5x7 wide lens: a newbie's conundrum

[IanG]

I have to take back what I said. This morning got out my 8x10 and started hanging lenses on it. I put my Wolly 108/6.8 (not the 12.5) and was surprised that it nearly fully lights 8x10. The 115/6.8 Caltar did slightly better, as the specs would indicate. Now the interesting thing: I put on my 90/5.6 SA, and it nearly lights the whole 8x10 also--less than the others, but still pretty good. Some of you might remember my experiment with the 65/5.6 SA on 5x7, near the end of my LF Flickr stuff, but I think the 90/5.6 covers 8x10 better than that. So now I have that project to do--lug the 8x10 outside and see what the story really is. Notice I said "lights"--I have not yet determined how the sharpness is out there with any of these.

I'm starting to think that any of the suggested lenses would probably provide MORE than is required.

You raise the interesting point of lenses with circles of illumination that greatly exceed their use-able image circle in terms of an acceptable level of sharpness. The other extreme is lenses that run out of coverage due to physical vignetting.

The Wollensak WA lenses are more like the early Angulons and the Meyer equivalents, greater coverage compared to the last Angulon designs and less prone to vignetting.

There's probably a need for a thread on these lenses with wide illumination and soft fall off after all Emmet Gowin and others exploited this wonderfully a few years ago.

Ian

[mdarnton]

Yes, I recently bought, sort of by accident, a recent sort of 120mm Angulon. Going to Schneider's website, I'm surprised to discover that it isn't even listed for 5x7! I haven't put it on a camera yet to see what the real story is, but they're not giving me confidence.

[Willie]

The Super Angulon 90 XL covers enough to use for 4x10 film. Works well for 5x7.

[Rraven]

It's pretty awesome to have such a vibrant and helpful community here, thank you all for offering your experience.

I had seen the wollensak 108mm and then discounted it, perhaps prematurely, on coverage grounds... Michael, if you do an 8x10 test it'd be interesting to hear your conclusions.

The Komura is new to me... thanks, I'll look it up!

Great to hear such a positive experience of the fuji sw 105... this is the one that I initially thought came closest to my ideal, but then started fretting about IC, f/8, still wanting wider for panoramics, etc. Centre filter advice is in the bank, likewise the sensitivity of 90's to movements, thank you. Great to hear your endorsement of the 72 on 5x7 too... this one for me, like the 300, has been put on the back burner for as long as can be tolerated, but I'd like eventually to have my wide needs covered by 2 lenses rather than 3, and this, or a 75, is definitely of interest. Do you find that any of these super wide designs perform particularly well, or poorly, when focussed close?

Best wishes,

[Mark Tweed]

I owned a mint version of the Wollensak 108mm f6.8, it was a very sharp lens but my sample, despite what the specs say, did not provide sufficient coverage for use on a 5X7. What I have in its place is a Rodenstock 112mm f12 Perigon; incredibly small (think 90mm f6.8 Angulon), sharp and loads of coverage for the 5X7 format.

[Two23]

Pardons for borrowing this thread, but I now have a 5x7 and have been using a Rodenstock 135mm. I also have a Nikon 90mm f4.5. Will that work on 5x7? There is a little vignetting on the GG.


Kent in SD

[mdarnton]

Vignetting on the ground glass may not be telling an accurate story. Don't believe anything until you see what it looks like on film.

[IanG]

Pardons for borrowing this thread, but I now have a 5x7 and have been using a Rodenstock 135mm. I also have a Nikon 90mm f4.5. Will that work on 5x7? There is a little vignetting on the GG.

Kent in SD

Look at the image circles listed here.

Ian