120mm for 4x5

[David Karp]

If you don't need a huge image circle, and would like a smaller lens, consider a Fujinon W 125mm f/5.6. The version I have, with EBC mulitcoating has a 198mm image circle and takes 52mm filters. It is one of my favorites.

[Los]

sheldon,

i need huge coverage. my fuji 135 is listed as having a 208mm image circle, and it's not enough because i use large movements at near wide open on the stop for selective focus compositions. 280mm+ image circle would be right up my alley.

[kevin kelly]

The super angulon 120 f8 has 280'ish mm at f22. It weighs 0.7 kg, so its a fairly bulky lens.

[Bob Salomon]

The 115mm 6.8 Grandagon and the Grandagon-N versions cover a 291mm circle at f22. If you do a lot of movements then you might need the center filter. If your camera does base tilts then you might need the center filter. If you don't do extreme movements then you may not need a center filter, if your camera has optical axis movements then you might not need the center filter. If you do not stop down at least 2 stops a center filter would not work. You might like the fall off in the scene and decide that you don't need a center filter. If you are doing interior shots you can overlight the edges and elin=minate the need for a center filter. If you have trees and forest at the edges of an outdoor scene you probably would not need a center filter.

In short, there is no one answer to the center filter question. Just go and shoot with the lens and see if for what you shoot, when you shoot and how you shoot you need it or not.

The 115 would not be trading coverage for sharpness. It is a wide coverage, sharp lens. But large.

[Uusilehto]

I love my 120/8 Super-Angulon on 4x5". It's a nice general wide-angle with lots and lots of room for movements. Always in the backpack.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have a Nikkor 120 SW and use if for both 4x5 and 8x10. A centre filter is not necessary for 4x5 but is for 8x10.

[Jack Brauer]

For what it's worth... I made the switch from 135 to 120 and am happy I did so, the extra space makes all the difference. I bought a Schneider 120mm APO-L - it's my favorites lens now... very sharp (and light).

[paulr]

Among modern ones, a multicoated 120 super angulon gives excellent image quality and can be found for not too much money. Drawbacks are size, weight, and speed. I've had one for years and love it. My only complaint is that it was hard to use when I was taking night pictures.

A 110 super symmar xl is faster, smaller, lighter and has better image quality at wide apertures and large magnifications, but is a hair less sharp at infinity and normal apertures. I doubt you'll find any bargains, since it's a current model and everyone loves it.

The 120 super symmar hm is probably the sharpest lens ever made in the focal length. It's also big, and offers much less coverage than the other two. If you don't need much in the way of movements, it would be an interesting choice.

[Mark Stahlke]

I wonder why nobody has mentioned the 115/6.8 Grandagon in this thread. That's a lens I don't seem to hear much about. Is there a reason for that?

Cheers,
Mark

[paulr]

I wonder why nobody has mentioned the 115/6.8 Grandagon in this thread. That's a lens I don't seem to hear much about. Is there a reason for that?

I haven't used it but it looks like a good lens ... very similar to the 120 super angulon. Big and fat. It's slightly faster. On paper it's a bit better at wide apertures and high magnifications, a bit worse at infinity and f22. Splitting hairs, but that's what we do when we compare lenses.