lens for

8x10 format would be considered a "long" lens for the smaller 4x5

format. If the photographer works in both formats, some lenses

will perform in both formats and the photographer enjoys that

flexibility,providing that the image circle is satisfactory for the

largest format to used. The downside: usually, the larger the image

circle of the optics the greater expense of acquisition. As a point

of interest, Sinar has a film standard mount so that a 35mm Nikon or

a medium format Hasselblad can be mounted to utilize the large format

lenses with those formats, and with excellent results. Incidently, I

am retired and will be selling all my Sinar P2 4x5 and 8x10

equipment, studio strobe lighting, dark room, etc. at 50% of new

prices.

[david_grandy1]

The concerns that you might have in choosing an 8X10 lens for 4X5 use

might be bellows extension, size & weight, and expense.

 

<p>

 

If the lens is shorter than 300mm I think that I'd save a lot of money

and buy a Schneider 210 APO-Symmar rather than the 210 Super HM. The

Super HM is really a wide angle for 8X10 so if you don't need a huge

image circle (& the APO's is pretty big to begin with) why spend twice

the money and have more than twice the weight?

 

<p>

 

If the lens is a 300 or longer do you have enough bellows to focus on

something in this county? And have you just purchased a donkey named

Larry to help you carry these lenses up the mountain? Size does

count, as your aching back will tell you.

 

<p>

 

Last year I almost bought a Rodenstock 300mm F5.6, but my concern was

number two, weight and size. I planed on using the lens on an older

Toyo Field camera which has 16" bellows but has smallish Graphflex

lens boards. So I wasn't even sure the 5.6 would fit on the camera; I

knew that he joy of carrying it around would wear off pretty quickly;

and I have no money for Larry.

 

<p>

 

I just bought, but haven't yet received (sigh) a Nikkor 300 f9 M.

From all my reading it should be sharp and small. The 300 M weighs

about 280gm or so, and the Nikkor (similar to the Rodenstock) 300mm

5.6 weighs 1.2 kg! The image circle for the M is smaller than the

5.6, but still covers 8X10- and since I have no plans for an 8X10

(especially if my wife is looking!)- the coverage issue is moot.

Meanwhile this gives me tons of coverage for 4X5.

[gary_frsot]

Just thought I would point out here that a lens does not have to be

big and heavy to cover 8X10. My Fuji 240mm f/9 apo covers 8X10, is

in a copal 0 shutter, and is no bigger/heavier than a 150mm f/5.6