Greg... Yes, I know but he also stated that he recognizes "buyer's remorse" with respect to buying less than adequate lenses for his purpose. I did address cost moderation in my post.What other (wide) lenses will meet the OP's requirements... regardless of cost? The normal and long lenses can easily be substituted but not the wide ones.
ONF....I'm with you...
.but at the risk of seeming glib, I wouldn't waste my time putting those great lenses on a 617cm when 5x7 would kill it every time, all day long.
I'm also not sure why the OP would go to the effort of building a 617 view camera when you could buy a Shen Hao for just under $1600....?
I get as much movement as my camera can provide at that FL with my Nikkor on 6x17. I think my suggestion is still justified. Unless he is shooting a vertical panorama and wants even more vertical rise, I don't think the Nikkor would disappoint, ever. Not to mention it's fantastically sharp, cheap (comparatively), and not very rare.
You're right Corran. I don't know the project....but if I wanted wide....I'd drop down to 6x12 and use a 47mm...which is what the panorama master Jay Dusard does at times....
What's the matter with the 115 Grandagon? That's a nice lens!
Frank... Nothing is wrong with the 115mm Grandagon. It's an outstanding optic. But polymerase wrote the wider the better and a 72mm SA XL will cover 6x17cm with a little wiggle room. He also hinted that bulk and weight are issues and the 115 Grandy is HUGE. Since he also stated that he wants considerable room for movements then the 90mm SA XL is the logical choice, IMHO.
Greg... polymerase wants to shoot 6x17cm, not 6x12cm. Otherwise I'd agree with you except, for the ultimate in ultra-wide on 6x12cm, I'd opt for a 38mm SA XL.
ONF..... Your S. Tex oilwells must be doing better than mine in Alberta....
my 4 3/8" Dagor is it for me on 5x7.....
Greg... Understood but, unfortunately, I own no erlwells, as we Texans would say.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks