Extreme wide angle lens for Whole Plate format

[Greg]

Presently my widest angle lens for my whole plate is a 105mm f/8 FUJINON SW, but at infinity it really doesn't cover the whole plate format, so end up using a 120mm Nikkor most of the time.

Am looking for an extreme wide angle lens (under 120mm) for the whole plate format that actually covers the whole format.

Any suggestions?

[Steve Goldstein]

Schneider says the 110mm Super Symmar XL has a 288mm image circle at f/22. It'll give you a little (very little) movement on WP and is marginally wider than your 120mm Nikkor-SW. The 110m Perigon has a bit more coverage, but good luck finding one. A 90mm Perigon won't cover WP per its specs (110 degree field of view).

[Pere Casals]

Presently my widest angle lens for my whole plate is a 105mm f/8 FUJINON SW, but at infinity it really doesn't cover the whole plate format, so end up using a 120mm Nikkor most of the time.

Am looking for an extreme wide angle lens (under 120mm) for the whole plate format that actually covers the whole format.

Any suggestions?

There is the vintage goerz hypergon 75mm, the widest I know that covers 8x10 http://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm

here you have a sample with hypergon 90: http://www.glennview.com/

anyway hypergon = mortage, at least for me. Some $3000 for the 60mm that covers 5x7


But having you a luxurious SW 120... I've some insane envy

PD: This is the link I had http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-15594.html

[Corran]

Schneider 90mm XL should cover, as I posted in your thread from last year?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?130357-Extreme-wide-angle-lens-for-Full-Plate

The problem will be the camera design and getting the lens centered and not having the camera in the photo. Or the tripod!

At the end of that thread is a photo showing that it definitely covers. The 90XL has come down in price a lot. One just sold for under $700 on eBay I see. I would recommend the CF unless you really want that dramatic fall-off.

[Pere Casals]

Schneider 90mm XL should cover, as I posted in your thread from last year?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?130357-Extreme-wide-angle-lens-for-Full-Plate

The problem will be the camera design and getting the lens centered and not having the camera in the photo. Or the tripod!

At the end of that thread is a photo showing that it definitely covers. The 90XL has come down in price a lot. One just sold for under $700 on eBay I see. I would recommend the CF unless you really want that dramatic fall-off.

Hello Bryan,

It nearly covers with a very close subject, because bellows extension, with a distant subject coverage will decrease, manufacturer states 259mm image circle at f22, yet this is impressive for a 90....

Regards

[Lachlan 717]

Hello Bryan,

It nearly covers with a very close subject, because bellows extension, with a distant subject covarage will decrease to what manufacturer states.

It will cover more than Schneider states at infinity. They were always conservative with their stated coverage.

[Pere Casals]

It will cover more than Schneider states at infinity. They were always conservative with their stated coverage.

Yes, of course, anyway that image Bryan posted explain it very well,

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/langdale-3053-810coverage.jpg


Focus here is perhaps at 1m, so it can be calculated what bellows extension was used and how circle will decrease with focus at infinite.

Perhaps a trick would be stopping a lot to focus to a close hyperfocal distance, to get a larger circle.

[Greg]

Schneider 90mm XL should cover, as I posted in your thread from last year?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?130357-Extreme-wide-angle-lens-for-Full-Plate

The problem will be the camera design and getting the lens centered and not having the camera in the photo. Or the tripod!

At the end of that thread is a photo showing that it definitely covers. The 90XL has come down in price a lot. One just sold for under $700 on eBay I see. I would recommend the CF unless you really want that dramatic fall-off.

Thank you,
I do remember your post. I did look into acquiring a Schneider 90mm XL, but seemed as none were available used at that time. Did find one retailer that had a new one in stock FS, but price was well into 4 figures. Then I got an Email from another whole plate user, and he advised me not to pursue getting a Schneider 90mm XL as the optic would not cover the whole plate format when focused at infinity. Have decided to just stick with my 120mm Nikkor and stop being obsessed with trying to acquire an even wider angle optic.

Pere posted: "Perhaps a trick would be stopping a lot to focus to a close hyperlocal distance" Interesting solution.....

[Corran]

Yes, of course, anyway that image Bryan posted explain it very well,

That's on 8x10 as I clearly stated so the 90XL covers WP just fine.

I've shot the XL on 8x10 focused at infinity rather than racked closely like the image posted and there's a bit of gain to the IC as expected but you should be fine on WP either way. In fact I looked back in my images and found one I shot at infinity or close to it and according to the dimensions, when cropped from 8x10 to remove the vignette at worse the coverage was about 8.5 x 6.75 so that should be fine for WP. Centering the lens will be the hardest part.

[Pere Casals]

That's on 8x10 as I clearly stated so the 90XL covers WP just fine.

I've shot the XL on 8x10 focused at infinity rather than racked closely like the image posted and there's a bit of gain to the IC as expected but you should be fine on WP either way. In fact I looked back in my images and found one I shot at infinity or close to it and according to the dimensions, when cropped from 8x10 to remove the vignette at worse the coverage was about 8.5 x 6.75 so that should be fine for WP. Centering the lens will be the hardest part.

OK... I understand...

/Slightly off/ perhaps for extreme wide an smaller format is better, as there are better choices for 45. Even MF can be a better option, as P67 and RB67 systems have fisheyes...

Still your 90XL shot is amazing, I feel the little vigneting as a creative push.

[Corran]

I think 4x5 is the best compromise for extreme wide-angle. The Schneider 47mm XL is the widest modern lens that you can easily get your hands on and use. The 90mm XL should be about the same FOV on 8x10, but as shown doesn't really cover. For 6x7 I can use my 38mm XL with a custom camera but that's not as wide. You could spend big bucks on a rare 28mm XL which I think would cover 6x7 for about the same FOV as that 47mm.

If you can deal with a 1:2 ratio the 38mm XL works on 6x12 format and the 72mm XL from what I understand works for 4x10, but I've never tried to use mine on that format. You'd likely need a custom camera to get the lens centered and close enough to the film for best results. On the small-format side you can get the 10mm Voigtlander for 35mm film or digital for perhaps the widest horizontal image possible. Speaking of aspect ratios, that 38mm XL will cover a 4x4 area so you can shoot 4x5 with it and crop. It's like a Hasselblad SWC with a huge sheet of film and wider FOV!

As discussed on that other thread, the Hypergon might be the actual widest lens. The 75mm purportedly covers 8x10, which is amazing. I wonder if the rare 60mm covers whole-plate? It'd come close, since it covers 5x7 with room to spare. But they are expensive and as a 100-year-old lens might not hold up.

Fisheyes are just a different animal altogether.

[Pere Casals]

I think 4x5 is the best compromise for extreme wide-angle. The Schneider 47mm XL is the widest modern lens that you can easily get your hands on and use. The 90mm XL should be about the same FOV on 8x10, but as shown doesn't really cover. For 6x7 I can use my 38mm XL with a custom camera but that's not as wide. You could spend big bucks on a rare 28mm XL which I think would cover 6x7 for about the same FOV as that 47mm.

If you can deal with a 1:2 ratio the 38mm XL works on 6x12 format and the 72mm XL from what I understand works for 4x10, but I've never tried to use mine on that format. You'd likely need a custom camera to get the lens centered and close enough to the film for best results. On the small-format side you can get the 10mm Voigtlander for 35mm film or digital for perhaps the widest horizontal image possible. Speaking of aspect ratios, that 38mm XL will cover a 4x4 area so you can shoot 4x5 with it and crop. It's like a Hasselblad SWC with a huge sheet of film and wider FOV!

As discussed on that other thread, the Hypergon might be the actual widest lens. The 75mm purportedly covers 8x10, which is amazing. I wonder if the rare 60mm covers whole-plate? It'd come close, since it covers 5x7 with room to spare. But they are expensive and as a 100-year-old lens might not hold up.

Fisheyes are just a different animal altogether.

The Hypergons are cult objects, so very, very expensives, but even not technically advanced they have an amazing footprint, art is not only related to glass performance...

I agree... the 47 and 38XL are really powerful choices.

Of course, fisheyes are different animal, but this is a resource LF lacks, this is 180º view.

What I mean is that for extreme wide I feel a weak push to do it with LF rather in MF, I don't know exactly why... My widest is a Fuji 65, still I've not used it.

[Lachlan 717]

The Funinon 105mm f8 should come close to covering it (claimed coverage is 250mm v 260mm WP) if Fuji's claim is conservative.

[Chauncey Walden]

Lachlan, close but no cigar. Tried it.