[LargeFormat] Ultragon 210mm vs 250mm WF Ektar

[tripspud]

Hi,

     Forgot to mention that the WF Ektar 135mm is in a Flash Supermatic
Shutter.

Rich

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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat