Wide Angle Questions?

[Michael R. Reynolds]

Thanks to all for these very helpful comments. Regards, Michael

[BOB BERESFORD]

For brightness - current and future - a progression might be 150 then 80 XL then a Nikon 105 W cheap -( even new at B & H ) then a Nikon 65 F 4....makes wide angle shooting really pleasant. Then a 200 - 240 ?

[christopher walrath]

One more thing to bear in mind, measure your camera and make sure you can focus in to 80mm before jumping in with it.

[archivue]

while all good at longdistance, the 80 xl is much better at closer distance, than all the 90 Wide angles !

I've choose the 80XL, and the good thing if that all my wide angles lens share the same CF... 58xl, 80xl, 110xl !
i've notice more fall off with the 80 xl than with regular 90, but using the CF anything is OK !

[Don Dudenbostel]

Depending on where you are you will find the best answer is to rent a Nikon, a Schneider, a Rodenstock and a Fuji and compare them yourself. If you are near Phoenix, Rod at Photomart has actual comparison chromes of them all that you could see.

From you personal evaluation of these lenses what differences do you see? I know from experience that different brands can render color different as well as different models within a brand. Some are warmer and some cooler with some more neutral. Years ago when the Super Symmar HM came out I was interested in one. I had a 210 Symmar S and Schneider shipped me a 210 Super Symmar to evaluate. I shot chromes in the studio on the same batch of film and had them run at the same time to eliminate variations of any kind. Exposures were with UV corrected speedotron strobes and film was exposed the same with each lens. To my surprise the Symmar S had a much more neutral color than the HM. The differences were quite pronounced with a difference of 10G in the HM.

[Daniel_Buck]

If it is the 90/8 Nikkor you're considering, there is also the issue of brightness of the GG image during focusing and composition to consider. I started with the 90/8 and found it too dark for my eyes unless I spent an extra few minutes under the dark cloth for my eyes to adjust. So, I switched to the 90/5.6 SA XL.

I have the super angulon 90/8. While I was still just borrowing the lens (before I commited to the purchase) I rented the 90/5.6 because I had similar conserns about brightness. When I got out and compaired them, I found that the 5.6 wasn't a huge amount different. It was a bit brighter, but didn't seem worth the extra size and weight (and probably price). I've been perfectly happy with the 90/8! However, I shoot usually when the light is still fairly bright, I don't shoot night time, the 5.6 might be better for night time.

[Hany Aziz]

For brightness - current and future - a progression might be 150 then 80 XL then a Nikon 105 W cheap -( even new at B & H ) then a Nikon 65 F 4....makes wide angle shooting really pleasant. Then a 200 - 240 ?

I believe the Nikkor 105 is designed to cover 6x9 (cm) and will not cover 4x5 comfortably. I think the Fuji 105 will just cover 4x5. If money is no object then 80, 110 (Schneider Super Symmar XL), 150 may not be a bad choice. Several companies also make 120s for both 4x5 (compact) or as a wide angle for 5x7 (bulky but with great coverage).

It varies from person to person and their way of seeing, but I do wonder if you will be using your wide angles as much in LF. BTW the 110 is close to the long end (24) of your 12-24 or even slightly wider. I suspect you would use it more than the 80. A 90 mm is a good practical wide in 4x5 equivalent roughly to a 28 mm lens field of you on 35 mm (roughly 18 mm on your zoom). I am assuming your Digital is an APS sized sensor.

Sincerely,

Hany.

[Nick_3536]

The Fuji 105mm SW covers 250mm. It's not exactly the most common lens but easily covers 4x5/5x7. It is a F/8 lens.

[BOB BERESFORD]

Gather that Michael is going to 4 x 5 tops - so a 110 XL is likely to be unnecessarily heavy - more shift than needed. A Nikon 105 is rated as a 6 x 9 lens but covers 4 X 5 - just not a lot of shift ( I have one ). But very light. 150 is light. For landscape you are best to build a collection of light and usable lenses so you don't miss the picture - which will be an optimum view ( and focal length ) from a certain spot...unlike portraiture, moving normally doesn't help. Reaching in and compressing ( eg with 240 - 400 ) often works better.
At some point you'll be wanting a 58 or 65 ( 75 at worst )...check how many guys here use those....they also let you use rollbacks - real handy.
6 light lenses will end up more useful than 3 heavy and expensive ones. Fuji make some great light compacts, and I prefer their colour gradation to Nikon - but main thing is to have a lens that will get the optimum frame in the landscape.
You need to "see" wide or compressed etc at different times.
Apo lenses have better colour intensity - and are possibly warmer - seem to look that way........is the Super Symmar an Apo ? new ones are, and pricy.

[Michael R. Reynolds]

Thanks to all for sharing these insights. I ended up getting the used 80mm XL. I'm very pleased with its performance. I'd love to get a 110mm XL, but they seem hard to find and expensive. Thanks again to everyone.
Best Regards,
Michael