8x10 lenses on 4x5 cameras

[magicord]

<p>Is there any differences using 8x10 lenses compared to 4x5 lenses of the same focal length on 4x5 cameras? Obviously, the 8x10 lenses have much larger image circle. Is there any other difference? Lenses of the same focal length on 8x10 are most of the time wide angle design. When used as long focal length on 4x5, are they the same as dedicated 4x5 lenses on 4x5 cameras?</p>

<p> </p>

[allen_whittier]

<p>The same focal length lens for a 4x5 will be a much lighter lens. For instance, I use a 90mm Super Angulon with my 5x7 with no movement. To do the same on my 4x5 I only need an Angulon. Quite a difference in lens size and weight.</p>

[magicord]

<p>Thank you Allen. How about optical differences?</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>Not exactly as the Schnieder 300mm convertible for 8x10 for example are not a wide angle lens it gives you 70 degree but it's a normal lens on 8x10. The lens would work as a longer lens on 4x5 and still giving you 70 degrees just you using a small aria which the lens covers therefore plenty of space for camera movements.<br>

The wide angle for 8x10 would be the 165mm Angulon, the 210 Super Angulon or a Goerz hypergon and many others and using those on 4x5 will be a WA lens but again you just using a small part of what the lens covers.<br>

So it's plenty of movements but you loose a large aria of the lens covering power. And of course there is some weight differences in some cases to.<br>

So on 4x5 the best is to using lenses which designed for 4x5 and if you really need a lot movements you may step up to 5x7 lenses. Get yourself a WA, normal and a teletype which designed for 4x5.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>How about optical differences?</p>

<p>All other things being equal: Manufacturer, optical design, and vintage, there will be no difference in optical quality, only optical facility. .. and of course the physical dimensions, and if purchased new, the impact on your finances. The price goes up according to aperture and image circle. Image quality remains a constant, provided you stay within the manufacturers image circle guidelines.</p>

 

[magicord]

<p>Thank you guys for your valuable input, as always.<br>

I asked the question because I am offered several 8x10 lenses for a good deal. I have plan to move onto the larger format later and am thinking if it makes sense to buy these lenses now for 4x5 and 8x10.. If it is better to use 4x5 lenses on 4x5 cameras, I would forget about these lenses and get 4x5 lenses now. When I grow up to 8x10, then I will buy 8x10 lenses. If it is the same, I may take up the offer now and use these lenses for 4x5 now and 8x10 in the future.</p>

<p> </p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>For several years in the distant past I used a 165mm f/12.5 Wollensak Ex. WA lens (covers 8x10) as my normal lens on a 4x5 Graphic View II with excellent results. Normally it used only the central and sharpest area of the image and when I did need lots of movements, I never even came close to running out of coverage. My 215mm Ilex f/4.8 is a currently much used lens on my 4x5 Cambo which will also cover 8x10. If the lenses are good buys, grab 'em and enjoy!</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Actually there are no "4x5" or 5x7 or 8x10" lenses. There are just view camera lenses.</p>

<p>If you buy a 210mm Apo Sironar S from Rodenstock that one lens covers 4x5 and has 98mm of rise and 91mm of shift when used with 45 film. With 5x7 film that same lens has 73mm of rise and 61mm of shift and with 8x10 it has 3mm of rise and 2 mm of shift (all in the landscape or horizontal format). So the lens is the same for all formats up to 810. The difference is how much coverage is left over for movements.<br>

If you used the 150 Apo Sironar S on 45 you would have 50mm of rise and 45mm of sift. On 5x7 you would have 17mm of rise and 13mm of shift and it wound not cover 8x10 at all. If you wanted the wide angle effect of a 150mm lens (wide angle on 810, normal lens on 45) then you would have to buy a 150mm lens with more then 75° of coverage (that is what the S series covers). So you could use a 155mm Grandagon-N from Rodenstock. That lens would still be a normal lens on 45, slightly wide on 57 and very wide on 810 and would allow 50mm of rise and 42mm of shift on 810.<br>

Best bet to keep the number of lenses under control when shooting multiple formats is to buy lenses that cover as many formats as possible that you might use.<br>

Drawbacks? That 155 is a huge lens and a heavy lens and a half stop slower then the others and may require a center filter to even out the hot spot and is not an Apo design. So it is not a general purpose lens like the 150mm Apo Sironar S which is much smaller, much lighter, does not require the center filter and is an Apo.</p>

[david_l3]

<p>I think it's better to get lenses with image circles appropriate for the format. Lenses that generously cover 8x10 are very large, heavy, and typically have Copal 3 shutters. A lens and shutter this big will likely be unstable on a 4x5 front standard, especially a field camera. Some 4x5 field camera lens boards may be too small to mount a Copal 3 shutter as well. The smaller angle lenses, 240mm and higher, with f9 and up apertures, use Copal 1 shutters that will fit a 4x5 lens board.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Yes, but the 210mm Apo Sironar S does cover 810 + a bit and is in a 1 shutter. And the process lenses that are the slow lenses are compromises compared to Apo Sironar type optics.<br>

All cameras that use Technika 45 boards will accept a 3 shutter and that means a lot of field cameras can use them. Some of the bigger lenses in 3 shutters need the hole raised a bit to mount correctly on some Technika board cameras but this is easily done by any service center from a Technika 45 1 board or a pilot hole board.</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>There are some lenses that are excellent for some 8x10 uses that I would not put on a 4x5 field camera, such as a 200 mm Grandagon or 210 mm Super-Angulon. They are simply too large and heavy for some cameras. Some other lenses will work well on both 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. So you might do better asking about the specific lenses that you have been offered.</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>I agree with Michael give us the list of the lenses and the camera you intend to use with those than we can give you some ideas.<br>

<br /><br /><br>

Bob,<br>

some lenses cover 11x14 some 8x10, others 5x7 some 4x5 and there is lenses which not even cover that size. They all had been designed for a purpose or for a specific camera, therefore I don't see anything wrong that people call them 5x7 or 4x5 lenses. Of course they are all view camera lenses but within the group they all differ what they are capable to do.</p>

<p > </p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Frank,</p>

<p>That is true but we are the distributor for Linhof, Wista and Rodenstock as well as Schneider lenses sold by Linhof. <br>

Lenses are lenses. Period. If it covers multiple formats and is within the size you want to carry then fine. It is a very versatile lens. But Linhof, Wista and Rodenstock do not make up purpose driven lists of 45 optics, 57optics, 810 optics. They market their lenses as lenses for professional photography and give the technical specs for each lens,<br>

Buy the lens that performs the best and covers the formats that you will use. Try not buying similar focal lengths so you can use the focal length with all your formats. Instead buy lenses with adequate coverage to cover all your focal lengths. Why buy 2 or 3 210mm lenses when one covers?</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>Bob,<br>

The reason why I'm saying this (never tried before and it's only my believe) because a WA lens say a 100 degree which got an image circle cover well the 4x5 with some reasonable space for movements shows more of the subject on the gg when comparing with WA lens with a much larger image circle which also a 100 dergree and cover 8x10 when using that one on a 4x5.<br>

Please correct me if it's not the case.</p>

<p > </p>

[magicord]

<p>Thank you everyone for your input. The lenses that I am considering are Goerz 6", 8.5", 12" and 19".</p>

[massimo_de_cristofaro]

<p>Hi!<br>

Everybody correctly considered the coverage, since 8x10 area is 4 times the 4x5: it is the fundamental first step.<br>

Another thing is the aspect of the images, composition at other issues. You should consider that the "normal" lens for a 4x5 is 135mm (about 5,6”); while the “normal” for 8x10 is 300mm (about 13”).<br>

The “normal” image is the one that has an aspect similar to what you see with your eyes.<br>

But we know that optical properties of a 300mm lens are the Tele ones: usually a flattening of different planes, with a very good rendering of objects, without distortions: i.e. in a portrait the nose stays small etc.<br>

This aspect is very strong with a 300mm in 35mm film camera, and tends to disappear going in bigger formats, and an 8x10 image looks like a 50mm on 35mm. That’s also why many 8x10 images are printed as contacts...<br>

If you crop a small part of an 8x10, you will have of course the tele effect again.<br>

For your Goerzes: the design is important; I think to remember that they were making also “repro” lenses (copying machines atc): it could always be very interesting to use them, but I could fear that you could have good “traditional” results only in big landscapes...<br>

Massimo</p>