Your favourite 75mm lenses or ones to avoid

[612tom]

Hi, I'm in the market for a 75 or 72mm lens, what are your favourites, and are are there any ones you dislike and should be avoided?

I'm looking at:

Fuji SWD 75mm 5.6 (196mm coverage)
Nikkor SW 75mm 4.5 (200mm coverage)
Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm 4.5 (195mm coverage)
Schnieder Super Angulon 75mm 5.6 (198mm coverage)

and if budget would allow, the Schnieder 72XL with 226mm coverage, possibly overkill for 4x5 landscapes and architecture...

The Fuji and the Nikkor seem to be available used from $500-700 from ebay and KEH etc in fairly good condition, the Rodenstock is nearer to $1000, and the 72XL over $1400. Do these prices sound about right?


Thanks in advance for any comments and recommendations.

[Steve Goldstein]

Don't forget the 75mm f/6.8 Grandagon from Rodenstock. Just on a lark, I shot one sheet of 5x7 FP4+ with my 6.8/75 while testing a few 90mm lenses for coverage, and was stunned to find a sharp image right out to the corners at f/22. This wasn't at infinity focus, but about 10 feet, but for sure it'll more than cover 4x5!

[Blumine]

I have both the Fuji 75mm and the Schneider 72mm XL. They are both great lenses, but I tend to grab the Schneider first. At least with my copy, the Schneider seems a little warmer and the Fuji a tad sharper, but its hard to tell. The biggest disadvantage to Schneider is the 95mm Filter size, the Fuji takes 67mm.

I tried a Nikon 75mm once and prefered the Fuji.

Blumine

[Gem Singer]

The Caltar Ii-N 75 is actually a Rodenstock Grandagon N, re-badged by Calumet Photo.

Previously owned ones can be purchased at lower prices than the Rodenstock version.

Excellent lens.

[Mark Sampson]

I have a 75/4 Nikkor-SW. It's very sharp and contrasty (like my other Nikkors). I use it mostly to photograph kitchens and bathrooms, for which it's well suited. Clients seem to love its 'reach' in a small room, and exclaim about the quality of an 11x14 print from a negative made with that lens. I've rarely used it for landscapes, although it performs well for that too.

[Archphoto]

I have the 75 SA and love it.
I bought the 72XL because I needed more coverage.
The 72XL is more contrasty than my old 75SA, both are keepers for as long as I am involved with LF, a very long time I hope.

I have a 115 Grandagon: great too, with the Nikon and Fuji I have no experence.

Peter

[Bob Salomon]

re-badged by Calumet Photo.

Not really. It is a private label lens and Rodenstock puts the Calumet name on the lenses like they put the Sinar name on the ones that Sinar sells.

Calumet just buys them from Rodenstock.

[Walter Calahan]

I've only owned a Nikkor 75 mm. Never let me down.

[rdenney]

Were it me in your shoes, I'd buy the one that turned up in the shutter I thought would be most reliable and that had the best price. I worked around this focal length in my collection, going for a 65 and a 90, and used Schneider lenses in both cases. But that was as much because of the condition and price of what was offered at the time as anything.

A buddy of mine has a 75/8 Fujinon, and it does work beautifully. The price was also very good--that extra stop is expensive. It's not like the difference between the Super Angulon 65/8 and 65/5.6, where the latter has sufficient coverage for 4x5 and the former is marginal--the Fuji seemed to have plenty of coverage for him.

Rick "thinking one of the joys of LF is not having to obsess over marginal lens differences" Denney

[Gem Singer]

Bob,

In other words, Calumet purchases Rodenstock Grandagon-N lenses from the manufacturer, has their name placed on them, and sells them under the name Caltar II-N. Is that not correct?

Seems that when I see a reference to that procedure on this forum, it's called rebadging. In your industry, it's called private labeling.

Is there a difference in quality between the Rodenstock branded lenses and the Caltar branded lenses (aside from the warranty service)?

Is that the reason why Caltar lenses are less expensive?

[David Karp]

I have a 75mm f/4.5 Grandagon N and it is a very nice lens.

[Scott Davis]

I had a 75 F6.8 Grandagon and it was terrific. Just didn't use it enough to justify keeping it around, especially once I moved up to bigger formats.

[Philippe Grunchec]

I have a Schneider/Sinar Super Angulon 5.6/75 and a Komura 6.3/75: I think the Schneider has a little bit more of coverage, the Komura is extremely sharp.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

In other words, Calumet purchases Rodenstock Grandagon-N lenses from the manufacturer, has their name placed on them, and sells them under the name Caltar II-N. Is that not correct?

Seems that when I see a reference to that procedure on this forum, it's called rebadging. In your industry, it's called private labeling.

Is there a difference in quality between the Rodenstock branded lenses and the Caltar branded lenses (aside from the warranty service)?

Is that the reason why Caltar lenses are less expensive?

Can't speak of the performance issue as we don't know what the details are of the Calumet PO with Rodenstock.

When one orders a production run quantity with one's own name on it the product is usually less expensive since you ordered a very large quantity. But if you look at how many lenses are available from a private label dealer compared to how many different optics the lens maker manufacturers you will usually find that the private label ones are a very truncated offering of the complete line.
Also production techniques and materials change over the lifetime of a lens. So if you bought a large quantity with your name on it on Monday and a month later something changes the private label version may not be exactly the same as the manufacturer's branded name version.

[Dave Brown]

Stay away from the Schnieder 75mm f 8 SA. They're cheap, but it's a stretch to say they cover 4x5. As far as all of the other lenses in this category, they're all really so good you'll be hard pressed to find one you don't like.

[IanG]

Rubbish, I use a 75mm SA it's superb, although I mainly use mine for 6x17 it's brilliant on my 5x4 cameras.

I also use a 65mm SA on my Wista and yes that is stretching it, but I've made some of my best exhibition prints with it and it's never let me down quality wise.

Ian

[BradS]

Stay away from the Schnieder 75mm f 8 SA. They're cheap, but it's a stretch to say they cover 4x5.


I have to disagree. I have the 75mm f/8 Super Angulon and love it. Previous to this, I have the Rodenstock 75mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N. The latter is a fine optic to be sure but it is also much larger, heavier and far more expensive. However, the results produced by these two are very comparable. Smaller, lighter and less expensive win in my book every time.

Personally, I would buy whatever one looked like it was in the best condition and consider the price carefully. There really is not much difference in the performance of these modern optics on 4x5 and the 75mm focal length is, at least in my case, not often enough used to justify the large difference in price of the more expensive optics.

[jeroldharter]

I can vouch for the Caltar 75mm f6.8 lens. Super sharp.

[Leonard Evens]

I have a 75mm f/4.5 Grandagon N and it is a very nice lens.

I have the same lens, and I am very happy with it. Since I do a lot of architectural phtography, I would in principle be better off with the Schneider 72 mm super angulon XL, since it has a significantly larger image circle. But it is also much heavier to lug around, and I have yet to meet a situation where I needed more than the 195 mm that the Grandagon provides. Also, 195 mm is about as much as I can use with my Toho FC-45X, even with an eccentric lensboard.

The f/6.8 75 mm Grandagon N is no longer made, but one can probably find used ones for sale.

[D. Bryant]

Can't speak of the performance issue as we don't know what the details are of the Calumet PO with Rodenstock.

When one orders a production run quantity with one's own name on it the product is usually less expensive since you ordered a very large quantity. But if you look at how many lenses are available from a private label dealer compared to how many different optics the lens maker manufacturers you will usually find that the private label ones are a very truncated offering of the complete line.
Also production techniques and materials change over the lifetime of a lens. So if you bought a large quantity with your name on it on Monday and a month later something changes the private label version may not be exactly the same as the manufacturer's branded name version.

IOW, if you are going to purchase a Caltar branded Rodenstock don't get one built on a Monday or Friday. QC goes up on the production line Tue. through Thurs.. ;)

Don Bryant

[612tom]

I have both the Fuji 75mm and the Schneider 72mm XL. They are both great lenses, but I tend to grab the Schneider first. At least with my copy, the Schneider seems a little warmer and the Fuji a tad sharper, but its hard to tell. The biggest disadvantage to Schneider is the 95mm Filter size, the Fuji takes 67mm.

I tried a Nikon 75mm once and prefered the Fuji.

Blumine

I noticed that about Fujinon lenses - they really do seem very sharp and punchy with plenty of contrast. The lens on my GSW690 rangefinder is a real cracker. I remember when I first started using the Rodenstock 45 on a Horseman 612 that the results, although sharp, were much more subtle and certainly less punchy.

[caleb]

not a cheap lens but the 75 biogon is pretty sweet. I have been shooting a lot of color with it lately and lovre it. Really sharp and the contrast is very nice. A bit of a "heavy old pig" to travel with but it's worth it.

[jnantz]

Were it me in your shoes, I'd buy the one that turned up in the shutter I thought would be most reliable and that had the best price. I worked around this focal length in my collection, going for a 65 and a 90, and used Schneider lenses in both cases. But that was as much because of the condition and price of what was offered at the time as anything.

A buddy of mine has a 75/8 Fujinon, and it does work beautifully. The price was also very good--that extra stop is expensive. It's not like the difference between the Super Angulon 65/8 and 65/5.6, where the latter has sufficient coverage for 4x5 and the former is marginal--the Fuji seemed to have plenty of coverage for him.

Rick "thinking one of the joys of LF is not having to obsess over marginal lens differences" Denney

what he said ...