Standard + Wide-angle for 5x4"

[ISO 2]

Nikkor W 180mm f5.6

Any good? Sharp lens? Contrasty? Warm? Cold? It will cover 5x4" with movements which is all I need, and possibly find a way to mount it on a 2x3" lens panel too.

I can't find much on the resource pages about this lens and wonder if there's a reason for its omission. Maybe the 180mms are less popular than the 150mms. It seems the Schneiders seem to be more popular and more expensive, even for their earlier Symmars of the same aperture.

I'm looking for a wide-angle Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f6.8 mounted in a shutter: mixed reviews, some middling and others a bit dismissive. I've not looked into Rodenstocks since I can't tell the difference between their names for the large format lenses and their enlarging lenses. Any recommendations?

Thanks.

[Bob Salomon]

"I can't tell the difference between their names for the large format lenses and their enlarging lenses"

Rodagon is the name for Rodenstock enlarging lenses.

Sironar, Grandagon are the names for their taking lenses. Grandagons are the wide angles.

There are other names like Apo Ronar for process lenses and variations of Rodagon for enlarging like Rogonar.

[ronald moravec]

Nikon has not really promoted their LF glass. Schneider and Rodenstock have. Many of us have come from 35mm where European glass is clearly superior to the far east stuff especially for black and white.

[bob moulton]

Nikon has not advertized its LF lenses for years. That corporate decision should not dissuade one from the lenses since they rival the lenses made by other European and Asian manufacturers' lenses. Schneider has the upper hand in WA lenses, but not everywhere else.. The 180mm is a very good lens, sharp, with ample coverage for 4x5 and more than you could use in 2x3. The coverage data from Nikon will be conservative. Example: My Nikkor 135W covers 5x7 with movements, but the literature from Nikon states its will cover 4x5. The good news for you is that the lens is probably priced competitively with its counterparts made by SchRodFuji.

[Ernest Purdum]

The comment about "clearly superior" European glass as opposed to "far east stuff" for 35mm boggles me. I had thought Nikon's ability to make good lenses was widely acknowledged when David Douglas Duncan and other Life photographers started hanging Nikon lenses on their Leicas during the Korean War.

[ISO 2]

It's very helpful to hear your views: I myself hold certain myths about 35mm glass. I use Carl Zeiss glass mostly and have always considered Nikon 35mm glass to be rather cool and lacking in contrast compared to Carl Zeiss lenses.

It's warming to know that there is quality in what is understated in the lens market: I'll go for the Nikkor 180mm then.

Thanks for the clarification on the Rodenstock lenses.

Grandagon or Super Angulon, or am I am being silly, suggesting a par to Carl Zeiss or Leica? (Please don't answer the latter part).

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, there ARE Leica-badged Super Angulons.

As for SAs being on a par with Zeiss wide angles, I recently asked a Zeiss guru whether I should regret not having bought a 53/4.5 Biogon that had been offered at a good price. This to complement the 38/4.5 Biogon that I use on 2x3. He has a couple of 38s, 53s, even 75s, also some 47/5.6 and 47/8 SAs. He remarked that of course as we both know Biogons are wonderful but that the 47/5.6 SA was a newer design and, in his opinion, better than the 53 Biogon.

Given how much quality one can piss away with poor technique and how sensitive the final print is to variations in exposure, development, and printing, it seems to me you'd be better off spiffing up your technique and procedures than asking people about which lens is best. Its hard to get a modern lens that's not fairly good unless one buys used and abused. One does acceptance tests to protect oneself against bad examples.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ralph Barker]

Dan, I think you hit on an important consideration. While there probably are differences between modern lenses from the LF Big Four (Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider), those differences are minor, and often masked by individual technique. It's also important to be comparing lenses from the same generation when considering used gear.

The German vs. Japanese lens argument might have been valid with 35mm lenses at one time, but I'm not sure it is valid currently. That said, I must admit that my 35mm images just explode off the paper when I use my German rangefinder and its Kaboomicron lenses. ;-)

[ISO 2]

Thanks for the reminder Dan. I'm not interested in which lens is best. I'd rather know the optical characteristics of a lens before I use it.

I did ask - <please> don't respond to the latter part...ah well.

[Ted Harris]

Try one first for heavens sake! If you are near a store that sells them take your camera there and try it out. If you aren't I am positive Jim at Midwest will sell you one with return privilages. I have never used the 180 but I have done a non technical comparison of both the 210 and 150 v. their Rodenstock and Schneider counterparts. The Nikkors did seem a very small bit less contrasty than the Schneiders or Rodenstocks but adjusting the Nikkor by 1/2 stop solved this.

[Darin Cozine]

"Given how much quality one can piss away with poor technique and how sensitive the final print is to variations in exposure, development, and printing, it seems to me you'd be better off spiffing up your technique and procedures than asking people about which lens is best. Its hard to get a modern lens that's not fairly good unless one buys used and abused. One does acceptance tests to protect oneself against bad examples. "

Dan, thats probably the best peice of advice i have seen on any forum. Can we lobby to have this paragraph permanently included in the banner of this site?