5X7 Wide Angle Lenses

[Kevin Crisp]

Well, after you put the wrong one on "a few" times and then the right one you will instinctively know which is the right one. [Or would that be learning and not instinct?] It takes some practice. Eventually you'll just see what you want in your mind's eye and know the lens most likely to get you there.

[Lachlan 717]

Well, I think its a reasonable question/statement - its just a point of reference to give me an idea what field of view it will produce.

Unfortunately, this is a fundamentally flawed question, made worse by asking about wide angle.

The flaw is the differences in height/width ratio between formats. 35mm is different to 4x5. 4x5 is different to 5x7. So, from the get go, you are not comparing the same things. If your width ratio is greater, your view will appear wider.

Added to this is the increased effect per mm as you reduce FL in WA lenses. The difference between a 90mm and a 75mm is visually significant. I find that even 75-72mm makes an obvious difference.

I'm not suggesting not to ask the question; however, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the responses. The responses are possibly a good starting point, but (in my opinion) not much more.

[Jeff Keller]

One of the main reasons I shoot LF is so that the prints can be bigger. With a bigger print I find I often prefer a wider angle of view (the little things aren't so little).

You can use simple proportions to get the equivalent 35mm focal length.

7" = 178mm, 35mm film -> 36mm on long side
24mm focal len x (178/36) = 119mm (for 5x7)

For "5x7" to have the same aspect ration as 35mm, it would be 5"x7.5". Seldom is 35mm film printed 8x12 or 10x15 so 5x7 has essentially the same aspect as 35mm film.

YMMV,
Jeff Keller

The flaw is the differences in height/width ratio between formats. 35mm is different to 4x5. 4x5 is different to 5x7. So, from the get go, you are not comparing the same things. If your width ratio is greater, your view will appear wider.

[roresteen]

All great points, for sure.

"its just a point of reference"...a place to start, not end! I have always assumed there could not be a true comparison for the reasons stated above..

I am thinking a 120 ish along with my 210 should be more than enough for both 4x5 and 5x7 formats...now for a 5x7 to 4x5 reducing back for a B&J Grover...

Thank you all again for your input - nothing like getting hundreds of years "experience" in a matter of days!

[alexn]

72mm F/5.6 Super Angulon XL would be the best wide angle for a 5x7 I would think...

[Kevin Crisp]

Best in what sense?

[evan clarke]

The 110 SS XL has about 30% more image circle than the 72 XL..

[Doug Webb]

These are possibilities that are affordable, that is maybe a thousand dollars or more less than a 110 XL
1. Wollensak will cover 5x7 with a little movement if focused at hyperforcal distance and stopped down to at least f32
2. Angulon same
3. Fujinon lot of coverage more expensive by maybe couple of hunderd


Attachment 67795

Attachment 67796

[Kevin Crisp]

No 90mm angulon I've had will cover 5X7 straight on and be sharp in the corners. It will illuminate 5X7 but not be acceptably sharp much beyond 4x5 even if stopped way down.

[Graybeard]

The old single coated 135mm Fujinon W will cover. Nice and small.

I sold mine here on the forum before I got a 5x7 back for my camera. I kind of wish I still had it!

Ditto on the Fujinon W 135: it will cover 5x7 but recognize that movements are limited. I use this lens regularly, mounted in a recessed lensboard, on a Tachihara 5x7.