PDA

View Full Version : Lens choice



armentor1@mac.com
26-Jun-2017, 08:32
All,

I'm looking for advice on a new lens or possibly new process. I have a body of work titled the Sugar Mill Sessions which documents the gulf coast sugar industry using 3 separate approaches; Harvesting Season - mid century modern, Planting Season - 19th century, A Look At The Land - contemporary.

The first two chapters are complete and I'm beginning work on the Contemporary chapter. I've begun shooting these color field landscapes using 4x5 with a borrowed 135 symmar. Most of the set up is done in low light and I'm realizing that my image circle is too small with this lens, I've lost a few images due to IC fall off.

The 110 - 135 focal length seems to be the right fit. I'm willing to save up for the 110mm Super Symmar XL if needed but would much rather put the $ into materials. I hope for these color images to have a real presence at 32x40 or larger.

I'd prefer a smaller lens but is not a huge issue as I've been using the 210 symmar as my #1 years and have no issue with the size.

I've been looking at:

Fuji 125 / 5.6
Schneider 120mm f8.0 Super Angulon Lens

I'm also considering shooting this work at 8x10; I'm comfortable with the format and have studio mates who would lend me Fuji lenses. Oddly, I've been reading that the image quality doesn't go up that much as I'll be making digital prints??

Sample image:
166551

Thanks for the help :
Dave
http://www.davidarmentor.com/

Dan Fromm
26-Jun-2017, 09:23
The first two chapters are complete and I'm beginning work on the Contemporary chapter. I've begun shooting these color field landscapes using 4x5 with a borrowed 135 symmar. Most of the set up is done in low light and I'm realizing that my image circle is too small with this lens, I've lost a few images due to IC fall off.

I've been looking at:

Fuji 125 / 5.6
Schneider 120mm f8.0 Super Angulon Lens

Pardon my lack of complete comprehension. Is the problem softness or darkening (less exposure) towards the edges?

If Schneider is to be believed, y'r jes' plain convertible Symmar covers 190 mm @ f/22. Newer models, not convertible, cover a bit more. If Fuji is to be believed (see http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm) their 125/5.6s cover little more than your Symmar, at most 210 mm. No clear that one will help you.

If Schneider is to be believed, the 120/8 SA covers 288 mm (100 degrees) at f/22. On 4x5 straight on, it will see 64 degrees and the corners will be one stop down from the center. You might need a center filter shooting straight on, can probably get by by over-exposing 1/2 stop more than the meter recommends. If you decenter the lens much you'll need a CF.

armentor1@mac.com
26-Jun-2017, 09:34
More of a user error, I'm using the movements of my camera to compose and am quickly running out of image circle so the image is cropped. Due to the lack of light I'm not noticing it until I get my negs back.

Pere Casals
26-Jun-2017, 09:49
I'm also considering shooting this work at 8x10; I'm comfortable with the format and have studio mates who would lend me Fuji lenses. Oddly, I've been reading that the image quality doesn't go up that much as I'll be making digital prints??

http://www.davidarmentor.com/

Hello Dave,

Here you have a report about resolving power performance from different formats https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

It is not an optical lab test, but a practical one. But it is made by very good photographers and the test it is very well done. You can see how much information is in the negative an how much can be recovered with different scanners.

45 has much more information than a human eye can see. 810 is an overkill.

IMHO there are a number of great reasons to shot 8x10, but this is more related to art than to Image Quality. 810 has another look because you use lenses with 2x the focal, and this delivers a different look when defocus is an aesthetical resource.

Also 810 contact copies are amazing... and a 810 velvia slide on a light table is something incredible.

But if you are to end in a digital image (and if you don't plan a particular defocus work) you will shot 4x5 at 1/4 the sheet cost, much cheaper lenses, way greater convenience to haul all around.


About the lenses, here you can see the image circles for the common choices.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

If you don't need extreme circle size, a multicoated version of Symmar-S or Sironar-N can be near the best choice, if price counts. A multicoated lens will make some difference in some lightning situations.

Both Nikon, Sch, Rod and Fuji have very good glasses, I've no particular preferences, some particular units (copies) of a model are better or worse than others. Be sure you get a shutter that's in shape.



More of a user error, I'm using the movements of my camera to compose and am quickly running out of image circle so the image is cropped. Due to the lack of light I'm not noticing it until I get my negs back.


You don't have to use the camera movements to compose ! you have to use the tripod ball head for that. The camera movements are for other things.

armentor1@mac.com
26-Jun-2017, 10:00
Great links thanks Pere!

Luis-F-S
26-Jun-2017, 10:17
I'd stick with 4x5 (or at most 5x7) and use a 120/121 SA. This lens covers 5x7 with plenty of movements. If you run out of coverage on 4x5, then I suspect it may be your technique rather than the lens.

Doremus Scudder
26-Jun-2017, 10:53
If you want to stay with a relatively small lens and with the 135mm focal length, try the 135mm Wide Field Ektar. The IC is significantly bigger than a Plasmat.

If you can step up to 150mm (not that far from 135mm), then there are more choices.

Check here for a comparison chart:k http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

If you find you need a really large IC, then the only way to go is with a wide-angle design like a Super Angulon, Grandagon, SW. There are 120mm (or the older Schneider 121mm) fairly readily available used.

[Edit:] I see Pere has given you the link above as well as some good advice about how to use movements already. I'll elaborate a bit on the latter:

Whenever you use shift-rise/fall movements you are displacing the lens image circle (like moving the projector laterally but not the screen). Also, whenever you tilt or swing the lens, you are displacing the image circle (like pointing the projector away from the center of the screen). Being aware of this will help you minimize those movements (i.e., use camera position and back tilt/swing when possible first). Also, you will know when to check if you have adequate coverage. Check by looking back through the lens at taking aperture to make sure you can see all four corners of the ground glass. If not, you're vignetting.

Best,

Doremus

tgtaylor
26-Jun-2017, 11:33
Nikkor-SW 120mm f/8. Covers 4x5 to and including 8x10 format but extremely wide on the latter.

Thomas

xkaes
26-Jun-2017, 12:53
Fuji also made an SW 120mm f8 with an image circle of 290mm. In addition, they made an NSW 125mm f8 with an image circle of 280mm. The latter is an improved version of the SW 120mm with full air-spaced design and EBC coating. Either of these might meet your size, circle, and cost concerns.

www.subclub.org/fujinon/

armentor1@mac.com
26-Jun-2017, 14:48
Thanks guys this is all very useful information. Sounds like I could tighten up on my technique a bit then would have a ton of great directions.
Is there any sense in trying to keep one brand of optics through the focal length line?

Jody_S
26-Jun-2017, 15:08
With any lens shorter than, say, 210mm, you're going to see a noticeable fall-off in the corners with the photograph you've given to illustrate. Simple geometry: the corners are much further from the rear element than the center of the image, light fall-off goes with the square of the distance. So, center filter on a wide-angle or correct in Photoshop.

Pere Casals
26-Jun-2017, 16:06
Thanks guys this is all very useful information. Sounds like I could tighten up on my technique a bit then would have a ton of great directions.
Is there any sense in trying to keep one brand of optics through the focal length line?

Some say that it is good for consistency, in special for color film. Some recommend to use only German or only Japanese glass.

I've Sch, Rod and Fuji, and saving money for a Nikon SW 150. To me the important thing is to check shutter speeds and to know how they are working. What it is pretty silly is to say one can notice Sch vs Rod footprint and later not checking what are the real shutter speeds of used shutters, that may vary a lot from what is marked.

xkaes
26-Jun-2017, 16:32
Is there any sense in trying to keep one brand of optics through the focal length line?

Some people believe that, but depending on the work you want to do, it can be impossible to stay with only one lens manufacturer -- even if it DID make some sort of difference. There's probably more difference AMONG the lenses of the same manufacturer than BETWEEN the lenses of different manufacturers. That's why I use Schneider, Fujinon, Mamiya, and Minolta lenses on my 4x5's.

Dan Fromm
26-Jun-2017, 16:41
hat's why I use Schneider, Fujinon, Mamiya, and Minolta lenses on my 4x5's.

I didn't know that Mamiya or Minolta made lenses for LF. Which Mamiya lenses are you using? And which Minolta? Minolta-badged Photars for high magnification photomacrography?

xkaes
26-Jun-2017, 18:05
I didn't know that Mamiya or Minolta made lenses for LF. Which Mamiya lenses are you using? And which Minolta? Minolta-badged Photars for high magnification photomacrography?

You're right on both counts, but not entirely. Mamiya made a 37mm full-frame fisheye for their RB67 cameras -- some slight changes were made over time. If you remove the built-in lens shade and put it on a larger format camera, such as a 4x5, you end up with a perfectly great circular fisheye -- 90mm (3.5") diameter. Sure, you have to get it on a board for your camera, but that is not a big obstacle. As to the Minolta's, I use their 100mm and 50mm Bellows Macro lenses, as well as their 15mm and 12.5mm Bellows Micro lenses. For 1:1-type macro shots, I use a Fujinon A 180mm f9.0, but my TOKO bellows will only get me to 2X. After that, I switch to the Minolta lenses on a Copal #1 shutter -- with an adapter, of course. I know these lenses were designed for 35mm film, but at larger magnifications, they easily fill the 4x5 format. The 25mm and 12.5mm originally started out as off-shoots of the Leitz Photars. I've never compared the actual optical designs, but Minolta kept the RMS mount and sold two adapters for Minolta cameras. Check out www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm

Pere Casals
26-Jun-2017, 18:21
even if it DID make some sort of difference...


It is true that it can be some consistent slight difference from one manufacturer to another one, some range of lenses may have same coating like Fuji EBC.

This is a sample of 35mm lenses, with LF glasses it may happen something like that, but imho the differece between LF lenses are smaller in general than these:

166556

IMHO for color slides it can be needed some slightly different (warming, or the counter) fltration. For me it is not very important...

xkaes
26-Jun-2017, 18:36
some range of lenses may have same coating like Fuji EBC.

I know that Minolta made changes over time to its lens coatings -- several times in several ways -- but used the same name -- "Achromatic coating". There were some changes to the lens series names, ex. Rokkor, Auto-Rokkor, MC Rokkor, MD Rokkor, etc., but even within a particular series, the coatings changed -- undoubtedly for the better. It was the same with Yashica (i.e., Tomioka) lens coatings. I would not be surprised at all if the early EBC coatings on lenses were different from the later EBC lens coatings -- even when the optics did not change.

Pere Casals
26-Jun-2017, 18:47
I know that Minolta made changes over time to its lens coatings -- several times in several ways -- but used the same name -- "Achromatic coating". There were some changes to the lens series names, ex. Rokkor, Auto-Rokkor, MC Rokkor, MD Rokkor, etc., but even within a particular series, the coatings changed -- undoubtedly for the better. It was the same with Yashica (i.e., Tomioka) lens coatings. I would not be surprised at all if the early EBC coatings on lenses were different from the later EBC lens coatings -- even when the optics did not change.


Fuji was a bit late with the MC, but finally they got a very good process, I guess with less need for urgent changes.

Rokkors, (this for smaller formats) had a lot of fanatic followers because color rendition. IMHO in practice a mild filtration may match well different glasses...

Bernice Loui
26-Jun-2017, 19:17
Been mentioned, batted about in just about every possible way, image quality is NOT about resolution alone. It is FAR more complex than just resolution test, an all that.

There is NO ideal format size, there is a reasonable trade off format size for any given image to be made. They all have good and bad. Larger format sizes often results in image quality due to tonality, film grain behavior relative to printed image and all those other factors NO related to "resolution.

Keep in mind, DOF can be a problem as format size goes up, as with light required, film flatness (one of the prime reasons why I stopped 8x10. Film sag and flatness in holds is poor) add camera stability problems due to bellows draw, camera stability in wind are a few more factors to consider when choosing a format size.


Do know as format size goes past 5x7, choices in optics shrinks rapidly with the cost of optics increasing rapidly. Same factors applies to film cost, size of film holders, camera size, tripod size and all related. Essentially, going from 4x5 to 5x7 is not a very big increase in overall system bulk, weight, size. Going from 4x5 to 8x10 or larger is often a VERY increase in system size, bulk, weight, tripod, film holders and ....

While the 110mm XL IS a very good lens, the 115mm Grandagon is a very reasonable choice at lower cost, same with 120mm Super Angulon, 120mm SW Nikkor. With the 120mm lenses, they are at their image circle limits for 8x10, no problems on 5x7. 8x10 wide angle should be in the 150mm range. Lenses like 150 SW Nikkor, 155mm Grandagon, 165mm Super Angulon would be the proper choices for 8x10.

Do consider a 210mm range Tessar (Xenar, Ektar, Fujinon L and etc) if a smaller lens is desirable. They are often under appreciated the images then can produce.



Bernice

neil poulsen
27-Jun-2017, 03:18
It's pretty easy to find a Fuji 105mm f8 SW that has an image circle 250mm. This covers 5x7 with room for movements. They're reasonably priced. So, no need necessarily for the 110mm Schneider.

I have the Fuji 105 S.W., because I like having a focal length between 90mm and 121mm.

xkaes
27-Jun-2017, 04:35
Fuji also made a NSW 105mm f8. It is a slightly larger and heavier, improved version of the SW 105mm f8 with full air-spaced design, a Copal shutter, and EBC coating. It has the same image circle of 250mm. The fact that it is simply labeled "SW" leads to some confusion.

I use a CM-W 105mm f5.6. Super lens, but it just barely covers 4x5.