Wide/Ultra Wide lenses

[Steve Barber]

Hi all,

I know this question has been asked millions of times maybe, and because i am lazy to search, i would like to ask this question.

What is the widest lens or say wide angle lenses can be used for 4x5 say wider than 90mm? some may say that 90mm is wide enough or maybe 120 and so, but i really want something to be so wide for 4x5 camera, say equivalent to 24mm and wider, many times with my 35mm format i use lens 16-35mm at 16mm, but i think i will be happy with range of 20-24mm, so which lens i can use for 4x5 without issues such as image circle coverage?

Thanks

I do not think you are going to get what you are looking for in going from a 35mm frame with a 20-24mm lens to a 4x5 frame using a similarly wide lens, say 75-90mm, because of the difference in aspect ratios. I suggest you try a different approach with an aspect ratio that is wider than the 35mm’s 1.5 to 1, width to height..

I like the Hasselblad XPan, which, basically, does this with a panoramic ratio of about 2.8 to 1. Sometimes, however, the problem with the XPan is that it will not allow large enough prints to get the desired detail. For this reason, I started using a Da-Yi 6x17 back on a 4x5 camera. This works, within the limitations that are caused by moving the film plane away from the normal 4x5 film plane location, and greatly increases the film area allowing a much larger print than a similar frame from the XPan. But, most of the time, it is over-kill and causes unnecessary inconvenience with the time and effort needed to switch to the Da-Yi ground glass back for focusing and, then, switching, again, to the Da-Yi film back to make the shot. Worse, you end up with a negative that is probably larger than needed and too large for a 4x5 enlarger.

What, finally, for me, provided the solution is to use a cut down dark slide with a 4x5 camera. This gives a frame that is almost 2 times the length and width of the XPan frame with its same aspect ratio of 2.8 to 1 and three and one half times more film area making it possible to produce large enough prints, most of the time, where the XPan is not large enough, while still using a 4x5 enlarger. If a negative larger than that is needed, then I use the Da-Yi or a cut down 8x10 dark slide with an 8x10 camera and a comparable lens for it.

Normal for the XPan camera is a 45mm lens, which, with XPan’s larger frame size, is the equivalent of your 22mm for the width of a regular 35mm frame. The 4x5 camera, with a cut down dark slide, gives a negative twice as long and wide as the XPan’s and the equivalent lens would be a 90mm. You could start with that, try it on a 4x5 camera and, if it does not seem wide enough, then try cutting down a dark slide to make a frame about 42x120mm in height and width and see if that is not more what you are looking for. If that does not work, then try a 65 or 72mm lens. However, I think you will find that the 90, with a wider aspect ratio, will be wide enough and, in either the regular 4x5 format or what I think of as the "Super XPan", it will be much more useful than the wider ones, such as the 65 or 72mm lenses.

[Professional]

I looked at a PDF file of Schneider lens chart and saw that circle image diagram, and from what i see that some wide XL lenses cover 4x5 such as 58, 72, 80,..., so is those 58 and 72 from the diagram have issues i don't know or there are different models of 72 and 75 that some will cover and some not? I am sure that 90mm will be fine and wide i want, but i want to discuss and see if there any wider option than 90mm for 4x5 to go with, if there is then i will look at it, if there is not then simply i have to stay with 90mm and don't think wider, also from some comments i found out that with some adjustments or movements i may lose some rooms with 90mm so then i feel i want something wider that i can go if i have to do adjustments, i am new to this LF world and i want to know most of what it should be, and i really don't ask to have the widest lens for LF, just i want to be at wide as maybe 20 or even 18mm sometimes, i don't want something as 10mm or 14mm on 35mm equiv., and that 90mm from some charts it come to about 24mm or 27mm of 35mm equiv., honestly i know that there are times i want to go even wider than 22mm.

[vizion]

I can recommend the 58mm super angulon XL -- beautiful lens but do not forget to budget for the center filter. This comment also applies to the 90mm Rodenstock Grandagon N 4.5 which is my preferred lens at 90mm.

David

[Ari]

Or try a modern-ish 75mm f5.6 from any of the big lens makers.

[Professional]

I can recommend the 58mm super angulon XL -- beautiful lens but do not forget to budget for the center filter. This comment also applies to the 90mm Rodenstock Grandagon N 4.5 which is my preferred lens at 90mm.

David

Thanks David,

I was not sure which 90mm to get, so is that one or SA?

[Professional]

Or try a modern-ish 75mm f5.6 from any of the big lens makers.

Will be in the checking out list.

[rdenney]

OK, it seems that i may think about 38mm or 47mm because i may use a roll back in the future, so will that be a good idea to go with something like 38mm or 47mm maybe? What will be 38mm and 47mm on 6x12 and 6x17 roll backs equivalent to 35mm format?

It is difficult to compare short focal lengths between different shapes and sizes of formats. You can divide the focal length by the horizontal dimension of the format, or by the diagonal of the format, and that gives you a factor that can be applied to other formats. But that only gives you an idea.

But, to do some math, a 21mm lens in 24x36 format is just about half the diagonal of that format. A 75mm lens gives you about half the diagonal in 4x5. For 6x12, it's about 60 or 65mm that gives you half the diagonal. But 6x12 is such a different shape than 4x5 the feel will be different.

I find that a 47 on the 6x12 format will give me an extremely wide sense--perhaps sometime like I would expect with a 17 or 18mm lens on small format. On 6x7, a 47 is a strong wide--sorta like a 24 on small format. With 6x9, a direct comparison is much easier, the 47 is about like a 20.

On 4x5, a 90 feels to me like a 24 does on small format, and a 65 feels like an 18.

If you want the feel of a 20-22mm small-format lens on 4x5, see if you can borrow a 75 to try out.

By the way, if you get a 47 for use with roll-film, you don't need the latest 47XL. The older 47/5.6 non-XL will cover roll-film formats, though it's marginal on 6x12.

Remember that focal length and coverage are different dimensions. The ability to move the camera close to get the exaggerated perspective is a function of focal length only, as long as the lens in question has sufficient coverage for your format.

All modern 75mm large-format lenses have coverage for 4x5, including the Schneider Super Angulon (any of them), Rodenstock Grandagon, Fuji SWD, and Nikkor-SW. If you want to use movements, then the variations in their coverage become more important. Nearly all 65mm wide-coverage designs will also cover 4x5, though some were designed for smaller formats (the old 65/8 Super Angulon is the most marginal of these). Lenses shorter than that are too short for what you describe, in the 4x5 format.

There are many ways to convert between equivalent focal lengths in different formats, but they feel different in different formats, especially considering the different way in which most people approach the different types of cameras. What seems nice-and-wide on 35mm might seems freakishly wide on 4x5, when comparing equivalent focal lengths.

When I want the feel of a 24mm lens on small format, I grab a 45 for 6x7, a 47 for 6x9, a 65 for 6x12, and a 90 for 4x5.

Rick "who likes short lenses" Denney

[Professional]

It is difficult to compare short focal lengths between different shapes and sizes of formats. You can divide the focal length by the horizontal dimension of the format, or by the diagonal of the format, and that gives you a factor that can be applied to other formats. But that only gives you an idea.

But, to do some math, a 21mm lens in 24x36 format is just about half the diagonal of that format. A 75mm lens gives you about half the diagonal in 4x5. For 6x12, it's about 60 or 65mm that gives you half the diagonal. But 6x12 is such a different shape than 4x5 the feel will be different.

I find that a 47 on the 6x12 format will give me an extremely wide sense--perhaps sometime like I would expect with a 17 or 18mm lens on small format. On 6x7, a 47 is a strong wide--sorta like a 24 on small format. With 6x9, a direct comparison is much easier, the 47 is about like a 20.

On 4x5, a 90 feels to me like a 24 does on small format, and a 65 feels like an 18.

If you want the feel of a 20-22mm small-format lens on 4x5, see if you can borrow a 75 to try out.

By the way, if you get a 47 for use with roll-film, you don't need the latest 47XL. The older 47/5.6 non-XL will cover roll-film formats, though it's marginal on 6x12.

Remember that focal length and coverage are different dimensions. The ability to move the camera close to get the exaggerated perspective is a function of focal length only, as long as the lens in question has sufficient coverage for your format.

All modern 75mm large-format lenses have coverage for 4x5, including the Schneider Super Angulon (any of them), Rodenstock Grandagon, Fuji SWD, and Nikkor-SW. If you want to use movements, then the variations in their coverage become more important. Nearly all 65mm wide-coverage designs will also cover 4x5, though some were designed for smaller formats (the old 65/8 Super Angulon is the most marginal of these). Lenses shorter than that are too short for what you describe, in the 4x5 format.

There are many ways to convert between equivalent focal lengths in different formats, but they feel different in different formats, especially considering the different way in which most people approach the different types of cameras. What seems nice-and-wide on 35mm might seems freakishly wide on 4x5, when comparing equivalent focal lengths.

When I want the feel of a 24mm lens on small format, I grab a 45 for 6x7, a 47 for 6x9, a 65 for 6x12, and a 90 for 4x5.

Rick "who likes short lenses" Denney

Thanks,

I just decided to get 90mm first, then later 75mm for 4x5, i am sure those 2 lenses will do a great job for me at the wide side, and about roll film formats i will think about it later, maybe i will use good normal or a bit wide lens and not looking to be super wide lens on it, as you said, that dimension of 6x17 maybe i will not think to go with ultra wide lens, it will give me panoramic view whatever lens it is and that is enough for me.

[Cornelius]

For what it's worth my vote goes for the 75mm too. I personally don't like the angle of view from a 90, and regularly use a 120mm except when I a bit more coverage. I use the Grandagon 4.5 MC whenever I'm shooting interiors. It's equivalent to a 19mm in 35mm format, has good illumination, and a fair amount of movement. Like others have noted earlier you may need a bag bellows though I get by without one. Good luck!

[Professional]

For what it's worth my vote goes for the 75mm too. I personally don't like the angle of view from a 90, and regularly use a 120mm except when I a bit more coverage. I use the Grandagon 4.5 MC whenever I'm shooting interiors. It's equivalent to a 19mm in 35mm format, has good illumination, and a fair amount of movement. Like others have noted earlier you may need a bag bellows though I get by without one. Good luck!

Honestly speaking, 90mm is there in my list for sure, but the other lens i was thinking to add after 90mm and 210 many times was 75mm, i thought about 72 or 65 or even those 38/47 XL lenses, but i just keep my mind going back and forth on 75mm, and something telling me that i won't look for wider than 75mm but i am sure i will think about something a bit wider if i get only 90mm, so i will get 90mm anyway[i hope] then i have to see if that 75mm will be next.