Recommendation for a Bright 300mm Lens Covering 8x10

[D_Quinn]

I’m looking for a lens that is at least F4.5 or faster and can barely cover 8x10 at around 300mm.
I mainly shoot 5x7 but occasionally use 8x10, primarily for studio portraits. Since I shoot mainly wet plate photography, I prefer a bright lens and a barrel lens is fine. While 300mm isn’t ideal for portraits on 8x10, my shooting space is limited, so this focal length works best for me.
Someone recommended the Tessar 4.5/300mm—is this an easy-to-use lens? If you have any other recommendations, I’d love to hear them.
I’d prefer something on the more affordable side, ideally under $1000.
Thank you!

 

[Ian Grant]

A 300mm f4.6 Tessaar would be easy to use but few if ant Post WWII versions are in shutters, but pre- WWII would be in a Compound shutter, there's alos the 300mm f4.5 Xenar, there's one on ebay at a fraction of your budget. The SN is 82**** so around 1963 and so coated.

This chart is useful but doesn't list older lenses. I use a 12" (300mm) f6.8 Am Opt Goerz Dagor and don't have a brightness issue.

Ian

 

[Jonathan-sv]

My Kodak 2-D (5x7) came with a Wollensak Raptar f 4.5 12 inch (Series II) that I believe will cover 8 x 10. It's in a Betax Shutter. Maybe not the easiest lens to come by in Japan, but I never had any problem with brightness etc. on the 2-D. This is on regular ground glass screens without any fresnel. They made a lot variants of this lens.

Jonathan

 

[koraks]

few if ant Post WWII versions are in shutters

So not an issue for wet plate.

. I use a 12" (300mm) f6.8 Am Opt Goerz Dagor and don't have a brightness issue.

For wet plate, the difference between 6.8 and 4.5 will be very significant.

 

[Ian Grant]

So not an issue for wet plate.



For wet plate, the difference between 6.8 and 4.5 will be very significant.

Yes, the OP said mainly wet plate, but for any other work a Xenar in a shutter would be a bonus., also with flash sync. Also, a Xenar is a Tessar type lens.

Faster than f4.5 you'd need a Portrait Petzval, and anything covering 10x8 would be at least double the $1,000 figure mentioned.

Ian

 

[AZD]

I have a Kodak Ektar 300mm f4.5 (Tessar) as my one and only 8x10 lens. It’s in an Ilex #5 shutter. It covers 8x10 easily but was probably meant for 5x7 portraits as well.

For what it’s worth, I rather like it. The look is “normal”, as in no obvious or potentially distracting optical characteristics. It has that sharp yet smooth effect. No swirlies at all. Not sure what your preference is, but the smooth look suits me fine.

I’ve seen them show up on auctions occasionally. I suspect you could find one at an agreeable price.

Wollensak and others made similar lenses. Those may be an option.

 

[Dan Fromm]

12"/2.5 AeroEktar

 

[D_Quinn]

Thanks everyone for your helpful answers! It seems that there aren’t many options available in Japanese auctions, so I plan to take my time searching on eBay.

 

[D_Quinn]

A 300mm f4.6 Tessaar would be easy to use but few if ant Post WWII versions are in shutters, but pre- WWII would be in a Compound shutter, there's alos the 300mm f4.5 Xenar, there's one on ebay at a fraction of your budget. The SN is 82**** so around 1963 and so coated.

Ian

Is this lens still listed? I couldn’t find it, possibly because I’m searching from Japan. I’m curious to know more about this lens.

 

[AnselMortensen]

If you need a shutter, a Wollensak Raptar or Velostigmat 12" f/4.5 in an Alphax or Betax #5 shutter is about as inexpensive as it gets, if you avoid one with the variable soft-focus feature.
If you don't need a shutter, (or you'll be using a gigantic Packard Shutter) a Kodak Aero Ektar 12" f/2.5 might be best, as mentioned above.
You might also look for an Former Soviet Union "Triplet" barrel lens.

 

[ags2mikon]

If you don't need a shutter, or can use a packard shutter the Fujinar 300mm / 30cm f4.5 is coated and uses 82mm filters.

 

[retina_restoration]

A very affordable lens (a Tessar design, can be had for $200 USD or so) is the 300mm f4.5 Industar-37. I've used it a lot and it's a perfectly decent lens. Sample wet plate collodion images made with the Industar-37 here and here.

 

[D_Quinn]

Has anyone experienced how lens coating (or the lack thereof) affects wet plate photography?

I have been using modern, coated lenses with strobes for my wet plate work so far (I don’t own any uncoated vintage lenses). I can imagine that an uncoated lens would produce softer images, but I wonder if it would also affect the collodion’s sensitivity.

For example, would it make the image about 1/2 stop brighter? Thank you!

 

[Ian Grant]

Is this lens still listed? I couldn’t find it, possibly because I’m searching from Japan. I’m curious to know more about this lens.

It is but but may not show up on Japanese eBay. So I can find it via ebay.co.uk but note via bay.com. eBay login is identical regardless of portal & language.

Comparing like for like, a coated Xenar or Tessar has better contrast than an uncoated one. My experience using a couple of Petzvals is contrast is way better than an uncoated Tessar (I have quite a few).

Ian

 

[D_Quinn]

It is but but may not show up on Japanese eBay. So I can find it via ebay.co.uk but note via bay.com. eBay login is identical regardless of portal & language.

Comparing like for like, a coated Xenar or Tessar has better contrast than an uncoated one. My experience using a couple of Petzvals is contrast is way better than an uncoated Tessar (I have quite a few).

Ian

Thank you! Now I can see the listing. I like it, and it has everything I wanted

 

[xkaes]

Fuji made three 300mm f4.5 lenses that will cover 8x10 -- in chronological order: Rectar, Fujinar & Fujinon. They are all, probably, the same design, in-barrel with 82mm front filter threads. IC of 343mm with angle of coverage of 59°, stopping down to f64, single coated -- except probably the Rectar.

There are a four Fujinars (the most likely label to find) on EBAY right now from $200 on up.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thank you! Now I can see the listing. I like it, and it has everything I wanted

It's been sold, don't ask who the buyer is. It will be on a 10x8 Agfa Ansco Universal View soon. There was another. but the shutter's paintwork showed heavy use

 

[D_Quinn]

It's been sold, don't ask who the buyer is. It will be on a 10x8 Agfa Ansco Universal View soon. There was another. but the shutter's paintwork showed heavy use

Haha, that was quick. No hurry. I'll buy one when I come across a good lens!

 

[D_Quinn]

Anyone have experience with the 305mm f/4.5 ANASTIGMAT (Carl Meyer) w/ universal 5 shutter? What kind of shutter is this?

 

[Ian Grant]

Carl Meyer is not a real company, a Burke & James name for a lens in a Wollensak Universal shutter. The shutters are not modern, think big US car with low revving huge capacity engine, compared to German & Japanese car way, small highly efficient engine more efficient, and that's the shutter/ The optics, well you can buy better for far less money.

Ian

 

[retina_restoration]

Carl Meyer is not a real company, a Burke & James name for a lens in a Wollensak Universal shutter. The shutters are not modern, think big US car with low revving huge capacity engine, compared to German & Japanese car way, small highly efficient engine more efficient, and that's the shutter/ The optics, well you can buy better for far less money.

Ian

In general, anything labeled "Anastigmat" is going to be an average lens - with some exceptions: the Kodak Anastigmats for large format are predecessors to the Ektars, as they were branded from the 1940s onward. Some say they are pretty much identical to the Ektars, the main difference being the coatings. I have a 6&3/8" Kodak Anastigmat I use on my 5x7 and 4x5 cameras for wet plate collodion work (see that example), and it's one of my favorite lenses. It's extremely sharp with very pleasing out of focus background rendering, and plenty of contrast without appearing extreme, as some more modern lenses can be.

So it depends who makes a lens. The Kodak Anastigmats for large format are wonderful and they can be had very cheaply, I think I paid $65 for my 6&3/8" Anastigmat, in a fully functional shutter. If you can find a good example of the 12" Anastigmat for a reasonable price, know that you are basically getting the same lens as the 12" Ektar, just with slightly different coatings.

 

[D_Quinn]

In general, anything labeled "Anastigmat" is going to be an average lens - with some exceptions: the Kodak Anastigmats for large format are predecessors to the Ektars, as they were branded from the 1940s onward. Some say they are pretty much identical to the Ektars, the main difference being the coatings. I have a 6&3/8" Kodak Anastigmat I use on my 5x7 and 4x5 cameras for wet plate collodion work (see that example), and it's one of my favorite lenses. It's extremely sharp with very pleasing out of focus background rendering, and plenty of contrast without appearing extreme, as some more modern lenses can be.

So it depends who makes a lens. The Kodak Anastigmats for large format are wonderful and they can be had very cheaply, I think I paid $65 for my 6&3/8" Anastigmat, in a fully functional shutter. If you can find a good example of the 12" Anastigmat for a reasonable price, know that you are basically getting the same lens as the 12" Ektar, just with slightly different coatings.

These images are amazing and surprisingly clean for ambrotypes.

The description of the lens I was refering says a "continuous shutter mechanism without a charge lever (press shutter). Is this type of shutter user-friendly?
It seems that the lens has some coating. The price is not bad, less than $400.

 

[BrianShaw]

I use Kodak Anastigmat lenses, No 32, 33, and 34 in barrel. I think they are in Oates but with a lens shade they are exceptionally proficient. Another favorite is a Gundlach Radar.

 

[D_Quinn]

Carl Meyer is not a real company, a Burke & James name for a lens in a Wollensak Universal shutter. The shutters are not modern, think big US car with low revving huge capacity engine, compared to German & Japanese car way, small highly efficient engine more efficient, and that's the shutter/ The optics, well you can buy better for far less money.

Ian

Thanks. Do you know anything about the type of shutter in my previous reply to retina_restoration?

 

[retina_restoration]

These images are amazing and surprisingly clean for ambrotypes.

Thanks. I’ve been practicing wet plate since 2017, so I’ve acquired some level of skill with it.

The description of the lens I was refering says a "continuous shutter mechanism without a charge lever (press shutter). Is this type of shutter user-friendly?

I have three shutters that work this way: a Betax, and Alphax, and an Ilex No. 5 Universal. They do not require cocking the mechanism before firing - they are automatically poised to fire again at completion of the firing sequence. If the shutter is in good shape, there’s no reason not to choose one of this type. Though they typically have fewer shutter speeds: expect B, and 1/2 second up to1/50th, or thereabouts. I’ve found the limited speed options are rarely a problem, since most wet plate exposures are measured in multiple seconds, or minutes.

It seems that the lens has some coating. The price is not bad, less than $400.

Lens coating is irrelevant. It won’t have a significant effect on exposure times. (I’m doubtful that coatings have any effect whatsoever) Don’t turn down a coated lens if you find something you like the look of. I have several lenses I’ve used for collodion work and they all work well.