Fast Wides vs "slow" wides and night photography

[FredrickSummers]

I currently have a Fujinon 90mm f8, but someone interested in my Horseman 45HD that is currently for sale wants my 90 too, which I have been thinking of parting with anyway.

There are two parts that have me considering a faster 90 then the f8:
1) greater coverage while using Dayi 6x17 back (5x7 coverage), which the fuji shows slight vingette at f22, and gets worse if I open it up at all. One of the faster 90s with more coverage I think would solve this as well as let me get more movement when shooting 4x5 as well (I have had a few issues before with a lot of rise and tilt).

2) the part that prompts this post: night photography. I have made a few attempts to shoot star trails, but I have yet to get anything with my f8 even wide open, and I got SOME but not very good (which I account largely to technique, but what I got was still very dim) with my fuji 210W 5.6. All my research, the only real difference in these is the coverage and brightness on the GG. What I cannot find though is how these faster 5.6 and 4.5 lenses perform wide open or nearly wide open. Also any real difference between the 5.6 lenses and the nikon 4.5 (one I'm leaning toward)?

Thanks everyone, and feel free to post star/night sky photos taken with any of these lenses as examples

[Drew Wiley]

The Nikon 90/4.5 is a superb lens, and the bigger max aperture does make it somewhat easier to focus. But the first problem you've got trying to use it wide open is the film flatness issue, along with potential film plane accuracy issues, of your roll film back itself. You might need to stop down some just to get a truly accurate image. Otherwise, shooting wide open is going to have more falloff than a couple stops or more down. This will be a bigger problem than optical sharpness, unless you just don't mind the falloff with its darkening toward the corners. The correct center filters aren't made for wide open use, and even if they were, woudl add one and a half to two stops of neutral density anyway. You might need faster film, unless you have already hit your limit there! There is also a substantial weight difference between a Nikon 4.5 and the f/8 version. But if your camera front standards can comfortably hold the extra weight and bulk of the faster lens, it should solve at least some of your problem.

[FredrickSummers]

The Nikon 90/4.5 is a superb lens, and the bigger max aperture does make it somewhat easier to focus. But the first problem you've got trying to use it wide open is the film flatness issue, along with potential film plane accuracy issues, of your roll film back itself. You might need to stop down some just to get a truly accurate image. Otherwise, shooting wide open is going to have more falloff than a couple stops or more down. This will be a bigger problem than optical sharpness, unless you just don't mind the falloff with its darkening toward the corners. The correct center filters aren't made for wide open use, and even if they were, woudl add one and a half to two stops of neutral density anyway. You might need faster film, unless you have already hit your limit there! There is also a substantial weight difference between a Nikon 4.5 and the f/8 version. But if your camera front standards can comfortably hold the extra weight and bulk of the faster lens, it should solve at least some of your problem.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Using smaller a apature with the 6x17 back isn't a problem, although it would be fun to try stars with it, shooting wide open I'm more curious about using it that way on 4x5. I started using a Graphmatic for when I'm shooting open as it seems to hold the film more flat and is a bit more accurate. I'd likely stop the 4.5 down to around 5.6 so it wouldn't be wide open, but still more open then most other lenses of mine. My camera is a Wista SP and it seems to be built like a brick. How heavy are these faster 90s though, as I've heard this before, but didn't expect that huge of a weight difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Salomon]

1 the faster wide angle lens, from any given manufacturer, covers a larger circle then the slower one.
2 because of the larger circle the fall off starts further out from the center so it is less then the slower lens over the same film area.
3 Schneider, Rodenstock and Heliopan made center filters for large format wide angle lenses. Nikon and Fuji didn't.
4 from any given manufacturer the MTF curves, distortion curves, fall off curves are better with the faster lens.
5 none of the Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon or Schneider wide angle lenses perform optimally wide open or near wide open. And all center filters require that the lens be stopped down at least two stops for the center filter to have any effect.
6 all of them are optimized for f22 and are diffraction limited at f22. For star tracks that is probably a moot point. But are you only going to shoot star tracks?
7 if a lens is a stop faster at a given focal length then it's front element is significantly larger in diameter. This adds more weight, just for the lens element. Since the lens element is so much larger the diameter of the lens barrel is also substantially larger and, since it is metal, it also adds weight. Then, if you check the number of elements you will find that the faster lens has more elements, that adds weight. For each element, or groups of elements there is mounting and centering parts within the lens, this adds weight. In the case of the Rodenstock 90mm 4.5 Grandagon - N, it is mounted in a 1 size shutter while the 6.8 Gradagon-N is in a 0 shutter. This adds weight. The formulation and specifications as well as the performance of the faster lens is always different then it's slower cousin.

[Drew Wiley]

Typical wides aren't rectilinear anyway, so will stretch things and points of light toward the corner of the field. If you could sacrifice some of that width, and use
just 6x11 of it crisply, or 6x12 so-so, I'd recommend the 100/3.5 Nikkor M. Not much use wide open either, but being a modern "normal" tessar rather than wide
angle design, will have comparatively little distortion of falloff a couple stops down - still pretty fast, and a tiny lens. No good for full 4x5. Maybe there are other analogous lens suggestions. Give up some of the angle of view and you could select from 110 to 125/5.6 plasmats perhaps.

[Bob Salomon]

Typical wides aren't rectilinear anyway, so will stretch things and points of light toward the corner of the field. If you could sacrifice some of that width, and use
just 6x11 of it crisply, or 6x12 so-so, I'd recommend the 100/3.5 Nikkor M. Not much use wide open either, but being a modern "normal" tessar rather than wide
angle design, will have comparatively little distortion of falloff a couple stops down - still pretty fast, and a tiny lens. No good for full 4x5. Maybe there are other analogous lens suggestions. Give up some of the angle of view and you could select from 110 to 125/5.6 plasmats perhaps.

But they don't get him to a faster lens.

[Drew Wiley]

For a price you can get any lens you want. They make them right here in town. Just give them your NASA, NSA, or DEA credit card and wait a few months.

[Bob Salomon]

For a price you can get any lens you want. They make them right here in town. Just give them your NASA, NSA, or DEA credit card and wait a few months.

They make them all over. Just contact Qioptiq. But they may not take a credit card.

[FredrickSummers]

1 the faster wide angle lens, from any given manufacturer, covers a larger circle then the slower one.
2 because of the larger circle the fall off starts further out from the center so it is less then the slower lens over the same film area.
3 Schneider, Rodenstock and Heliopan made center filters for large format wide angle lenses. Nikon and Fuji didn't.
4 from any given manufacturer the MTF curves, distortion curves, fall off curves are better with the faster lens.
5 none of the Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon or Schneider wide angle lenses perform optimally wide open or near wide open. And all center filters require that the lens be stopped down at least two stops for the center filter to have any effect.
6 all of them are optimized for f22 and are diffraction limited at f22. For star tracks that is probably a moot point. But are you only going to shoot star tracks?
7 if a lens is a stop faster at a given focal length then it's front element is significantly larger in diameter. This adds more weight, just for the lens element. Since the lens element is so much larger the diameter of the lens barrel is also substantially larger and, since it is metal, it also adds weight. Then, if you check the number of elements you will find that the faster lens has more elements, that adds weight. For each element, or groups of elements there is mounting and centering parts within the lens, this adds weight. In the case of the Rodenstock 90mm 4.5 Grandagon - N, it is mounted in a 1 size shutter while the 6.8 Gradagon-N is in a 0 shutter. This adds weight. The formulation and specifications as well as the performance of the faster lens is always different then it's slower cousin.

Bob, thank you very much for your detailed reply! By night sky I do largely mean star trails and moon lit landscapes. I'd love to do some "stars as points" but I just don't think that would work on large format. I'm hoping to get away without and expensive center filter sticking to 90 so far. Do you think the faster lenses need it though? The other option is always the Nikon f8, but if the faster lenses can make use of the speed at night it may be worth the cost of weight/size. Normal day shooting I plan to continue shooting around f22 (my "normal" apature).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FredrickSummers]

Typical wides aren't rectilinear anyway, so will stretch things and points of light toward the corner of the field. If you could sacrifice some of that width, and use
just 6x11 of it crisply, or 6x12 so-so, I'd recommend the 100/3.5 Nikkor M. Not much use wide open either, but being a modern "normal" tessar rather than wide
angle design, will have comparatively little distortion of falloff a couple stops down - still pretty fast, and a tiny lens. No good for full 4x5. Maybe there are other analogous lens suggestions. Give up some of the angle of view and you could select from 110 to 125/5.6 plasmats perhaps.

When I shoot digital full frame my glass is Minolta and my wide does the same stretch thing, it's just a matter of how close to the edge does this become a problem on these lenses and what apature can I get away with. If I have to stop down to 8-11 I don't think it would be worth it to step to a faster lens over the Nikon f8. I really like the 90mm length and shooting two backs, the 5.6 120s just barely if at all cover 5x7 (most have less coverage then my current 90). I'm tempted by the 120 f8 lenses though or the Schnider, but that's a whole different topic too .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk