Hello,
I am using an ebony sv45 and am looking to replace my 90 mm F6.8 Super-Angulon. Its hard for me to get any rise out of the camera when I have this lens attached. I am happy with the image quality, but since I am using it mainly to shoot architecture, I need to have the ability to get more rise out of the camera using the lens. Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks,
Rob
How is a different 90mm lens going to help? The problem is not the lens but the camera and the compressed bellows. Is a wide angle bellows available for the camera. If not you might try a lens that is slightly longer, perhaps the Schneider 110.
steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com
It is unclear to me if the inability to get rise is due to the 90mm rear element projecting back so far, or the fact that a 90 has to be so close to the ground glass? with your camera. All the modern 90mm view camera lenses (Fuji, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock) are of the "wasp-waist" design with a big rear element. The older 90mm designs, such as a 90mm Angulon (not Super-Angulon) do not have any rear protrusion beyond the lensboard, but they also don't have much excess coverage beyond 4x5. So you wouldn't be able to use a lot of rise. An older "wide field" design lens such as a Dagor of about 100mm or so, would have coverage stopped down, and this "might" be an alternative.
If you scan your film, there is the alternative of just tilting the camera to get the shot, and applying perspective correction in Photoshop.
Ah, I didn't realize that the rear element was similarly large on other 90mm lenses. I thought this was the problem. Thanks for the info.
You also need to check the flange focal length of the lens. The longer the flange focal length the less bellows compression will be necessary for any given focal length. In addition a recessed lensboard may make it easier to use your lens or another 90mm lens on your camera. Lastly does your camera offer a wide angle bellows? That would also help.
Ole would say differently, he has some example pictures of Angulon 90mm f/6.8 shot at around f/22 or f/32 covering 5x7 (or more precisely 13x18cm) without significant fall-off or terrible softening of edges. It could well be sample to sample variability...Originally Posted by Gene McCluney
Jiri Vasina
www.vasina.net
@ Google+ | @ Facebook | @ flickr
My books @ Blurb (only heavily outdated "Serene Landscape").
Oh, there is no doubt there is some rise available, particularly if you are shooting a horizontal format image, but with a verticle image (such as may be required for architecture) the coverage would be more maxed out. Heck, I even get "some" rise from a 90mm Graflex Optar, but the edges are soft. It works for me, because of the types of subject material I like to shoot. I recently acquired a standard 90mm Angulon, and will be trying this out soon, but my subject material requires a horizontal format to the shots. Of course, with all these lenses, it helps to stop right on down to f32.
Just as a comment here. The IDEAL set-up for architecture photography is a monorail type camera with a bag bellows. There are some brands of monorail view cameras that can be acquired used for quite reasonable prices. Brands such as Toyo, Omega, Cambo, Calumet, etc. Entry level monorail type view cameras were offered under all these names. Bellows and lensboards readily available.
I would say that there is significant fall-off, and visible softening in the corners. But I would also say that many (myself included) would find that perfectly acceptable at small apertures.
Precisely to avoid sample-to-sample variability I used two of the little things - one from 1939, one from 1951. There is a slight but detectible difference between the two.
The plain Angulon wouldn't be my choise for architecture, though. I would use my f:8 Super Angulon, but then I have a camera (no - several cameras) which can use the full image circle without problems with bellows interference. For architecture a monorail might be better than the Ebony SV45 - or a 5x7" camera with a 4x5" back (I have both a "monorail" Carbon Infinity and a Gandolfi 8x10" with 4x5" back)...
Why not simply use a shorter focal length, then crop the final result? Wouldn't a modern 75mm with a little bit of movement provide a solution?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks