8x10 camera and lens questions

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>Hi,<br>

I’ve been using 4x5 cameras for more than a decade. For some time I’ve been thinking about adding a lightweight 8x10. I’m shooting landscapes on both tranparencies and color negativ films. I hike a lot, so weight is a concern.<br>

From my existing lens range I could use Nikkor-M 300/9 (or G-Claron 270) and Fujinon-C 450 lenses and would like to add a light wide angle lens in the 160 - 210 mm range. Super-Angulon 165, Nikkor-SW 150 etc are too big and too heavy. I’ve read a lot of good things about Kyvytar/Computar/Kowa Graphic lenses, but they’re really hard to find.<br>

I find Chamonix 8x10 and Shen-Hao FCL810-A cameras to suit my lens selection and weight criteria fine. I looked at Hungarian made Argentum cameras, which are also light but haven’t found solid informations qualitywise so far. Canham Traditional 8x10 cameras seem to be fine, but they're more expensive. The all metal Canham 8x10 seems to be too much camera for the few lenses I intend to use.</p>

<p>Here a my questions:<br>

1. Chamonix 8x10 and Shen-Hao FCL810-A. The front standards are fixed by one single knob. Is this rigid enough? Other advantages or weaknesses from your personal experience? Other camera suggestions?<br>

2. Wollensak 159mm (both f9.5 and 12.5), Zeiss Dagor f9 etc wide angle lenses also seem to fit my weight/size criteria. However, my searching in both the web and PN archives didn’t turn up the answers I was hoping to find in terms of image circle (hence movements), sharpness and color rendition.<br>

3. I’ve read different things about the image circle of the G-Claron 210/9. The Schneider data sheet says 260mm at f22 and infinity, some say that this lens covers up to 11x14. Of course the closer the subject the bigger the image circle, but what is the usable image circle at f22/infinity?</p>

<p>Any thoughts and informations are greatly appreciated.<br>

Thank you.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>re: 2<br>

Some Wollensak chitchat here, good site to ask also ...<br>

<a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3774">http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3774</a><br>

Good luck.</p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>I’ve read different things about the image circle of the G-Claron 210/9. The Schneider data sheet says 260mm at f22 and infinity, some say that this lens covers up to 11x14.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A 260mm IC won't even cover 8x10, which has a diagonal of 325mm (actually slightly less).</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>The Wollensak Extreme Wide Angle shows up in their 1906-1907 catalog in barrel only and is in Betax in the 1928 catalog at <a href="http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html">http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html</a> .<br>

The 1928 catalog says the lens has a 90 degree angle of view at full aperture and 100 degree stopped down.</p>

[john_burnley4]

<p>If you expect to do much in the way of swings and tilts you'll be disappointed in the 210 G-Claron. I tried it and moved on. Look for a Kowa Graphic or Computar instead (right, they are hard to find). Also I have tried the 300 Nikkor M f9 on 8x10 and the corners were definitely soft even with no tilts. Others say the lens covers but it did not for me. I used a 305 G-Claron when I shot 8x10 and that had lots of coverage. </p>

[mark_l6]

<p>I can only answer regarding the 159mm Wollensak. Th f/9.5 version is usable wide open and does not increase it's coverage much as it is stopped down, the f/12.5 version has a wider coverage wide open and does not really need stopping down any more. See Kerry Thalmann's review of these in his article in View Camera on 4x10 lenses.<br>

I have a late coated f/12.5 and it covers 8x10 with room for movement, but can't tell you the limit as I've never run out of coverage, I've certainly lifted the front by 1 1/2 in without problem, I suspect it could go further. please also be aware that the aperture ring on these lenses goes beyond the f/12.5 marker for focussing only, mine opens to about f/6.3 which makes focussing easy. I have a 121mm super angulon which at least on my example covers 8x10(just) but the wollensak is considerably more contrasty and comparable in sharpness. Don't know about colour rendition, I have not taken a colour photo in fifteen years! it is the smallest lens I own and the only lens that I will never sell. They come up on Ebay regularly, just make sure you get a coated one, has 'w' in a circle, short for wocoated I believe!<br>

My Burke and James has a single knob for rise and front tilt, it is a little fussy to adjust one without moving the other, but you soon get used to it, it certainly does not bother me, might be different if I did this all day, every day for a living.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Among light wide angles the 165 Angulon is worth considering, much smaller than a Super Angulon but will just cover 8x10 with no movements. The lightest 8x10 WA I know are the very old types, I have one [somewhere]. it's a Ross f16 (that's maximum aperture, not minimum) and is barrel type with no shutter, but it certainly is small (about 40mm maximum diameter, about 30mm deep) and is quoted as covering 10x12. With repro lenses like the G-Claron, coverage is sometimes quoted for 1:1 and not infinity.</p>

[robert_crigan1]

<p>I've used my 305 G-Claron for many years on 810 and find it does very well. No room for any useful movements at all but in its place it's excellent.<br>

If you're looking for a wide-angle lens you may consider going extreme. My favourite on 810 is the Nikkor 120 SW. At f8 it's acceptably fast for its specifications and is a superb lens. Of course at such a wide angle it must be used with care but it's an option you may care to consider.</p>

[steve_johnston4]

<p>I have been using an RH Phillips Explorer 8x10. It is lightweight, rugged and sturdy. For me, that is where "light weight" ends. To get good glass, that covers the movements, I use a Rodenstock Apo Sironar W 210, Schnieder Apo Symmar 360, and a Nikkor M 450. I get as close as I can in a 4x4 Jeep. Strap the case, tripod, and film holders onto a dolly, and haul it the rest of the way. Standing six feet in front of a 36x48 landscape, with incredible detail and dynamic range, makes it all worth it. </p>

[chauncey_walden]

<p>While the 210 G-Claron does cover 8x10 well at normal focusing distances when stopped down to f/22 and beyond (at least mine does), I don't think you'd see a whole lot of difference from your 270 G-Claron which should have a ton of movements. If you can limit the 210 to back movements you should be fine. I tested my 159 f/12.5 Wolly against my 165 Angulon and as a result the 165 went into the whole plate bag and the Wolly stayed with the 8x10. The 165 just didn't hold up well in the corners. The 159 is pretty wide on 8x10 and the image on the edges can get a little wild with stretching things but that is normal. It is definitely small and light. The 190 Wide Field Ektar is one I would like to try.</p>