[LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar
tripspud
largeformat@f32.net
Mon Dec 23 08:38:04 2002
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