Decent "Modern" 165mm for 5x7?

[John Layton]

My current lens lineup for 5x7 (currently favorite format) consists of a 90(Grandagon), 120(SA), 210(Sironar-N), and 305 (G-Claron). Love them all...but I'm annoyed by the gap between 120 and 210.

In terms of proportional difference in angle of view, a 165mm would be about perfect I think - but I'd like to keep the optical signature in the same ballpark as my other lenses, so am a bit stumped. I mean...I'm sure that I could be very happy with, for example, a Gold Dot WA Dagor...but my guess is that I'd find that lens different enough from my others, signature-wise, to necessitate processing negatives taken with that lens differently than my others. Then again, I've never used a 165 GD, so maybe it would be fine? I've owned/used other Dagors/Trigors, some older some newer, and signatures from these varied greatly...mostly depending on age, condition, and the presence or lack of coating. (but oohhh...that 14" Kern Trigor...oohhh!)

So...165 Caltar? (coverage?) 165 SA? (too large physically?). Anything else out there? Perhaps I should just go with a 150? (more modern options in 150). Would love some comments/advice on this. Thanks!

[Steve Goldstein]

How about the 165mm f/6.8 Angulon? According to a 1963 Schneider brochure it had 84 degrees of coverage at f/22, providing a 300mm image circle.

[Bob Salomon]

Go with a 180mm. They are easily available

[John Layton]

Bob...I've thought about going with a 180 - but am currently very attached to the 210mm FL for 5x7, and am guessing that I might find the 180 a bit too close.

I've sometimes thought about replacing my 120 with a 110XL - in which case a 180 might then make sense...but I've gotten so used to "seeing" like a 120 and a 210, and find them perfect for so many situations, that I'm not sure I could make this switch - notwithstanding the stellar performance of the 110.

[John Layton]

...then again, if I opted for a 110, I might then find a 150 to fit between this and my current 210. Hmmm....

[Ken Lee]

My current lens lineup for 5x7 (currently favorite format) consists of a 90(Grandagon), 120(SA), 210(Sironar-N), and 305 (G-Claron).

Replace the 120 with a 150 and call it a day. :)

It's midway between 90 and 210, plus there are many affordable and portable choices.

[Dan Fromm]

165 Ilex Acuton, also sold as a Caltar Ilex. 70 degree plasmat type.

[Luis-F-S]

My current lens lineup for 5x7 (currently favorite format) consists of a 90(Grandagon), 120(SA), 210(Sironar-N), and 305 (G-Claron).

Replace the 120 with a 150 and call it a day. :)

+1! It's not rocket science! Or you could get a 165 WA Dagor!

[John Layton]

Thanks Ken...but while the 150 is midway (between 90 and 210) numerically, this is not the case when considering the percentage of change in the lenses angle of view. When considered as a percentage of increase, a 135 would fall between a 90 and a 210. Not many 135's that cover 5x7, except maybe a WF Ektar and, I believe, a Fujinon-W (?). Might be worth considering the Fuji if it covers.

The thing about the 120SA is that its just so darn versatile in its coverage...and I also truly like the angle of view. The only thing I don't like about the 120SA is that its a bit large and heavy. F/8 really does not bother me as I have the Maxwell screen of about the same FL. Thing is, the 120 SA has become a truly trusted friend...and I'd be very hesitant to replace it with anything other than, perhaps, a 110XL.

Dan...its my understanding that the 165 Ilex/Caltar is a tessar - and thus its coverage would not likely allow the movements that I might require of this FL. But they seem to be pretty reasonably priced so maybe I should try one for awhile.

Back to the 150...this FL displays a greater proportional difference to the 120 than does the 180 to the 210 - so, given that I'm firmly wedded to the 210 FL, I'd likely go to a 150 instead of a 180. I'd also be tempted to consider the 150 G-Claron, for its compactness, as opposed to, say, a 150 Symmar-HM.

Finally, back to the 165 - my guess is that the 165 SA would suit me fine optically, but that its size and weight might be prohibitive, especially when added to the 120SA in a backpack with all my other stuff. Would be great for occasional use on my 8x10 though (as is the 120SA). Hmmm...

So...either a 165 SA, or maybe a toss-up between the earlier 165 Angulon and 165 GD Dagor? Any recommendations of one over the other...in terms of which of these might be more compatible with more "modern" optics? Don't mean to sound like I'm over-obsessing here...but I simply need something in this (165mm) range.

[ic-racer]

Fujinon 180mm "Inside Lettering" is a lens I use on 8x10 (305mm image circle) May also be nice on 5x7. The main reason I mention it is they can be found very inexpensive, so not much risk to try it. Also it is light weight.

156635

[Mark Tweed]

John, you're right, the 165mm f6.3 Ilex Acutar is a tessar and barely covers the 4X5 format, I own one and use it on my 2X3 Century Graphic where its small size (0 Copal shutter) is perfectly suited. The 5X7 format is well out of reach this lens. The Ilex Acuton, a 215mm lens, also distributed under the Caltar name, is a 4.8 plasmat design. I have this Acuton and it too is a wonderful lens.

[Jim Galli]

They ain't none. 180mm F9A Fuji is the best you'll do. 165 f8 Dagor is a viable lens in a modern - ish shutter. Typically the more modern the shutter the higher the price, and they can't compete with the stellar 180 f9 fuji at about 1/3 to 1/2 the price. The Fuji f9a outperforms the Dagor . . . notably

[Kevin Crisp]

Having only recent discovered how great a 120SA is on 5X7 I couldn't give that up. I use a G Claron 150 often and its does much better than "barely" cover the format for landscape work.

[neil poulsen]

How about the 165mm f/6.8 Angulon? According to a 1963 Schneider brochure it had 84 degrees of coverage at f/22, providing a 300mm image circle.

I think that a "recent" manufacture of an Schneider Angulon hits your sweet spot. It's far less weight and size than the SA version. Make sure it's coated, which will be the case if it's of "recent" manufacture.

[Luis-F-S]

Don't mean to sound like I'm over-obsessing here...but I simply need something in this (165mm) range.

You're over-obsessing! Probably better to spend less time on the forum and more time shooting! You could move the camera 5 or so feet in either direction to compensate for the focal length difference! I'd pick the Dagor over the Angulon, but that's just me. Then again, I do have 11 Dagors, (and a 240 & 300 Sironar-N & 240 Componon-S in shutter-which I've not found a need to use)! Also have a 121 SA and 120 Angulon that I may try one of these days.

[John Layton]

Luis...you are so right! Kind of a down week here I guess...so wanting to get out and work with foliage, but so much bill-paying/business/household related stuff gets in the way of this - and now that I have a free day, snow squalls have stripped most of the remaining leaves, and have conspired to keep me indoors...soon to nurse both the wood stove and a nip of either bourbon or scotch. Days like this can lead to both obsessive behavior and (related?) excessive forum time. And (I freely admit) thank goodness for this!

But I must say that while I do embrace the idea of moving the camera around to compensate for lack of a particular focal length, and do this often...it is the times when I cannot do this - those instances when it becomes painfully clear that no...I cannot walk on water - that it would be great to have another focal length to do the walking for me!

[Jim Galli]

I think that a "recent" manufacture of an Schneider Angulon hits your sweet spot. It's far less weight and size than the SA version. Make sure it's coated, which will be the case if it's of "recent" manufacture.

Never had one I liked or kept thus far. Weak in the corners - all. Dagor is far better and prices reflect same.

[John Layton]

In a perfect world...I might get ahold of two examples each of the 165 GD dagor and 150 G-Claron and run some tests. But lacking this perfection (equate to time and $$)...I just need to decide between the two and choose. At any rate...thanks to all!

[Eric Woodbury]

I run a different spacing on my 5x7 lens pack. 72mm, 110mm, 150mm (Rodenstock Apo Sironar W, love this lens), 240mm, 360mm, 450mm. If I have to carry far from the car, I guess on what I need and/or lose the ends (72 and 450) or maybe trade out the 360 and add a 300. 165mm is a tough spot unless you want a monster wide angle. Truth be told, I don't lenses past 240 that often.

Happy snapping, EW

[Dan Fromm]

Dan...its my understanding that the 165 Ilex/Caltar is a tessar - and thus its coverage would not likely allow the movements that I might require of this FL. But they seem to be pretty reasonably priced so maybe I should try one for awhile.

You're right, I was mistaken. Mental slip, old age is catching up with me. Ilex' modern plasmats were 150, 180 (some say 190, I have one engraved 180), and 215 mm.

The 165/6.3 Ilex Acutar is tessar type, might just barely cover 5x7 stopped down. Almost certainly not what you want. Sorry.

[John Layton]

Really obsessing now - Glen of Glennview claims that his 165 f/9 computar (cobbled from 210 f/9 front and 150 f/9 rear element) out-performs the 165 GD Dagor!! Oh...its been sold...and so my quest continues...

[IanG]

The 165/6.3 Ilex Acutar is tessar type, might just barely cover 5x7 stopped down. Almost certainly not what you want. Sorry.

An 165mm f6.3 Tessar/& type lens should cover 7x5, the f6.3 design has the greatest coverage, after all a 135mm covers 5x4, However you'd need to use f16 and better still f22 for the best overall sharpness, I have one on a half plate camera and there's room for movements, 7x5 is only a touch larger.

Personally my 7x5 choice is the 90mm Grandagon, 150mm Sironar N, and 203mm f7.7 Ektar or 210mm Symmar S which I also use for 5x4. I've nearly finished converting on e 7x5 Seneca to use Linhof/Wista lens boards saves rempounting lenses.

Ian

[Carsten Wolff]

Modern-ish: Single-coated (inside lettering) Fujinon-W. Either as 135 (I have the 135, f/5.6, which I use a lot) or 150, both cover 5x7 nicely and are excellent. Kerry Thalmann has a lot of info on them.
[There are of course quite a few older wide angle lenses, in the 158/159/165mm range that also work very well with 5x7.]

[Jim Galli]

Really obsessing now - Glen of Glennview claims that his 165 f/9 computar (cobbled from 210 f/9 front and 150 f/9 rear element) out-performs the 165 GD Dagor!! Oh...its been sold...and so my quest continues...


An 165mm f6.3 Tessar/& type lens should cover 7x5, the f6.3 design has the greatest coverage, after all a 135mm covers 5x4, However you'd need to use f16 and better still f22 for the best overall sharpness, I have one on a half plate camera and there's room for movements, 7x5 is only a touch larger.

Personally my 7x5 choice is the 90mm Grandagon, 150mm Sironar N, and 203mm f7.7 Ektar or 210mm Symmar S which I also use for 5x4. I've nearly finished converting on e 7x5 Seneca to use Linhof/Wista lens boards saves rempounting lenses.

Ian

Used the 165 Congo Tessar f6.3 on 5X7 and corners were shaded with zero move from center. I doubt the Ilex is different. Mixing 150 and 210 components on G-Clarons will give 180. I have a 210 240 this way that gives 225. Landed exactly in the middle.

[Kevin Crisp]

Use a 150 G Claron and crop. Slightly.

[Luis-F-S]

Really obsessing now - Glen of Glennview claims that his 165 f/9 computar (cobbled from 210 f/9 front and 150 f/9 rear element) out-performs the 165 GD Dagor!! Oh...its been sold...and so my quest continues...

Just depends on whom you choose to believe. Remember that opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one!

[domaz]

Really obsessing now - Glen of Glennview claims that his 165 f/9 computar (cobbled from 210 f/9 front and 150 f/9 rear element) out-performs the 165 GD Dagor!! Oh...its been sold...and so my quest continues...

I'm messed around with using two different focal length elements from a Plasmat of the same brand before. It actually worked pretty well, lens appeared sharp. However, on closer inspection I started to notice what I believe were optical aberrations like coma, distortions etc. Fun to play with but not something to seek out IMO.

[Oren Grad]

165 SA? (too large physically?)


The only thing I don't like about the 120SA is that its a bit large and heavy.

Then you don't want the 165 SA. It's a boat anchor, far bigger and heavier than the 120 SA.

[Luis-F-S]

Then you don't want the 165 SA. It's a boat anchor, far bigger and heavier than the 120 SA.

++1!!!

[Bernice Loui]

165mm SA is right up there with the 155mm Grandagon. This once lived with the Sinar before the 150mm SS-XL replaced it.

If budget allows, do consider the 150mm SS-XL, it's excellent for a modern lens.

Had the Fujinon 180A (same with the Fujinon 240mm) twice, twice did not appeal to me, image quality not agreeable both color & B&W_your image results will vary.

Vintage, 165mm Angulon that has been tested good, it's small too. Really depends on what is needed, image circle, lens personality and more.



Bernice



Then you don't want the 165 SA. It's a boat anchor, far bigger and heavier than the 120 SA.

[Oren Grad]

165mm SA is right up there with the 155mm Grandagon.

The Grandagon comes in a #1 shutter rather than #3 and is several ounces lighter. But for my taste, either is way too much for 5x7 outside of the studio. If for some reason I felt compelled to try a 165 on 5x7, I'd go with the Angulon.

[Mark Tweed]

I had time this morning to perform a quick test. I took my Ilex 165mm f6.3 Acu-Tessar which I have set up for my 2X3 Graphic Century and mounted it on my 4X5 Wista and at infinity focus, you need to stop the lens down to f22 to get complete coverage (that's looking through the corners of the ground glass to confirm that the shutter aperture is completely round). Even at f22 there would be little room for movements, just a small amount of back tilt pushes it. I didn't even bother mounting it on my 5X7 as I know it wouldn't cover. One of my first lenses when I started out in large format (4X5) was a Wollensak 162mm f4.5 Raptar, which was a tessar design, and it wasn't long before I substituted it with a sweet 150mm, late run American Optical Dagor for the simple reason the 162mm tessar didn't allow much room for movements.

There is the 159mm Wollensak wide angle, it's slow but it would provide generous movements. My sample is sharp out to the corners when used on the 5X7 format.