Am looking for information as to which of the three named lenses would cover the 8x10 format best. Lowest light falloff coupled with a crisp, sharp image. Will any of these three allow movement at all?

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), March 07, 2002

Answers

You can look up the image circles from may different sources, but I think you will find that only the 120 Nikkor would be usable on 8x10, and even then it will vignette the corners slightly at infinity with no movements.

-- David Rose (DERose1@msn.com), March 07, 2002.

The 110XL works.

-- William Marderness (wmarderness@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.

The 120 Nikkor SW might just cover 8x10 @ f/22 but I seriously doubt you'll be able to use any lens standard movements.

I have read several reports from many different sources that indocate the 110mm Super Symmar XL will "just" cover 8x10. And of course it is significantly smaller.

-- Ellis Vener Photography (ellis@ellisvener.com), March 07, 2002.

I too have heard that the 110 XL covers 8x10, but have never seen any images - anyone know of any that are online? I just picked up a 150 XL for a great price, and am looking forward to using it, but a 110 lens that covered 8x10 - that would be cool!

e.

-- Eric Boutilier-Brown (ericbb@evolvingbeauty.com), March 07, 2002.

Dan,

I actually ran this test last weekend. I borrowed a friend's 110XL and mounted it on my 8x10 deardorff, that has corners cut out of the ground glass. At f45 you get a pretty fair iris opening at the corners . . . until you screw the center filter on, which vignettes to the point it pretty well wipes your corners out completely.

I haven't made an image yet, so I don't know what the quality is on the corners, but it looks like there should be enough light there at f45 that you wouldn't need the filter. At f32 you are going to gain a lot of light in the center that won't make it to the corners, because there is some vignetting at the corners. I would say that there is probably no movement at all with this lens on an 8x10 plate even at f64. But then nothing's keeping you from shooting 6x10 with it, or 7x10.

Good luck.

-- Erik Ryberg (ryberg@seanet.com), March 07, 2002.

I've used the 110 XL at 8X10 a fair amount. Certainly it covers. If you use black and white, IMHO light falloff is not a big deal, even w/o a center filter. It would be, I expect, for transparencies, where you would run into problems with needing a filter, leading to vignetting as noted above. Sharpness is excellent centrally, and really quite good to the corners. I think it would stand up fine to reasonable enlargement. The only limitations to using this lens as a super WA in 8X10 are the same limitations one has with super WA in 4X5: essentially nil movements, and the fact that this is a WERY WA perspective, not suited to many subjects.

Good luck,

Nathan

-- Nathan Congdon (ncongdon@jhmi.edu), March 09, 2002.

Dan,

I have a 110XL and use it on my 8 x 10 Deardorff as well as for 4 x 5. I shoot black and white only and have not found edge falloff or edge sharpness to be a problem. I use no center filter. It easily covers the entire negative, but movements are very limited. However, the results can be spectacular. Sort of like a 17mm on 35mm format.

-- Don Harbor (letdondoit@mindspring.com), March 09, 2002.

The 120 nikkor does cover, but no movements. the images are sharp. the biggest, just kidding, problem is lense to film distance. this means recessed boards and bag bellows. and watch out for the front rail or focusing bed in the frame. The 120 Nikkor is sharp and pleasant to work with.

-- ED (zeke@IDIRECT.COM), March 11, 2002.

My 110XL does cover 8x10, and I've used it on Polaroids and B&W. Occassionally I'll have a darker corner or two if the lens is too far off center from using movements. The dark corner(s) would be mitigated or disappear entirely if I had a center filter.

-- Roger Urban (roger_urban@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.