Wider than 90mm w/ movements for 4x5, low light.

[Kodachrome25]

Hi gang,

I have just picked up a magazine assignment to shoot the interior of a quarry (http://www.coloradoyulemarble.com) in both a photojournalistic and artistic sense. So I will be using a combo of Leica for low light and portraits and 4x5 for everything else, pretty much have carte blanche to do this so I am really looking to create a fine print show to go along with the publishing date.

Currently on the wide end I only have a 90mm Nikkor F8 SW which I love and a very much under utilized 65mm 4.5 Grandagon with the center filter. I have been thinking about selling the 65 since it does not have a lot of room for movements, 170mm @F22 vs 235mm @F22 for the Nikkor 90.

I am going to scout it later this week but I am already thinking of maybe buying a Nikkor 90mm 4.5 SW for this since it will be a fair bit brighter with the same coverage. Another thought is a 72mm 5.6 XL but that will likely require an expensive center filter.

Beyond the 90, I have Apo Sironar S in 135 and 180 which will be great for the rest, a Macro Sironar for the details if I decide to not use my Hasselblad system for that.

Given my current lenses on the wide end, what would be a good move to go wide in a darker space with enough image circle for a good amount of rise?

[Corran]

Well the 72mm XL has the most amount of movement you can get with the widest angle. I am not aware of any 65mm lenses with more coverage than your Grandagon, but then I've never really owned any. My 58mm XL and 47mm XL have little to no movement.

You didn't mention whether you were shooting color or b&w. The 72mm on 4x5 may not need a CF if you are shooting b&w and/or not shifting a really large amount. The usual caveats apply for chromes as you well know.

All of these wide angles are going to be dim and hard to focus just due to the angle of view. If you don't have a fresnel you may want one. The 47mm and 58mm lenses I have are really hard to focus even at f/5.6. The 72mm is a bit better. I have the 90mm f/5.6 XL and it's definitely easier to focus than the Nikkor 90mm f/8, but the larger filter sucks of course. The f/4.5 Nikkor has an 82mm filter which is why I've not bothered with it, since I like the 67mm and 77mm filters lenses I have, but you may not have an issue with that.

Overall I don't think you can go wrong with the 72mm XL. I've noticed both the 72mm and 90mm XL have been going down in price used lately. I picked up my 72mm for an obscene price on eBay, complete with recessed board. BTW, someone is selling a center filter for the 72mm in the classifieds right now. That's where I got my CF.

[Kodachrome25]

Thanks Corran,

Yes, black and white film and I would likely be able to get the crew to floodlight the interior for me to hit the corners. I am hoping on the scouting mission I will see a 90mm will work for the widest shot but I have a feeling a 72 might be a good thing to have in the long run anyway to replace my 65.

[jnantz]

hi dan

i can't recommend which low light lens to get, when i documented 2 quarries for the state
i used a wollensak 90 f 6.8? ( air corps purple dot ) and a wollensak 3 1/2 inch f 12 exwa.
both worked exceptionflly well, but no low light.
nearly all the work was from the rim, grout-wall surrounding "workshops" and eventually from the interior of the quarries
after they were filled. it was loads of fun.

a little unsolicited advice: if you are going to be on a rim, i recommend getting a cord that can hold a drop,
attaching it to a "deadman" and not getting closer than 10feet from the edge, quarry-rock had the tendancy to crumble, like cast iron.
i wore a harness and the cord i wore could take a 15,000lb dead drop.
thankfully i stayed up on top and didn't lose my gear. ( it was drained and 300-350 feet down ).

have fun

[Kodachrome25]

This will all be from ground level to maybe on top of a couple of large blocks I can get to via a cherry picker. Even though I have my own sport rock and industrial climbing gear, I would defer to the company's gear for liability reasons. I'm sure I will use it if I need it, I have webbing and all sorts of anchors for my gear as it is.

It's possible a 90 will work in there, all too often super wide is super boring anyway so I'll see once I scout it.

[koh303]

Super symmar XL 80mm... huge coverage.

[Kodachrome25]

Super symmar XL 80mm... huge coverage.

Would it need a center filter for negative film?

[angusparker]

Super symmar XL 80mm... huge coverage.

I'd agree. Not sure about the need for a centerfilter. I've shot a fair amount of Velvia 50 with the 110 SSXL and never been too bothered by drop off. But I did get the center filter recently because it also works on the 80mm which I just got.

[Kodachrome25]

I'm just wondering if I should not go for a 72 XL though to really open up the wide end. Seems a fair bit more expensive.

[Corran]

I think you could get a 72mm for less than the SS 80mm. And plus, the 80mm (and 110mm) seems to develop issues with the adhesive sometimes (link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?96673-Schneider-lens-defects-800mm-and-110mm-XL))?

[Two23]

I've been happy shooting at night with my Nikon 90mm f4.5, but am reading about these other choices with interest. My night shots mostly use flash, and f4.5 takes a lot less equipment than f8.


Kent in SD

[Kodachrome25]

I just bought a Nikkor 75mm 4.5, 30mm more IC than my 65 Grandagon but still a manageable size & price. The 72 XL would be awesome for the huge coverage but since I rarely use larger than a 90mm as it is, that is a big chunk of change for a lens that will see light duty.

At least with the 75 Nikkor, I can put a center filter on it if need be and still fit my 95mm filters on it with an adapter ring. I have a feeling that for this assignment the lenses I most use will be my 90, 135 and 180. Hopefully the falloff will not be too bad with negative film. Now I can sell my 65 4.5 and center filter.

[EdSawyer]

Sounds like you already figured it out. But in general the 90/4.5 nikkor is not worth bothering with: heavier, not as sharp, huge filter, same coverage, etc. 90/8 Nikkor is the best 90 out there, all things considered, IMNSHO.

[Kodachrome25]

Sounds like you already figured it out. But in general the 90/4.5 nikkor is not worth bothering with: heavier, not as sharp, huge filter, same coverage, etc. 90/8 Nikkor is the best 90 out there, all things considered, IMNSHO.

I would not mind the weight so much since this would be a lens that would be used for urban exterior / interior and not landscapes per se. But...I am also not a fan of one trick ponies and a wider view with some more movement was what I was after anyway so the 75 seems to be the ticket, a bit wider, decent image circle and not too big or expensive.

On the downside, I am not finding any 67mm .45 center filters, just .6 which at -2 stops may be a bit heavy handed. I have a feeling that the falloff on a 75mm 4.5 could be quite pronounced.

[IanG]

I think the 75mm was a good choice, I've had a 75mm f8 Super Angulon for a few years now but never used it for 5x4 it's my standard lens on my 6x17camera.

Like you I do use a 65mm again a slower f8 SA, I have used it underground in a cavern in a manganese mine but I focused it outside in daylight. I now use a 75mm f5.6 Super Angulon for the same reasons you've chosen better movements.

As for Center filters they are becoming hard to find these days, the fall off on a 75mm isn't as bad as a 65mm so less critical except for colour work.

Ian

[Ari]

The 72XL was my favourite for 4x5, and the drop-off in the corners was not too severe.
If you do any post work in Photoshop, there is a centre filter plug-in available from Schneider, or use another digital filter/plug-in.
But it's a great lens that offers lots of room for movements.

[Kodachrome25]

I'll certainly keep an eye out for the right filter ( Rodenstock 170002 ) but my hope is that since this is likely to not be used with lots of blue sky, I may be able to get away with it in B&W.

I'll roll with it and see what happens.

[Michael R]

Also bear in mind for B&W, in the absence of a center filter you can give a little extra exposure (the exposure you'd give with a center filter on) and then compensate for fall-off in printing. Not quite as easy, but doable.

[Kodachrome25]

Also bear in mind for B&W, in the absence of a center filter you can give a little extra exposure (the exposure you'd give with a center filter on) and then compensate for fall-off in printing. Not quite as easy, but doable.

That is what I was thinking, you just dodge the center a bit, correct?

[Michael R]

Burn the center. It would be a progressive burn toward the center, so basically you'd do it with a hole in a burning card which you'd raise/lower gradually during the exposure.

Another option (more work up front but easier later) is to make mask negatives that do the progressive burn for you when printed together with the image negative. Basically the mask negatives look like reverse center filters (ie less density toward the center).

In either case all you're doing is the same thing the center filter does, but during printing instead of during negative exposure. Not as simple as a center filter, but it works - as long as you give the original negative enough exposure (ie essentially the exposure you'd have given with a center filter on).

Just throwing out some B&W options as work-arounds for short focal length falloff in the event you can't get the right center filter, or don't want to spend the $.

[Kodachrome25]

Ah, right, I had it reversed. There are a couple of 67mm .6 filters out there but that is 2 stops vs 1.5 so that would have me likely doing the same thing, correcting for reverse fall off.

We'll see if this is all moot anyway, I might be shooting my Hasselblad system for all I know due to the environment / hustle factor. I meet the quarry GM for a drink and game plan in a couple hours.


Burn the center. It would be a progressive burn toward the center, so basically you'd do it with a hole in a burning card which you'd raise/lower gradually during the exposure.

Another option (more work up front but easier later) is to make mask negatives that do the progressive burn for you when printed together with the image negative. Basically the mask negatives look like reverse center filters (ie less density toward the center).

In either case all you're doing is the same thing the center filter does, but during printing instead of during negative exposure. Not as simple as a center filter, but it works - as long as you give the original negative enough exposure (ie essentially the exposure you'd have given with a center filter on).

Just throwing out some B&W options as work-arounds for short focal length falloff in the event you can't get the right center filter, or don't want to spend the $.

[Richard Wasserman]

You have your equipment choices well in hand, I have nothing to offer there. I just want to say that this sounds like a very fun assignment. I hope we'll be able to see some of the photos when you're done.

[Michael R]

Ah, right, I had it reversed. There are a couple of 67mm .6 filters out there but that is 2 stops vs 1.5 so that would have me likely doing the same thing, correcting for reverse fall off.

We'll see if this is all moot anyway, I might be shooting my Hasselblad system for all I know due to the environment / hustle factor. I meet the quarry GM for a drink and game plan in a couple hours.

I should just clarify my previous post a little. Note that the graduated burn is obviously not necessarily toward the center of the image, but toward the image area that corresponds to wherever the center of the image circle was when taking the photo. It's the center of the image if there were no movements used. If movements were used, the center of the lens image circle is displaced from the center of the film. In that case, the masks I mentioned are of less use (or are more complicated to make).

Just wanted to fix that omission in my previous post. Apologies for the confusion.

[Kodachrome25]

You have your equipment choices well in hand, I have nothing to offer there. I just want to say that this sounds like a very fun assignment. I hope we'll be able to see some of the photos when you're done.

Well I just ran some test film from the 75 Nikkor and some 35mm and 120 from the first day at the Quarry, all looks good. I take the 4x5 into action on Saturday, should be a good time!

[Richard Wasserman]

Sounds good Daniel—I hope you have a great time on Saturday!

[senderoaburrido]

For focusing issues, even in pitch black, I always use this trick:
Bring a good bike light, or flashlight (something that packs serious lumens), shine it against whatever is your principal focus. This should give you enough illumination through the ground glass.

[tgtaylor]

The Rodenstock 75mm f4.5 Grandagon is a good lens with a 105° field of view and IC of 190mm @ f22. Very small and highly compact. I used it to shoot the interior of a mausalium (sp) in ambient lighting and did not notice any fall off without a center filtethomad