[LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar

[Tim Atherton]

and if you are going to 250mm, better yet is the Fuji 250mm 6.7 - my #1 lens
on 8x10

not too big in a copal 1, with lots of coverage and can be found for a
decent price (NOT the 6.3)

tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: largeformat-admin@f32.net [mailto:largeformat-admin@f32.net]On
> Behalf Of Clive Warren
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:05 AM
> To: largeformat@f32.net
> Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar
>
>
> 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
>