PDA

View Full Version : Schneider Super Angulon 72mm



Steven Ruttenberg
10-Jan-2018, 23:25
Has anyone used this lens? I currently use a 75mm I borrowed, a Mamiya press lens which does not allow for movement on 4x5. I almost exclusively use the 75mm for landscape photography. I really like the coverage it provides. The 72mm provides essentially the same coverage, but has a 226mm image circle at f/22. How much smaller would yhat be as you open up the aperture?

How is the quality of image produced. Compared to the Nikkor SW 75mm with an image circle of 200mm at f/16? I use movements a lot so I the larger the mage circle the better. Of course the Nikkor is half the price of Schneider on ebay used.

Oren Grad
10-Jan-2018, 23:41
Schneider specifies coverage for the 72 SA XL as 166mm at full aperture.

Steven Ruttenberg
10-Jan-2018, 23:48
Thank you.

Steven Ruttenberg
11-Jan-2018, 00:06
I am really interested in image quality.

ruilourosa
11-Jan-2018, 00:23
I think you won´t be able to tell the difference, unless you really look for it. Mamiya press 75mm is already a very good lens!! and although the nikkor lens is very good, in 6x9, the differences have more to do with contrast and tonality (and color) than with resolution. I aware you for the over optimistic DOF scales on mamiya press lenses...

I have no experience with the 72mm xl

Bernice Loui
11-Jan-2018, 01:04
Have owned and used the 72mm SAXL on 5x7 since it's introduction in the later part of the 1990's. Performance is very good indeed. Image circle of expected definition will cover 5x7 with a maybe 10mm of movement f16 at infinity. Generally the 72mm SAXL has not been used with apertures larger than f11, typically between f16 to f32. If the largest image circle is required, this would be the choice, Know it is NOT small or compact and requires a 95mm filter and a center filter if color transparency film (5x7, 13x18cm) should be used due to light fall off. For B&W, maybe not depending on image expectations.


Other 75mm lenses to consider is the 75mm f4.5 Grandagon, image circle of (195mm) at f22. It is smaller than the 72mm SAXL due to the smaller diameter of the front element. Smaller still would be the 75mm f6,8 Grandagon which is significantly smaller than the 72mm SAXL and 75mm f4.5 Grandagon. The image circle (187mm) at f22.


Schneider Super Angulon and Fujinon were made in 75mm f5.6 and 75mm f8.


Image circle tends to increase at reproduction ratios less than infinity. A 75mm that does not cover a given film format might cover that film format well when used in a confined interior image.



Bernice

Steven Ruttenberg
11-Jan-2018, 02:08
Thank you for the information. I would consider a center filter if I purchase the lens. I will mostly be using on 4x5. The Nikkor is currently the othe lens I am looking at. f/4.5, 75mm. But will consider others based on feedback from others before I purchase.

Mark Sampson
11-Jan-2018, 09:33
I've been using a 75/4.5 Nikkor-SW since 2000. It's a fine lens. I bought it to shoot interiors, for which it did very well. I can't imagine anyone in your position being unhappy with one (not to disrespect its competitors).

Sazerac
11-Jan-2018, 10:28
I have both the SA and the Nikkor. I definitely appreciate the larger image circle of the SA for full shift. I’ve been on the hunt for the center filter. That’s a tough item to find.

Steven Ruttenberg
11-Jan-2018, 10:38
Decisions are not easy. :). But for 1/2 to 1/3 price of Schneider, the Nikkor is looking pretty good.

How much tilt can it handle on 4x5 format?

Bob Salomon
11-Jan-2018, 10:45
Decisions are not easy. :). But for 1/2 to 1/3 price of Schneider, the Nikkor is looking pretty good.

How much tilt can it handle on 4x5 format?
A Nikkor, a Schneider Super Angulon and a Rodenstock Grandagon N will all give you bellows limited tilts and swings on 45. However, even though they all have fall off from center to edge only Rodenstock and Schneider offered center filters to help correct the fall off.

Corran
11-Jan-2018, 11:59
Don't underestimate how massively larger the 72mm XL is, compared to more standard 75mm lenses. I own one only because I shoot 6x17, where it lives almost exclusively (and because I bought it cheaply). On 4x5, it's a pain to use due to the size - 95mm filters, or if you use the CF, 112mm on the front of that! Don't bother unless you really need the extreme IC or plan on shooting a larger format.

Here's mine, in the wild, on 6x17. You can see how big the lens is on a Linhof-compatible board/camera:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/61772.jpg

Dan Fromm
11-Jan-2018, 12:35
A Nikkor, a Schneider Super Angulon and a Rodenstock Grandagon N will all give you bellows limited tilts and swings on 45. However, even though they all have fall off from center to edge only Rodenstock and Schneider offered center filters to help correct the fall off.

True. But Helioprint, Rodenstock and Schneider center filters can be used on Fujinons and Nikkors. See the list for directions to an article that lays out the possibilities.

Bob Salomon
11-Jan-2018, 13:07
True. But Helioprint, Rodenstock and Schneider center filters can be used on Fujinons and Nikkors. See the list for directions to an article that lays out the possibilities.

Only Rodenstock and Schneider made center filters for their lenses. Nikon and Fuji did not.
The German filter manufacturer, Heliopan, also sold center filters but there is no guaranty that Heliopan center filters were available in all sizes that Nikon and Fuji lenses required. Additionally Heliopan center filters were available, originally, in two different densities. 0.3 and 0.9. Again these may or may not be optimal for Fuji and Nikon wide angles.

xkaes
11-Jan-2018, 13:49
I use a 75mm Fujinon SWD f5.6 for 4x5. Fujinon made several 75mm lenses with image circles up to 200mm. Mine works great for my needs -- it's fast, lots of movement, eight elements in six groups, NO recessed board, and EBC coated. Check them out at:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

173597

DG 3313
11-Jan-2018, 21:20
My wide lens is the Grandagon 75mm F6.8 and honestly.......I hardly ever use movements other than focus on 4x5. It's small,compact, light weight and sharp....just not fast.

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Jan-2018, 00:39
I looked up the weight of the Super and Nikkor, the Super is about 100 or so gms lighter, but is definitely bigger. I use movements especially tilt on a lot of my subjects as well as swing on occasion. It really depends on the subject though so having the largest image circle is a requirement.

I am narrowing down my choices. The Fujinon is interesting and is part of the group. It would be nice to be able to rent a couple three and try them out before making a final decision. So far, the Super is at the top due to the large image circle getting me to at least 5x7 if I wanted.

Bob Salomon
12-Jan-2018, 01:24
I looked up the weight of the Super and Nikkor, the Super is about 100 or so gms lighter, but is definitely bigger. I use movements especially tilt on a lot of my subjects as well as swing on occasion. It really depends on the subject though so having the largest image circle is a requirement.

I am narrowing down my choices. The Fujinon is interesting and is part of the group. It would be nice to be able to rent a couple three and try them out before making a final decision. So far, the Super is at the top due to the large image circle getting me to at least 5x7 if I wanted.

All of the 90 4.5 and 5.6 lenses more then cover 57!

Bernice Loui
12-Jan-2018, 01:58
If you're after the largest image circle from a 72mm lens, there is only one choice, the 72mm Super Angulon XL, there are no options. When this lens is used on 4x5, more often than not the camera becomes the limitation for movement. This can be a serious limitation for a 4x5 field camera.

IMO, there is too much obsession over which of brand is "better", yes there are differences, but these differences are not nearly as significant when all other image making factors are considered. All four Nikor, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider make excellent modern wide angle lenses.


Bernice



I looked up the weight of the Super and Nikkor, the Super is about 100 or so gms lighter, but is definitely bigger. I use movements especially tilt on a lot of my subjects as well as swing on occasion. It really depends on the subject though so having the largest image circle is a requirement.

I am narrowing down my choices. The Fujinon is interesting and is part of the group. It would be nice to be able to rent a couple three and try them out before making a final decision. So far, the Super is at the top due to the large image circle getting me to at least 5x7 if I wanted.

Sazerac
12-Jan-2018, 05:23
The Schneider filter III fits the Nikkor 75/4.5 67mm front thread.

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Jan-2018, 14:52
I guess it comes down to utility of lens and how it renders the subtlties in color, sharpness, contrast, etc. I am leaning towards the Schneider lens and appropriate center filter.

Corran
12-Jan-2018, 15:23
One thing about the 72mm XL is that on some cameras, with some types of movements, you may be restricted more than a smaller lens simply because of the front element size impacting the side of the front standard! I believe last time I used my 72mm XL on 4x5 I couldn't quite get enough front tilt with my Linhof MT due to this issue.

I would sell the 72XL in a heartbeat and get something smaller if not for shooting 6x17...

xkaes
12-Jan-2018, 16:36
I guess it comes down to utility of lens and how it renders the subtlties in color, sharpness, contrast, etc.

And how you define each.

Bernice Loui
12-Jan-2018, 18:56
Camera movements with the Schneider 72mm SAXL is mostly a non-isssue on a Sinar Norma, P, F with a bag bellows. The most demanding movement would be shift/rise with swing/tilts (over the decades of using the 72mm SAXL, swing/tilt has been never more than about five degrees) being much less of a limitation. As previously mentioned, field camera are the most affected by these limitations.

Do know this lens while not that heavy, it is a whopper.



Bernice

Tom Westbrook
12-Jan-2018, 20:14
For what it’s worth, see http://www.tomwestbrook.com/Photography/lf_lenses.html for an image with this lens showing an un-doctored photo with and without the IVb center Filter. It is a nice lens.

Steven Ruttenberg
12-Jan-2018, 23:54
For what it’s worth, see http://www.tomwestbrook.com/Photography/lf_lenses.html for an image with this lens showing an un-doctored photo with and without the IVb center Filter. It is a nice lens.

Nice demonstration. For my digital work I use an IRIX 15mm which has a 95mm thread on the front. That is a whapper of a lens.

hiend61
13-Jan-2018, 13:56
The 72 SA XL is a great lens, but unless you shot 5x7, you will not see any benefit with it compared with the rest of 75 mm lenses from the rest of the big four makers. This lens requires an enormous center filter which is 112 mm wide in the front, which is a problem if you want to use a polarizing or a correction filter on top. This center filter is very rare to find and expensive.
I have both Grandagon-N 75/4,5 and Nikkor SW 75/4,5. Both are superb lenses. The Nikon is a bit contrastier and saturates colors a tad more. The Nikkor reaches maximum image circle (200mm) at f/16, just covers 5x7 with no movements, and can use the Rodenstock 67/86 centerfilters.
Rodenstock made 3 67/86 centerfilters. the 0,45 with a 1,5 stops exposure factor, no matter the is marked 4x on the rim. The 0,6 with a 2 stops factor and the last one, which is still in production with a factor of 2,5 stops.
A center filter is a must for a 75mm lens if you shot chromes. The factor of the filter depends on your taste. I have all 3 and I like best the 2X factor for the 75. The 2,5X, recommended for Apo Grandagon lenses 35, 45 and 55 offers a full correction at maximum shift with a 75, and I like a bit of vigneting.

Steven Ruttenberg
14-Jan-2018, 00:21
Thanks for the info. I am thinking of also shooting 5x7 as well hence the 72mm. But the cost of Nikkor and the Grandagon are about same so still another choice. I like contrast and more saturation doesn't hurt. Center filtrts sre something I am just getting into. They could also work for my digital photography as well since most of my landscapes are in the range of 15-24 mm

Pere Casals
14-Jan-2018, 04:45
How much tilt can it handle on 4x5 format?

You can tilt-swing any amount you want, the 4x5 size always will fit in the illumination cone, this is for rear tilt-swing.

with 200mm circle:

173689

For front tilt-swing you may soon need to perfrom rise-shift to place the 4x5 negative inside the illumination cone, if angling in the 4x5 diagonal plane (a tilt-swing combination), the worst case, you may need to perfrom rise-shift after slight tilt-shift.

But as you see in the sketch this depends on bellows draw...

it's time to put catia at work :)

given your background I'd recommend you to play a bit (10min) with the cad soft, it's an straight way to pre-visualize camera and cone limitations





Decisions are not easy. :). But for 1/2 to 1/3 price of Schneider, the Nikkor is looking pretty good.


The nikon is also excellent, but I'd investigate about corner performance depending on aperture to compare. The availability of (expensive) center filters may be another factor.

Steven Ruttenberg
22-Jan-2018, 23:31
Catia V5 sucks. Lol. I prefer V4. I have decided on the Schneider. Much room for shifting and tilting thru 5x7. But will mostly live on the 4x5. Nice sketches.

Steven Ruttenberg
22-Jan-2018, 23:43
I am thinking of the following focal lengths, 72, 90, 150, 240, 300 and an 600 or 800. The 240 and 300 will be Voigtlander lenses. With 240 and 310 counterparts for landscape and architecture work if Voigtlander lenses don't pan out for landscapes and architecture.

This would be my lens collection to choose from when back packing.

Thoughts?

Corran
23-Jan-2018, 00:05
My lens usage on 4x5 is like 90% 150mm lenses and under. Probably 8-9% is between that and 300mm. Once in a great while I'll use one of my long Nikkor-T lenses. But that's me. You'll have to decide what lens focal lengths are appropriate for your shooting style.

I will say you should look for the Nikkor-T 360/500/720 set if you want long lenses. I can't think of any 600mm or 800mm lenses that would be as small / light, even though they are fairly large compared to the more "standard" lenses.

For backpacking, IMO G-Claron lenses at the 150mm and 240mm lengths are a good choice due to size and weight. 300mm f/9 Nikkor is another good choice for small/light. Assuming you are talking about the 240mm and 300mm f/4.5 Heliars when you say Voigtlander lenses, those are massive lenses compared to the f/9 lenses I mentioned above and would definitely not be my first choice for backpacking...

Perhaps shoot what you have until you really decide you need those longer lenses.

Doremus Scudder
23-Jan-2018, 02:03
I am thinking of the following focal lengths, 72, 90, 150, 240, 300 and an 600 or 800. The 240 and 300 will be Voigtlander lenses. With 240 and 310 counterparts for landscape and architecture work if Voigtlander lenses don't pan out for landscapes and architecture.

This would be my lens collection to choose from when backpacking.

Thoughts?

Sounds pretty heavy to me. Hardly any of the lenses you list fall into my category of "lightweight."

FWIW, my stable of lightweight lenses: Fujinon SW 75mm f/5.6, Nikkor SW 90 f/8, Ektar WF 100mm f/6.3, Nikkor or Rodenstock 135mm f/5.6, Fujinon A 180mm f/9, Ektar 203mm f/7.7, Fujinon A 240mm f/9, Nikkor M 300mm f/9, Nikkor M 450mm f/9 (I'd like a Fujinon C 450mm, since it's smaller, but I've never found one at a price I can afford...).

Of these I'll take four or five depending on space and distance. My most used kit: 90mm, 135mm 203mm 240mm (and maybe the 300mm). If I want really light, 100mm, 135mm, 203mm, 240mm. These latter four together weight less than a 72mm SA...

Just sayin'

Doremus

xkaes
23-Jan-2018, 05:43
I am thinking of the following focal lengths, 72, 90, 150, 240, 300 and an 600 or 800. The 240 and 300 will be Voigtlander lenses. With 240 and 310 counterparts for landscape and architecture work if Voigtlander lenses don't pan out for landscapes and architecture.

This would be my lens collection to choose from when back packing.

Thoughts?

For backpacking, much depends on your type of photography, your scenery -- when backpacking, you may or may not be doing much architecture -- and your back (AKA spine). For backpacking, size and weight usually become very important -- and add up fast when you consider camera, film, tripod, holders, accessories, etc. If you are in canyon country, forests, etc. the use of long lenses is not likely. Frequently, the longest lens I bring is my Fujinon C 300mm because it is so small and lightweight -- tiny, really -- but I don't use it that much. Buy all the lenses you can afford, but select them carefully beforehand -- and then again when you fill your pack. You might even decide to go wider than 72mm!

Huub
23-Jan-2018, 06:41
I am thinking of the following focal lengths, 72, 90, 150, 240, 300 and an 600 or 800. The 240 and 300 will be Voigtlander lenses. With 240 and 310 counterparts for landscape and architecture work if Voigtlander lenses don't pan out for landscapes and architecture.

This would be my lens collection to choose from when back packing.

Thoughts?


Personally I backpack with a set of 58mm SA XL, a 75mm Nikon SW, a 110 SS XL, a 150mm apo-symmar, a 240mm apo-ronar and a 360-500 Nikon T* set. Of these lenses the 110mm, 150mm and 240mm get most use in landscape. When i look at your set i would suggest you rethink the longer focal lengths, as i think the difference between 240mm and 300mm is not that big and i think a 360mm would be a better choice. I can support Corran's suggestion to get a Nikon T* set of 360-500-720mm. This will safe you a lot of weight in your backpack, while you still have the availability of a nice set of excelent longer vocal lengths. Also: Voigtländer Heliars and Lanthars are big and heavy, especially the 300mm. I wouldn't want a lens of at least 1500 grams in my backback, when it can be replaced with something weighing less then 300 grams for a Nikkor-M 300mm.

A second thing to consider is the use of filters. The 72 SA takes 95mm filters, which are pretty costly. When you would replace that one with a 65mm or 75mm and use the Nikon T*-set, you could do with 67mm, which are way cheaper and weigh less.

xkaes
23-Jan-2018, 07:30
A second thing to consider is the use of filters. The 72 SA takes 95mm filters, which are pretty costly. When you would replace that one with a 65mm or 75mm and use the Nikon T*-set, you could do with 67mm, which are way cheaper and weigh less.

Excellent point because if you use filters the weight and cost can add up fast. But if you stick to small, light lenses, you can make it much lighter and less costly because they will use smaller filters. I've standardized on 77mm and modified all of my lenses to that size -- even my fisheye -- and depending on your lenses, standardizing on 72mm, 67mm (or even smaller) can be easy. It makes no sense to carry filters of different sizes for most situations.

Pere Casals
23-Jan-2018, 08:06
I am thinking of the following focal lengths, 72, 90, 150, 240, 300 and an 600 or 800. The 240 and 300 will be Voigtlander lenses. With 240 and 310 counterparts for landscape and architecture work if Voigtlander lenses don't pan out for landscapes and architecture.

This would be my lens collection to choose from when back packing.

Thoughts?

Steven, what I see in that kit is that 72 and 90 are too close, with the 72 you don't need much the 90, just cropping a bit you have the same. Some replace the 65mm and the 90mm by a 75mm. If wanting the 65mm then you can jump to 90mm.

IMHO single reason to have a 72 and also a 90 is the case that lenses are very different regarding circle vs weight.

Mark Darragh
23-Jan-2018, 11:37
Steven, what camera will you be carrying? Stability at extension and bellows length is an important consideration if you are using any lens in the 400mm+ range. Even the Nikkor T mention is around 800 grams, which is reasonably heavy (imho) for a backpacking lens. Fujinon’s wonderfully little 450mm C is certainly a very practical choice as an alternative.

My basic lens kit for backpacking is either a 80mm SSXL or Nikkor 90mm SW, 150mm Sironar, 200mm Nikkor M or Fujinon 240mm A and often a Fujinon 300mm C. For closeup work, which I do quite a lot of, I carry a 120mm Makro Symmar . I regularly carry that kit on trips of 9-10 days.

To the basic kit I’ve been know to add a 58mm SA XL, 110mm or 125mm lens and on a rare occasion Nikkor 450mm M. I mainly shoot colour and use Lee filters rather than screw in filters. Unless I’m taking the 58mm, which needs 100mm filters, I use the Lee Seven5 system which is much more compact and light weight.

Corran
23-Jan-2018, 11:48
And if I remember, the OP hasn't mentioned what camera he has. Long non-tele lenses might not even work on it, and likely the Nikkor-T 500/720 elements will be a stretch. The only camera I have capable of using the Nikkor 720mm is my Chamonix with an extension board AND the lens on an extension lens board. My Toyo monorail could handle it if I had an extra rail and bellows, but...I wouldn't be hiking with that, ever.

Focus on the essentials. Shoot enough to know what you need.

xkaes
23-Jan-2018, 14:54
And if I remember, the OP hasn't mentioned what camera he has.

He kinda-sorta suggested 4x5. But even if that is true, the 4x5 cameras have different limits as to focal length. So that is an unknown. Plus, there are long lens and tele-photo lenses that complicate the matter. I'm able to use a 600mm Fujinon T on my Toko 4x5 because it has 360mm of bellows and I added a 2.5" extension cone. A Fujinon 450mm C would not "cut the mustard". Do I take my 600mm on many backpacking trips? Not as many as I would like. It's great, but it's large and heavy -- like many of my relatives -- and I DON'T bring them along on backpacking trips, either!!!

But the original question was about wide-angle lenses -- which, in some ways, have the same question/problem/issue, but in reverse.

Steven Ruttenberg
23-Jan-2018, 21:49
To clarify, I would not carry all at same time. I tend to prefer wider lenses and the 72 gas such a large image circle I can use it on a 5x7. The Voigtlander lenses I most likely wouldn't back pack and use for portraits.

I do not mind 95mm filters as I already use them on my wide angle 35mm digital format camera.

My camera is the Chamonix 45H-1. I would never go beyond 4 lenses on a back packing trip. I think of my list a trip would be 72mm, 150mm, 300mm. And then depending on where I go and something in a range in between the 3 choices list last sentence. Anything with a longer focal length I would use on my toyo and the 5x7 or 8x10 Chamonix I am gonna get in the future.

I do agree with all comments.

xkaes
24-Jan-2018, 10:32
To clarify, I would not carry all at same time. I tend to prefer wider lenses and the 72 gas such a large image circle I can use it on a 5x7.

I'll repeat what someone else suggested already -- as I recall. Since you tend to lean wide, as I do, you might want to consider a 65mm, 90mm, 150mm set-up. That's what I often use when traveling light. Sure, the 65mm won't cover 5x7, but it gets you super-wider on 4x5. So it's a tough call for you, but the 65mm is great for many situations, such as this shot in Zion. I was backed up against a cliff, and a 75mm would not have been wide enough. The 65mm barely covered it all.

174012

Corran
24-Jan-2018, 13:57
I love wide angles and oftentimes my kit is 58mm XL, 90mm f/8, and 150mm f/5.6. None of those cover 8x10. When I shoot 8x10 I usually have a 120mm f/8, 210mm f/9, and 300mm f/9. My personal opinion is that if you don't have an 8x10, don't worry about immense coverage right now. For instance, I think it would be crazy to only buy a 150mm SSXL that is massive but covers 8x10 and more, and then backpack with that when only shooting 4x5, since you can buy an excellent 150mm f/5.6 of some stripe that is half the size/weight or less for 4x5 for just a couple hundred. Very rarely do I have lenses that I would use on both formats.

When I was canoeing and hiking to some really remote locales and shooting 4x5 I would usually bring my Chamonix 45n1 w/ 90mm Angulon, 150mm f/9 G-Claron, and 65mm f/8 Super Angulon, with 18 sheets of film in 3 Grafmatics. I was much happier since I wasn't fighting with massive amounts of gear, plus I could go very far without wearing myself out. Of course there was that one time I brought an 8x20 and accouterments....

Steven Ruttenberg
25-Jan-2018, 00:24
I am still leaning towards the 72mm but the 65mm is interesting, so long as I don't need shift which I use often and tilt which I dont use as often would work especially if I don't get vignetting when Ibuse mt formatt-hitech filters. The rectangle 165x185 grad nd and 150 x100 reverse grad (i hope it comes in 165x185 at some point). If it doesnt the 72 may not be as enticing.

65/72/75? 90/100 150 and 300. Are the choices. So kit could be 65mm 100mm 150mm and 300mm. Another might be 72mm, 100mm, 150mm and 300mm the dilemma is what the widest lens will be. So need to decide. 75 us attractive in Nikkor has decent image circle reasonably priced.

The difference in field of view between the 65mm and 75mm is 8 degrees. That can be a lot, but you lose 30mm on image circle size. No real difference between 72mm and 75mm other than the 72mm's ginormous image circle.

Anyway, getting close.

Appreciate all the inputs and advice.

Huub
25-Jan-2018, 03:14
One of the things i could suggest is to try to evenly space out the focal lenghts. This would make a 75mm - 90mm - 150mm combination kinda odd and a 65mm - 90mm - 150mm or a 75mm - 110mm - 150mm a better one. You could consider getting a 180mm in stead of the 150mm, especially when the 300mm is your longest backpacking lens, so you get more or less a 0.6 progression between the focal lenghts.

One of the things to consider is also that the choice of modern, multi coated glass with a decent image circle in the 100mm - 110mm region is not that big. There is only a 105mm f8 Fujinon and 110 SS XL that i am aware off. And remember: when a 75mm is not wide enough, there is always a 58mm or 47mm.

xkaes
25-Jan-2018, 04:43
I am still leaning towards the 72mm but the 65mm is interesting, so long as I don't need shift which I use often and tilt which I dont use as often would work especially if I don't get vignetting when Ibuse mt formatt-hitech filters. The rectangle 165x185 grad nd and 150 x100 reverse grad (i hope it comes in 165x185 at some point). If it doesnt the 72 may not be as enticing.

With the 65mm there is very little ability to shift or rise/fall. There is a little bit more ability to tilt or swing, but it is also limited. The 47mm XL is similarly limited. But the ability of the camera to physically move enough might be the limiting factor rather than the IC. Fortunately, most landscapes/scenics don't need much movement due to the enormous DOF.

And using filters will be a challenge. The wider you go, the fewer filters you can use, for sure. Fortunately, I'm not afraid of cropping in the darkroom if the corners are cut off by important filtration.

And don't forget that the wider you go, the more light fall-off you will encounter -- and have to "deal with" in some way -- or not. FYI, the picture from Zion was with a 65mm lens and just a UV filter.

consummate_fritterer
25-Jan-2018, 13:30
wide to normal

47 (4x5 only)
72
105/110/115
150/165
210/240

Steven Ruttenberg
25-Jan-2018, 13:52
I will be making my decision soon. Will post it here when I get them.

xkaes
25-Jan-2018, 14:13
I will be making my decision soon. Will post it here when I get them.

Always remember that you can always change your mind later. I know I did. I sold two great wide angles -- not at the same time -- and eventually ended up with three different ones, instead. My guess is that the majority of LF users have sooner or later sold at least one lens that, when they bought it, they thought they would keep forever.

Parting is such sweet sorrow -- sweet only because you have the images.

Steven Ruttenberg
26-Jan-2018, 14:10
This is true. I though don't have lots of cash to throw around and in general when I get a lens it never leaves me. I really prefer wide angles for landscape.

Paul Ron
29-Jan-2018, 08:13
i just started shooting lf again using a 75mm lens on a wista45. i noticed the rails in my pictures at the bottom of my images.

i figured out how to cure the problem. i drop the front rail bed a few degrees and lift the lens stage up to center it, then using the front tilt i align the lens stage to be parallel to the film plane. no more front rails in my pix!

xkaes
29-Jan-2018, 08:44
i just started shooting lf again using a 75mm lens on a wista45. i noticed the rails in my pictures at the bottom of my images.

i figured out how to cure the problem. i drop the front rail bed a few degrees and lift the lens stage up to center it, then using the front tilt i align the lens stage to be parallel to the film plane. no more front rails in my pix!

I don't have the details in front of me, but I think some wooden Wistas have a rear standard that moves forward -- like my Tokos -- so the drop-bed approach is not needed. I might be wrong about that. This page has some pictures of what you did:

http://www.subclub.org/toko/4x5table.htm

Bob Salomon
29-Jan-2018, 08:54
I don't have the details in front of me, but I think some wooden Wistas have a rear standard that moves forward -- like my Tokos -- so the drop-bed approach is not needed. I might be wrong about that. This page has some pictures of what you did:

http://www.subclub.org/toko/4x5table.htm
No, they don’t!

xkaes
29-Jan-2018, 10:14
No, they don’t!

That's a surprise. What's more surprising is why they are so popular when Tachiharas, Tokos, etc. that have rear focusing are in less demand -- and sell for less as a result!

Bob Salomon
29-Jan-2018, 10:23
That's a surprise. What's more surprising is why they are so popular when Tachiharas, Tokos, etc. that have rear focusing are in less demand -- and sell for less as a result!

Who knows, Linhof Technika camera’s are extremely popular and don’t have rear focusing either.
Maybe because rear focus changes subject to film distance where front focusing doesn’t. This is critical for applications where the shot has to be taken at a specific image ratio.

xkaes
29-Jan-2018, 10:28
Maybe because rear focus changes subject to film distance where front focusing doesn’t. This is critical for applications where the shot has to be taken at a specific image ratio.

A camera with both-standard movement gives the shutterbug both options, but I know that a lot of people get into LF through the advise/opinions of, and (mis)information from, others.

I was lucky when I decided to "make the move up". Popular Photography's yearly Camera Guide/Round-up, that year, included a ton of info about the large format cameras available at that time. They normally didn't. Still, it was a tough decision, but it gave me all the specs -- and prices -- and I was able to make the right choice, for me!

Bernice Loui
29-Jan-2018, 10:43
There is little usefulness to having both front and rear focus on a field camera other than opulent luxury to focus front or rear. Have been a Linhof Technica and other field camera(s) owner-user in the past, confirms this.

Wide_er angle lenses on flat bed cameras will need to have the bed dropped, then front rise applied to compensate for lens image circle or the front edge of the bed will appear in the image. As the focal lengths of the wider_er lens decreased and entire host of problems appear from the need to drop the bed to ability for the bellows to compress small enough to achieve focus, to recessed lens boards that can render the shutter speed and aperture controls difficult to access, attaching a cable release to the shutter release and more. These difficulties and more are the very real difficulties for me giving up on all flat bed cameras. They have too many limitations when used with wide_er lenses of short focal length.

It is the reason why cameras like the Toyo VX, Linhof Technikardan, Sinar Norma and others came into being. These rail based cameras have far fewer limitations (Specially the Sinar). All cameras are a given set of trade offs, choose based on overall image making need rather than a single myopic factor or idea of what might be best or ideal camera based only on media and publications.


Bernice

Bob Salomon
29-Jan-2018, 10:47
A camera with both-standard movement gives the shutterbug both options.

You compare features, movements, accessories, build quality, etc. and then buy whichever one suits your needs. Your choice should never be dictated by a specific feature, unless you need that specific feature to do your job.
Front and rear focus is only one of many features on a camera. And on lightweight cameras can be a negative feature since it is more difficult to maintain parallelism, rigidity and alignment on the heavier and larger rear standard on a lightweight folding camera then on the front standard. There are of course exceptions. The folding Linhof TK and TKS has geared rear focus only. But it is far more substantial then the folding lightweight wooden cameras.

Bernice Loui
29-Jan-2018, 10:59
Lower weight often comes with less camera rigidity, overall stability. It is a trade off.

That said, those Linhof cameras are nicely built and designed in many ways. Their precision and solid "feel" adds to the user experience. They are heavier than light weight wood based fiat bed cameras, yet their weight and precision can make up for their increased weight. Linhof flat beds can be surprisingly durable and enduring in many ways.


Bernice



You compare features, movements, accessories, build quality, etc. and then buy whichever one suits your needs. Your choice should never be dictated by a specific feature, unless you need that specific feature to do your job.

But it is far more substantial then the folding lightweight wooden cameras.

Steven Ruttenberg
29-Jan-2018, 11:42
Back focus is important when using tilt. I focus on the subject/compose etc, then set my tilt angle and refocus using the rear. This has the effect of keeping my focus center point where I want it. I use the rear focus quite a bit. my composition/perspective, etc is not affected either. So it is initial focus front, set tilt to where I want, then refocus to point I want to be in focus, check everything, then retilt if necessary, and back focus again. This is also based on my f/stop of choice to suit my need and hyper-focal distance.

Bob Salomon
29-Jan-2018, 12:14
Back focus is important when using tilt. I focus on the subject/compose etc, then set my tilt angle and refocus using the rear. This has the effect of keeping my focus center point where I want it. I use the rear focus quite a bit. my composition/perspective, etc is not affected either. So it is initial focus front, set tilt to where I want, then refocus to point I want to be in focus, check everything, then retilt if necessary, and back focus again. This is also based on my f/stop of choice to suit my need and hyper-focal distance.

And you are using a base tilt camera. Not the same with a center tilt camera or an asymmetric tilt camera.

xkaes
29-Jan-2018, 12:16
The Toko 4x5 cameras were available with fixed or adjustable rear standards. But those with adjustable rear standards can be adjusted forward or backward. This feature adds 3 ounces to the fixed model -- not what I would call a big deal -- but it also adds 25mm of bellows extension.

From what I can tell, the adjustable rear models far outsold the fixed rear models.

Steven Ruttenberg
29-Jan-2018, 12:56
Center tilt. Chamonix 45H1. No base tilt.

chassis
29-Jan-2018, 20:25
I use a Schneider 58mm SAXL on a Toyo 45AII and like it alot. Most of the architecture images on my website use this setup. The bellows does end up almost completely compressed, and drop bed+front rise is common for me. I use a recessed lensboard, which is required on my camera to achieve infinity focus. A shutter release 45 degree attachment is needed to attach a normal cable release, and it is fiddly to cock the shutter and close the aperture.

My philosophy is, if you're going to go wide, go wide. On 4x5 the widest is 47mm, but I didn't like having a zero-movement (bellows limited) camera, and the 47mm was more money at the time than I wanted to spend. So I went with the 58mm and haven't regretted it.

Everything I have read about, and images I have seen from, the Schneider 72/5.6 SAXL is(are) excellent. This lens is on my list. Here is a proposed wide to normal lineup for 4x5:

58
72
120
150

If the Schneider 72SAXL doesn't materialize for whatever reason, for 4x5 I would not hesitate to go with a Nikkor-SW 75/4.5. I have not used the Nikkor 75, but have 3 other Nikkors, all of which are outstanding lenses.

Steven Ruttenberg
29-Jan-2018, 20:53
I use a Schneider 58mm SAXL on a Toyo 45AII and like it alot. Most of the architecture images on my website use this setup. The bellows does end up almost completely compressed, and drop bed+front rise is common for me. I use a recessed lensboard, which is required on my camera to achieve infinity focus. A shutter release 45 degree attachment is needed to attach a normal cable release, and it is fiddly to cock the shutter and close the aperture.

My philosophy is, if you're going to go wide, go wide. On 4x5 the widest is 47mm, but I didn't like having a zero-movement (bellows limited) camera, and the 47mm was more money at the time than I wanted to spend. So I went with the 58mm and haven't regretted it.

Everything I have read about, and images I have seen from, the Schneider 72/5.6 SAXL is(are) excellent. This lens is on my list. Here is a proposed wide to normal lineup for 4x5:

58
72
120
150

If the Schneider 72SAXL doesn't materialize for whatever reason, for 4x5 I would not hesitate to go with a Nikkor-SW 75/4.5. I have not used the Nikkor 75, but have 3 other Nikkors, all of which are outstanding lenses.

Yep, go wide, my widest on 35mm is 15mm and looking at 11mm. waffling between 72 and 75, but 58 is interesting too now that you mention it. Choices, now to win the lottery :)

Corran
29-Jan-2018, 22:22
While the aspect ratio isn't quite the same, I find the 58mm XL to closely match the 15mm on my small-format cameras. I love that focal length. I have the 47mm XL too and it is just too wide, usually. It has to be a really tight shot for that lens to work, but the 58mm seems just right for me usually. The 58mm also works out as a wonderful 6x9 lens if using a medium-format back / camera for "wide" but not too wide...like a 25mm on small format.

But the 72mm XL is probably the limit before images start to look obviously ultrawide-angly, if that makes sense.

I was looking back through my scans and I remembered that I've noticed the 72mm XL and 90mm XL images that I've shot on color have an especially lush look to them. Might just be my imagination. Here's an image from the 72mm XL on 4x5 Portra:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mxBnCCYMVRk/VwCUtF2HH_I/AAAAAAAAJ-M/lX-CYdA1rRUXUIRT56g-xO_ODcMc8bg6w/s800/lakeland-3037s.jpg

Nice late evening lighting helps. Maybe I've just been lucky with the light every time I use them :).

Steven Ruttenberg
29-Jan-2018, 23:28
Well,15m on 35 mm format has a 98 degree field of view and a 58 mm has a 95 degree field of on 5x4. My IRIX 15mm has almost no distortion so if optics good on 58 mm it should be similar on distortion if not better.

Corran
29-Jan-2018, 23:34
Never noticed a hint of distortion on the 58mm, as one would expect from a non-retrofocus design.

Bernice Loui
30-Jan-2018, 11:09
Modern LF wide angle lenses based on the "Biogon-Aviogon" variations have better overall performance compared to Retrofocus wide angle designs except in the area of light fall off and large apertures. Generally, they have lower distortion, better resolution and such compared to small format Retrofocus designs. Keep in mind the often coveted small format wide angles are of the Biogon-Aviogon variety, examples: 21mm Super Angulon, 21mm Biogon, 15mm & 12mm Heliar and etc.. These are usually found on rangefinder small format film cameras and can be used on mirror less digital cameras.


Bernice