Calumet 90mm: f8 vs f4.5

[Robert Dunn]

Good morning,
I have a line on two similar lenses. CALUMET CALTAR-W II 90MM F8 and CALUMET 90MM F4.5 CALTAR II-N MC.
I intend to use the lens for mountain scenery on a Linhof IV ( I haven't purchased the camera yet, either.)
First of all, is 90mm too wide? (I do plan to go out this week with my 35mm zoom lens to evaluate this, but would appreciate others' opinions.)
Otherwise, what are the pros and cons of these two lenses for landscapes?
Thanks,
Bob

[Pfsor]

First of all, is 90mm too wide? (I do plan to go out this week with my 35mm zoom lens to evaluate this, but would appreciate others' opinions.)
Thanks,
Bob
Do yourself a favour and make a view frame for your 90mm lens. You will have no doubt about what your future lens will see on your camera film format. As simple as that.

[Bob Salomon]

They are similar only in focal length.
One is a Schneider and the other a Rodenstock. The Rodenstock covers a larger circle and is newer then the Schneider.

[ic-racer]

I suspect one is much larger than the other. I know that 4.5 won't even fit on my 4x5 field camera. If you can haul it around, the f4.5 will have a brighter image which may make it easier to use. On 4x5, 90mm is at the point were you really need to have your front swing detent set correctly. It is very difficult to see the edges well enough to align the front standard in the field by looking at the horizon on the ground glass. If you are just starting out, try a 150mm.
I have my coat on and am just finishing my coffee, about to go out with my 4x5. I have a large assortment of lenses, and I have been doing this a long time and and I have the 150 on the camera.

[David Karp]

I had the Rodenstock labeled version of the 90mm f/4.5. It is an outstanding lens. It has a much larger image circle than the 90mm f/8 you are looking at. It is also a much larger lens. It takes 82mm filters. I sold mine even though I really liked it. The reason was it was too big to carry around everywhere. I replaced it with a 90mm f/8 Nikon. It has approximately the same image circle as the f/4.5 Caltar II-N but it is much smaller in size. If you want a 90mm with ample movements and smaller size, the Nikon is the one to use.

However, you have to decide if a 90mm is right for you. It is supposed to be roughly equivalent to a 28mm in full frame 35mm terms but I found that I use it less than a 28mm equivalent on a small camera. A viewing frame is a good idea. [http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter12-2010.html#anchor07] I have one that John Sexton gave us at a workshop. I use it sometimes. Looking through the camera is much better for me. If you know someone with a view camera and an assortment of lenses that would be the best.

[xkaes]

Otherwise, what are the pros and cons of these two lenses for landscapes?
Thanks,
Bob

The angle of view of any 90mm lens will be the same. Whether or not that is the best angle for you is a personal preference. I consider a 90mm closer to a 24mm than a 28mm (in 35mm format). That may or may not be what you want.

The main differences between an f4.5 vs f8 are frequently:
f8 -- smaller, lighter, less expensive, dimmer image on ground glass, smaller front filter diameter, smaller shutter (faster top speed).

The image circles of both might be something to consider as well. If you don't need much movement, there is no need to pay for a wider image circle.

[Bob Salomon]

The angle of view of any 90mm lens will be the same. Whether or not that is the best angle for you is a personal preference. I consider a 90mm closer to a 24mm than a 28mm (in 35mm format). That may or may not be what you want.

The main differences between an f4.5 vs f8 are frequently:
f8 -- smaller, lighter, less expensive, dimmer image on ground glass, smaller front filter diameter, smaller shutter (faster top speed).

The image circles of both might be something to consider as well. If you don't need much movement, there is no need to pay for a wider image circle.

In pure performance, other then image circle, the 4.5 will simply outperform the slower lens in resolution, contrast, lack of distortion, etc.

[Robert Dunn]

Thanks for all your help. I recently found out that the Technika IV I was considering, as a match for this lens, doesn't have a cam, so I decided to not buy the lens or the camera.
Thanks again,
Bob

[ic-racer]

I intend to use the lens for mountain scenery

doesn't have a cam, so I decided to not buy the lens or the camera.

You will probably be OK using the ground glass back to focus.

[Robert Dunn]

Yes, never considered the ground glass. Is a cam made specifically to an individual camera or any Technika IV.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for all your help. I recently found out that the Technika IV I was considering, as a match for this lens, doesn't have a cam, so I decided to not buy the lens or the camera.
Thanks again,
Bob

The IV uses the same cam as the current Master so it is very easy to send the camera and lens to the service center to have a cam cut to match your camera and lens.
If you get a V or a Master then you only have to send the lens in for camming.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, never considered the ground glass. Is a cam made specifically to an individual camera or any Technika IV.

See my last reply.
A cam cut for a IV will have the camera’s serial number stamped on the back of the cam and the lens focal length and serial number stamped on the top face of the cam.
Since the V and the Master have factory zeroed gg position only the lens has to go for camming and the cams for these cameras will only have the focal length and lens serial number stamped on the top of the cam.
A cam cut for a V or Master will couple properly, with the lens it was cammed to on any V or Master.
A cam cut for a IV will only couple properly with the camera and lens it was coupled to.
While IV, V and Master cams all fit any of these cameras the IV cam is not interchangeable between different cameras and models.

[Corran]

You've already stated you want to shoot mountain scenery, a.k.a. landscape. There is not an absolute need for a rangefinder in this application. That being said, some people like to use the RF for focusing even in this application - but if you want to use movements you'd really want to check the GG for precision.

Between the two lenses, the f/8 one will certainly be smaller and lighter. In my opinion, that is an important distinction, that will be more important than the likely only slight difference in performance. But if you are mostly driving up to a viewpoint and snapping a photo than perhaps that doesn't matter to you.

[Alan Gales]

To me a 90mm on 4x5 feels like the 25mm lens I had on my 35mm Contax camera. A 90mm is a very popular lens for 4x5 shooters for a wide view. You probably want one if you like wide angle lenses.

You will like the brighter f/4.5 lens better for shooting but like the smaller and lighter f/8 lens better for carrying up and down the mountain! ;)

[Bob Salomon]

You've already stated you want to shoot mountain scenery, a.k.a. landscape. There is not an absolute need for a rangefinder in this application. That being said, some people like to use the RF for focusing even in this application - but if you want to use movements you'd really want to check the GG for precision.

Between the two lenses, the f/8 one will certainly be smaller and lighter. In my opinion, that is an important distinction, that will be more important than the likely only slight difference in performance. But if you are mostly driving up to a viewpoint and snapping a photo than perhaps that doesn't matter to you.

There is a lot of talk about the differences in weight while not telling exactly what that difference is. In Rodenstock’s case the difference in weight between the 90mm 6.8 and the 90mm 4.5 is just over 8.4 oz. for that difference you get a larger image circle, better resolution, less distortion, fall off starting further out from the center which may minimize the need for a center filter, in short-better performance.

Other differences; the 4.5 is in a 1 size shutterrather then a 0 and, as noted, overall a larger lens.

How important is 8.4 oz to you?

[Corran]

Half a pound.

My statement was, smaller and lighter. That's true, as you have shown with an exact figure. If you used the excuse that half a pound here and half a pound there is no big deal, suddenly instead of a 25 pound kit in a medium-sized pack, you've got a 35 pound kit in a large pack and a significant difference in overall weight and bulk. Whether or not this is important depends on the photographer and how he plans on using his gear. To answer your last question, for me, it is very important.

Besides which, you've also specified an f/6.8 lens, not f/8 as per the OP. So your comparison isn't valid anyway. Edit: My quick look at specs online shows a 90mm f/8 SA weighing another 2.5oz less. So, more like 11oz total. That's another whole lens!!

[Alan Gales]

There is a lot of talk about the differences in weight while not telling exactly what that difference is. In Rodenstock’s case the difference in weight between the 90mm 6.8 and the 90mm 4.5 is just over 8.4 oz. for that difference you get a larger image circle, better resolution, less distortion, fall off starting further out from the center which may minimize the need for a center filter, in short-better performance.

Other differences; the 4.5 is in a 1 size shutterrather then a 0 and, as noted, overall a larger lens.

How important is 8.4 oz to you?

I fully agree with you, Bob. But there are those people who cut off the end of their toothbrush to make it lighter in their backpack! ;)

[Bob Salomon]

I fully agree with you, Bob. But there are those people who cut off the end of their toothbrush to make it lighter in their backpack! ;)

True, but not sure that the op is one of those. If he is he probably would not be looking at buying a Technika!

[David Karp]

I had a 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N. It was a great lens. I found I did not use it much, not only because of its size, but because of the filter size as well. At the time, I could not afford to purchase a bunch of 82mm filters for black and white. I had one filter, if I recall. I already had lots of filters in the other sizes I might need, so they were basically free. I ended up with a 90mm f/8 Nikon. That one gets used a bit more. It takes 67mm filters and is lighter. Both are excellent lenses. If you hike with a camera, a half a pound or more can matter. A stack of 82mm black and white filters is not light either. Probably ends up being heavier than the lens.

[Alan Gales]

True, but not sure that the op is one of those. If he is he probably would not be looking at buying a Technika!

You make a good point there! :)