Wide angle lens recomendations needed for 4x5

[computress]

Hello,

I am starting to shift to 4x5 format (from my medium format of Fuji GX680 with some movements) and I would love some expert advice from you guys.

I will use it for interior photography and I am on a lookout for a moderately wide angle lens (one that has a natural, non-stretched look, but still works in tighter spaces) with image circle that allows movements and would also have great sharpness with deep depth of field and everything in focus.
In the end I would like to print the photos at around 1m x 1,25m, so I really aim for excellent detail.

Right now I am looking at Schneider Super-Angulon XL 90 mm, but maybe 100mm to 120mm would be better at combining all these things?

A reference that are close to my taste are Lynne Cohen's photos (shot on 8x10):



Or Candida Hofer's (although she shoots on medium format, both on film and digitally):


I used to shoot on a 65mm lens for the gx680, and I love it's width, but couldn't really handle the distortions and softness, but it might also have been me not being able to properly work it.

Thank you for your thoughts!

[interneg]

Something in the 110-120mm range will offer better coverage, though in all cases you'll want a suitable centre filter to even out exposure to enable maximum exploitation of the image circle. The 120mm Super Angulon, or the Nikon 120mm f8.0 equivalent, or the 115mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, the Schneider 110mm Super Symmar XL & the 105 f8.0 Fujinon (not the f5.6) are all worth considering. More important considerations are how rigid your choice of camera is (and given you're using a GX680, I'm going to assume that you've got a more than solid tripod) - a non folding camera like the Walker Titan XL might be a better choice, given that you want to use a relatively moderate focal length - and not stopping the lens down too far (for the enlargements you're planning, really no deeper than f22) so as to not soften the negative via diffraction. Are you planning to optically print or scan on high end equipment?

[computress]

Dear Interneg,

thank you so much for such a quick and thorough response, it really helped a lot already!
As for the camera, right now I am testing Sinar P2. I am a little afraid the whole set up might become really heavy, I was tempted by the Sinar F2 or some other lighter monorail, for the mere fact it is lighter. But it also got me wondering wether F2 would wobble... What do you think?
I am planning to scan it on a high end equipment.

One little extra question for film grain - would it be safe to shoot on (kodak portra) iso 400 for the detail I'm aiming, or is it better to use 160?

thank you!

[interneg]

Dear Interneg,

thank you so much for such a quick and thorough response, it really helped a lot already!
As for the camera, right now I am testing Sinar P2. I am a little afraid the whole set up might become really heavy, I was tempted by the Sinar F2 or some other lighter monorail, for the mere fact it is lighter. But it also got me wondering wether F2 would wobble... What do you think?
I am planning to scan it on a high end equipment.

One little extra question for film grain - would it be safe to shoot on (kodak portra) iso 400 for the detail I'm aiming, or is it better to use 160?

thank you!

I don't think I've ever really encountered a genuinely wobbly Sinar (unless worn out) - personally, I like the Norma, but more because of looks than anything! The Sinar shutter & the lens system might also be worth a look too. The Sinar tripod head will make the whole camera easier to use too. Regarding film, given that there's no real point in going beyond 3000ppi with LF, either will be good in many situations, but the 160 might have an edge - it's also cooler balanced than 400. I've taken Portra 400 in 120 (from 6x7) to 1m+ across for exhibition printing & it was fine - yes you can see the dye cloud/ graininess, but it looked about right when compared to the same size of fully optical c-prints from similar negatives. There's a few tricks to it, but nothing that a modicum of time, money & effort won't solve!

[David E. Rose]

I would suggest that a 90mm might be a better starting point if you are looking to make images like the ones you posted, they look fairly wide. A 90mm is the workhorse lens for architectural work. It would be the lens of choice for most exterior work, with a 120mm coming in second. For interiors, for me it would be about even between the 90mm and the 75mm, occasionally even the 65mm. Everyone's vision is different. You might check out an older edition of Norman McGrath's book on Architectural Photography, he has some great examples of 4x5 lens selection and its impact on perspective.

[Bob Salomon]

I would suggest that a 90mm might be a better starting point if you are looking to make images like the ones you posted, they look fairly wide. A 90mm is the workhorse lens for architectural work. It would be the lens of choice for most exterior work, with a 120mm coming in second. For interiors, for me it would be about even between the 90mm and the 75mm, occasionally even the 65mm. Everyone's vision is different. You might check out an older edition of Norman McGrath's book on Architectural Photography, he has some great examples of 4x5 lens selection and its impact on perspective.

Lens selection does not effect perspective. Perspective is only controlled by camera angle. Not focal length, not by camera to subject distance. Only by camera angle.

Perhaps you are confusing perspective with foreshortening. That is controlled by focal length and camera to subject distance. The closer to the camera the larger an item will appear in relation to items further from the camera. The wider the lens the greater the effect.

[computress]

Thank you, Interneg, Thank you, David. E. Rose, thank you, Bob Salomon! <3

[Bernice Loui]

Moderate wide for 4x5 would be 100mm to 135mm. There are a number of lenses that are made in this range:

105mm f8 Fujinon.
110mm f5.6 Schneider SSXL.
115mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon.
120mm & 121mm f8 Super Angulon.
125mm f8 Fujinon.

once up to 135mm, there are choices of various f5.6 Plasmats that just cover 4x5 with modest camera movements.

The sample images appear to have been made with a moderate wide angle lens. for 8x10 that would be about 200mm focal length.

The 90mm on 4x5 is one of the most common focal lengths used for 4x5 with many choices from Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider Nikon and some others that are vintage including goerz.

Curious as to the note about too much distortion from the 65mm on 6x7_6x8 Fuji GX and "Soft" ?
Know Fujinon offers the same 65mm lens in shutter for sheet film and it is not bad at all, it is quite good.



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Any Sinar camera in good working condition that has not been broken, wore out, abused will NOT be wobbly. The F, F1, F2 will do fine with any of the current lens choices. Difference between the Sinar P -vs- P2 is color and the flip knob to adjust tilt or swing. Otherwise they are essentially much the same. Cost for a Sinar P is typically less than a P2. The Sinar Norma is in many way a better choice than any of the F series due to it's build quality and precision and few if any plastic parts. Weight wise, Norma is equal or less than a F.

To fully utilize the camera's movements and lens image circle get a bag bellows for any Sinar choice. It is essential and needed when camera movements often needed for this kind of image making.

Do seriously consider a Sinar pan-tilt tripod head. These simply work for Sinar cameras.


Bernice



[QUOTE=computress;1496395]
As for the camera, right now I am testing Sinar P2. I am a little afraid the whole set up might become really heavy, I was tempted by the Sinar F2 or some other lighter monorail, for the mere fact it is lighter. But it also got me wondering wether F2 would wobble... What do you think?

/QUOTE]

[Jac@stafford.net]

Just how wide do we want to go? 47mm XL?