[LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar

[tripspud]

Hi Clive!

    Wow, that 250 WA Ektar is way heavy.  Doesn't it
almost cover 11x14?

Rich



Clive Warren wrote:

> At 05:38 23/12/2002 -0800, tripspud wrote:
> >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
> snip
>
> >Clive Warren wrote:
> >>
> >>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.......
>
> Rich,
>
> Just weighed the 250mmWF Ektar - 1031 grams - that's 2 pounds 4.4 ounces in
> real money without the lens cap!.
>
> So the additional weight is significant. What is harder to measure is the
> quality of the resulting image and whether this is the look and feel that
> you want and like for your work. The 250mm WF Ektar is overkill for the
> 5x7. You would probably like the 12" Commercial Ektar as an alternative -
> 601grams with caps and a #4 Ilex shutter for a similar look and feel.
>
> There are many modern alternatives for 5x7 - plenty of options in the
> G-Claron and Gerogon range around the 250mm focal length.
>
> Cheers,
>             Clive
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat