long lens for 4x5

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

I would like to buy (sometime in the near future) a 12in lens for my 4x5 but one that would also cover 8x10.I am considering the 12in commercial ektar and the fuji 300 f9.Any experience with either of these lenses is helpful.-J

-- josh (devil_music@usa.net), June 12, 2000


Published image circle for a 300mm Commercial Ektar is 380mm, which is so-so for 8x10. As one alternative, I would suggest a Caltar S-II 300mm, which is actually a Symmar-S. This has a published image circle of 420mm. This lens will also have improved contrast. EBay is a good place to find this and other reasonably priced lenses.

-- neil poulsen (neil.fg@worldnet.att.net), June 12, 2000.

I have used the 300mm f/8.5 Fujinon C. Very nice lens... VERY small and light.

-- Glenn C. Kroeger (gkroeger@trinity.edu), June 12, 2000.

Glenn have you used the fuji on an 8x10? I will look into the caltar but i think it might be too expensive. -J

-- josh (devil_music@usa.net), June 12, 2000.

Another inexpensive solution would be the Schneider G-Claron lenses. They are smaller and less expensive than a plasmat in 300mm, but still have the coverage required.

-- Bruce Gavin (doc@compudox.com), June 12, 2000.

The Nikkor 300/9 M is also a popular alternative. My guess is that a plasmat will perform better on 8x10, but there's a major cost/weight difference.

-- James Chow (dr_jchow@yahoo.com), June 12, 2000.

Josh: I have not used the Fujinon on 8x10... another active thread suggests that the M-Nikkor may not do real great near the edges of the field due to the Tessar design, but the Fujinon is not optically like the Nikkor.

-- Glenn C. Kroeger (gkroeger@trinity.edu), June 13, 2000.

For light weight the Nikkor 300 f/9 is excellent and it does cover 8x10, though not a lot more. Mine is sharp over the whole 8x10 field. Its main attraction is the size, small & light. If you are planning on architectural work or making 8x10 the main size, go with the much larger lenses specifically designed to cover the larger negative. If field work with fewer demands on coverage is the prime use, check these smaller lenses.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), June 13, 2000.

Consider a 12 inch Goerz RD Artar as well. Sharp as a tack and easily covers 8x10.

-- Chad Jarvis (cjarvis@nas.edu), June 13, 2000.

There was a review of the Commercial Ektar a while back in Photo Techniques. The basic conclusion was that it was a good lens for its time but prone to flare by comparison with modern lenses: half the price but dont expect the same look to the shadows.

-- Mark Eban (markeban@compuserve.com), June 14, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ