[LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar

[largeformat@f32.net]

I have used the 250 WA Commercial Ektar in the field on 8x10 before.  It is
a very nice lens.  I currently have a Rodenstock 240 mm Sironar that I use
on 8x10.  It covers but not by much.  What I am looking for is a wider lens.
That is why I am thinking of a 210 mm G-Claron.  I have a 305 mm G-Claron
and am most happy with the coverage on 8x10.  I also use it on 4x5.

lee\c
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clive Warren" <Clive.Warren@megacycle.co.uk>
To: <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar


> At 03:10 24/12/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hi Clive!
> >
> >     Wow, that 250 WA Ektar is way heavy.  Doesn't it
> >almost cover 11x14?
> >
> >Rich
>
> Rich,
>
> Yep, you would have to really want the lens to be with you if you were
back
> packing! The image circle for the 250mm WF Ektar (probably at f22) is
> stated as 422mm so it will probably just be usable on 11x14 stopped well
> down.  Smallest aperture is f45. Certainly allows plenty of movements on
8x10.
>
> Cheers,
>             Clive
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat