[LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar

[tripspud]

Hi Clive,

     My WF Ektar 190mm in it's Ilex No.4 shutter on a board with
cap weighs 635 grams, the WF Ektar 250mm probably even more.
My WF Ektar 135mm weighs almost half, set up similar at
335 grams.

     I still want to get a 250mm lens for 5x7, but maybe the
WF Ektar is too much weight.  For portraits and outdoors
the coverage issue is not that demanding for that focal length.
There are a lot of other choices.

Cheers,

Rich Lahrson
Berkeley, California
tripspud@transbay.net


Clive Warren wrote:

> At 21:40 22/12/2002 -0800, tripspud wrote:
> snip
> >      Or get a used WF Ektar.  Though there's no 210, there's
> >190 and 250 with the 250 having great coverage and the 190
> >just managing at infinity.  BTW, I've managed to mount
> >my WF Ektar 190 on the board for the modified Seneca 5x7.
> snip
> >Cheers,
> >Rich Lahrson
> snip
>
> Hello Rich,
>
> The 250mm WF Ektar is certainly an option and would do a wonderful job with
> huge amounts of coverage, however it is in a #5 shutter and weighs a fair
> bit! The advantage of the G-Clarons and Kowas of this world is that they
> are relatively small and light and will fit in a modern Copal #1 shutter.
>
> However if we start to talk about the "look and feel" of images shot with a
> modern lens and those shot with a classic older lens then that would be a
> different matter.......
>
> Cheers,
>             Clive
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat