Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn

[Steven Ruttenberg]

How is this lens for 4x5? Image quality? Can get for 269. Image circle is 187mm at f22. Is it as good as the f4.5? Or better? See picture for a side view.

[Bob Salomon]

It is fine but not near as good as the 4.5!

[Pere Casals]

It can be added that a sample of this lens was measured here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

f/11 67 60 42
f/16 60 60 24
f/22 54 54 38

This is optical performance measured in the center, the mid an in the corner.

The pointed measure at f/16 in the corner, 24, probably comes from a camera alignment or film flatness miss, it's not consistent with 42 and 38.

This was a DIY test, not an absolute Lab test, but it can be very useful to see some trends, see disclaimer at the bottom of the linked page, but if those 67 Lp/mm were seen by Mr Pérez, at least that was there.

Also there is the sample to sample variation... but this test points that, as Bob says, this is a very competent glass, no doubt.

I've tested the old GD 90 a friend has, single coated, also very good but not MC in that case...

[Bob Salomon]

It can be added that a sample of this lens was measured here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

f/11 67 60 42
f/16 60 60 24
f/22 54 54 38

This is optical performance measured in the center, the mid an in the corner.

The pointed measure at f/16 in the corner, 24, probably comes from a camera alignment or film flatness miss, it's not consistent with 42 and 38.

This was a DIY test, not an absolute Lab test, but it can be very useful to see some trends, see disclaimer at the bottom of the linked page, but if those 67 Lp/mm were seen by Mr Pérez, at least that was there.

Also there is the sample to sample variation... but this test points that, as Bob says, this is a very competent glass, no doubt.

I've tested the old GD 90 a friend has, single coated, also very good but not MC in that case...

It is extremely misleading to rely on their tests, they did those tests at different times and under different conditions each time so their results can not be duplicated. Further, their test of photographing a test chart plastered on a wall at closer distances does not show how the lens will perform at the distances the lens was designed for or on the subjects it was designed for. Unless one is buying a wide angle lens to copy new print!

[Pere Casals]

It is extremely misleading to rely on their tests, they did those tests at different times and under different conditions each time so their results can not be duplicated. Further, their test of photographing a test chart plastered on a wall at closer distances does not show how the lens will perform at the distances the lens was designed for or on the subjects it was designed for. Unless one is buying a wide angle lens to copy new print!

Bob I fully agree this is a practical test that may have pitfalls like the pointed "24" value, but let me make a reasoning.


What I say is that (IMHO) while that practical test have severe limitations still it's enough to say that in general the Grandagons are 1st class glass.

I'd say that to interpret well that test we have to keep in mind 2 things:

1) The actual performance of the tested sample could be better than the measured one, but not worse, because it's very difficult that a pitfall in the test ends is a higher measurement

2) Another sample we are to purchase may be better or worse than the tested one, even we may get a pretty dog lens


Note:

This is a 1:20 consistent test, so 67 Lp/mm at f/11 center says that Mr Pérez saw 3.35 Lp/mm in the test chart.

Group 1 Element 5 is 3.17 Lp/mm and Group 1 Element 6 is 3.56 Lp/mm.

The final 3.35 Lp/mm can come from doubting if the visible patern was the 5 element or the 6... ..or he averaged something.

Well, perhaps the shot was not good enough and with a better focus he could even been reading 73 Lp/mm... but we know he was viewing element 5 or 6 at 1:20, and this corroborates that sample of the Grandagon N 75/6.8 was a very good glass.

Manufacturers never specified Lp/mm at extintion for their taking lenses, but showed "average" MTF graphs that have more technical sense ...but not many understand well. At the end the USAF 1951 is practical test from military, and military wants very practical things.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Al interesting. One could just buy it and try it. If not liked then sell it. my other cboice is the Nikkor 75mm with a bigger image circle. Or for around 1000 bucks the 72mm Schneider lens.

[Pere Casals]

IMHO you won't find a bad 75mm choice from the 4 principal manucaturers.

Just you have to know what circle you want, if not doing architecture you may sacrifice circle for weight and price. At the end you will have a lot of fall off in the boundary of the larger circle...

When deciding, I prefered a 65mm and a 90mm, IMHO the 75mm replaces both, so it saves one glass in the bag, being more polivalent ...at the expense of not having 65mm wide. From the 75mm shot you allways can crop the 90mm framing.

Perhaps the 75 is a better choice than hauling the 65 and the 90.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

IMHO you won't find a bad 75mm choice from the 4 principal manucaturers.

Just you have to know what circle you want, if not doing architecture you may sacrifice circle for weight and price. At the end you will have a lot of fall off in the boundary of the larger circle...

When deciding, I prefered a 65mm and a 90mm, IMHO the 75mm replaces both, so it saves one glass in the bag, being more polivalent ...at the expense of not having 65mm wide. From the 75mm shot you allways can crop the 90mm framing.

Perhaps the 75 is a better choice than hauling the 65 and the 90.

This is all true. I definitely want a large image circle. I do use shift and rise in landscape and shoot architecture. A center spot maybe pricey, but worth it especially for night/long exposure stuff.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob I fully agree this is a practical test that may have pitfalls like the pointed "24" value, but let me make a reasoning.


What I say is that (IMHO) while that practical test have severe limitations still it's enough to say that in general the Grandagons are 1st class glass.

I'd say that to interpret well that test we have to keep in mind 2 things:

1) The actual performance of the tested sample could be better than the measured one, but not worse, because it's very difficult that a pitfall in the test ends is a higher measurement

2) Another sample we are to purchase may be better or worse than the tested one, even we may get a pretty dog lens


Note:

This is a 1:20 consistent test, so 67 Lp/mm at f/11 center says that Mr Pérez saw 3.35 Lp/mm in the test chart.

Group 1 Element 5 is 3.17 Lp/mm and Group 1 Element 6 is 3.56 Lp/mm.

The final 3.35 Lp/mm can come from doubting if the visible patern was the 5 element or the 6... ..or he averaged something.

Well, perhaps the shot was not good enough and with a better focus he could even been reading 73 Lp/mm... but we know he was viewing element 5 or 6 at 1:20, and this corroborates that sample of the Grandagon N 75/6.8 was a very good glass.

Manufacturers never specified Lp/mm at extintion for their taking lenses, but showed "average" MTF graphs that have more technical sense ...but not many understand well. At the end the USAF 1951 is practical test from military, and military wants very practical things.
Just look at the factory curves for MTF, distortion, color, fall off, etc. and you will see how well they perform. And you won’t be mislead by chemistry, atmospheric conditions, eyesight, loupe quality, exposure, lighting, how tired the observers eyes are, etc., etc., etc..

[Bernice Loui]

Have both f4.5 & f6.8 and used them. Essentially, the difference comes down to size and what the imaging needs are. The f6.8 is smaller with a slightly smaller image circle, the f4.5 is larger with a slightly larger image circle. f4.5 has slightly less distortion ONLY visible in straight line architectural images of critical examination and slightly brighter on the GG. The f6.8 does most everything the f4.5 does but smaller. In real world image making, they are essentially the same with the f6.8 being more compact.

Compared to the Schneider 72mm SAXL, the SAXL has a larger image circle easily covers 5x7 with similar image quality and it is a MUCH larger lens than the 75mm f6.8 Grandagon. With all these WA optics, light fall off can be an issue depending on imaging need.

Nikkor 75mm f4.5 has the SAME image circle as the Rodenstock 75mm f4.5 (yes, disregard those published sheets) except for higher contrast and reduced contrast gradation.. it is a look common to Nikkor SW series, it is a different image result, different set of trade offs.

As for those "On Line" lens test... the variables that affect any given example of optic can vary a LOT and as previously mention too many times, images made by any given optic is a LOT more complex than LPM.
177398

177399



Bernice

[Pere Casals]

Just look at the factory curves for MTF, distortion, color, fall off, etc. and you will see how well they perform. And you won’t be mislead by chemistry, atmospheric conditions, eyesight, loupe quality, exposure, lighting, how tired the observers eyes are, etc., etc., etc..

You are right in that, specially I like the accurate technical datasheets from Rodenstock.

Anyway there are vintage lenses that have no datasheets, in that case test like those may point what conceptual kind of performance we can expect. Sometimes this is an small share of what the lens has, we may want some OOF character, to me at least this is the difficult part... Sometimes we may want just extreme optical performance to depict fine tectures in a big print... but in that case it's not necessary to review graphs or tests, we all know what lenses do that job.

[Bob Salomon]

You are right in that, specially I like the accurate technical datasheets from Rodenstock.

Anyway there are vintage lenses that have no datasheets, in that case test like those may point what conceptual kind of performance we can expect. Sometimes this is an small share of what the lens has, we may want some OOF character, to me at least this is the difficult part... Sometimes we may want just extreme optical performance to depict fine tectures in a big print... but in that case it's not necessary to review graphs or tests, we all know what lenses do that job.

The best, and only, test is how it performs for your needs, not how it performs on an AF test chart.

[Pere Casals]

The best, and only, test is how it performs for your needs, not how it performs on an AF test chart.

This is right again, single problem is that sometimes one has to make a purchase without knowing what one needs/wants, and what the product does.

In general IMHO the most difficult is knowing what one needs or wants. An experienced LF photographer sure he won't fail, he knows what he wants. A learner like me sure makes mistakes.

It's after 3 years that I'm starting to understand what I may want to ask from a glass.

[Bob Salomon]

This is right again, single problem is that sometimes one has to make a purchase without knowing what one needs/wants, and what the product does.

In general IMHO the most difficult is knowing what one needs or wants. An experienced LF photographer sure he won't fail, he knows what he wants. A learner like me sure makes mistakes.

It's after 3 years that I'm starting to understand what I may want to ask from a glass.

That is why you should check the manufacturers test charts or, if none are available, find work you want to emulate and look at those results, or, if you still have a professional equipment store near you, rent a lens or two for a weekend.

[Joerg Krusche]

It can be added that a sample of this lens was measured here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

f/11 67 60 42
f/16 60 60 24
f/22 54 54 38

This is optical performance measured in the center, the mid an in the corner.

The pointed measure at f/16 in the corner, 24, probably comes from a camera alignment or film flatness miss, it's not consistent with 42 and 38.

This was a DIY test, not an absolute Lab test, but it can be very useful to see some trends, see disclaimer at the bottom of the linked page, but if those 67 Lp/mm were seen by Mr Pérez, at least that was there.

Also there is the sample to sample variation... but this test points that, as Bob says, this is a very competent glass, no doubt.

I've tested the old GD 90 a friend has, single coated, also very good but not MC in that case...

How about if that 24 is a typo and should read 42 .. that figure 24 is difficult to explain with 42 and 38 just next to it

[Pere Casals]

find work you want to emulate and look at those results

Bob, really this is best way to realize the character of a lens, sometimes it's also about how the charater of the lens is used, so viewing a master's work it enlights a lot.



How about if that 24 is a typo and should read 42 .. that figure 24 is difficult to explain with 42 and 38 just next to it

hmmmm... you are right, this is a good guess... sure Pérez could realize that this was not consistent, so it should to be a typo. That typo had to be seen, but sometimes typos behave are like that...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think we keep things too sterile and loose sight of the forrest for the trees. I have a friend who now shoots digital and does not like modern so called digital lenses. To him, they are perdect, lacking in many items of character that the older lenses have, such as being slightly warm or cool, not as contrasty, ie, the images dont appear harsh and cold due to their so called perfect optics. The older lenses are for sure less perfect. All that to say, that having the best curves highest resolution, etc is not always a good thing. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Less precise, coated, uncoated, etc older lenses have character. No two are exactly the same. One can say that as well for a so called modern lens, but that character is buried in the 20th decimal place.

Aside from image circle and obviously it can produce a sharp image, I am after the character of a lens when in use. For certain images of course you want the best technical lens you can afford. For landscapes a lens that is slightly warm, with more saturated colors and is not so contrasty it is harsh is what I want from a lens. For architecture a technically perfect lens and forbportraits something like a large format voughtlander 300mm.

This is the question, which produces the most pleasing image, which is in and of itself a highly subjective answer.

[Bob Salomon]

Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think we keep things too sterile and loose sight of the forrest for the trees. I have a friend who now shoots digital and does not like modern so called digital lenses. To him, they are perdect, lacking in many items of character that the older lenses have, such as being slightly warm or cool, not as contrasty, ie, the images dont appear harsh and cold due to their so called perfect optics. The older lenses are for sure less perfect. All that to say, that having the best curves highest resolution, etc is not always a good thing. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Less precise, coated, uncoated, etc older lenses have character. No two are exactly the same. One can say that as well for a so called modern lens, but that character is buried in the 20th decimal place.

Aside from image circle and obviously it can produce a sharp image, I am after the character of a lens when in use. For certain images of course you want the best technical lens you can afford. For landscapes a lens that is slightly warm, with more saturated colors and is not so contrasty it is harsh is what I want from a lens. For architecture a technically perfect lens and forbportraits something like a large format voughtlander 300mm.

This is the question, which produces the most pleasing image, which is in and of itself a highly subjective answer.

Besides your friend’s pontificating, has he ever actually done head to head tests to actually see performance and result differences of the different lenses?

[Bernice Loui]

Or why there are no modern "APO" last version made plasmats in the lens set used. IMO, too many photographers are obsess with how "sharp" a lens or film or print is, but does not see the overall expressive impressions any given image is saying to the viewer. This is the divide between techno photographers -vs- artistically expressive image makers, art fans -vs techno widget fans.

Yet, the hard hitting high contrast, artificially sharpened lenses have become the standard due to market demands by photographers of the current generation. This is why the majority of modern digital camera lenses have this hard hitting, high contrast, software enhanced etched look.

On the other side of image making, film and video folks are far more aware of how images rendered by lens, camera, presentation affects the viewers and have resulted in a return and demand for vintage lenses that do not have this modern "look".

As previously mentioned before, those LPM chart test do not even begin to tell the whole of what a given lens personality is as images produced by lens, film print and mounting is a system not just a single part.

Suggest Rodenstock's offering if that modern hard hitting look is not your think. Matters not the f6.8 or f4.5 version of the Grandagon, they both have a similar image personality. Alternative would be Schneider Super Angulon, with the single coated versions being slightly lower contrast which could be preferred over the later MC versions.


Bernice




Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think we keep things too sterile and loose sight of the forrest for the trees. I have a friend who now shoots digital and does not like modern so called digital lenses. To him, they are perdect, lacking in many items of character that the older lenses have, such as being slightly warm or cool, not as contrasty, ie, the images dont appear harsh and cold due to their so called perfect optics. The older lenses are for sure less perfect. All that to say, that having the best curves highest resolution, etc is not always a good thing. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Less precise, coated, uncoated, etc older lenses have character. No two are exactly the same. One can say that as well for a so called modern lens, but that character is buried in the 20th decimal place.

Aside from image circle and obviously it can produce a sharp image, I am after the character of a lens when in use. For certain images of course you want the best technical lens you can afford. For landscapes a lens that is slightly warm, with more saturated colors and is not so contrasty it is harsh is what I want from a lens. For architecture a technically perfect lens and forbportraits something like a large format voughtlander 300mm.

This is the question, which produces the most pleasing image, which is in and of itself a highly subjective answer.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Besides your friend’s pontificating, has he ever actually done head to head tests to actually see performance and result differences of the different lenses?

Yes he has, he tests everything and has shot large format for 20 years, I would trust his real world judgement over any chart or opinion elsewhere. He knows exactly what he is talking about. So, I would not call it pontificating anything, his conclusions are based on actual side by side real world use.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Exactly my thoughts.

I and I am thinking about grandagon. I really would like the 72mm, but its a 1000 bucks and the Nikkor is 500. Hmmm, could get the grandagon, the nikkor and the schneider, see which one I like and sell the other two. Like I said though, the 72 would be my first choice, if I can convince my wife. Since it is purely mechanical it could last forever if taken care of. Can't say that about a modern lens.



Or why there are no modern "APO" last version made plasmats in the lens set used. IMO, too many photographers are obsess with how "sharp" a lens or film or print is, but does not see the overall expressive impressions any given image is saying to the viewer. This is the divide between techno photographers -vs- artistically expressive image makers, art fans -vs techno widget fans.

Yet, the hard hitting high contrast, artificially sharpened lenses have become the standard due to market demands by photographers of the current generation. This is why the majority of modern digital camera lenses have this hard hitting, high contrast, software enhanced etched look.

On the other side of image making, film and video folks are far more aware of how images rendered by lens, camera, presentation affects the viewers and have resulted in a return and demand for vintage lenses that do not have this modern "look".

As previously mentioned before, those LPM chart test do not even begin to tell the whole of what a given lens personality is as images produced by lens, film print and mounting is a system not just a single part.

Suggest Rodenstock's offering if that modern hard hitting look is not your think. Matters not the f6.8 or f4.5 version of the Grandagon, they both have a similar image personality. Alternative would be Schneider Super Angulon, with the single coated versions being slightly lower contrast which could be preferred over the later MC versions.


Bernice

[Bob Salomon]

Yes he has, he tests everything and has shot large format for 20 years, I would trust his real world judgement over any chart or opinion elsewhere. He knows exactly what he is talking about. So, I would not call it pontificating anything, his conclusions are based on actual side by side real world use.

In the 40 plus years that I was involved with Sinar, Wista, Linhof, Rodenstock and Rollei the only time that I have seen actual head to head comparison shots between lenses was at a former dealer, Photomark in Phoenix. I am not sure, unless your friend actually worked at a store like that how he could actually get his hands on all those lenses to do a head to head comparison. Maybe you can tell us how he actually did this, and what his test protocol was.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Perhaps I should have been more precise. He simply compares a lens in the focal length he desires from manufacture he is considering a purchase from that is the latest and greatest to an earlier version of that lens or another manufacturers and what he has found, is that he images by the non-digital lenses produce a more pleasing result. He was not trying to find which one gave the best technical image. The lens that produced the images he most liked, he kept, the rest he sold/returned. I never said he tested every single lens in existence or tested an exhaustive amount. My point was that simply being technically perfect is not necessarily the best lens or even the lens you want as digital lenses seem to lack character.

I grew up in Phx since 1974 and now reside in Mesa.

[Pere Casals]

I'd like to point this interesting test, comparing six 210mm glasses:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

First we see is that LF delivers an insane amount of resolving power...

So the interesting test would be comparing head to head 6 photographers :)


Of course late models are technically better, and IMHO this can make a difference in some situations, but not always.

For example, I'd like to point that a multicoated Super-Symmar XL-150 can deliver way, way more flare than the old single coated Symmar 150 convertible.

This is because the old convertible has an small 210mm image circle, while the Super-Symmar delivers a 386mm circle so it is illuminating all the bellows inside, thus generating a lot of reflections ending in the film. If using a front hud then the thing is different, but what I'm learning is that there is a lot to learn...

What is also interesting is comparing formats:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

[Dan Fromm]

Since all of you good people with hairy palms are willing to go blind looking at lens tests and to drive each other crazy wrangling about them, take a look at Arne Croell's: http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf

[Pere Casals]

Dan this is an interesting test, another intersting writting from him is that about eastern block lenses, but best from him is the lesson on photography from his images

[Bob Salomon]

Perhaps I should have been more precise. He simply compares a lens in the focal length he desires from manufacture he is considering a purchase from that is the latest and greatest to an earlier version of that lens or another manufacturers and what he has found, is that he images by the non-digital lenses produce a more pleasing result. He was not trying to find which one gave the best technical image. The lens that produced the images he most liked, he kept, the rest he sold/returned. I never said he tested every single lens in existence or tested an exhaustive amount. My point was that simply being technically perfect is not necessarily the best lens or even the lens you want as digital lenses seem to lack character.

I grew up in Phx since 1974 and now reside in Mesa.
Among other problems with his testing is that no digital view camera lens covers 45!

[Bob Salomon]

I'd like to point this interesting test, comparing six 210mm glasses:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html

First we see is that LF delivers an insane amount of resolving power...

So the interesting test would be comparing head to head 6 photographers :)


Of course late models are technically better, and IMHO this can make a difference in some situations, but not always.

For example, I'd like to point that a multicoated Super-Symmar XL-150 can deliver way, way more flare than the old single coated Symmar 150 convertible.

This is because the old convertible has an small 210mm image circle, while the Super-Symmar delivers a 386mm circle so it is illuminating all the bellows inside, thus generating a lot of reflections ending in the film. If using a front hud then the thing is different, but what I'm learning is that there is a lot to learn...

What is also interesting is comparing formats:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

With all of the other problems with the Perez test procedure is that there is not one recent, or one predecessor Rodenstock 210mm lens. No 210 Sironar, 210 Sironar N, no Sironar N MC, no 210 Apo Sironar N, no 210 Apo Sironar S, no 210 Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W!
I can’t talk for Schneider, Nikon or Fuji but to leave out all of those Rodenstock lenses does not result in a valid, comprehensive test. In short, it is close to meaningless!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Among other problems with his testing is that no digital view camera lens covers 45!

This is true. He is using 35mm now and is using lenses for that format. The point is simply, technically perfect is not always asthetically pleasing. I find that so between digital and film as well. Like a surgical room. Evrything is functional, clean and per perfect, but is it pleasing and inviting? Nope. My living room is clean and functional and perfect based on my interpretation. And yes, I have been in a surgical room some 17 times now and I am pretty sure they are not asthetically pleaseing. :)

[Pere Casals]

With all of the other problems with the Perez test procedure is that there is not one recent, or one predecessor Rodenstock 210mm lens. No 210 Sironar, 210 Sironar N, no Sironar N MC, no 210 Apo Sironar N, no 210 Apo Sironar S, no 210 Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W!
I can’t talk for Schneider, Nikon or Fuji but to leave out all of those Rodenstock lenses does not result in a valid, comprehensive test. In short, it is close to meaningless!

Well, not completely close to menaningles: It also shows that even suposedly outdated lenses still have an insane amount of resolving power, having to enlarge to wall size to see the limit.

A test with the lenses you point also it would be really interesting, on the paper a 210 Apo Sironar S should be optically superior than a 210 Sironar N, but what I'd like to know is in what situations we could see a real difference, and at what enlargement. Sure that in the circle boundary it's easier to see diferences...

[Bob Salomon]

Well, not completely close to menaningles: It also shows that even suposedly outdated lenses still have an insane amount of resolving power, having to enlarge to wall size to see the limit.

A test with the lenses you point also it would be really interesting, on the paper a 210 Apo Sironar S should be optically superior than a 210 Sironar N, but what I'd like to know is in what situations we could see a real difference, and at what enlargement. Sure that in the circle boundary it's easier to see diferences...
Go look at the curves, Dan should have them on his site.

It isn’t just resolution, it’s also distortion, fall off, color, all combine to make the difference, as well as the circle of illumination.

[Bernice Loui]

Answer could be in what will this 72mm -75mm lens be used for?

Here are all three lined up for size comparison. The 72mm SAXL takes a 95mm filter, 75mm f4,5 Grandagon takes a 67mm filter, 75mm f6.8 Grandagon takes a 58mm filter and is very compact.
177489

177490


The 72mm SAXL has a bit more contrast than the Grandagon of the "N" mc vintage. 72mm is used on 5x7 as a extreme wide and this is not a "common cup of tea" for most. This focal length on 4x5 is considered a very wide angle lens producing quite exaggerated near to far perspective, this effect is much greater when the 72mm is used on 5x7. For this group, the 75mm is used on 6x9 as a moderate wide.

Is the 72mm worth the extra cost over the 75mm f6.8 Grandagon, only if the extra image circle size is absolutely needed IMO.



Bernice





Exactly my thoughts.

I and I am thinking about grandagon. I really would like the 72mm, but its a 1000 bucks and the Nikkor is 500. Hmmm, could get the grandagon, the nikkor and the schneider, see which one I like and sell the other two. Like I said though, the 72 would be my first choice, if I can convince my wife. Since it is purely mechanical it could last forever if taken care of. Can't say that about a modern lens.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

How about the Fuji 75mm SWD f5.6 with an IC of 196mm

[Bernice Loui]

Do not have or ever used the 75mm f5.6 Fujinon SWD.

Do have the 65mm f5,6 Fujinon SWD, it is GOOD. similar to the Grandagon in contrast overall performance. It does have a slightly cooler color rendition when compared to the European brands. Otherwise, there is little wrong with the Fujinon f5.6 SWD series.

If the 75mm f5.6 SWD Fujinon is being considered, the 75mm f5.6 Schneider Super Angulon needs to be considered.


Suggest, if the larger image circle of the 72mm SAXL is not needed, pick one of of the 75mm wide angle lenses, try it and from there. Most are can be purchased for a small percentage of their original cost today. It really comes down to trying out the specific lens for your n=image making conditions and needs to figure out which of these choices meets your needs best.

:)
Bernice



How about the Fuji 75mm SWD f5.6 with an IC of 196mm

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Do not have or ever used the 75mm f5.6 Fujinon SWD.

Do have the 65mm f5,6 Fujinon SWD, it is GOOD. similar to the Grandagon in contrast overall performance. It does have a slightly cooler color rendition when compared to the European brands. Otherwise, there is little wrong with the Fujinon f5.6 SWD series.

If the 75mm f5.6 SWD Fujinon is being considered, the 75mm f5.6 Schneider Super Angulon needs to be considered.


Suggest, if the larger image circle of the 72mm SAXL is not needed, pick one of of the 75mm wide angle lenses, try it and from there. Most are can be purchased for a small percentage of their original cost today. It really comes down to trying out the specific lens for your n=image making conditions and needs to figure out which of these choices meets your needs best.

:)
Bernice

So many choices, so little money :)

[DG 3313]

My copy of the Grandagon N 75mm 6.8. is small, light and SHARP! I love this lens on 4x5.
Don

[Steven Ruttenberg]

My copy of the Grandagon N 75mm 6.8. is small, light and SHARP! I love this lens on 4x5.
Don

Cool.

[Ramanand]

My copy of the Grandagon N 75mm 6.8. is small, light and SHARP! I love this lens on 4x5.
Don

What camera do you use this on -- am asking because I have a Bender 4x5 and want to figure out if I can use it with my setup.

[Oren Grad]

What camera do you use this on -- am asking because I have a Bender 4x5 and want to figure out if I can use it with my setup.

The flange-to-film/optical register distance specified for the 75/6.8 Grandagon-N is 79 mm. That's how close together you need to be able to get the front and rear standards of your camera if you want to be able to focus to infinity.

[Bernice Loui]

75mm is a short focal length for many 4x5 view cameras. As previously mentioned, FFL is about 79mm which is the distance from the front of the lens board where the lens is mounted to the Ground Glass to focus this 75mm to infinity. If the Bender cannot collapses this far, a recessed lens board will be needed to sink-in the lens on the front standard to meet the required Flange Focal Length for focus at infinity.

If the Bender's front and rear standards are so far collapsed that a recessed lens board becomes mandatory using the standard/conventional bellows, camera movement will likely be impaired significantly. The common solution to this problem is to apply a bag bellows to allowing the front and rear camera standards to move with ease with both standards close together.


Bernice