View Full Version : Fisheye for 8x10? What is the widest ever?
Robert_5479
2-Dec-2005, 01:24
Having used roll-film and 35mm gear for decades I've always had a fisheye or 20-21mm (35mm-format equivelent) in my lens arsenal and found these rectalinear and fisheys lenses quite useful in certain situations.
But being new to 8x10, I'm at a loss as to the widest angle available for 8x10 (speed not important but prefer small and light) outside of pinhole cameras that accept 8x10 holders.
I'd be interested, for history's sake at a minimum, as to the widest angle of coverage for current or discontinued lenses; perhaps better expressed as the shortest focal length with an image circle that'll cover 8x10 with a small margin for movements.
Thanks,
Robert
Marco Annaratone
2-Dec-2005, 01:45
Considering only current/modern lenses the shortest focal lens covering 8x10 should be the Super Symmar XL 110mm. But no movements to speak of.
Jan Van Hove
2-Dec-2005, 02:34
Among the widest lenses ever are the Goerz Hypergons, covering 130-140 degrees. Massively expensive now... The Rodenstock Pantogolas also come to mind, with a coverage of 125 degrees...
As far as "Fisheye", as is fisheye distortion, I'm not aware of any lenses made for LF that are not rectilinear wide angles...
PJ
Marko Trebusak
2-Dec-2005, 03:17
Patrick got it right with Hypergon. The widest that cover 8x10 is 75 mm!
Description (http://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm) of Hypergons and photo (http://www.glennview.com) taken with 90 mm Hypergon.
Marko
William Mortensen
2-Dec-2005, 07:31
Robert- good thing you're not looking for speed if you're considering a Hypergon, as it's brightest aperture is f/22. But it is small and light. I recently posted a little practical info on using a Hypergon over on the APUG forum: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21758&highlight=hypergon
The best "bang for the buck" for a really wide 8x10 lens would be the 121mm Super Angulon; it covers, but just barely, barely, barely...
Janko Belaj
2-Dec-2005, 07:32
...pinhole?
;-))
John_4185
2-Dec-2005, 08:50
Mr. Sawyer The best "bang for the buck" for a really wide 8x10 lens would be the 121mm Super Angulon; it covers, but just barely, barely, barely...
Those 121 S/As were going for near DIRT not long ago. Heck, some went for near what one would pay for a used shutter. I've got one - shutterless. :( But it sure was cheap. I really screwed myself on that one.
Beware - the 121 uses a 'funny' shutter size, something Schneider calls 0+ (or something), which I still don't understand. Goold old Overpriced Grimes, Inc will happily charge a person $750 to install a 121 in a proper shutter.
John Berry ( Roadkill )
2-Dec-2005, 08:54
I have a 153mm Metrogon. It is about the same as 20mm on 35mm. I have found that it tends to want a shot that is close. Range 3' out to about 50'. For grand landscapes the mountains on a horizon are just too small, and don't look right. It is nice if you want to get in close and push the perspective. I find it's usefulness to be less than I had envisioned. Nice sharp piece of glass though.
Ole Tjugen
2-Dec-2005, 09:20
For a really low price, small and light lens, look for a pre-WWII Angulon 120 f:6.8. It has to be pre-1948, I think - the later ones just cover 5x7". The old version had less overall sharpness, but even greater coverage. My ancient 210mm f:6.8 Angulon covers 12x16", barely.
It cost a lot less than my 121mm f:8 Super-Angulon.
George Stewart
2-Dec-2005, 10:40
I've shot 8x10 with a 90mm XL and gotten vignetted corners. I think that Clyde Butcher has also used this combination. If one is willing to crop a bit on 8x10, this might be the way to go with a lens that you can get.
The widest possible LF is 4x5 with the 38mmXL (which a Schneider Rep. indicated would cover that format). That being said, how about trying 4x5 and a MF fisheye lens to get a round 180+ degree image? With that combination, one would have to mount the lens into some type of shutter or shoot with some other method of esposure control.
The method I'd try however is to use a wide angle 4x5 box-type camera and a panoramic adapter from http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html and shoot mosaiced images. With a half-dozen shots you'd own the world.
William Mortensen
2-Dec-2005, 11:58
jj- I think the new XL Nikon SW lenses have driven the prices down on the Super Angulons and Grandagons, but it still varies with each individual purchase. I got mine (a Linhof Select in a shutter) for around $200 (I think) a few years ago, as it had a couple of inconsequential spots on the rear coating. A center filter is necessary if you're at all critical about the corners, even in b/w.
The Surplus Shed had some Metrogons for around $30 each a month or two ago, but they're huge and heavy. I just had to get one out of curiosity, but the 159mm Wollensak is a thousand times more usable in that focal length.
John_4185
2-Dec-2005, 12:51
Mark Sawyer Surplus Shed had some Metrogons for around $30
I find, the 6" Metrogon is pretty small by my humble standard, or at least very light. There's hardly anything to it.
Speaking Surplus Shed, you probably know, but for the rest: Fred bought all the remains of Wollensak. I have dibs on all the BIG lenses he might find. :) Really, I've no idea what's left. Anyone in the area might consider stopping by to visit Fred and look around.
Dan Fromm
2-Dec-2005, 13:29
John, I spent part of an afternoon last spring rooting through a pole building full of, mainly, useless junk from Wollensak. Replacement elements for lenses I don't have. Barrels for lenses I don't have ... I'm just not enough of a hopeful tinkerer.
In fairness to Mark, some of the Metrogons in the basement were fully mounted up. In that state they're bulky and heavy.
John_4185
2-Dec-2005, 13:47
Oh, fully mounted up - well, sure, there's all that support infrastructure. They were intended to be bolted to an aircraft belly mount. You can always tell military gear - it seems designers assume every little piece will have its own Alice Pack accessory - the grunt.
If you ever have the chance to remove the elements from a 6" Metrogon you will be amazed - they weigh almost nothing.
Eric Leppanen
2-Dec-2005, 16:22
Wisner sells a 90mm Hypergon (www.wisner.com/Page20.html (http://www.wisner.com/Page20.html)), but presumably it is expensive and he is not accepting orders right now. Mr. Wisner himself of course is entirely another line of discussion..... :-)
This thread provides a little more info on Hypergons: www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0035rc (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0035rc)
In addition to the 90mm SA-XL, I'd be curious as to how much useful image circle can be coaxed out of a 72mm SA-XL. Just a thought.....
John_4185
2-Dec-2005, 17:34
Wisner sells a 90mm Hypergon (www.wisner.com/Page20.html (http://www.wisner.com/Page20.html)), but presumably it is expensive and he is not accepting orders right now. Mr. Wisner himself of course is entirely another line of discussion..... :-)
Let us leave Mr. Wisner be. IMHO he deserves a respite. As for the Hypergon, well I hope he finds time and a place in which he wishes to use it.
Life is short. Be well.
Jan Van Hove
3-Dec-2005, 02:14
Were there ever any Wisner Hypergons actually made?
Considering that they are made-to-order and that there is actually to pic of it on the website, I'm kind of skeptical...
As for "Fish-eyeness", Is there any way of getting a fisheye distortion look on a view camera in some other way that to mount a MF fisheye?
I guess that if the russian 30mm Arsats project an image circle big enough to fill a 6x6 frame, they could make a nice circular image on a 4x5, indeed...
Otherwise, a screw-in fisheye lens converter on any view-camera lens would give the necessary distortion, but also a significant loss of image quality...
PJ
William Mortensen
3-Dec-2005, 12:38
Regarding the Metrogon, I apologize for speaking a little cavalierly about the weight. Mine came mounted up in a full aircraft case. Even after removing it, there is a huge shutter attachment which also acts as the barrel. There are no adjustable f/stops. I'm considering cutting away everything I can, but don't want to start until I find out whether the shutter is aluminum or magnesium, (which can go "boom!") The elements themselves are, I'd say, about average in weight and a little larger in size than the "typical" lf lens. To get one in a conventional shutter would (it appears to me) be a pretty complex machining task best left to S.K. Grimes & Co. The f/12.5 and f/9.5 Wollensaks drop in your shirt pocket comfortably. But the Metrogon's maximum f/6.3 aperture would be nice for focusing...
If anyone knows a simple way to mount these up, (jj?) please let me know!
I've never heard of an actual existing example of a Wisner Hypergon, but I've seen photos of a fairly modern Fuji Hypergon. It didn't have a fan or center filter, so I don't know how or if one could compensate for the corner fall-off...
Ole Tjugen
3-Dec-2005, 15:20
The original Hypergon was sold in two versions. With fan, for 135° coverage, and (cheaper) without the fan for 110° coverage. Available focal lengths were 60, 75, 90, 120, 150 and 200mm. Since the price without the fan was only about 12% lower it's no surprise there weren't many of those!
The main problem with modern manufacture of the Hypergon is the deep inside curvature, which precludes automatic grinding. If anyone wants to make their own the curvatures and refractive index for the 90mm is given in Kingslake's "History of the Photographic Lens".
There is no particular reason why a LF fisheye lens couldn't be made. Presumably both the Hill "Sky Lens" of 1924 and the AEG fisheye of 1932 were made for plates? After all they were both made for scientific use in an age when no scientist would dream of using anything but glass plates for serious work...
Bob Younger
3-Dec-2005, 18:51
I've had great success with the Super Symmar XL 110. Even been able to use a little swing and tilt though rise and shift are problematic.
The one problem is ensuring you can get the lens either in a recessed board, or your camera accomodates getting the lens close enough to the film. And then of course you have to ensure that your front standard and tripod leg are not in the frame. Everytime I put it on I'm amazed at the breadth of the view. It's superb for photographing long views of walls where you need a huge depth of field; or for very close objects, such as interiors.
Bob Younger
George Bonanno
3-Dec-2005, 20:03
Gee, I've been using a Schneider Super Angulon 65mm with a double recessed lens board on my Calumet 8x10 for decades... ya just gotta love circular images, get over aspect ratios and take plenty of snapshots. Oh, and make sure you have a person in the pic or it might be boring... maybe.
David A. Goldfarb
3-Dec-2005, 20:25
http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/79bb.jpg
Another that I've posted about before is the 120mm/f:14 Berthiot Perigraphe. Just covers with slight movements in barrel, a little less since I had it mounted in an Ilex #3 shutter a few years ago, but I've been tempted to send the adapter back to SK Grimes and have them mill off the filter threads I originally asked for in the adapter. It turns out that any filter on this lens vignettes with 8x10", so I mounted a 3" square filter holder on the back of the lensboard to solve that problem, and I no longer need the filter threads.
Rick Moore
6-Dec-2005, 16:52
David: I also have the 120/f14 Berthiot Perigraphe, in the original barrel with the Waterhouse stops. Did SK Grimes manage to mount your lens with the shutter between the elements, or is it front/read mounted on the shutter?
It sure is a small jewel of a lens.
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 14:28
Oh, and old, old post but I'm a bulldog for weird stuff.
Working on a ULF fisheye originally intended as a super-wide window with huge eye-relief for WWII bombers, in particular the B-25. It's front group is about 14" in diameter. Yeah, insane, but we gotta challenge practicality to make it stronger against impossibility. :) Will make some digital snaps of it when it cools off some here.
The company that made the window also documented a camera lens that incorporated the front group.
Note that I have not mention patents because to support the war effort the inventors chose not to lock the design into a patent.
Pere Casals
15-Jul-2018, 14:50
fisheye
As PJ pointed we have no fisheyes for LF, a fisheye has a particular great distortion, very far from rectilinear projections, for example Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection or equisolid.
Beyond rare hipergons, the widest 8x10 lens that is considered from regular commercial modern lenses is the Nikon SW 120mm. Well stopped superangulon 120 and 121 also covers the format, or nearly.
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 15:10
As PJ pointed we have no fisheyes for LF, a fisheye has a particular great distortion, very far from rectilinear projections, for example Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection or equisolid.
Beyond rare hipergons, the widest 8x10 lens that is considered from regular commercial modern lenses is the Nikon SW 120mm. Well stopped superangulon 120 and 121 also covers the format, or nearly.
To re-affirm your post, a fisheye is traditionally considered as having enormous 'global' distortion and does not always claim to full-frame coverage. This is a terminology point, but important. Sometimes for full-frame 35mm photography I use a 10mm lens which has more useful information than many 'fisheyes' and it has no global distortion at reasonable distances. It is rectilinear. Big difference as you note.
Terminology.
Imagine a similar rectilinear lens for ~8x0". Daunting, no?
Pere Casals
15-Jul-2018, 15:20
A fisheye is traditionally considered as having enormous 'global' distortion. This is a terminology point, but important. Sometimes for 35mm photography I use a 10mm lens which is 'wider' than many 'fisheyes' and it has no global distortion. It is rectilinear. Big difference.
Terminology.
Jac, sadly we have no fishes for LF, perhaps it is because the front element would not be "tiny" :)
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 15:39
Jac, sadly we have no fishes for LF, perhaps it is because the front element would not be "tiny" :)
For certain, Pere. From my naive point-of-view I am starting with a monstrous first element but maybe it will be 'tiny' given a large enough format. Exciting times, n'est pas?
(In Back to the Future, Doc says, "That is the widest angle optical lens for a format yet to be made.)
Dan Fromm
15-Jul-2018, 15:43
Papi, the manufacturer claimed and some users confirm, others don't, that the 120/14 Perigraphe covers 8x10. Its front element's diameter is 21 mm.
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 15:45
Papi, the manufacturer claimed and some users confirm, others don't, that the 120/14 Perigraphe covers 8x10. Its front element's diameter is 21 mm.
Thanks for that. What is its angle of coverage, please?
Dan Fromm
15-Jul-2018, 16:57
Jac, in the 1936 catalog SOM Berthiot claimed that f/14 Perigraphes cover 106 degrees cleanly and illuminate 112 degrees.
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 18:15
Jac, in the 1936 catalog SOM Berthiot claimed that f/14 Perigraphes cover 106 degrees cleanly and illuminate 112 degrees.
ƒ 14? Insanely slow! What of a much wider cover at an astoundingly large physical aperture? :) I'm okay with being wrong, especially if I am the first to try. 'course finding the large enough format could be an issue.
Dan Fromm
15-Jul-2018, 18:49
ƒ 14? Insanely slow! What of a much wider cover at an astoundingly large physical aperture? :) I'm okay with being wrong, especially if I am the first to try. 'course finding the large enough format could be an issue.
Insanely slow? How about the f/18 Protar?
There are faster modern lenses that cover 120 degrees at around f/8. 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, for example, but it isn't a large format lens. The 55, which just covers 4x5, covers 110 degrees. Schneider has a 120 degree lens too, you can look it up.
Scheme away. I b'lieve the path is well-trodden -- as I've told you, the 44/5.6 Super Aviogon covers 4x5, so at least 119 degrees, but probably not wide open -- and very steep. I hear that the air is thin at the summit. Can you afford Sherpas to carry you and your supplemental oxygen all the way to the top?
Tin Can
15-Jul-2018, 19:14
Oh, and old, old post but I'm a bulldog for weird stuff.
Working on a ULF fisheye originally intended as a super-wide window with huge eye-relief for WWII bombers, in particular the B-25. It's front group is about 14" in diameter. Yeah, insane, but we gotta challenge practicality to make it stronger against impossibility. :) Will make some digital snaps of it when it cools off some here.
The company that made the window also documented a camera lens that incorporated the front group.
Note that I have not mention patents because to support the war effort the inventors chose not to lock the design into a patent.
I can borrow one of those 'lens windows' .
I want to install it in a outside wall for obscura camera
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 20:30
Insanely slow? How about the f/18 Protar?
There are faster modern lenses that cover 120 degrees at around f/8. 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, for example, but it isn't a large format lens. The 55, which just covers 4x5, covers 110 degrees. Schneider has a 120 degree lens too, you can look it up. [...] snip futility [...]
I have those lenses.
None of which cover larger than 8x10". As is said, "Think large or go home." :) Oh, and the subject is fisheye lenses, for better and probably worse.
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 20:33
I can borrow one of those 'lens windows' .
I want to install it in a outside wall for obscura camera
Sure, if you lived within 100 miles of me as you once did, ya Yankee traitor! :) Love ya, miss ya, Randy.
Jac et. al.,
Has anyone actually tried one of those fisheye "adapters" on 8x10? I know Kenko made one with 52mm threads that would fit some lenses. Not sure if there are larger thread-size adapters. Of course image quality will suffer...but it's 8x10, how much do you need?
That's long been something I've wanted to try but just never found one inexpensively when I was thinking about it.
Jac@stafford.net
15-Jul-2018, 21:27
JHas anyone actually tried one of those fisheye "adapters" on 8x10? I know Kenko made one [...]
Aw, Corran yer gonna ruin it for all of us obsessed lens-twiddlers with your economical solution!
.
:)
I still hope to see what you come up with. I think I saw a pic of the bomber window you refer to on one of the Facebook groups? Unless there's another floating out there. Either way, sounds interesting.
Speaking of non-economical solutions, I'm still hoping for a 75mm Hypergon to drop into my lap!
Jac et. al.,
Has anyone actually tried one of those fisheye "adapters" on 8x10? I know Kenko made one with 52mm threads that would fit some lenses. Not sure if there are larger thread-size adapters. Of course image quality will suffer...but it's 8x10, how much do you need?3d
That's long been something I've wanted to try but just never found one inexpensively when I was thinking about it.
I used one for a long time for 4x5's with a 65mm f8 SA, and it worked well... A bit smaller than the film frame (but larger than a 6x6 frame) but looked great shooting chrome film... A 75mm probably would have been better for image size... Mine had a series 7 thread that would mount to many lenses somehow... The outer ring of the image had a slight loss of definition, but very passable for use, but I suspect all classic fisheye lenses would...
Best FL would be medium wides as you loose the full image with even a normal FL...
There can be flare outside the circle as it covers such a WA, and some light bounces out of of image area...
Fun, and I even used it for pro use several times for architecture jobs...
Steve K
Tin Can
16-Jul-2018, 01:39
A nice one recently sold for $100 on eFlay.
:)
I still hope to see what you come up with. I think I saw a pic of the bomber window you refer to on one of the Facebook groups? Unless there's another floating out there. Either way, sounds interesting.
Speaking of non-economical solutions, I'm still hoping for a 75mm Hypergon to drop into my lap!
Steve K, any possibility you have some sample images? Curious that longer lenses (with larger image circles) still have some cut-off on full 4x5. Perhaps it is mechanical vignetting from the actual adapter.
Randy, thanks. I will have to look again. Though $100 right now is not something I feel like paying for something that has limited use (as described by Steve, not covering the full film area). I am more interested in getting, at some point, the 37mm Mamiya fisheye and sticking it on my Mercury 3D-printed camera for a fully circular image on 4x5. Or similar solutions. I love the Nikkor 8mm f/2.8 but 35mm has limited use.
EdSawyer
16-Jul-2018, 14:06
I have a 37mm RZ67 fisheye, also a spare front piece with the "ears" cut off the hood so it can do a full-frame image. If/when you ever get a 37mm and want that body piece, I'd part with it - it came with mine and it's not hard to swap between them, but I won't likely ever use it that way.
It's a nice lens, I am not sure if it's a different projection or what, but it seems less "Fishy" than other fish-eyes I have used, e.g. less distortion at the far ends of the image than I'd usually expect from a fisheye.
Ed, that is nice of you to offer. I'll look at the Mamiya lens again. I was late on the trigger buying one last year cheaply.
Steve K, any possibility you have some sample images? Curious that longer lenses (with larger image circles) still have some cut-off on full 4x5. Perhaps it is mechanical vignetting from the actual adapter.
.
Sorry, not right now, as all my stuff is in storage until I find another place, so until then...
It gets better edge definition with wider lenses, and the wide FL allows full circle without cut off... With 35mm, a 28 or wider gives full image... The adapter is well out of the way, but is flare outside of the image area, where some internal blackening should help...
The lens FL determines the circle size...
Mine is a Kenko of about 1985 vintage, but I expect about the same performance from a newer one, and you can always try it on a 35mm if not great for LF...
STEVE K
Dan Fromm
16-Jul-2018, 16:17
Hill's Cloud Lens, anyone?
For a pseudo fisheye effect on 8x10 you can experiment with the following: Mount a lens on your 8x10 view camera. Unscrew the front elements of another lens and reverse them in front of the lens on your 8x10. MAKE SURE THE CENTERS OF THE FRONT ELEMENTS DO NOT TOUCH. Had no threaded reversing ring at the time so used Gafters tape to attach both sets of front elements face to face. Bring in the rear standard because you have greatly reduced the focal length of the lens on your camera. With the right combination you will get a very, very wide circular image image. Resembles a fisheye lens but distortion around the periphery I found to be extreme. It is worth the minimal time and effort. Did this in the 1970s, so the negatives that I shot with this set-up have long since been lost or misfiled.
Jac@stafford.net
16-Jul-2018, 16:33
One cogent day I put together an 8x10" sky camera with a wide Metrogon and my modified shutter (http://www.digoliardi.net/skc/skc-shutter-b.jpg).
Snapshot here (http://www.digoliardi.net/skc/skc1.jpg) of camera in working position. It was not a real fisheye by definition; no global distortion.
Mark Sampson
16-Jul-2018, 20:05
Jac, I'd love to see any pictures you've made with that camera.
It does seem to me that the most difficult part of fisheye photography is to find a subject that is not overwhelmed by the "hey! look at me!" distortion.
I recall a Hasselblad brochure from the '90s where they showed a fisheye portrait of an architect inside his new theater- very effective, I thought- but many super-wide photographs just turn out to be "oh wow, man, far out!" images. IMHO. Of course I'd love to be proved wrong!
Landscape images, with the lens level and no obviously straight trees close by and near the edge of the frame, can look relatively "normal" but with a massively wide view compared to even the widest rectilinear lenses. Of course an architectural subject will always show the "distortion" of the lens due to straight lines being prevalent.
The fisheye effect can be perfectly suited to some photos. The hard part is having one with you at the time you find that scene!
If one is editing/printing digitally, un-fisheying the image is pretty easy. Even a circular fisheye can be "corrected" but will look really wild. I have examples but they are all small/medium format for obvious reasons, so I won't post them here. I created a Photoshop Action to automatically correct my 8mm Nikkor to a full 180 degree frame.
The fisheye effect can be perfectly suited to some photos.
FWIW fisheye lenses are extensively used underwater where the lack of straight lines and unfamiliar subject matter often 'mask' the fact that the view is distorted. Their ability to include a great FoV in limited and low visibility is a boon in many areas. It has always been tempting to try a modified MF fisheye underwater but the custom build costs are pretty prohibitive.
There are (rare) underwater housings for the Pentax 67 and 35mm fisheye. Expensive, but less than a custom build!
Carsten Wolff
18-Jul-2018, 00:50
There are (rare) underwater housings for the Pentax 67 and 35mm fisheye. Expensive, but less than a custom build!
(- and e.g. Gates housings for the 38mm Biogon SWC)
Re: Fisheyes; to add both a philistine and sacrilegious git angle: Anyone ever looked into fisheye adapters (auxiliary lenses) to add to any ordinary 8x10 lens? Resolution at 8x10" surely can't be the most critical parameter.... I have in the past used a cheap Olympus C-180 teleconverter on a 450mm Fujinon-C (=720mm) with quite impressive results (on 5x7" at least).....
So just acquired a 35mm f/4.5 FISH-EYE TAKUMAR 6x7 for my Pentax 67II. Asking price was just too much of a bargain to pass up on. Was a bit worried about the less than detailed description of its condition, but it arrived yesterday and cosmetically is in Mint- condition. Shot a test 120 roll today and mechanically works just fine. In the near future will somehow mount it on my Sinar and make a full image test shot. Best guess is that it will over cover the 4x5 format, but definitely will give me a circular fish eye image on my 8x10, all be it on the smallish scale. Will post details once I figure out how to mount the lens on my 8x10.
Jac@stafford.net
27-Jul-2018, 18:08
So just acquired a 35mm f/4.5 FISH-EYE TAKUMAR 6x7 for my Pentax 67II. [...] Best guess is that it will over cover the 4x5 format, but definitely will give me a circular fish eye image on my 8x10
Cool. Will look forward to actual results. Don't disappoint us.
+1. I have put off adapting/testing mine due to having other things to do. I don't think it'll "cover" 4x5. I am personally hoping the circular image happens in a 4x4 inch area. The photos I have seen from the Mamiya 37mm does so. I can't imagine the two lenses would be much different?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.