100/105mm "tweener" lenses for 4x5/6x12?

[CreationBear]

I'm in the process of putting together a 4x5/6x12 kit around a Horseman HF. Given its compact form factor and modest movements, I was wondering if lenses like the Fuji 105/5.6 or even the Schneider 100/5.6 should be on my radar, even if their IC's are marginal for 4x5. (I'd be doing run-and-gun landscapes here in the Smokies, of course, and not anything too technical.)

So I'm curious, do any of you throw a lens like this in the bag--especially if you use a RFB regularly--or would I just be setting myself up for a lot of frustration?

[Dan Fromm]

Lessee now, 6x12's diagonal is 125 mm. Here are some likely ~ 100/5.6 lenses with image circles:

105/5.6 Fujinon-NW (162 mm @ f/22)
105/5.6 Fujinon CM-W (174 mm @ f/22)
100/5.6 Nikkor-W (153 mm @ f/22)
105/5.6 Nikkor-W (155 mm @ f/22
100/5.6 Sironar-N (147 mm @ f/22)
100/5.6 Apo-Sironar-N (151 mm @ f/22)
100/5.6 Symmar-S (143 mm @ f/22)

If you want to use extremely extreme movements, something like a 105/8 Fujinon SW or NSW (250 mm @ f/22) would do better.

[Bob Salomon]

Lessee now, 6x12's diagonal is 125 mm. Here are some likely ~ 100/5.6 lenses with image circles:

105/5.6 Fujinon-NW (162 mm @ f/22)
105/5.6 Fujinon CM-W (174 mm @ f/22)
100/5.6 Nikkor-W (153 mm @ f/22)
105/5.6 Nikkor-W (155 mm @ f/22
100/5.6 Sironar-N (147 mm @ f/22)
100/5.6 Apo-Sironar-N (151 mm @ f/22)
100/5.6 Symmar-S (143 mm @ f/22)

If you want to use extremely extreme movements, something like a 105/8 Fujinon SW or NSW (250 mm @ f/22) would do better.

Depends on which 612 format. Depending on brand they vary between 56 x 611 to 56 x 620!

[Dan Fromm]

Bob Salomon wrote:


Depends on which 612 format. Depending on brand they vary between 56 x 611 to 56 x 620!

56x112 to 56x120, Bob. Read before posting. 112 is the most common.

[CreationBear]

something like a 105/8 Fujinon SW or NSW (250 mm @ f/22) would do better.

Thanks for input! I should mention that with the Horseman, I'm limited by the diameter of the rear cell, too...I don't believe either of those Fuji's would fit, though the CM-W 105/5.6 would. (On a related note, I don't know how to calculate the precise figure, but I'm thinking the IC area the camera would be able to exploit would be rather small in the first place.)

At any rate, I'm willing to admit my preference for a compact form factor might be a tail that's wagging a dog. I'm also cheap :) (at least at this stage of the journey)--so a lens that's, say, 10% of the price of a 110 Super-Symmar would make me entertain all sorts of compromises.

[Dan Fromm]

I forgot to mention the 100/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. Harder to find and probably more expensive than the f/5.6ers but smaller and lighter. There's also the post-WW II ("V" indicates coated) 100/6.3 Meyer Aristostigmat, which can be found in barrel and in shutter. Ones in shutter are scarce.

[CreationBear]

Depending on brand they vary between 56 x 611 to 56 x 620!

Thanks, Bob--I do have a Horseman RFB, so I do think it's 112mm on the long side.

[CreationBear]

I forgot to mention the 100/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. Harder to find and probably more expensive than the f/5.6ers but smaller and lighter.

Thanks! That's actually a lens that's on "The List," but am I right that it might require a custom-drilled lens board?

[Dan Fromm]

Use the list -- see my sticky in the lenses section -- to find lens specifications. I understand that the HF takes 80 mm x 80 mm boards, don't know its lens throat's diameter. I shoot cameras with a 48 mm lens throat, the 105/5.6 Fujinon W passes through it with room to spare.

You're overthinking things and worrying too much. Remember, in the worst case you can mount a lens whose rear cell won't pass through the front standard's lens throat by removing the camera's back, unscrewing the rear cell from the shutter, mounting shutter with front cell on the camera, screwing the rear cell back in from the back of the camera and reattaching the back. I have to do this to use my 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon and 58/5.6 Grandagon. A pain, but its what I have to do.

If money is an issue, go for a Fujinon. Early 105/5.6 Ws (engraving on the trim ring, not around the front cell's barrel) can be got for < $100 delivered.

[CreationBear]

Early 105/5.6 Ws (engraving on the trim ring, not around the front cell's barrel) can be got for < $100 delivered.

Ha, thanks Dan--no doubt you're right about "analysis paralysis.":) FWIW, I've been looking at the Fujinon you mention for a while, though I've not seen one for that price--one plus it does have for me, though, is that it shares the same filter size as my Fuji 180A...

[B.S.Kumar]

The 90mm f/5.6 Super Topcor has an image circle of 150mm. The 10.5cm Super Topcor has an image circle of 158mm. Let me know if you might be interested in one of these lenses.

Kumar

[Drew Wiley]

Did anyone mention the Nikkor M 105/3.5 tessar yet? Modern, tiny, multicoated, bright, and very nice on 6x9, OK for 6X12 (crisp up to 6X11), but worthless on 4X5.

[CreationBear]

Did anyone mention the Nikkor M 105/3.5 tessar yet? Modern, tiny, multicoated, bright, and very nice on 6x9, OK for 6X12 (crisp up to 6X11), but worthless on 4X5.

Thanks Kumar and Drew--I admit the Topcor's weren't on my radar; as for the Nikkor, I believe LF member Corran might have one. (Haven't seen one of those for sale, but if it's similar to the M200/M300 it sounds right up my alley--though perhaps a bit spendy.:))

[Tin Can]

If Topcon choose Super not Pro.

Coverage is different.

[chassis]

For run and gun landscapes I would go with a wider lens, for example 90mm. 100mm in my view is a bit more than mildly wide on 4x5. I'm a fan of Nikkors; they are consistently good across the range. A Nikkor-SW 90/4.5 or 90/8 is only a little more money than the Topcor, if you take your time and are patient about finding a good deal.

[Corran]

I did buy Kumar's 105mm Nikkor-M a little while ago. Nice lens. I don't think I'd push it to 6x12. More to the point - any reason you aren't settling for a modest 90mm Angulon, Optar, or similar lens, or better, any of the many 90mm f/8 lenses available? Of course they are larger - but if you are shooting 6x12 along with 4x5, IMO you should get the lens that works best for both including using movements, and not one that is marginal for 4x5 if even useful. Plus many of these 90mm f/8 lenses are dirt cheap (I had trouble getting rid of a couple spare Super Angulons some years ago for only $100-150 apiece).

The difference from 90mm to 105mm is not much.

With 90mm lenses I do use front rise/fall to keep trees "straight" in the scene with some high/low compositions. That perspective distortion bothers me when shooting 6x7 and a 55mm lens on occasion.

[ottluuk]

I did buy Kumar's 105mm Nikkor-M a little while ago. Nice lens. I don't think I'd push it to 6x12. More to the point - any reason you aren't settling for a modest 90mm Angulon, Optar, or similar lens, or better, any of the many 90mm f/8 lenses available? Of course they are larger [...]

To make it clear, the Super-Angulon type 90/8 lenses are the larger ones. Plain Angulons are about as small as they get. 4-element Gauss wides like the 100mm Wide Field Ektar are somewhere in between. You can see a size comparison with 100/6.3 WFE, 90/6.8 Angulon and 90/8 Nikkor SW (Super Angulon style modern wide) here: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm.

[Dan Fromm]

Kumar, thanks for reminding us of Topcor lenses for Horseman cameras. I've always ignored them because they're not really for other cameras. They typically come mounted on Horseman boards with the flash terminal and cable release socket on the board, not on the shutter, so aren't easily used on cameras that don't accept Horseman boards. But for Horseman cameras ...

[neil poulsen]

Exactly . . . I like photographing architecture, and for me, there's a noticeable gap between 90mm SW and my 121mm SA. I purchased a Fujinon SW long ago to fill that gap. Given it's larger image circle, I also have the 90mm Nikkor f8 lens. (Versus the f5.6 version.)

This trio of f8 lenses really work well for me.

[CreationBear]

Thanks for all the additional viewpoints, gents: much appreciated! FWIW, all this was set off by my coming across a Schneider 100/5.6 for not a lot of money from one of the bigger used lens vendors. (What can I say, I am by nature and long habit a Pentaxian at heart.:)) I will definitely take Chris and Bryan's points about dropping down to a 90mm to heart as well.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have a 100mm F5.6 Symmar in a barrel and it's 6x9cm at best. But a very sweet little lens!

[CreationBear]

But a very sweet little lens!

Thanks, Daniel--that's great info...if it covered 6x12, I'd still be sorely tempted. Of course, the Arca-Swiss and Linhof Teknikardan 6x9's are sexy in their own right...:)

[B.S.Kumar]

Kumar, thanks for reminding us of Topcor lenses for Horseman cameras. I've always ignored them because they're not really for other cameras. They typically come mounted on Horseman boards with the flash terminal and cable release socket on the board, not on the shutter, so aren't easily used on cameras that don't accept Horseman boards. But for Horseman cameras ...

Horseman to Linhof adapters are available.

Kumar

[Carsten Wolff]

If you need small and you're happy with vintage, also look into those lenses as alternatives: Cooke VIIb (I had a 108mm f6.5), Goerz 108mm WA Dagor, Wolly WA Raptar (mine is a 103.7mm f6.8)....good enough for 5x7", but possibly not quite as resolving as modern glass and you get slightly more muted colors and contrast. Really nice lenses though, although I never became real friends with the Goerz, as I was in my "color" phase at the time.

[ic-racer]

The "6x9" Topcor/Horseman SUPER 120mm/5.6 has full 4x5 coverage without movement. I used that lens on my Horseman FA for a while until I got a 'proper' 4x5 lens and it worked fine. It is pretty compact, maybe it folds in the camera, but I always carry mine in the bag unfolded. Of the "6x9" lenses, that one has the widest coverage; it has more coverage than the much larger 105mm SUPER f4.5. The 105mm Super f4.5 is as big as a 'proper' 4x5 lens, so not much advantage to seeking that lens if you don't already have it for 6x9 work.

183332

[Dan Fromm]

If you need small and you're happy with vintage, also look into those lenses as alternatives: Cooke VIIb (I had a 108mm f6.5), Goerz 108mm WA Dagor, Wolly WA Raptar (mine is a 103.7mm f6.8)....good enough for 5x7", but possibly not quite as resolving as modern glass and you get slightly more muted colors and contrast. Really nice lenses though, although I never became real friends with the Goerz, as I was in my "color" phase at the time.

Carsten, must you be so cruel? VIIbs in shutter are very uncommon and not inexpensive, WA Dagors are cult lenses and priced accordingly and f/6.8 WA Raptars longer than than 90 mm are scarce.

[CreationBear]

Carsten, must you be so cruel?

Oh, I'm finding enough cruelty to go around on this board already...:) Thanks for the additional options, everyone!

[Bernice Loui]

LFF was not this way years ago. LFF has definitely changed in many ways in recent times for a host of reasons.
-Suggest reading post and topics from one decade ago or more, then compare the post and topics to LFF today :(


Bernice


Oh, I'm finding enough cruelty to go around on this board already...:) Thanks for the additional options, everyone!

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, as long as I've been here helpful posters have suggested that people with small budgets will be pleased by unobtanium.

[Bernice Loui]

-Which will not likely aid in their interest or passion for making expressive images.

Goes back to the GAS syndrome where the belief that some magical-mystical techno-widget will produce images that are the answer to their idealized creation. All tools-methods of creation have innate limitations, more often than not, it is better to work within the limitations of what the tools-methods to achieve 80-90% of the goal rather than try for 100% or 151+% of what is possible. Learning what these limitations are and accepting them is a significant aspect of resolving this conflict.

Reality -vs- fantasy.


Bernice



Bernice, as long as I've been here helpful posters have suggested that people with small budgets will be pleased by unobtanium.

[Dan Fromm]

No disagreement. Every one of us should read this http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html at least once a year.

[Corran]

On the flip-side, those who like to say that new tools won't make better images, still are not very helpful to those looking for general information. Yes, it's true to an extent, but doesn't really help those who know they need a specific tool for a specific image. No one berates someone for buying a screwdriver when all they have is a hammer, but needs to screw something together.

But yes, extremely rare/expensive lenses will not make "better" images than cheaper, more available options that are close enough. Some may have preferences, especially for lenses they already own and perhaps found for $5 in the junk bin back before they were cult items. I certainly don't often suggest APO Lanthar lenses, despite owning 3. In fact, coming back on-topic, I have a 10.5cm APO Lanthar that is a great lens for 6x9, if you shoot in that range a lot, but is really too pricey to suggest for general usage...

[Phil Hudson]

I have a 100mm F5.6 Symmar in a barrel and it's 6x9cm at best. But a very sweet little lens!

I have used the Apo-Symmar 100/5.6 on 6x12cm with excellent results right out to the corners, even when printed big.........

[CreationBear]

Thanks, Phil...it does seem to be a lens with a great reputation.:)

At any rate, as a longtime flyfisherman, I'm intimately acquainted with GAS (though alas not yet quite immune...) Hopefully my experience of being quite happy bashing about on mountain streams with an $50 glass Fenwick will influence my LF purchases--if I can only avoid the equivalent of casting an original Payne...pre-embargo bamboo still makes my palms itch.

[Carsten Wolff]

Carsten, must you be so cruel? VIIbs in shutter are very uncommon and not inexpensive, WA Dagors are cult lenses and priced accordingly and f/6.8 WA Raptars longer than than 90 mm are scarce.

True, Dan :-) ... none are too common these days. I actually tried to fit the little Cooke into a Copal #0, but it is so small and the front and rear lens groups barely clear the shutterblades; so I ended up getting SKGrimes to just front mount that into a Copal #1.

I had a cheap ex-Polaroid 114mm f4.5 Wollensak (Tessar type) briefly as well, it was nice and bright on the GG and would do 6x12 and 4x5" (barely).

[Jim Galli]

Not mentioned and not as often seen; 4" Dagor, 105mm Cooke Series VIIb, 110mm Boyer Beryl. All occasionally found in shutter.

[Dan Fromm]

Not mentioned and not as often seen; 4" Dagor, 105mm Cooke Series VIIb, 110mm Boyer Beryl. All occasionally found in shutter.

Jim, must you be so mean? You should know better than to suggest unobtanium.

Cheers,

Dan