240mm Heliar or 250mm W.F. Ektar

[boyooso]

Interesting... I have to admit that one of the reasons I want to use the older lenses is that the modern lenses seem to be so harsh in the out of focus areas. This is something I wanted to avoid.

I image that objections regarding the 250 Ektar are exactly that? I'm curious if anyone has an image online that might represent that objectionable out of focus area?

What lens of that focal length would everyone reccomend if I'm looking for smooth, pleasant out of focusness. I remember reading an article years ago in view camera (I think) about the out of focus area...

Thanks for all the opinions!!

Corey

[Ole]

There's a bit of misunderstanding about Heliars...

The FIRST Heilars covered about the same diameter as the focal length. But there weren't many of these made before the formula was changed to the Dynar construction, which does cover quite a bit more. My 1934 150mm Heliar almost covers 5x7" at infinity. However the Universal Heliar, the one with the adjustable aberration, continued to be made in the Heliar construction with less coverage.

So both views are really correct: Heliars have limited coverage, but "Heliar" lenses have good coverage and a 240mm might well cover 8x10"!

[John Kasaian]

I don't know a bloody thing about Heliars but a 250 WF Ektar is IMHO a fine match for 8x10. Huge image circle. It actually does a very nice job as both a portrait lens and a landscape lens. Focusing when wide open is a dream and I've never had any focus shift when stopping down. The WF really shines as a portrait lens though it isn't a soft focus lens by any stretch of the imagination. It does give nice smooth skin tones. As a landscape lens every leaf and blade of grass seems to "pop" out at you. It is a big lens in a big shutter though so it dosen't travel very far from the truck, unlike say a 240 G Claron.

[Oren Grad]

What lens of that focal length would everyone reccomend if I'm looking for smooth, pleasant out of focusness. I remember reading an article years ago in view camera (I think) about the out of focus area...

Among modern lenses, you should look at the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N and Apo-Sironar-S series. If you want a lens around the 10" range for 8x10, I'd recommend the 240 Apo-Sironar-S. The 240 Apo-Sironar-N will cover but in testing in on 8x10 I found myself running out of room for movements too often, and I'm much happier with the S.

I've used the 10" Wide Field Ektar as well, and found it much too flat and flarey for my taste - I see it as more of a special problem-solver for shooting in ultralarge formats like 11x14 or 7x17, where the extra-large image circle is critical.

But in general, the preference between "classic" and modern lenses is very much a matter of taste. The Apo-Sironar lenses have exquisitely refined background defocus, but will still look "crisper" and, to some eyes, "harder" overall than a classic lens, because of the higher contrast and resolution in the plane of focus.

[John Kasaian]

I doubt if the WF Ektar will give you any out of focus softness unless you put a piece of nylon panty hose or a little vaseline over it. You might try a 10" Commercial Ektar which is a tessar formula. 8x10 would probably be stretching the image circle and tessars usually get pretty soft at the edges when you 'push the envelope.'