WA lens for photography in the North East

[Rob_5209]

Hi all,

I'm looking for advice on a wide-angle lens for 4x5. I live in New Brunswick, Canada and currently my widest lens is a 150mm Sironar-S. I'm looking to get the advice of other photographers that shoot in the NE USA and Canada. As you probably know, we're not exactly blessed with the spectacular grand scenics of the desert southwest or the mountains of California or Colorado. Our scenic beauty here is much more subtle. I was leaning towards the 90mm, but I have a feeling that it will be a little too wide. Any other LF shooters in this area care to offer advice on a good wide-angle lens?

[Ted Harris]

Hi Rob,

I shoot largely in New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont and Quebec. When I am shooting 4x5 my most frequently used lens is a 110. When I am capturing lake vistas, of which there are lots in NH I sometimes use a 75. The 90 seldom gets used. Next most used after the 110 is either the 300 or the 180, not sure which.

[Jim Rice]

I like my 90. It's just nibbling on the edge of decisively wide. To be fair, I also crave something wider and am also on the other end of the continent, so add salt.

[Bruce Watson]

I just got back from a photography trip to the desert south west (USA). Specifically, Joshua Tree National Park. I took along a new (to me) 80mm SS-XL I found used that I got for a return trip to Yosemite later this year. I thought in a park of considerably smaller scale I wouldn't need it, but it fit in the bag... Much to my surprise, it was my most used lens. The rest of the trip (Organ Pipe Cactus NM, Saguaro NP, Sedona and Oak Creek Canyon) I hardly touched it.

I think a lot has to do with where you are shooting and what you are seeing and reacting to. Some places seem to want wider lenses than others. Some want longer lenses. I think I would have a tough time picking a lens based on geographic location.

That said, I managed to work a number of years without a lens shorter than my 110mm SS-XL. It'll give you another 15 degrees of view-angle over the 150mm, which is a nice chunk. It's quite sharp. It's considerably easier to work with than shorter lenses such as a 90mm or an 80mm. So a lens in the 110mm range is what I would recomend for you.

If it makes you feel any better, my primary landscape "zone" is east coast USA, particularly the Appalachians and Piedmont from VA to GA.

[Jeffrey Scott]

I live in NE Ohio. I use both my 90 and 58 quite a bit, especially the 58 for woodlands and rivers, cascades, waterfalls, etc.

[Frank Petronio]

You could get a 100mm WF Ektar for a tenth the price of the 110XL, and see if you like the focal length. The Ektars have an excellent reputation.

I use a 135mm alot myself.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I'm from the NW out here in washington. I find that I use my 135 wide field Ektar the most. I also have a 90 that I use sometimes. A 75 would have been nice when I went to Antelope canyon. I agree with Frank on the Ektars, I wouldn't trade my wide field straight across for an XL. I also have fuji single coated lenses. I just prefer non multicoated lenses. John Berry

[Paul Ewins]

Rob,
Why don't you get an old (and cheap) 90/6.8 Angulon or Optar from eBay and play with it for a while. You won't have much in the way of movements but it should let you know whether you like the focal length. When you are done just pop it back on eBay and get something better.

[Dave Moeller]

I shoot mostly in the woods of Western Pennsylvania, and find the 90 and 135 are my most used focal lengths. I really haven't wanted anything shorter (except, of course, from my basic desire to own every possible focal length...something I think we're all afflicted with from time to time). 90 works very well for me around water (lakes, streams, waterfalls), and 135 is my favorite for other spaces.

Oddly enough, for 8x10 I gravitate either to shorter equivalent lengths (150mm) or longer (480mm). I'm not sure why that is, but it works for me.

[FpJohn]

Hello: There are three Wide field Ektars on the auction site, search "wide field ektar" on Cameras&Photo, today. One is a 100mm.

I shoot B&W with an ArcaSwiss 6X9 in the upper Saint John River valley using a 80mm Xenotar, 105 NikkorW and 240 TeleXenar, in order of preference. 1.5x gives one measure of equivalents for 4x5.

A quite landscape requires few movements, at least for me.

yours
Frank Johnston

[Frank Petronio]

Of course, you must buy an Ebony and a 110XL if you want to play with the cool kids...

[fishfish]

Hi Rob,

Where in NB are you? Large format photographers in the maritimes are few and far between (except in Halifax, where they teach it at NSCAD) .

I would second the vote for the 75mm lens - my Rodenstock 75mm f/4.5 was my favorite 4x5 lens (now replaced with the 150mm XL now that I working with 8x10). Depending on where you are in NB, I have a 75mm f/8 Schenider I could lend you for a bit (when you see it, you will know why) - if you'd like, e-mail me off list and we'll work something out! I've been saving it for a 6x17 camera I plan to build, but I would encourage you to try it, as I found 90mm nowhere near wide enough.

e.

[fred arnold]

As always, it depends on how you shoot. Personally, in the woods of PA, or NY, I tend to 135/203/300 (depending on if I care to pack the weight of the 300), split about 50/50 between the two shorter lenses. At the beaches of DE/NJ, or in the desert SW, I make more use of the 75mm (or the 24 on a 34mm). The 135 is generally the widest I'd use in the woods, due to the nature of the brush around here.


Not having been to New Brunswick, YMMV

[Rob_5209]

Thanks everyone for the great responses so far. I realize that lens choices are a personal thing but not having access to lenses before buying can be a challenge. Based on some of your responses, I'm leaning towards a 110mm or 120mm as of now. The 110SSXL seems like a wonderful lens but can be quite costly. Does anyone have any experience with a 120 Nikkor SW? It seems reasonable as it takes 77mm filters, which I have for my 35mm Nikkors. The f/8 aperture does cause some concern though.

I really don't think I’m gonna want to go any wider than 110mm since I almost never shoot wider than 28mm in 35mm format. Besides, I'd like to stay away from having to carry a bag bellows in the field if at all possible.

Eric, I'm in Moncton. I’m familiar with your work as I do go to Carsand from time to time (more of an Ivan's guy though). You're right, LF shooters are pretty scarce here. Thanks for the offer to let me try your 75mm, but I'm almost positive that will be too wide for my tastes. I tend to do a lot of shooting in wooded areas and I'm thinking that really wide lenses are going to include too much in the frame.

[Michael S. Briggs]

I used the 120 mm f8 Nikkor-SW for many years. It is a fine lens. I think the main drawback compared to the 110 mm Super-Symmar-XL is its larger size and weight. Additionally, for me, the 110 mm is a better fit into my lens kit in relation to the other focal lengths that I now use.

I never had any trouble focusing and composing with the 120 mm f8 lens during daylight hours. Just be sure that you have an opaque darkcloth and arrange it to minimize light leaks. Besides, if you want to judge depth-of-field at f22, it doesn't matter whether the maximum aperture of the lens is f5.6 or f8 -- the image will be the light from f22.

However, I think that 120 mm is too close to 150 mm, so I don't it is a good match to the 150 mm lens that you are now using. My recommendation for the spacing of lenses is a factor of between about 1.5 and about 1.7 (perhaps a bit closer for strong wide angles), which fits into your original idea of a 90 mm: 150 / 90 = 1.67. Even the 110 mm is rather close to 150, 150 / 110 = 1.36, but might be OK if your tastes emphasize near normal focal lengths. Probably a bit too wide is better than too long: you can always crop a bit if you can't adjust the camera position to get the crop that you want.

The 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW is a fine lens, lots of coverage and a small size/weight for a 90 mm. If you want a bit faster, there is the f6.8 Grandagon-N from Rodenstock, which is also sold as a Caltar. Then there are bigger f5.6 and f4.5 versions....