PDA

View Full Version : 90mm lens on 8x10



Ari
14-Aug-2015, 10:28
I'm looking for an inexpensive 90mm lens to shoot on 8x10.
What I'm most interested in is how a lens falls off at the corners, i.e., is the transition to dark corners smooth and gradual or is it a well-defined circle?
I would like to find a lens with a soft, gradual falloff, not one that produces a circular image on 8x10.

With that in mind, I've compiled a shortlist of possible candidates:
Schneider Angulon f6.8
Topcor f5.6
Graflex Optar f6.8 (Wollensak)

Does anyone know the falloff characteristics of any of these lenses?
It would really help me nail down a suitable candidate.

Thanks in advance.

Mark Sampson
14-Aug-2015, 12:42
I believe Emmett Gowin used a 90/6.8 Schneider Angulon for his well-known early work, with the round image on 8x10. Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of?

jbenedict
14-Aug-2015, 12:49
Here's a for sale thread which contains a few photos taken with a 90 Angulon with an 8x10 Hobo. This should give you an idea of what that lens is like and maybe the seller has some more photos he can show you.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?124223-FS-8x10-Hobo-II-Camera-with-90mm-Angulon-Lens&highlight=8x10+hobo

Ari
14-Aug-2015, 13:25
I believe Emmett Gowin used a 90/6.8 Schneider Angulon for his well-known early work, with the round image on 8x10. Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of?

Thanks, Mark; I was thinking of that, pretty much; I wonder if there's a way to get an even less defined dark circle. I'm thinking something that gently fades to black, like a very soft vignette.

Ari
14-Aug-2015, 13:25
Here's a for sale thread which contains a few photos taken with a 90 Angulon with an 8x10 Hobo. This should give you an idea of what that lens is like and maybe the seller has some more photos he can show you.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?124223-FS-8x10-Hobo-II-Camera-with-90mm-Angulon-Lens&highlight=8x10+hobo

Thanks, that's what I had envisioned. I'll send him an email.

Louis Pacilla
14-Aug-2015, 16:14
I wonder if there's a way to get an even less defined dark circle. I'm thinking something that gently fades to black, like a very soft vignette.

Hey Ari
Maybe trying a lens design that does not have a stretched IC like a Tessar IC or a faster triplet like a Series II in a FL meant for say 4x5- 3 1/4 x4 1/4 plate maybe a 6", 5" or even 4" FL that would get way less sharp as it falls off and you may want to paly /w those two perimeters design & FL and see what works best to meet your vision. Or try a Vignetter:)

Ari
14-Aug-2015, 16:34
Thanks, Louis, I'll look into that; it sounds quite interesting.

Old-N-Feeble
14-Aug-2015, 16:53
What about a 90mm SAXL... not 8x10 but can barely squeeze 6.5x10 out of it.

Ari
14-Aug-2015, 17:15
Thanks, Mike, but...
I'm looking for an inexpensive 90mm lens to shoot on 8x10.

mdarnton
14-Aug-2015, 20:19
It's an interesting question whether it needs to be a wide wide? Inspired by your question, I put my 90/5.6 Super Angulon on today and was surprised that it just about fully covers 8x10, but for the corners, so that's out. I have several of the American 90s, but I think those are all going to throw sharp edges like an Angulon, being not that much different. Louis' idea to use a more normal lens was good, and I have a Paragon (f4.5 Tessar type) around 165mm or so that I can put on Monday and see how it looks. 165 would still be pretty wide on 8x10, and I think he's right that they just fade out at the edges. I guess the question would be whether the image is gone before 8" width is reached, right?

Tim Meisburger
14-Aug-2015, 22:25
An Optar will not cover due to mechanical vignetting. I think later Angulons were mechanically choked but earlier ones were not, or not so much.

Ari
15-Aug-2015, 00:36
It's an interesting question whether it needs to be a wide wide? Inspired by your question, I put my 90/5.6 Super Angulon on today and was surprised that it just about fully covers 8x10, but for the corners, so that's out. I have several of the American 90s, but I think those are all going to throw sharp edges like an Angulon, being not that much different. Louis' idea to use a more normal lens was good, and I have a Paragon (f4.5 Tessar type) around 165mm or so that I can put on Monday and see how it looks. 165 would still be pretty wide on 8x10, and I think he's right that they just fade out at the edges. I guess the question would be whether the image is gone before 8" width is reached, right?

Michael,
I too tried first with a borrowed 90SA (f8) and shot a couple of sheets, they'll be ready tomorrow. It does look like it covers, but I'm sure the film will reveal dark corners.
But will it show a defined circle?
I took Louis suggestion and looked for a longer lens, but realized quickly part of the appeal is the extreme wide angle look, as well as the soft, dark edges.
I've since found a Tessar 105mm that could provide the soft edges I'm looking for, and hopefully it will also give as dramatic a look as a 90mm.
You're right, I would like the image to disappear before 8" is reached. Thanks!


An Optar will not cover due to mechanical vignetting. I think later Angulons were mechanically choked but earlier ones were not, or not so much.
Tim,
I'd prefer that it not cover 8x10, what I have in mind is darkened corners caused by vignetting, but without the hard-edged circle.
Looking for a lens with such a characteristic.

Tim Meisburger
15-Aug-2015, 05:59
Right Ari. The hard edge circle is caused by mechanical vignetting. Essentially the manufacturer is limiting the coverage of the lens to the sharp area of coverage, and cutting off the soft, unusable area. If I remember correctly, the older Angulons were supposed to cover more not because of a difference in lens, but a difference in barrel extension. The claimed coverage was deemed unrealistic because the lens became so soft in the corners.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I think you are more likely to achieve your objective with an older version.

Ari
15-Aug-2015, 06:14
Thank you very much, Tim; that makes sense. I expect to go through a few lenses looking for the right one, and when a reasonably priced Angulon comes up, I'll try that as well.

Doug Webb
15-Aug-2015, 08:14
You might try shooting with just the front or rear element of a 90 angulon in convertible fashion, shooting a 90 angulon wide open or slightly stopped down, using a 65 angulon in any of those configurations, or using a lens you already have with just front or rear element. Image circle and light fall off can change a lot if you use only the front or rear elements. The edges of an image with the 90 angulon seem to change a lot as it is stopped down in terms of image detail and maybe light fall off. Light fall off and reduced detail produce something that to me is like fading. Older lenses seem to be more prone to fading on edges.

Ari
15-Aug-2015, 08:52
Thanks for that, Doug; it certainly gives more options and sounds like a fun thing to play around with as well.

VictoriaPerelet
15-Aug-2015, 21:34
Ari, it depends on subject to lens distance. No 90mm lens that I have(or had) can cover 8x10 on infinity.

Here's 90mm SA XL pretty close to subject, paper negative:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52900356/LfPics/90mm_SA_8x10.jpg


Sent from my iPad

Ari
16-Aug-2015, 05:05
Thank you, Victoria, but I am actually not trying to cover 8x10 with the 90mm, just find out if any 90mm fades softly to black in the corners.

N Dhananjay
16-Aug-2015, 05:18
Older Angulons might be a good place to try. So would older Dagors - the Angulon is a reversed Dagor design if memory is serving me correctly. DJ

Ari
16-Aug-2015, 05:40
Thanks, DJ; I have my sights set on a tiny Tessar and an older Angulon right now. We'll see if they bear any fruit.

VictoriaPerelet
16-Aug-2015, 10:29
Thank you, Victoria, but I am actually not trying to cover 8x10 with the 90mm, just find out if any 90mm fades softly to black in the corners.

Ah, Ari, then just put piece of film or photographic paper in to film holder and take pic. Whole process will take 10mins. Much shorter that this whole thread:)

To get exact behaviour of image circle faloff - digital back or dlsr is probably best and fastest way. You wont even need 8x10 camera - just enough shifts to place sensor where image circle is. Falloff depends on aperture also. But many people may consider digital an evil tool around here:cool:

Ari
16-Aug-2015, 11:07
Ah, Ari, then just put piece of film or photographic paper in to film holder and take pic. Whole process will take 10mins. Much shorter that this whole thread:)

To get exact behaviour of image circle faloff - digital back or dlsr is probably best and fastest way. You wont even need 8x10 camera - just enough shifts to place sensor where image circle is. Falloff depends on aperture also. But many people may consider digital an evil tool around here:cool:

Victoria, I would have preferred a shorter thread, too, but I no longer have a darkroom capable of developing paper: no trays, safelight, etc etc. I only develop film here.
But I do have a digital camera :)

VictoriaPerelet
16-Aug-2015, 16:39
Here, Ari. Made using evil Sinar 54 back Rodenstock 90mm F6.8 and Sinar P2, I shiftet it to extremes.

Mild falloff:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52900356/LfPics/Image-0362.jpg

Wild falloff:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52900356/LfPics/Image-0364.jpg

If somebody want to complain about dust - I leave it on my film also. Retouching and cropping is not for ....


No developer was flushed in to San Diego water waste pipelines! Go Green for experiments, use film for art!:)

PS: They MAY move this thread to lounge because of evil tools:mad:, even if we are discussing 8x10 camera coverage

Ari
16-Aug-2015, 17:24
Thank you, Victoria, that's extremely helpful.

Bob Salomon
16-Aug-2015, 17:33
N
Here, Ari. Made using evil Sinar 54 back Rodenstock 90mm F8 and Sinar P2, I shiftet it to

90mm 4.5, 5.6, 6.8 or 8.0?

VictoriaPerelet
16-Aug-2015, 17:53
Oh 6.8 90mm green ring lens

Manufacturers put that in MTFs but MTFs are oring and real pics are much more fun:)

cowanw
16-Aug-2015, 19:48
The more I think about this, the more I think that what you are talking about is mechanical vignetting.
Any optical quality vignetting is really going to illuminate with a decreased quality but will pass light, ultimately a pin hole camera.
I think what you can do is create a mechanical vignettor behind the lens, by moving the lens further out front, say with a top hat board and behind the board rig a stop of correct size, (perhaps a cardboard stop or real classy, a lens chuck thingy that can be altered with a turn of the wrist) such that when you can see in the corners of the back(especially if the corners of your GG are clipped) you can see how much vignetting there is.
You want to move the lens out front enough so that you cannot see the lens opening from the corners of your 8x10 back; perhaps seeing about 1/2 the lens opening as a cresent at the 5x7 size and see the whole round lens opening at the 4x5 mark.
The vignetting will be gradual as the attenuation of the aperture is gradual but will be vignette illumination only, not quality.
I have experienced this by mounting some lenses in front of a sinar shutter; some of these are too far in front for structural reasons and the corners are darker by 1 stop.
this way you can use any 90 mm lens you want.

Phil Hudson
17-Aug-2015, 00:02
FWIW my Angulon s/n 12 million produces a fairly defined vignette just within the width of the 8x10 sheet. It is certainly mechanically limited in terms of coverage and doesn't really fade gradually.

Ari
17-Aug-2015, 04:36
Thank you both, Bill and Phil.

Steve Goldstein
17-Aug-2015, 05:51
I think Bill's on the right track for what you're after, Ari, but there's one small problem with his description. You can't move the lens out arbitrarily unless you don't care about focus. Practically speaking, the only degree of freedom you've got is the distance of the mechanical vignetter behind the lens.

The vignetter doesn't need to have a circular hole. You might experiment with coarsely serrated holes, perhaps they'll give you a more pleasing effect.

Ari
17-Aug-2015, 06:01
Thanks, Steve; in that case, I should try to find a lens with more covering power, but that means more money.

Corran
17-Aug-2015, 09:02
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but even the old Angulon isn't just restricted mechanically, but also simply from design. Image circles don't just stretch out to infinity with more and more falloff - surely at f/64 or whatever you're going to have a relatively hard circle no matter what. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the physics?

Even the 90mm XL is in a Copal #0 shutter so the increased coverage would seem to be by design, not mechanical. The falloff inherent in that lens is so strong on 8x10 as to probably do what you want. I've shot one image with it on 8x10 as an experiment, I've got to try that again.

As for the "inexpensive" part, I'm not sure what that means for you. They've become a lot cheaper than they used to be - I'm seeing them selling for under $600 on eBay after a casual search.

Ari
17-Aug-2015, 09:24
Bryan, thanks for your answer. Truth is, I don't know what each lens will do on 8x10, and if will give me the result I have in my mind.
I like the crazy super-wide look on 8x10, and if the fall-off isn't hard, I think I'll be pleased.
This might be for a short series of photos, and then I might never use a 90 again.
I didn't realize the prices of 90mm XLs had dropped so much, but I'd rather not spend more than $100 on a 90mm lens for this kookiness.

Corran
17-Aug-2015, 09:38
This might be for a short series of photos, and then I might never use a 90 again [...] but I'd rather not spend more than $100 on a 90mm lens for this kookiness.

After reselling it, you probably won't :).
You probably already thought of that I know.

Old-N-Feeble
17-Aug-2015, 09:57
If the 90mm SAXL is available for $600 today... I can't imagine the price doing anything but rising... at least in the next couple of years.

StoneNYC
17-Aug-2015, 10:24
Can't help you with 90mm, I'm doing this with 65mm :)

Ari
26-Aug-2015, 05:40
Just wanted to follow up on this.
Here's a shot I did with a borrowed SA90 f8, not the Angulon f6.8.
At about 1 meter away, the circle is well-defined, so I played with the vignette in post.
Overall, not bad, but not exactly what I'm after since the circle is still quite sharp, especially at the top.

Corran
26-Aug-2015, 07:05
Surprising, it seems like the SA will actually cover 4x10?

Ari
26-Aug-2015, 07:18
It certainly looks that way, Brian; this was shot wide open at f8. It's not a recent copy of the lens either, so a newer version might give better sharpness at the edges.
The edges are not great, but in my case, that's better.

StoneNYC
26-Aug-2015, 08:11
It certainly looks that way, Brian; this was shot wide open at f8. It's not a recent copy of the lens either, so a newer version might give better sharpness at the edges.
The edges are not great, but in my case, that's better.

I believe the newer ones actually have a smaller circle of illumination because there was some mechanical vignetting added to define acceptable sharpness by Schneider's standards. I read that somewhere, I COULD be wrong. I might test it out soon, will let you know if I do.

cowanw
26-Aug-2015, 10:00
I wonder if a pinhole camera might suit your requirements. The focal length can be determined and, although the image can theoretically spread to any size receptor, an internal choke might do the desired diffusion.

Ari
26-Aug-2015, 10:11
I wonder if a pinhole camera might suit your requirements. The focal length can be determined and, although the image can theoretically spread to any size receptor, an internal choke might do the desired diffusion.

I've certainly thought of that; the general blurriness and lack of a shutter is what kept me away, but it would be quite easy to make.
I have another lens here to try out, a 105mm Tessar; I'll post when I have an image to share.