eric_floyd Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I love wide angle lenes...Looking for the best 8x10...Considering the 210 Super sym xl..Any thoughts...This is for Wide Landscapes Thanks alot and appericate it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_kasaian1 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Money no object? I'm not familiar with the 210 Super Symmar, but I'd probably go with either the 155 Rodenstock Grandagon or the 165 Super Angulon. I've never used, or even seen either of these lens(they probably aren't allowed in my nieghborhood)but I've seen photos made with them---outstanding! The Konica Hexanons sound like a good bet, as does the 210 G-Claron, but as I have a 240 G-Claron and an urge to stay married to the same lady, I'll have to skip the 210--way too close in length to the 240 anyway. Since I shoot B&W, the wide angle of my dreams is currently the 159mm Wollensak(coated, please) I had to pass one up recently. Perhaps after the IRS gets its share I'll start looking for one! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 The Super Symmar XL - if you can carry it... You certainly won't run out of movements, but might have fun finding 135mm filters...! "the best" could also include some compromises? That is, it may be the sharpest, snapiest modern 210mm to cover 8x10, but it's big, clunky and expensive. There are a few other options, though not with as much coverage. "Since I shoot B&W, the wideangle of my dreams is currently the 159mm Wollensak(coated, please) I had topass one up recently. Perhaps after the IRS gets its share I'll start lookingfor one! Cheers!" I just got a nice one of the f12.5's for about $130.00 - I was also pleased to find that, remove a retaining screw, and it opens up to about f9-ish for nice bright focussing. The couple of images I've got back so far are looking nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 <i>, but I'd probably go with either the 155 Rodenstock Grandagon or the 165 Super Angulon</i><p> I beleive this is a 165/6.8 <b>angulon</b> only. I just got me one at the auction site, the shutter is not working and I paid too much for it, but have been lusting for one ever since I found out about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_andrews Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 There is no way that an Angulon could ever qualify among the "best lenses you could find".<br>The performance of the Angulon design is only mediocre by anyone's standards. That's why Schneider phased it out about 40 years ago in favour of the far superior Super Angulon series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_boutilier_brown1 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I would strongly recomend the 150mm f/5.6 XL lens - it is incredibly sharp, light (in comparison to other165mm and 155mm lenses), and bright for focusing. I had a Nikon 155mm f/8 and it weighed 50% more, and was a little difficult to focus with. If you like 24mm lenses on 35mm cameras, the 150mm XL is the lens for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_lynch Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Schneider f/8 165mm Super Angulon. Great lens and you can buy them super cheap now. I bought a mint one for $1,000.00 New it was $4,500. VERY BIG piece of glass.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billkantor Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 The 155mm Grandagon is one of the sharpest lenses I own. My personal favorite. It has lots of coverage but it's not unlimited. Weight is a factor... Very big and bulky. Filters are expensive and big to0--105 mm. Have to be careful about coverage limits when using a filter because it will mechanically vignette the edges. An alternative might be the 150mm Nikkor (I don't know the designation--think it is SW) which I understand has more coverage too. There does exist a 165 mm super angulon which (I believe) also has a bit more coverage than the 155 Grandagon. Similar in size and weight. As I understand it the 165 Angulon (not Super) will just barely cover 8x10 on axis at infinity. I have never used it but I think that the 210 Angulon (not Super) is a very nice and light alternative. Also not cheap. One just sold on ebay for over $800. FYI, if you are comparing a Schieder Super Angulon to a Rodenstock Grandagon, here's my 2 cents... I own a 121 Super angulon and a 155 Grandagon. Hands down, the grandagon is sharper. Could be the samples or manufacturing dates but that is my experience. But then this is 8x10 work so it's not likely that the sharpness under a loop will make a bit of difference in a print. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_briggs2 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 The title "best 8x10 lens" is such a broad question that it is difficult to answer. From the question it seems that Eric wants a moderate wide-angle lens for 8x10, since he asks about a 210 mm lens, which would be equivalent to the very popular 110 Super-Symmar XL used with 4x5. From the answers, it seems that a lot of people are excited about the widest lenses that will cover 8x10 while still offering the possibility of some movements. The 210 Super-Symmar XL is a very fine lens. The previous offerings for this purpose were the 200 mm f6.8 Grandagon and the 210 mm f8 Super-Angulon. All of these will give excellent image quality and a lot of coverage. The Super-Symmar XL has the advantage of lighter weight and being in current production -- the other two are giants of lenses. The Super-Angulon and Grandagon have the advantage of better light-falloff -- in this focal length this isn't much of an advantage for 8x10 but might be for someone who wanted this focal length for a larger format. Some other recent but out-of-production choices in the 210 mm focal length are the Super-Symmar HM and the Apo-Sironar-W. These have less coverage than the Grandagon/Super-Angulon lenses, but are substantially lighter. If a wider lens is wanted, the 150 mm Nikkor-SW, the 155 mm Grandagon, and the 165 mm Super-Angulon would be excellent choices. The 150 mm Super-Symmar XL would be smaller and lighter, but it has worse light falloff than the older wide-angle designs, and for 8x10 this might make a difference. Is "best" the best optical performance, including light falloff, or is "best" the lightest weight? You can't have both, so you must make a choice. For 200 mm or 210 mm, the light falloff isn't much of an issue, so most would lean towards weight as more important and probably the Super-Symmar XL is the best. In the shorter focal lengths the answer is less clear and depends on which factor someone considers most important. Since the question is "best", it has been assumed that cost isn't an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_van_de_sande Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 What are you planning on doing? Contact printing or enlarging? Studio or backpacking? It makes a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_galli4 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 As others have said "best" is pretty broad and means many things to many folks none of which may translate best to you. My favorite 810 lens remains my 240mm G-Claron. Tiny by 810 standards, incredibly sharp with all the movements you could ever want, and inexpensive. Don't get hung up on the image circle number at Schneider's site, it actually reaches out to about 400mm. Nice modern Copal 1 shutter, and 52mm filters. I live in sage brush country, and the 150+ family gives me 13 miles of sage brush before I get to my subject so it's not on my "best" list. Another lens that falls in the middle is the scarce Kowa/ Kyvytar series f6.8 210mm lens. I bought a minty one recently and the first photos with it are all "keepers". Has a good bit more useable coverage than the G-Claron 210. And it's actually sharper (if that was possible?) Last night I bought it's brother (KOWA) in the 240mm size. Bigger and in Copal 3S, I'll report if it can squeak around 1114. If it's as sharp as the 210 I'll put up with the bigger shutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deardorff8x10 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I have a 210 Apo Sironar-W which allows modest movements on 8x10 and it is quite nice. It weighs a lot, is in Copal 3 shutter and uses 100mm filters. However, it is a modern lens with multi-caoting and supposedly ED glass. It seems about as sharp as my 110 SSXL, although it is a bit hard to tell. One theory I have heard is that wider coverage lenses (i.e. 75 vs 80 vs. 100 degrees) generally have a bit less resolution. With 8x10 though, I don't think that will be an issue unless you make 8x10 foot enlargements. Also, I don't know if the aspheric element of a 210 ss xl will aid in this. Wider field lenses also may cause more flare by projecting light on the interior of the bellows. You would then want to use a carefully adjusted compendium hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_floyd Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 Thanks everyone for the responces... I am doing mainly contact prints. I shoot 8x10in the studio and near the car. I really like the wide on 8x10. I love my 110xl for 4x5 and even for 8x10 (*stopped down and No movements*) 150 xl and the 210xl are where I am headed.. Much apperication to everyone in this fourm...What a great resource Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Will your next question be 'what is the best film?' Have you read any of the articles on this site? They do give good information that can help. Have you done a search to see what other information may apply? The answers you get won't do much in answering the question other than to find out what others may be using or want to try. There is no 'best' except as you decide what it may be for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_floyd Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 Dan I have read many articles on this site. I have done many searches. I know exactly what Film I want to use so that probably won't be my next question. The Above comments helped to point me in the right direction. As I stated I appreciate the information. There Always has to be one person who sys "Have you used the SEARCH engine" etc.. What are these forums for if not posting to get answers to our questions? I understand that there are many "BEST 8x10 Lens" out there. I just wanted to get a couple quick opinions to steer me in the right directions. A lot of the topics found in the searches are old and outdated. Why not get the latest and greatest information? Isn't that what the internet is for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 'tis true, there are many who would consider the "best" 210mm lens for a 8x10 to be a 60 or 70 year old Dagor - and that all the super grando XL super aspheric whatnots can't compare at all. So up to date info may not help at all. That said, trying to search the LF list archives on photo.net is a waste of time as the search engine is useless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey_chen Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Eric, If your "best focal length is 210mm", then "210 Super sym xl" no question at all is the best lens. If you would like to do backpacking with 8x10, that "210 Super sym xl" will make your trip more like cross country training. Do you really need the huge IC from "210 Super sym xl" for landscape photography (assume it is what you intend to use it)? On the other hand, if you don't need 500mm IC, a Carl Zeiss Dagor 21cm F9 (later version in Copal #3, s/n > 4,xxx,xxx) will do really well both in black and white and in color. Early CZ dagors are in Compur #3 shutter, and they are much lighter. If you intend to use "210 Super sym xl" for your studio, please pardon me. Regards, -- Geoffrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I would also add, don't make the mistake of equating best with "sharpest" "best lpm" or "most contrasty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_kasaian1 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 ...then again, the 10" Wide Field Ektar is one big, beautiful piece of glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozo_seco Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I'm with John... I would be lost without my 10" WF Ektar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_mcdonough Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 14 inch Goerz Blue Dot Trigor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_kras Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Eric, I own and use both the 155 grandagon and the schneider 210HM which I believe is the last version before the SSXL. Both of these are sharper than you'll ever need. Be aware however this sharpness and clarity for focusing come at a very huge price, financial yes but the weight is something else. When I stick the huge expensive piece of glass on the front standard I really insure that I have locked down anything that would move with this weight added to the set up. Do not underestimate what the weight of one of these lens can do to the balance of a setup. That my $.02 worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychophoto Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 The absolute *sharpest* lens I've used on 8x10, or any LF camera for that matter, is a 240mm f/10 Process-Nikkor that I got in the original box off of eBay for about $200 and had Steve Grimes mount into a shutter. I mean this thing is absolutely brutal in terms of sharpness. Not that I mind, of course... Excellent contrast as well. That said, as much as I love the lens, getting one of these mounted into shutter takes a while and is *painfully* expensive. 240mm isn't terribly wide on 8x10, but I find it works well for landscape work here in Ohio where we don't have huge, wide-open vistas to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hostetter Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 One more way to go if you have a deardorff.. Get a 90mm 5.6 XL SA and use a 4x10" splitter for 2- 4x10" panos one one sheet... The deardorff has a shift built into the front standard that is tits for shifting without moveing the bellows... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_hostetter Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Also,, You can make a 115mm 6.8 Grandagon N a decent wide angle by use of a center filter .... It has a image circle of 294 @ f22 infin. It works great but you will lose 2 stops for the effort... Or you could get a center filter for the 90mm 5.6 XL SA and it will work w/ 8x10" stopped down.... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now