Nikkor-SW 8/120mm viewing and focusing

[errantowl]

Does anyone have experience using the Nikkor-SW 8/120mm lens on 4x5in and care to comment on the ease and comfort of viewing and focusing with f-stop 8?

I am new to large format and considering some potential gear, and so have not had an opportunity to experience and compare different combinations of focal length and aperture and their appearance on the ground glass. This lens is of interest to me, and I have read a number of opinions suggesting that f-stop 8 or 9 is very usable for viewing and focusing on longish lenses, but I wonder how it is with something like a 120mm focal length -- or if a larger aperture would really be preferred. The main use would be landscape photography, but there are many low light times when it is nice to make a photograph of the landscape.

[agregov]

For landscape shooting, F8 should be OK. But the SW8 is really targeted for 5x7 or 8x10 work given its larger image circle. And they're not particularly cheap for a first large format lens. I might suggest looking for lenses under 1lb. There are great options in the 120-135 range. You may as well try to find a F5.6 option. And avoid spending lots for your first lenses. Keep it under $500 bucks if you can, get your feet wet and then look for pricier alternatives. Probably my most used reference page on the site is the lens charts. Here's the 4x5 version, great for research. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

A great first time buyer lens resource from one of the forum members.
http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/3/good-lenses-for-a-4x5-view-camera

[errantowl]

Thanks for the comment and suggestions. I am glad to hear that you think the f-stop 8 should be okay. I am looking at two or three different focal lengths, and do have two or three different 120mm or 125mm lenses in mind among the options. I have seen some temping offers of the Nikkor-SW 8/120mm and so am considering it. The size is a bit of a drawback, but if it is a great quality lens and easy enough to use with the f-stop 8, then I might be willing to deal with the size.

[koraks]

I can only reiterate Andrej's advice. There are so many options around the focal length you're looking for, particularly if you include 135, that it makes no sense in my mind to go for an unnecessarily slow and heavy lens that covers an image area much larger than you'll ever be likely to use on a 4x5 system.

And yes, f/8 is doable, but particularly on 4x5, I prefer something f/5.6 or faster. Under optimal conditions, f/8 is fine, but you may not always find yourself shooting under those circumstances.

[Sazerac]

I have a Nikkor 120/8 and use it for architecture. I like the large image circle for movements and shoot it on a Sinar F with fresnel lens and reflex hood. Yes, it is darker than the other lenses I have but it is very useable. The only time I really noticed the difference is at dusk when the light is fleeting.

I agree with the other users that it is big and heavy, but that's what you get if you want a large image circle for movements.

[Lachlan 717]

But the SW8 is really targeted for 5x7 or 8x10 work given its larger image circle.

Where's your evidence of this?

On 8x10", it just covers. Hardly "targeted", especially when you consider the need to centre the lens in order to have its circle in the right spot to avoid vignetting.

It is a lens for images that might need movements.

Additionally, it is a lens whose design minimises light drop-off on smaller formats (i.e. 4x5).

[Mark Sampson]

I have been using a Schneider 121/8 Super-Angulon for over twenty years. The Nikkor-SW 120/8 is essentially the same design, just newer. I have never had any problems focusing the Schneider; I can't imagine that the Nikkor would be any different. In a perfect world I would have the Nikon 120/8 to go with my two other Nikkor-SW lenses, but the old (1957) Schneider is a fine performer, so I'm keeping it. As others have said, the size and weight should be considered; my lightweight alternative is a 135/6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar (a lens I expect to keep, and use, forever).

[agregov]

On 8x10", it just covers. Hardly "targeted", especially when you consider the need to centre the lens in order to have its circle in the right spot to avoid vignetting.


Well, I've read plenty of threads in the forum where members are successfully using the lens for 8x10. People use lenses that barely cover 8x10 all the time. But your point is well taken, it's likely not a great 8x10 pick, especially given how wide it is--very few instances where that focal length is needed.

But all that is beyond the point. For someone new to 4x5 shooting and has not stated the need for the type of movements the SW8 would enable, it doesn't seem like a great pick. Especially as a first lens. A lighter, cheaper, copal 0 lens would be a better choice in my opinion. As mentioned by others, there's a rich selection of lenses in the 120-135mm range.

[Corran]

It's a good lens. All the previous comments are pretty spot-on. I use mine mostly on 8x10 but on 4x5 it is definitely a nice "slight wide" with all the image circle you'd ever want. It's not that big - still only 77mm filters. Certainly not in league with lenses like the 72mm or 90mm XL, size/heft wise. The aperture is really not limiting unless you are exclusively shooting in very low-light conditions.

If you find one at a good price it's a decent pick. Most start with a 150mm or 90mm, also great options and probably cheaper but if you are in love with the 120mm focal length go for it. As a new shooter I would more recommend a cheap 90mm and see if you want a longer lens. Decent 90mm f/8 lenses can be had for way under $200, but the Nikkor 120mm will be 2-3x more than that.

[errantowl]

Thanks for the comments. I am glad the general impression seems to be that the f-stop 8 on a 120mm lens is pretty usable. It seems most options I am finding in 120mm are either a nice small lens but with quite limited coverage or a larger lens with very large coverage. So, it seems one has to pick a priority.

I have also considered some 90mm lenses and have found some good options at f-stop 6.8, but my understanding is that as lenses get shorter certain aspects of the viewing and focusing process become more difficult, and I wonder if perhaps that 90mm versus 120mm might be a transition point. I do really like the field of view of the 90mm lens, but I also like the field of view of the 120mm and wonder if it might be an easier lens to use in the beginning.

[Steve Goldstein]

One small 125mm option with reasonably big coverage is the original single-coated f/5.6 Fujinon-W with so-called "inside" lettering, i.e. the writing is on the trim ring as you look into the lens rather than around the outside of the front lens barrel. Fuji states an image circle of 211mm at f/22, roughly 5x7 at inifinity and straight-on, so it should be ample for 4x5. Mine is in a Seiko shutter and comes in at 180 grams, less than a third of a 120mm Nikkor-SW. It takes 46mm filters.

[Kevin Crisp]

Count on needing a loupe for focus.

[Pere Casals]

Nikon SW 120 image circle covers 312mm, so it covers 8x10 without movements, ideal for 5x7

When I can I'll buy one for 8x10, as this glass is the widest option I know for 8x10: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

For 4x5" there are better options: cheaper, lighter, 5.6, and possibly with better performance as a lens designed for 4x5" usage can have an optimal design for the smaller circle, still the SW 120 it is very good in it's center.

focussing with f8 ? just take another lens you have and stop it to f/8 and try to focus... you'll see it with your own eye! To me it depends on the scene, if you are in the shadow and you frame on a sunny subject it is easy, if sunlight hits your back and you are framing your subject in the shadow then you'll need a better light tight cloth...

To me the SW 120 it is very interesting if you may move to 5x7 or 8x10 in the future, if not... then better to save some money for other gear you'll need.


Here you have some 4x5 options: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

In general... a good advice is a lens should cover without movements the next format, so (in general) a suitable lens for 4x5 should cover 5x7 without movements, this is 208.7mm adviced.

Size 4x5" needs 153.7mm image circle, without movements.

This numbers is to focus at infinite, as you focus closer image circle of a LF lens becomes larger as bellows extends...

[tgtaylor]

Back when I was building-up my lens kit for the 4x5 I purchased a new Nikkor 120 SW from B&H for $795. It turned out that I didn't need the lens as it had the same field of view as my150 Rodenstock Apo Sironar-S which is a much smaller and lighter lens and folds-up with my Toyo 45CF. So I rarely used it preferring the Rodenstock and long thought that I had wasted $800. But I never sold it and one day got an 8x10 camera and last fall a 5x7 reducing back. Now I'm always using the 120 which is a super-wide angle on the 8x10 and equivalent to a 90mm on a 4x5. I never had any problems focusing it (it's only one stop from the 150) and no complaints about the image quality which is superb. Contrary to the experience of others, I get some rise/fall with the 8x10 and movements galore with the 5x7 back. I remounted it on a 6” Toyo board and it resides with the 8x10 dedicated lens.

Thomas

[Pere Casals]

120 which is a super-wide angle on the 8x10 and equivalent to a 90mm on a 4x5.

I agree all with you, but the 120 in 8x10 makes just the same frame than a 60mm in 4x5... this is just proportional 4/8 = 0.5 factor. 120 x 0.5 = 60mm

[Corran]

[focussing with f8 ? just take another lens you have and stop it to f/8 and try to focus... you'll see it with your own eye!

This is not necessarily true. It depends on the focal length as well. It is much harder to focus a 58mm f/5.6 lens than a 120mm f/8 lens, and it would be easier to focus a 300mm f/8 lens than a 90mm f/8 lens. This is due to the angle of light (and also whether or not you have a fresnel, etc.).

I find my 120mm f/8 noticeably brighter than my 90mm f/8, for example.

[errantowl]

Thanks everyone for the comments. The comparison of the 8/90mm and 8/120mm brightness is very helpful, as well as the context with other combinations of focal length and f-stop.

[Michael E]

I have been using a Schneider 121/8 Super-Angulon for over twenty years.

So do I. I have smaller 120mm lenses, but they keep running out of coverage easily. Brightness for focussing is just fine, but this is not the point for me. 90mm is just too wide, 150mm too long - I just love the angle of the 120/121mm. I use it for an estimated 95% of my images.

[errantowl]

Great to see another positive report of an 8/120-ish lens (121mm in the above case).

[Corran]

Here's an example where this lens excels - architecture. This is pretty much maximum rise that I could get from the camera, the lens still had some IC I think. This was a bright sunny morning and easy to focus:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SjNcCpZlitE/UOCEgDeFZCI/AAAAAAAAByM/YwX6GXsQWY0/s900/Untitled-23bs.jpg

[Sal Santamaura]

...I purchased a new Nikkor 120 SW...It turned out that I didn't need the lens as it had the same field of view as my150 Rodenstock Apo Sironar-S...Please explain. The Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 has a 105 degree angle of view and specified image circle of 312mm at f/22. The Rodenstock 150mm Apo Sironar S has a 75 degree angle of coverage and specified image circle of 231mm at f/22. How do you define "field of view?"

[Greg]

Please explain. The Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 has an 80 degree angle of view and specified image circle of 312mm at f/22. The Rodenstock 150mm Apo Sironar S has a 75 degree angle of coverage and specified image circle of 231mm at f/22. How do you define "field of view?"

120mm SW Nikkor has a 105 degree coverage at f/22. My experience is that stopping down further ever so slightly increases the coverage a few more mm's.

[Sal Santamaura]

120mm SW Nikkor has a 105 degree coverage at f/22...Oops. I typed the Nikkor's f/8 rather than f/22 angle of view. Fixed now. At least I copied the 312mm image circle at f/22 correctly. :)

Thanks for the catch.

[Pere Casals]

This is not necessarily true. It depends on the focal length as well. It is much harder to focus a 58mm f/5.6 lens than a 120mm f/8 lens, and it would be easier to focus a 300mm f/8 lens than a 90mm f/8 lens. This is due to the angle of light (and also whether or not you have a fresnel, etc.).

I find my 120mm f/8 noticeably brighter than my 90mm f/8, for example.

True, specially in the corners: as wider is the lens it has more inclinated rays are there (in general...), brightness also depending on GG/fresnel. But in the center of the image circle the 90mm f/8 is as bright than the 120mm f/8, as rays are just perpendicular (if no swing) to the GG in both cases, and the amount of light depends basically on aperture.

[Corran]

Regarding the angle - with the 120mm f/8 covering such a larger image circle, I'm guessing that the "center" of the image would then describe much more of the 4x5 frame as well. Perhaps that is why it seems to me to be much easier to compose with the 120mm lens. Shooting with really wide angles such as the 47mm and 58mm XL lenses the "center" portion, which may be at f/5.6 brightness, seems incredibly dim and/or small.

[errantowl]

Thanks everyone for the commentary. This has generated some good insights.

[tgtaylor]

Please explain. The Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 has a 105 degree angle of view and specified image circle of 312mm at f/22. The Rodenstock 150mm Apo Sironar S has a 75 degree angle of coverage and specified image circle of 231mm at f/22. How do you define "field of view?"

Several years back I took my Toyo 45AX with all the 4x5 lens to an open field next to the San Mateo Bridge's shoreline to compare the field of view of each as seen through a Blair 4x5 cardboard mount at infinity. The idea was to determine how many fingers extended from my nose were required to reproduce the field of view (what you see on the ground glass) as seen thru the lens at its widest aperture. I wanted to replace the Linhoff lens-finder which I carry with the cardboard Blair mount. I found the 120 Nikkor's FOV only insignificantly wider than the 150 Rodenstock and about the same as the 75mm Pentax 67 on the Pentax 67II which is my most used 6x7 MF lens.

Thomas

[neil poulsen]

What do you want to photograph using LF?

How remote are the scenes that you want to photograph?

If you're not sure, I'd go for the 120mm f8 and downsize later if you don't need the large image circle. For example, the Fuji 125mm single-coated lens with inside lettering sounds interesting. Another possibility would be a Schneider, Super-Symmar 120mm HR, which has a larger image circle (211mm) than most non-super-wide lenses in this focal length.

For myself, my 121mm Schneider Super Angulon f8 was my second lens, and it's been a keeper. If needed, I definitely want to additional image circle. The 121mm Schneider SA is the single-coated version; the 120mm SA is the multi-coated version.

[Sal Santamaura]

Several years back I took my Toyo 45AX with all the 4x5 lens to an open field next to the San Mateo Bridge's shoreline to compare the field of view of each as seen through a Blair 4x5 cardboard mount at infinity. The idea was to determine how many fingers extended from my nose were required to reproduce the field of view (what you see on the ground glass) as seen thru the lens at its widest aperture. I wanted to replace the Linhoff lens-finder which I carry with the cardboard Blair mount. I found the 120 Nikkor's FOV only insignificantly wider than the 150 Rodenstock and about the same as the 75mm Pentax 67 on the Pentax 67II which is my most used 6x7 MF lens...In other words, assuming a horizontal camera back orientation, you verified that any 120mm lens has a 51 degree horizontal angle of view on 4x5 and any 150mm lens has a 42 degree angle of view under the same conditions, as shown here:


http://lensn2shutter.com/angleofviewchart.html

According to the table, your Pentax 75mm's horizontal angle of view should be closer to that of the 120 than the 150.

How important different angles of view are depends on the flexibility one has when framing / positioning a camera as well as how critical one is about changes in the "look" when using different lenses. I find 120s to provide a significantly different "feel" than 150s. YMMV.

[Dean Wilmot]

Hi all, I’ve started using the nikkor SW 120mm lens, has anyone else noted inherent light loss when using this lens? And how much E.g. 1 stop? Thanks

[chassis]

I use this lens and enjoy it. What do you mean by inherent? It is an f/8 lens, which is slower than many.

[Sazerac]

I use the Schneider 4 filter with 77–>82mm step up ring.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I bought it back in the 90's specifically because it just covers 8x10 for extreme wide angle. Yes, it is a little dark, and especially hard to see the corners, due to distortion. On a bright, sunny day, it's fine. For 4x5, no issues. It's a nice, sharp lens.

[hiend61]

I use the Schneider 4 filter with 77–>82mm step up ring.

Heliopan made a 77 mm center filter that works perfectly with Nikkor SW 120/8. From time to time appears one in the auction site. For 4x5 you can live without center filter, the lens has an enormous IC.