PDA

View Full Version : Extreme WA lens for Whole Plate



Greg
18-Sep-2017, 16:50
Up to now my wide angle lenses for my whole plate camera has been my120mm f/8 Nikkor-SW, which since it covers 8x10, allows a generous amount of movement.

I was looking for an extreme wide angle lens for Whole Plate to be had for a reasonable price, and gave up a little while back. But then recently I bought a 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW for my 4x5. Have always wanted a 90mm for my 4x5, and finally came across one for a very reasonable asking price from a dealer in Japan. Glass was mint. Outside of barrel had a bunch of rub marks on it... no big deal there. As with all my lenses I wanted to see what its coverage was so mounted it on my 8x10 and proceeded to the place where I always test my lenses at

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?139858-Testing-coverage-of-lenses&highlight=place+test+lenses

To my amazement the 90mm Nikkor actually covered "at infinity" my final matted image size of 6"x8". So it does not completely cover a whole plate negative, but it does cover the size of my matted whole plate contact prints. Obviously with closer subject matter, it will cover the full 6.5"x8.5" whole plate format.

Would love to hear from any Whole Plate photographers out there who might be using a Schneider Super-Angulon Multicoating 90mm XL F/5.6 Lens.... Possibly it might just cover a bit more than my Nikkor and intern cover the full Whole Plate 6.5"x8.5" negative.

thanks
Greg

Jac@stafford.net
18-Sep-2017, 17:00
You have to go to a shorter FL.
How wide do you wish to go?
.

Greg
18-Sep-2017, 17:06
For me the image from my 90mm Nikkor is the widest I want to realistically go... An Hypergon I'd love to have and use, but the purchase price of one these optics... well just hard to justify.

Greg

xkaes
19-Sep-2017, 05:25
Here's what Fuji has to offer:

For 6.5x8.5" (image circle 270mm):

-- Fujinon SW 120mm f8 -- image circle: 290mm
-- Fujinon SW S 120mm f8 -- image circle: 290mm

For 6x8" (image circle 254mm):

-- Fujinon SW 105mm f8 -- image circle: 250mm
-- Fujinon NSW 105mm f8 -- image circle: 250mm

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

Corran
19-Sep-2017, 09:20
Last time I mentioned that it "should cover just fine at infinity" but I didn't expressly show it - I only posted an image with a very close focus.

I went back into my archive and found a better example for you. Here is an 8x10 image shot at infinity with the 90mm XL and I have inscribed a rectangle of exactly 6.5" x 8.5." This is accomplished by knowing what DPI the scan was done at and properly sizing the rectangle in PS. As you can see, it covers the rectangle fine. Of course others may tell you the circle of "acceptable definition" is smaller than the actual thrown image.

If you get a 90mm XL make sure you get a newer one with the removable rear shroud. I assume the rear shroud shrinks the IC slightly from mechanical vignetting, but I haven't actually tested this. I always have the rear shroud off when I've put this lens on 8x10.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/810-wp-example.jpg

David Karp
19-Sep-2017, 21:39
Confirming that my 120mm Fujinon SW covers nicely.

Amazing looking at a 90mm on WP!

chassis
20-Sep-2017, 06:21
Last time I mentioned that it "should cover just fine at infinity" but I didn't expressly show it - I only posted an image with a very close focus.

I went back into my archive and found a better example for you. Here is an 8x10 image shot at infinity with the 90mm XL and I have inscribed a rectangle of exactly 6.5" x 8.5." This is accomplished by knowing what DPI the scan was done at and properly sizing the rectangle in PS. As you can see, it covers the rectangle fine. Of course others may tell you the circle of "acceptable definition" is smaller than the actual thrown image.

If you get a 90mm XL make sure you get a newer one with the removable rear shroud. I assume the rear shroud shrinks the IC slightly from mechanical vignetting, but I haven't actually tested this. I always have the rear shroud off when I've put this lens on 8x10.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/810-wp-example.jpg

Bryan that is a great image. I don't recall seeing this in the image sharing threads. Well done.

Greg Davis
20-Sep-2017, 06:28
Is that from the wildlife preserve right across the river from Savannah?

Corran
20-Sep-2017, 08:30
Thanks guys. It's from a year and a half ago - taken at a flooded area in a small local park in south GA that I went to a lot. (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/search/label/Langdale%20Park)

consummate_fritterer
20-Sep-2017, 13:33
Corran's example is precisely what I expected. That's pretty darn nice illumination.

BTW, I think that image would be super nice cropped to 5x10 to take full advantage of the width (or height).

Corran
20-Sep-2017, 14:07
I just realized! I should have mentioned, this is with the Schneider 4B 2x center filter that I use for both my 72XL and 90XL. Fall-off will be an issue with this lens on such a wide format, as one would expect.

consummate_fritterer - regarding the crop, I have a friend who advised Clyde Butcher on some camera gear and I believe, but can not confirm, that some of his extremely wide images made on 8x10 are with the 90mm XL cropped to a panoramic-esque aspect ratio - 3:5 or so IIRC. I can't remember what AR I ended up printing that image to. I made one inkjet print for a show last year and it sold so I no longer have it.

Greg
20-Sep-2017, 16:19
Last time I mentioned that it "should cover just fine at infinity" but I didn't expressly show it - I only posted an image with a very close focus.

I went back into my archive and found a better example for you. Here is an 8x10 image shot at infinity with the 90mm XL and I have inscribed a rectangle of exactly 6.5" x 8.5." This is accomplished by knowing what DPI the scan was done at and properly sizing the rectangle in PS. As you can see, it covers the rectangle fine. Of course others may tell you the circle of "acceptable definition" is smaller than the actual thrown image.

If you get a 90mm XL make sure you get a newer one with the removable rear shroud. I assume the rear shroud shrinks the IC slightly from mechanical vignetting, but I haven't actually tested this. I always have the rear shroud off when I've put this lens on 8x10.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/810-wp-example.jpg

Thank you for posting the image. The 90mm XL obviously covers a bit more than the 90mm Nikkor. Edge distortion with the XL looks to be a lot more extended then on the Nikkor. It would be interesting to know what the criteria was for each of the manufacturers for determining the coverage of their lenses, I assume it is based on shooting a line resolution chart, since the image thrown by these 2 lenses far exceeds their mfg's coverage specs.

Distortion in the corners... I just accept it. I use a 5.9 No. 5 Gray Periscope (equivalent around a 15mm lens on FX or 35mm) on my 11x14. Published Mfg. lens specs (late 1800s) say it covers 11x14. Image distortion in the corners absolutely lot of it there, but it just doesn't bother me all that much and I guess didn't bother photographers in the late 1800s. Since I am contact printing the negatives, seems to be even less pronounced in the final prints. Prints made from this optic when displayed in a gallery setting earlier this year... well no one has ever commented on the distortion in the corners of the prints.

Mark Sampson
20-Sep-2017, 18:10
"Distortion"...are you talking about perspective distortion? That can't really be avoided with such enormous angles of view. It's built in.
If you're talking about pincushion or barrel distortion, where straight lines in the subject render as curved in the negative, that's another story. Fisheye lenses are designed to have that kind of distortion. I don't see that in Corran's picture above and I really haven't seen it in my own view camera work, although the widest lens I use is a 75mm on 4x5. Certainly I've had to be very careful with camera position, when shooting kitchens and bathrooms with that lens, to avoid perspective distortion.

Corran
20-Sep-2017, 18:29
Perspective distortion in the far corners is certainly a fact of life with extreme wide angles. It occasionally disturbs me on certain images but usually it's not too big of a deal. Depends on the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some lenses that also have actual distortion in the corners outside of their prescribed image circles per the manufacturer, but I am not one to photograph test charts to find out.

LabRat
21-Sep-2017, 05:11
A common distortion on UWA scenes would be in interior shooting, where the rooms look stretched/deeper...

Steve K

Carsten Wolff
1-Oct-2017, 14:59
I also used to have the 90mm Nikkor which did nicely on my 5x7". I now have a 90mm f8 Ilex Acu-Veriwide (in Copal.0 and often used with a Schneider IIIb). Dim as it is, its a keeper as it has an even larger image circle and excellent definition. Whether it covers full plate I can't 100% guarantee, but it'd be pretty close.

Greg
1-Oct-2017, 16:29
Is an ILEX Acugon 90mm f/8 the same as an 90mm f8 Ilex Acu-Veriwide?

Dan Fromm
1-Oct-2017, 18:09
http://www.galerie-photo.com/ilex-lenses.html

Carsten Wolff
1-Oct-2017, 18:50
...so, yes, thanks, Dan. http://www.galerie-photo.com/ilex-lenses.html
The optical design across its iterations over the years is said to be identical. They came in a variety of shutters (Ilex, Compur, Seiko, Copal (0 and 1),...) and there are also versions without filter thread (!), so it makes me wonder if they didn't have, even minor, optical updates as well during their run. Another comment: My copy opens up to about f6.8 or thereabouts, both the shutter and the lens are marked f8; so, although noticable, its only really a stop slower than the f4.5 for preview.