lightweight wide-ish 5x7 lens recommendations

[aclark]

I'm planning on making a lightweight 5x7 camera and already have the perfect lightweight lens to go with it - a Kodak 203mm Ektar. But I'm also looking for recommendations for something wider. It must be lightweight (I have a 121mm Super Angulon which would fit the bill regarding focal length but is far too heavy for the lightweight outfit I have in mind)
Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

Alan

[Kevin Crisp]

150 G Claron

[mdarnton]

108mm Raptar

[Michael Graves]

I have a 125mm 5.6 Fujinon-W that covers with a little room for movement and is very tiny. It's also very sharp. If you don't need a whole lot of movement, you might consider one of those. (No, you can't have mine.)

[angusparker]

Fujinon A 180 and 240mm f9. Small and sharp in modern shutter.

[8x10 user]

Some specimens of the 7" (178mm) Cooke Series II will cover 5x7. Look for early versions without soft focus or a lens hood, mine is marked 5x7. Its actually a small and lightweight lens (unlike most cooke's, especially later soft focus versions). It's an F/4.5 lens so it is bright and easy to focus with. The out of focus areas (bokeh) are very nice. The downside is that it is not available with a shutter so you would need to use something like a packard shutter, have the lens mounted with a copal shutter, or use the "Galli" method.

The 7" Cooke is the only sharp lens in my 5x7 field kit. The other lenses in my pack are the 12-20" (variable FL, telephoto) soft focus Bergheim, a couple of soft focus meniscus/semi achromatic, and a 9" Hyperion.

[Dan Fromm]

I have a 125mm 5.6 Fujinon-W that covers with a little room for movement and is very tiny. It's also very sharp. If you don't need a whole lot of movement, you might consider one of those. (No, you can't have mine.)

Um, yeah, but Fuji sold 125/5.6 lenses with less coverage than yours so if the OP goes for one he's going to have to be very careful about what he buys. See http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm

[Bill_1856]

Try the Ektar for a while before spending money on anything else.

[aclark]

Try the Ektar for a while before spending money on anything else.

Bill, I have been using the Ektar for a while on an old Victorian half-plate camera that I converted to 5x7. Some days I think it's all I need. But on other days I feel the need for a wider lens. This post was to cover those other days....
Thanks for the replies everyone.
Dan, I see what you mean. The NW in your useful link only has an image circle of 195mm, and this doesn't cover 5x7. The 125 Fujinon W only does 210mm according to the chart, and this barely covers 5x7 either. But I assume the coverage increase when you stop down.

Alan

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

150 G Claron

Small, light, sharp, and cheap.

[David Karp]

The single coated 135mm Fujinon W covers 5x7.

[Kevin Crisp]

I know some have said the 150 g.c. just "barely" covers 5X7 but my experience (f:22 or f:32) is that there is substantial room for movement, certainly at least 1.5" of rise. They do seem to be quite inexpensive these days.

[aclark]

The only movement I'll be building into the camera is front tilt, so extra coverage won't really be needed...

Alan

[Steve Goldstein]

A 165mm Angulon (not Super-Angulon) in a Compur 2 is reasonably lightweight, though you might find it too close in focal length to your Ektar.

As Dan mentioned, if you go for the 125mm Fujinon-W, be sure to get the one with the so-called "inside lettering" as this version has the most coverage. Inside lettering means you can read the identifying information when looking into the lens from the front (subject side, not film side). Later versions have the lettering on the outside of the barrel. There's also a 135mm version if you think 125mm is too wide; both are f/5.6. The G-Claron is even smaller and lighter, but is f/9, which may or may not matter to you - if it does, look for a 150mm inside-lettering Fujinon-W. Inside-lettering Fujinons and G-Clarons are all single-coated. My 125mm inside-lettering Fujinon-W weighs 180 grams in its Seiko 0 shutter, and takes 46mm filters. It is indeed tiny.

[Drew Wiley]

Some of those recommendations have marginal image circles.... dunno about 5x7. The 180A would be OK with limited movements, the 240A would have plenty of wiggle room. The 125 Fuji is fairly tight even on 4x5.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I just got a 120 mm Schneider Angulon from KEH for $280. Super small, very light and plenty of coverage for 5X7. I also have a Nikon 120mm SW but it is BIG and Heavy, but outstanding as well.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'll second the 135mm Fujinon-W (with writing on front). But be aware it may not be quite as razor-sharp in the far corners as a more modern and pricier alternative. However, these are as good as or better than most and stopped down you'll not likely see a difference even compared against the very best options. What I like about the 135-203 combination is the spacing between focal lengths. If you add a 90mm and 300mm later then you'll have focal lengths with 1.5x spacing between them all.

90
135
203
300 (or 305)

Just something to keep in mind regarding future lens purchases.

[aclark]

I'll second the 135mm Fujinon-W (with writing on front). But be aware it may not be quite as razor-sharp in the far corners as a more modern and pricier alternative. However, these are as good as or better than most and stopped down you'll not likely see a difference even compared against the very best options. What I like about the 135-203 combination is the spacing between focal lengths. If you add a 90mm and 300mm later then you'll have focal lengths with 1.5x spacing between them all.

90
135
203
300 (or 305)

Just something to keep in mind regarding future lens purchases.

And something to keep in mind when I am designing the camera. Useful advice.

Many thanks everyone,

Alan

[Pete Watkins]

150 G-Claron & Ektar 203 are about the only lenses that I use on the good old B&J.
Pete

[aclark]

150 G-Claron & Ektar 203 are about the only lenses that I use on the good old B&J.
Pete

Hello Pete, I used to live not far from you. Is your "B&J" 5x7?

Alan

[Vaughn]

There is the 6.25" (159mm) 12.5 Ex Wide Angle Wollensak. For 8x10, but using in 5x7 would give a lot of wiggle room. Slow lens, though.

Some that were sold here a while back:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?76509-FS-A-Pair-of-Lovely-6-1-4-quot-F12-5-Wollensak-Extreme-Wide-Angles&highlight=6.25++f12.5+wollensak

[Greg Y]

a tiny 4 3/8" Dagor & a 150 G Claron cover things for me in 5x7.

[Lachlan 717]

The only movement I'll be building into the camera is front tilt, so extra coverage won't really be needed...

Alan

Alan,

You might want to check this statement. Front tilt requires additional coverage as it moves the projected "cone" up or down on the film plane. If you tilt too far, this cone will partially go off the film.

Rear tilt requires less coverage than from tilt as you're generally moving the film within the projected cone. It will distort the image to a certain extent, though.

[djdister]

A 180mm Fujinon-W is a nice compact lens for 5x7.

[aclark]

Alan,

You might want to check this statement. Front tilt requires additional coverage as it moves the projected "cone" up or down on the film plane. If you tilt too far, this cone will partially go off the film.

Rear tilt requires less coverage than from tilt as you're generally moving the film within the projected cone. It will distort the image to a certain extent, though.

Thanks Lachlan. I didn't put it too well but what I meant was I wouldn't need the extra coverage required by a rising front.

Alan

[jbenedict]

165 Angulon. Fairly small, covers 8x10 (depending what you accept in the corners) and is fairly modern. In the last six months, I have seen them on daBay for $300-400.

[William Whitaker]

My 5x7 wide angle is a 7" f/6.8 Dagor in an Acme #3 shutter. It works for me, but paired with a 203 Ektar, I don't think the focal length difference would be enough to make it worthwhile. For conventional (read "not panoramic") formats, I've always favored a lens pair that consisted of one equivalent to the long side of the format and one equivalent to about twice the short side of the format. So, for 5x7 I have the 7" Dagor and a 9 1/2" Dagor. That works for me and it's a lightweight and fairly compact kit. But to complement a 203, it seems maybe something in the 135 range would make more sense. My 2¢ fwiw.

[John Kasaian]

In my 5x7 kit, that slot if filled by an 8x10 159mm Wollensak WA like the ones mentioned by Vaughn. Very small and lightweight. Mine is a yellow dot(single coated) in a reliable Alphax shutter. I think you can still find these relatively cheap but I haven't checked the prices of them lately.

[Robert Ley]

Consider a 135mm Wide Field Ektar. It is a very sharp lens and small in size with a good (235+) IC
I have owned this lens and it is impressive. I also have a 120mm Angulon which is very small but will just cover 5x7 like the 90mm Angulon will just cover 4x5

[Jody_S]

I'd go for the 150 G-Claron as well. I don't know if all of them are as good as mine was, but I could not find fault with it.

[aclark]

Once again, thank you to all who have offered your advice. I have found your comments very useful.

Alan

[Carsten Wolff]

There is the 6.25" (159mm) 12.5 Ex Wide Angle Wollensak. For 8x10, but using in 5x7 would give a lot of wiggle room. Slow lens, though.

Some that were sold here a while back:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?76509-FS-A-Pair-of-Lovely-6-1-4-quot-F12-5-Wollensak-Extreme-Wide-Angles&highlight=6.25++f12.5+wollensak

I opened mine (WA Raptar Version; seems to come in f12.5 and f9.5, but are perhaps different designs) up to f6.8, machining the baffles, for easier viewing. Very nice lens. More common and in a more useful shutter than the 165 Angulon.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I may have missed it, but I'm not sure what you mean by lightweight or wide angle. I got my 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon N (actually the Caltar version) on a 5x7 Hobo camera. It was very wide, doesn't weigh too much and worked well on the camera (no movements). Eventually I sold the Hobo for what I paid for the camera and lens and kept the lens. I found 90mm was usually too wide on 5x7, but nice on 4x5 or 6x17.

[aclark]

I may have missed it, but I'm not sure what you mean by lightweight or wide angle. I got my 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon N (actually the Caltar version) on a 5x7 Hobo camera. It was very wide, doesn't weigh too much and worked well on the camera (no movements). Eventually I sold the Hobo for what I paid for the camera and lens and kept the lens. I found 90mm was usually too wide on 5x7, but nice on 4x5 or 6x17.

Thanks Larry. About the same focal length as my too-heavy 121mm Super Angulon was what I said in my first post. 90 would be too wide for me...

Alan

[rfesk]

I use a 135mm Wide Field Ektar in a focus mount on my lightweight DIY 5X7 point and shoot. Very nice combo IMO. The 150mm G-Claron would be a great choice also.


Consider a 135mm Wide Field Ektar. It is a very sharp lens and small in size with a good (235+) IC
I have owned this lens and it is impressive. I also have a 120mm Angulon which is very small but will just cover 5x7 like the 90mm Angulon will just cover 4x5

[aclark]

I use a 135mm Wide Field Ektar in a focus mount on my lightweight DIY 5X7 point and shoot. Very nice combo IMO. The 150mm G-Claron would be a great choice also.

Does the 135mm Wide Field Ektar come with its own focus mount?

Alan

[Oren Grad]

Does the 135mm Wide Field Ektar come with its own focus mount?

No.

[John Schneider]

133 Cooke Series VIIb is wonderful and will front-mount in a Copal 1. Hard to find and harder to find coated, but worth searching for.

[Old-N-Feeble]

133 Cooke Series VIIb is wonderful and will front-mount in a Copal 1. Hard to find and harder to find coated, but worth searching for.

Pricey though....

[rfesk]

Does the 135mm Wide Field Ektar come with its own focus mount?

Alan

No as previously stated. I purchased a focus mount from a seller in China advertising on e-hay. Had to get the hole enlarged slightly for the
Ektar's shutter.

[aclark]

Your point and shoot 5x7 with focus mount sounds interesting.

Alan

[Jan Pedersen]

Hard to find anything lighter and smaller than the 130mm Rodenstock Perigon.
Will cover 5x7 with lot's of movements.

[Ed Kelsey]

110mm Super Symmar XL !

[schneideritis]

I'd also like to cast a vote for the 150mm G Claron. I have mine in a Prontor, and I used it plenty of times for 5x7. Very light, reasonably inexpensive, and it produces lovely sharpness and contrast.

[Jim Noel]

I'm planning on making a lightweight 5x7 camera and already have the perfect lightweight lens to go with it - a Kodak 203mm Ektar. But I'm also looking for recommendations for something wider. It must be lightweight (I have a 121mm Super Angulon which would fit the bill regarding focal length but is far too heavy for the lightweight outfit I have in mind)
Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

Alan

120 Angulon - only 2 degrees less coverage than the super, and weighs little or nothing.

[aclark]

Thanks again to everyone who has made suggestions. I have more or less got the design for the camera sorted out now; based around my 203mm Ektar. It will take lenses down to about 100, (and up to about 300) I'm inclining towards the 150mm G Claron, but as used large-format lenses aren't exactly plentiful in the UK, I will keep my options open. You have certainly given me plenty of choices!

Alan

[djdister]

I use a 135mm Wide Field Ektar in a focus mount on my lightweight DIY 5X7 point and shoot. Very nice combo IMO. The 150mm G-Claron would be a great choice also.

Could you post a photo of your DIY 5x7 with focus mount?

[rfesk]

Could you post a photo of your DIY 5x7 with focus mount?

I will try in a few days. Thanks for your interest.

[Chuck Pere]

Another is the 120mm Osaka or Congo wide field. Small and in a modern shutter. Might be a little hard to find but should be fairly cheap.

[Dan Fromm]

a tiny 4 3/8" Dagor & a 150 G Claron cover things for me in 5x7.

Greg, do you mean the f/8 wide angle Dagor? I ask because covering 210 mm seems a bit of a stretch for a 4.375"/6.8 Dagor, also because a cursory look in a Goerz catalog found no 4 3/8"/6.8ers.

[Jan Pedersen]

Since there are no 4.375"' 6.8 Dagor Greg most likely meant the f8 and there would be no need to mention the f stop.