Would anyone care to recommend a favorite schneider or rodenstock standard lens for 6x9 format? Thanks for an info
Printable View
Would anyone care to recommend a favorite schneider or rodenstock standard lens for 6x9 format? Thanks for an info
Based on the diagonal of the film, a "normal" lens would be about 108mm (I don't shoot 6x9).
Rodenstock makes a 100mm/5.6 APO-Sironar-S lens that's identified as being for 6x9 format.
Its image circle is 155mm, which would afford ample movements. It's tiny, only 190g in a Copal 0 shutter.
I have the 135mm/5.6 and longer lenses in the APO-Sironar-S series, and they're uniformly outstanding.
- Leigh
Thanks Leigh,Quote:
Originally Posted by Leigh
Intuition has been telling me to go with the 135mm. The conversion calculators put it at about the equivalent of 58mm in 35mm format. That's a little long, but not too long.... it might just work.
The 135mm is certainly a good choice. I use mine on 4x5 and enjoy a wide range of movements with its 208mm IC.
Good luck with the quest.
- Leigh
Mike, lens choice depends greatly on the sort of photography that you do, so what I use may not be appropriate for you. For landscape my most used lens is a 75 mm (Rodenstock Grandagon & Schneider Super-Angulon), followed by the 135 mm Apo-Sironar-S. For cityscapes and more general purposes I use a 90 mm Nikkor-SW, and I pair this up with a 180 mm Apo-Sironar-S and a 55 mm Apo-Grandagon. If I could have only 1 lens then it may be the 80 mm Super-Symmar XL.
George
The light version with my Arca-Swiss is Angulon 6,8/90 and the heavier Super-Symmar HM 5,6/120, sometimes Symmar 5,6/100. Each has their character: "mild", very sharp, usual...
Mike, the diagonal of nominal 6x9 (actual 2.25" x 3.25", in metric 56 x 82 or so) is 100 mm. The diagonal of 24x36 is 43 mm. That we call 50 mm "normal" for 24x36 is due to an historical accident.
You can use any lens you want that will focus as far away as you need on your camera (what is it?) and that can be mounted on your camera and will cover the format. There's nothing magic about lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock. Other makers made lenses, normal for the format and otherwise, that work well on some if not all 2x3 cameras. There's also nothing magic about the latest most best lenses with names prefixed by "Apo-", super wides and telephotos excepted. You asked about normal lenses.
FWIW, the focal length I use most on my 2x3 cameras is around 100 mm. The lens used to be a 101/4.5 Ektar or a 4"/2.0 TTH, these days it is a 105/5.6 Saphir BX (rebadged Zircon).
George Hart, which 6x9 camera do you use?
Mike, to get an idea of what can be used on 2x3 cameras, see http://www.galerie-photo.com/telecha...2011-03-29.pdf
Ebony 45S & Fotoman 69.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
100mm is the normal focal length for 69 so from Rodenstock that would be the Apo Sironar S but if you can sacrifice some coverage and want superior performance then the best would be the 105mm Apo Sironar Digital.
Mine is the slightly older 100 Apo Sironar N. Works great on a Century Graphic. I've also used it with no movements on a 4x5 Graphic, focus usually around 10-15 ft, and had no coverage problems. I've noticed recently that the used 100mm versions of Sironars, Symmars and Nikons are selling for some very good prices.
Thanks everybody!
When I was doing 6x9 photography, my most used lens was Digitar 120mm – a Schneider digital lens. This is also the sharpest LF lens I have owned, among all the modern (and sharp) Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikkor lenses I have used. The published image circle data on this lens is extremely conservative – I never ran out of IC for a 6x9 capture.
// Atul
I think it will only cover 6X7 but the 80mm f/2.8 Xenotar is well thought of. It was mostly used on Rollie cameras but it is occasionally available in a Compur shutter.
Would 90mm lenses like the f/6.8 Grandagon or the F/8 Fujinon SW be too bulky for a 6X9 camera? I have been torn between a Shen Hao TFC69-A and a Gaoersi 6x12 as a next camera and I want a 90mm lens forwhich ever camera I get.
What does your strong right arm think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward (Halifax,NS)
I love the Rodenstock 100mm Sironar, it just seems to be the right standard lens for me. Its small and sharp, and not a big investment on the used market.
The Grandagon-N comes in two flavors, an f/4.5 and an f/6.8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward (Halifax,NS)
The latter is rather small, 67mm filters, 60mm rear diameter, weighing 460 grams.
It's image circle is 221mm, which is certainly generous for a 6x9 camera.
- Leigh
Thanks, Do you think it would be necessary to use a center filter when shooting transparency? It's definitely a lens that I'm considering.Quote:
Originally Posted by RTucker
Not with an Apo Sironar-S. You use center filters with wide angle lenses like the Grandagon-N series.
Thanks, Bob
Bob, would you need a center filter on 6X9 as you are only using the middle of the image circle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
That poses even less of a problem than using the entire image circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward (Halifax,NS)
The reason for a center filter is to compensate for light fall-off in the outer area of the image circle.
If you're not using that area in the first place, you don't need to compensate for it.
- Leigh
Edward, to expand a little on Leigh's reply to this question, you might want to read my lens diary. A link to it is in post #7 in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward (Halifax,NS)
I shoot lenses from 35 mm (covers the format) to 480 mm (also covers) on 2x3. My second- or third-most used lens is a 47 SA. I have a center filter for the 35, don't feel the need for one on the 47 with E100G. There's a hint.
150mm Symmars and Sironars are both cheap and plentiful.
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar N - very nice & predictable, and allows a pretty good amount of movement. I understand it is a Planar-type design rather than the Tessar-type which Schneider use, which suits me for architectural work as it gives a flat & consistent image field. The S version may even be better, but will naturally cost more.
Are you thinking of the Xenar? Symmars are plasmat types like the parallel Sironars.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB
Not German, but the top 3 lenses I use (in order) for 6x9 are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Moss
Topcor 75mm
Topcor 65mm
Topcor 105mm
Topcor 180mm Tele
ic, why didn't you keep mum? The OP is fixated on highly superior (by someone's definition) German lenses. We should let him drive their prices up and not tell him about the good stuff.
I can't add much to what others have written here other than to say that, IMHO, any FL from 90-110mm is close enough to "normal" for 6x9cm (56x84mm). I don't know your budget nor your shooting style nor the subject matter so I don't feel I can make any specific recommendations.
May we have a little more information as to your expectations of this lens?
ETA: I concur with ic-racer that the Topcor lenses are top notch. Many years ago I owned the 65mm, 105mm, and 180mm. For 6x9cm, I can't imagine any lens at any price making any of them look bad in comparison unless one needs lots of image circle. If one doesn't need larger image circles then (the last time I checked prices) they are indeed a steal.
I have a Nikkor W 100mm and love it. Also have a 100mm 2.8 Planar but wouldn't recommend it for anything requiring movements. If no movements the Planar makes beautiful images. Nikon also made a 105mm W. The image circle was the same for the 100 & 105. No idea why they made two that close.
I like the Nikkor but wouldn't hesitate to buy a Schneider or Rodenstock.
Don, I have a 1982 Nikon catalog that lists a 100/5.6 W and a 105/3.5 M. The 100 is a plasmat type, claimed coverage at f/22 is 153 mm. The 105 is a tessar type, claimed coverage at f/22 is 110 mm, and the catalog asserts that all Nikkor-Ms (105/3.5, 300/9, 450/9) are apochromats.
You may have confused two quite different lenses.
I downloaded 1982 and 2002-4 Nikon LF lenses catalogs from http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photog...literature.htm . The 105/3.5 M isn't in the 2002-4 catalog, the 200/8 M that's in it isn't in the 1982 catalog.
Dan... you forgot to list the venerable 200mm Nikkor-M. :D BTW, I always wanted to try the 105mm f/3.5 wide open for portraits but I never found one for sale.
Not Schneider or Rodenstock, but the lenses I use for a 6x9 back on my Ebony include
125 Fuji W, 180A, 240A, 300 Nikkor M. All give superlative results with obviously plenty of
movement.
I didn't? See the the last sentence in post #31 in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble
^^^ Woops... I read too fast. I should have known better, Dan. :)
The 105 M seems to be rather rare. I've only seen two of them for sale ever.
Nikon made a 100 W, a 105 W and a 105 M. The 105 W was the later lens. The 105 M seems to have been dropped from later catalogs.