explain like I'm 5......... 90mm lenses

[BennoLF]

Hey there,

I'm new to the LF game and I have a few questions about 90mm lenses.
As far as I can tell there are lenses like the Fujinon f/8 which are huge, and lenses like the Schneider f/6.8 which is tiny.......and faster........and cheaper.
Are the small Schneider-type lenses really muddy? Presumably there's a reason people pay more for a bigger and slower lens......are they way sharper?

Looking into buying a 90mm but I want to know what I'm doing.

Benno

[BrianShaw]

Your wish is my command!

Go potty, take a nap, eat a snack, and then get Mommy to read you some stories from the lens section of https://www.largeformatphotography.info/

[Dan Fromm]

Jes' plain Angulons have less coverage than modern wasp-waisted w/a lenses of the same focal length. By the way, there's also a 90/6.8 Raptar, different design than the jes' plain Angulon, same performance.

If you don't need movements the 90/6.8ers will do. If you need movements, they won't.

[Bob Salomon]

Jes' plain Angulons have less coverage than modern wasp-waisted w/a lenses of the same focal length. By the way, there's also a 90/6.8 Raptar, different design than the jes' plain Angulon, same performance.

If you don't need movements the 90/6.8ers will do. If you need movements, they won't.

And the 90mm WA Geragon.

[Doremus Scudder]

In this instance, two things make lenses bigger: Speed (maximum aperture) and coverage (size of image circle). This latter is a result of lens design: more and bigger elements are needed to do the job.

So in this focal length group, you've got 90mm f/6.8 lenses (a couple different designs, as Dan mentions, but similar performance) that just barely make an image circle large enough to cover all of a 4x5-inch piece of film. Some names in this category: Angulon (not Super Angulon) and Raptar (and a Wide Field Ektar f/6.3: not a 90mm, but rather a 100mm lens, which is in the same general category.)

Then you've got the bigger lenses in the 90mm category, which have substantially larger image circles and will allow generous movements (think lots of front rise when photographing architecture, etc.). These get divided into two sub-groups depending on speed.

For example, you have the large Super Angulon 90mm F/8 and the even larger Super Angulon 90mm f/5.6. The latter is faster by a stop plus has more coverage.

Continuing in this same vein, you have: Fujinon and Nikkor SW series lenses in f/8 and f/5.6. Again the faster lens is bigger and has more coverage. Rodenstock calls their wide lenses Grandagons and they come in f/6.8 and f/4.5. Same thing as above, just both lenses are a bit faster.

Note that a lens design series can have many focal lengths. E.g., the Schneider Super Angulons came not only in 90mm focal lengths, but also 65mm, 75mm, 120mm etc. (There's also the more modern and slightly-better performing Super Angulon XL series with a different set of focal lengths: 38mm, 47mm, 72mm and two versions of our old standby, 90mm). Other brands are similar.

Find a pdf of a large-format lens brochure or two online and peruse them. That'll clear up any confusion.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[BennoLF]

Ok, thanks! Looks like I need one of the hourglass lenses, hmm.............

Thanks to all for you input!

[Jim Andrada]

My wide angle lens is a Super Angulon with a center filter. I use it on 4 x 5 (Technika) and 5 x 7 (with not much in the way of movements - pretty much on center only - but it's really wide!)

On the longer end the Nikon sets are great - I have the 360 - 500 - 720 set with the 720 being too long for the Technika and at f/16 a bit dim, but the set is lighter than carrying three separate lenses and the image quality is excellent.

[robshepherd]

Your wish is my command!

Go potty, take a nap, eat a snack, and then get Mommy to read you some stories from the lens section of https://www.largeformatphotography.info/

I just spit tea out my nose!

[BradS]

....Are the small Schneider-type lenses really muddy?
....

No. absolutely not. In fact when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, the 90mm f/6.8 Angulon is very sharp indeed. It is a very compact and light weight lens - a favorite of backpackers and Photo Journalists. They do not allow much, if any movement on 4x5 and they might be a little soft in the corners...oh, and most are now a least 40~50 years old (?) which means that shutters will also be old and in need of service.

[BennoLF]

Ok, coolio. Thanks!

[Peter De Smidt]

I really like the Rodenstock 6,8 lenses, as a good compromise between the dim f/8 lenses and the big f/5.6 lenses. Of the f/8 lenses, the Nikon SW has the most coverage.

Wide angle lenses can be hard to use as they get dim near the edges of the ground glass. That can be a particular problem when photographing inside.

[Bob Salomon]

No. absolutely not. In fact when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, the 90mm f/6.8 Angulon is very sharp indeed. It is a very compact and light weight lens - a favorite of backpackers and Photo Journalists. They do not allow much, if any movement on 4x5 and they might be a little soft in the corners...oh, and most are now a least 40~50 years old (?) which means that shutters will also be old and in need of service.
Schneider designed it for 9x12 cm, not 4x5” so for many it is not a good performer edge to edge.

[BradS]

Schneider designed it for 9x12 cm, not 4x5” so for many it is not a good performer edge to edge.

Just part of the beauty of this little optic.

[EdSawyer]

The Nikkor 90mm f/8 is *the* 90mm 4x5 lens. All else are not as good.

[Alan Klein]

The Nikkor 90mm f/8 is *the* 90mm 4x5 lens. All else are not as good.

Why?

As an aside, I'm just getting into 4x5 and have a 150mm now. I shoot mainly landscapes. So what would be a good selection for a 90mm?

[Bernice Loui]

The possible rational for the SW Nikkor 90mm f8 being tops.... small size with a LARGE image circle.. that is about it.

Tops completely depends on the image making needs. IMO, majority of modern 90mm wide angle lenses with a full aperture of f4.5 to f5.6 are FAR more similar than different. Exception being the Schneider Super Angulon XL with the largest image circle of this group... it is also physically the largest lens of the group.

IMO, there is no "best" there is only what works best for a given need. Frankly, the image circle obsession ... an obsession. Fact is, how much image circle is needed completely depends on the image to be made with any given lens (camera movements). Some images require zero camera movement while other cannot not be made without pushing camera & lens to it's very limits. Larger image circle is not always a good thing as the un-used light from the image circle projected inside the bellows will reflect off the bellows which reduces contrast to varying degrees. As with most stuff, it's a trade off.

Taking aperture figures into this. Most modern wide angle lenses work GOOD at f11 and smaller (there are exceptions like the 75mm f4.5 Biogon, 35mm-45mm-55mm f4.5 green stripe Grandagon). Image circle size increases as the lens aperture deceases, BUT the possible optical resolution decreases due to diffraction.. Again, this is another trade off.


Bernice



Why?

As an aside, I'm just getting into 4x5 and have a 150mm now. I shoot mainly landscapes. So what would be a good selection for a 90mm?

[Corran]

The Nikkor 90mm f/8 is *the* 90mm 4x5 lens. All else are not as good.

+1

But any cheap modern 90mm lens will be more than good enough for most. I've used most all of them and seen little to no difference.

90mm Angulon and similar have soft corners and no extra IC.
90mm f/8 lenses from the Big 4 are all mostly the same, Nikkor is a standout though with slightly more IC. All have 67mm filters IIRC.
90mm f/4.5 or f/5.6 are bigger and take larger filters at 82mm (Rodenstock f/6.8 model is an interesting in-between with 67mm filters, as mentioned by Peter).
90mm XL is massive but the no-compromise option (95mm filters).

[Bernice Loui]

Modest magnification loupe (4x to 7x) tilted at an angle towards the center of the lens while viewing the edge of the ground glass image. Fresnel lens will not help you here, it can make assessing the image FAR more difficult.

This is the routine when using a 72mm Super Angulon XL with 5x7_13x18cm interior images. More challenging if this is done a night with the indoor space illuminated with dim light bulbs.


Bernice



Wide angle lenses can be hard to use as they get dim near the edges of the ground glass. That can be a particular problem when photographing inside.

[Chauncey Walden]

I have to throw another one in the ring: the 90mm Ilex-Calumet Wide Field Caltar f/8 (AKA 90mm Ilex Acugon). It lives in the 5x7 kit as it beat out the 90mm f/8 Super Angulon which is in the 4x5 kit. The 90mm Angulon is on the Travelwide.

[Joseph Kashi]

Lots of good suggestions in this thread. I'll through in my own qualitative comments, FWIW, based upon my actual testing of the following 90mm UWA lenses that I have for different sets of 4x5 and 5x7 gear, along with 75mm and 105mm Fujinon UWA lenses.


90mm/5.6 Fujinon SWD - very sharp, multi-coated, but really big (82mm filter size), heavy and suitable only for fairly static photography. It's an 8 element UWA with 105 degree coverage that works well with 5x7. However, the 90mm/f8 Nikkor does just as well up to 5x7 and in a significantly smaller package.

90mm/8 Nikkor - sharpest lens of the lot by a small margin and with a 67mm filter size. The 235mm/105 degree image circle/coverage is large enough for some movement on 5x7, and it's sufficiently small/light for backpacking My personal preference.

90mm wide angle Dagor - very, very small yet does a very nice job on 4x5. Downside - it's currently as expensive or more expensive than the Nikkor 90/8 on the used market and the shutter will probably require a CLA. Still, as a tiny 4x5 backpack lens, it's great. You can sort of eke out usable 5x7 coverage at very small apertures, but that's marginal.

90mm/6.8 Angulon I apparently have a good factory-coated later copy and it's decent at small apertures, but still seems softer and less contrasty than the similar 90mm Wide Angle Dagor. My least favorite.


Additional comparisons in nearby focal lengths:

75mm/8 Fujinon This is the first version of the SW series, with the inside lettering and single-coated. It's surprisingly sharp and small (58mm filters, I seem to recall). Some movement on 4x5 is possible as the image circle is about 180mm. It's Fujinon's equivalent to the original Super Angulon in terms of 6/4 design. This might be a good alternative to a 90mm UWA - you can always crop a bit or move in closer if you want a tighter composition.

105mm/8 Fujinon NSW This is a later UWA design using 6 air-spaced elements in six groups, multicoating, and lettering on lens barrel outside. It's extremely sharp and my preferred 5x7 UWA, but is overkill on 4x5 as it is a 77mm filter size lens.

The good performance of the later 105mm NSW Fujinon 6/6 design and the earlier 75mm/f8 6/4 design suggests that later NSW models of the Fujinon 90/8 would have similarly good 4x5 performance in a smaller, less expensive package. I did not get one because the 90/8 Fujinon does not cover 5x7.

Fujinon had a known commitment to good quality control for their LF lenses. Of the 11 Fujinon lenses that I purchased on the usedmarket, I have not had a single bad one. Qualitatively, I would generalize that one or two were average to somewhat above average while the rest were excellent or better.

[Alan Klein]

Jpseph, I have a Chamonix 4x5. How does the f/8 rating of the Nikkor 90mm rate as far as ability to see the GG that has a fresnel lens? Would this be a good selection for 4x5?

[Alan Klein]

Why do 75mm and 90mm have the same 105 degree angle of coverage based on this sheet from references in this forum?
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Where can you get dimension spec (length width etc) for all lenses?

[Alan Klein]

Th aforementioned sheet of lenses shows center filter prices for many of the lenses. WIll I need to buy this separately if listed? I shoot Tmax BW and color slide film.

[Bob Salomon]

Why do 75mm and 90mm have the same 105 degree angle of coverage based on this sheet from references in this forum?
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Where can you get dimension spec (length width etc) for all lenses?

That’s the angle of illumination, not the angle of coverage. The first determines how large a diameter the lens covers. The second is how wide the lens is on the format you are using. So an 105° coverage lens has a larger circle of illumination then an 80° coverage lens.

[Tin Can]

Look at this image made with a tiny lens

I have one of these lenses and plan to use it more

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101313-Show-Me-Your-Night-Shots!&p=1535231&viewfull=1#post1535231

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Randy, if you want tiny, you want a 90/14 Perigraphe VIa. Compared to it the 90/6.8ers are monstrous. However, the Perigraphe is in barrel. Stuffed into the front of an Ilex #3 -- that's how I use mine -- it isn't quite so small. But with a Speed Graphic, ...

[Corran]

Look at this image made with a tiny lens

I have one of these lenses and plan to use it more

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101313-Show-Me-Your-Night-Shots!&p=1535231&viewfull=1#post1535231

It may be instructive to consider the movements used here. With some front rise to correct keystoning, the bottom of the lens' image circle is being cut off, showing good sharpness therefore in the lower area of the image. In opposition, the poorer area of the image is being almost completely hidden in a dark featureless sky. There may even be some vignetting we don't see. This image is an example of an absolute best-case scenario for the Optar.

In other scenarios the corner areas may be unsuitable. I also have one negative that I noticed better performance than expected in the bottom area which I think is indicative of field curvature, which in some cases is actually helpful.

Other than some "golden" samples, I would guess any and all small f/6.8 90mm lenses of the Angulon/Optar variety would perform relatively worse than newer and larger lenses, but that may very well not matter to some and for some applications.

[Joseph Kashi]

Why do 75mm and 90mm have the same 105 degree angle of coverage based on this sheet from references in this forum?
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Where can you get dimension spec (length width etc) for all lenses?

The Fujinon f/8 lenses are 100 degree angle of coverage - the angle of coverage is inherent in the design of a particular lens. For a given angle of coverage, the diameter of the image circle increases linearly with the focal length. Assuming no mechanical vignetting, to calculate the diameter of the usably sharp image circle, a good approximation is 2 x the tangent of (angle of coverage/2) X focal length.

Lens data and manufacturer specs are basically found throughout the Internet - there are very few new LF lenses being manufactured. This forum is a good place to start, particularly the sticky items at the top. Dan Fromm's guide to lens data can be found on this forum and is likely the best starting point.

[Joseph Kashi]

Why do 75mm and 90mm have the same 105 degree angle of coverage based on this sheet from references in this forum?
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Where can you get dimension spec (length width etc) for all lenses?

i have not found that an f/8 lens is significantly more difficult to view on the ground glass, but size and bulky may be of greater operational importance to some. On a smaller wooden camera ( I have a Nagaoka 4x5 myself), the bulk and weight of an f/5.6 may be too much for the front standard or simply too large and heavy to be comfortable in operational use. Your mileage may vary. I do find that a fresnel lens is very helpful at the corners.

[Alan Klein]

I just got an idea. I have an f/5.6 150mm. I'll turn the aperture down to f/8 while viewing and see how bright it is to help make a decision about my next lens.

[BrianShaw]

I just got an idea. I have an f/5.6 150mm. I'll turn the aperture down to f/8 while viewing and see how bright it is to help make a decision about my next lens.

I did that with my 90/5.6 and decided that if I used it once more I’d by a 90/8 first. :)

[Tin Can]

Right now my 90mm Optar in well working shutter is still on my plastic camera many here bought

I use it handheld at 5' using a prefocus distance and a wire finder............with flashbulbs

The Optar is just a lens option, but I will point out, my camera didn't break the weak point with a far heavier lens...

I experiment a lot, and am definetly not seeking AA magnificence, nor his tripod holes

I'm a good time guy! at least I used to be...:(

Dan, I am sure you could suggest far more exotic lenses that I will never find, buy or even want

I have four 90's....

[BennoLF]

I just got an idea. I have an f/5.6 150mm. I'll turn the aperture down to f/8 while viewing and see how bright it is to help make a decision about my next lens.

Wait but doesn't this not work? f/8 on a 90mm lens is a lesser transmittance than a a f/8 150mm, because the 150mm lens is a narrower FOV.
Both transmit the same total amount of light but with a smaller angle the 150mm is brighter per any given area. Or at least so the astro shooters tell me. Something about 'clear aperture size'
https://petapixel.com/2014/01/29/picking-great-lens-milky-way-photography/ look about 1/3 of the way down.

Am I talking crazy?

[Peter De Smidt]

Don't forget to factor in 1 -2 stops falloff at the edges.

[Bob Salomon]

Wait but doesn't this not work? f/8 on a 90mm lens is a lesser transmittance than a a f/8 150mm, because the 150mm lens is a narrower FOV.
Both transmit the same total amount of light but with a smaller angle the 150mm is brighter per any given area. Or at least so the astro shooters tell me. Something about 'clear aperture size'
https://petapixel.com/2014/01/29/picking-great-lens-milky-way-photography/ look about 1/3 of the way down.

Am I talking crazy?
You can always compromise between 5.6 and 8.0 with the 90mm 6.8 Grandagon N or the Grandagon.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, I am sure you could suggest far more exotic lenses that I will never find, buy or even want.

Look for 90/14 Perigraphes and you will find. I just checked on ebay.com, 12 on offer. There should be others on ebay.fr.

[Joseph Kashi]

Why do 75mm and 90mm have the same 105 degree angle of coverage based on this sheet from references in this forum?
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Where can you get dimension spec (length width etc) for all lenses?

Hi, Alan

I checked the chart and it would appear that the series you compared are mismatched. The chart correctly shows the f/8 Fujinon SW wide angle lenses as 100 degrees coverage and the 90mm /5.6 SWD ( as in Deluxe) series correctly at 105 degrees. To my knowledge, the Nikkor 90/f8 is the only smaller f/8 modern ultra wide angle lens to have a 105 degree angle of coverage. Usually, the f/8 lenses have 100 degree coverage and the f/5.6 lenses have 105 degree coverage.

My suggestion is that you try to get an idea about relative sizes, weights, and ergonomics before spending a lot of money for am f/5.6 Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) lens that's too large and heavy to be usable on a field camera or that needs an expensive, hard-to-find center filter to be usable. I have both f/8 and f/5.6 UWA lenses. The relatively compact 75mm and 90mm f/8 lenses go along with most photo outings while the f/5.6 is admired and then put away in a dark drawer for yet another day.

[Bob Salomon]

Hi, Alan

I checked the chart and it would appear that the series you compared are mismatched. The chart correctly shows the f/8 Fujinon SW wide angle lenses as 100 degrees coverage and the 90mm /5.6 SWD ( as in Deluxe) series correctly at 105 degrees. To my knowledge, the Nikkor 90/f8 is the only smaller f/8 modern ultra wide angle lens to have a 105 degree angle of coverage. Usually, the f/8 lenses have 100 degree coverage and the f/5.6 lenses have 105 degree coverage.

My suggestion is that you try to get an idea about relative sizes, weights, and ergonomics before spending a lot of money for am f/5.6 Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) lens that's too large and heavy to be usable on a field camera or that needs an expensive, hard-to-find center filter to be usable. I have both f/8 and f/5.6 UWA lenses. The relatively compact 75mm and 90mm f/8 lenses go along with most photo outings while the f/5.6 is admired and then put away in a dark drawer for yet another day.
The 90mm 6.8 Grandagon and Grandagon N cover 102° more then most 8.0 lenses and 3° less then the 5.6 and 4.5 90s.

[Dan Fromm]

My suggestion is that you try to get an idea about relative sizes, weights, and ergonomics before spending a lot of money for am f/5.6 Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) lens that's too large and heavy to be usable on a field camera or that needs an expensive, hard-to-find center filter to be usable.

Joseph, optical vignetting (the dread cos^4) afflects all lenses equally. There've been many discussions about when a center filter is necessary. To the extent that there's a consensus, it is that 90 mm is the shortest focal length that can be used on 4x5 without a CF.

When a 90 mm lens is shot straight ahead, i.e., with no movements, the very corners of the 4x5 frame will be 1.5 stops down from the center. Most photographers find this tolerable.

Benno, if this drop of is more than you can tolerate -- it will be if you shoot reversal film -- you should be aware that there are no center filters for the small thin inexpensive 90s you asked about. There are CFs for the modern wasp-waisted ones. To learn more, especially about CFs for lenses whose manufacturers never offered CFs, read my article on the French LF forum. http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html

[Bernice Loui]

What were the "test" methods used to determine the SW Nikkor 90mm f8 was the "sharpest" of the lot?

*Camera used, film used, how was the film processed, subject & lighting conditions used, criteria used, how many representative sample(s) of SW Nikkor 90mm f8 lenses were tested......

It is more likely the 90mm f8 SW Nikkor had higher contrast not "sharper" than the others. This combined with a very long list of possibilities plus cognitive bias, image rendition bias and LOTs more all figure into that assertion of "sharper".

As for Fujinon LF lenses being "Superior" again, the is completely subjective and dependent on the needs of image maker and print goals.

Higher contrast is not "sharper"... In many real world sheet film to print image making realities, the sharpest lens is NOT the best lens for a given print. It is a LOT more complex than optical performance of any given lens.

As for which wide 90mm for 4x5 or 5x7_13x18cm, what is the print's goal? As previous mentioned and many times before, there are NO ideal lenses for ALL print goals. Go directly back to the intent and goal of the finished print, then figure out what lens-camera-lighting-film-post processing is required to achieve that print.


Bernice



Lots of good suggestions in this thread. I'll through in my own qualitative comments, FWIW, based upon my actual testing of the following 90mm UWA lenses that I have for different sets of 4x5 and 5x7 gear, along with 75mm and 105mm Fujinon UWA lenses.


90mm/5.6 Fujinon SWD - very sharp, multi-coated, but really big (82mm filter size), heavy and suitable only for fairly static photography. It's an 8 element UWA with 105 degree coverage that works well with 5x7. However, the 90mm/f8 Nikkor does just as well up to 5x7 and in a significantly smaller package.

90mm/8 Nikkor - sharpest lens of the lot by a small margin and with a 67mm filter size. The 235mm/105 degree image circle/coverage is large enough for some movement on 5x7, and it's sufficiently small/light for backpacking My personal preference.

90mm wide angle Dagor - very, very small yet does a very nice job on 4x5. Downside - it's currently as expensive or more expensive than the Nikkor 90/8 on the used market and the shutter will probably require a CLA. Still, as a tiny 4x5 backpack lens, it's great. You can sort of eke out usable 5x7 coverage at very small apertures, but that's marginal.

90mm/6.8 Angulon I apparently have a good factory-coated later copy and it's decent at small apertures, but still seems softer and less contrasty than the similar 90mm Wide Angle Dagor. My least favorite.


Additional comparisons in nearby focal lengths:

75mm/8 Fujinon This is the first version of the SW series, with the inside lettering and single-coated. It's surprisingly sharp and small (58mm filters, I seem to recall). Some movement on 4x5 is possible as the image circle is about 180mm. It's Fujinon's equivalent to the original Super Angulon in terms of 6/4 design. This might be a good alternative to a 90mm UWA - you can always crop a bit or move in closer if you want a tighter composition.

105mm/8 Fujinon NSW This is a later UWA design using 6 air-spaced elements in six groups, multicoating, and lettering on lens barrel outside. It's extremely sharp and my preferred 5x7 UWA, but is overkill on 4x5 as it is a 77mm filter size lens.

The good performance of the later 105mm NSW Fujinon 6/6 design and the earlier 75mm/f8 6/4 design suggests that later NSW models of the Fujinon 90/8 would have similarly good 4x5 performance in a smaller, less expensive package. I did not get one because the 90/8 Fujinon does not cover 5x7.

Fujinon had a known commitment to good quality control for their LF lenses. Of the 11 Fujinon lenses that I purchased on the usedmarket, I have not had a single bad one. Qualitatively, I would generalize that one or two were average to somewhat above average while the rest were excellent or better.

[BennoLF]

Joseph, optical vignetting (the dread cos^4) afflects all lenses equally. There've been many discussions about when a center filter is necessary. To the extent that there's a consensus, it is that 90 mm is the shortest focal length that can be used on 4x5 without a CF.

When a 90 mm lens is shot straight ahead, i.e., with no movements, the very corners of the 4x5 frame will be 1.5 stops down from the center. Most photographers find this tolerable.

Benno, if this drop of is more than you can tolerate -- it will be if you shoot reversal film -- you should be aware that there are no center filters for the small thin inexpensive 90s you asked about. There are CFs for the modern wasp-waisted ones. To learn more, especially about CFs for lenses whose manufacturers never offered CFs, read my article on the French LF forum. http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html

Woah that site has a wealth of information. Thank you! I always found CF really confusing but this is super helpful.

[Doremus Scudder]

I just got an idea. I have an f/5.6 150mm. I'll turn the aperture down to f/8 while viewing and see how bright it is to help make a decision about my next lens.



Wait but doesn't this not work? f/8 on a 90mm lens is a lesser transmittance than a a f/8 150mm, because the 150mm lens is a narrower FOV.
Both transmit the same total amount of light but with a smaller angle the 150mm is brighter per any given area. Or at least so the astro shooters tell me. Something about 'clear aperture size'
https://petapixel.com/2014/01/29/picking-great-lens-milky-way-photography/ look about 1/3 of the way down.

Am I talking crazy?


Yep, you're talkin' real crazy! :)

Think about it: if f/8 (or any other f-stop) was different from lens to lens, then you'd not get the same exposure for the same f-stop when you changed lenses.

The whole idea of f-stops is that is proportional to aperture size so the amount of light transmission is always the same for a given number.

Example: f/8 on a 90mm lens = 90 ÷ 8 = 11.25mm. f/8 on a 150mm lens = 150 ÷ 8 = 18.75mm. The longer lens has a larger aperture at f/8 than the shorter, which lets in more light, which compensates for the smaller field of view.

For a given aperture size for both lenses, your reasoning is correct. It's just that the f-numbers would then be different.

Example: A 9mm aperture on a 90mm lens = f/10 (90 ÷ 9 = 10). That same 9mm aperture on a 150mm lens = f/16.6 (150 ÷ 9 = 16.666...). The division works both ways.

Some things can affect transmission, like haze on lenses, reflections from lots of elements, etc., but that's a separate issue from the f-stop.

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

I plan on shooting chromes down the road in addition to BW. Would that change anyone's opinions on which 90mm lens? (Note that I have all filters in 77mm. So I don't want to go above that filter size)

[Alan Klein]

...color chromes and color negatives...

[Corran]

Pick a lens and go shoot! Don't get bogged down with paralysis by analysis!

[Joseph Kashi]

I plan on shooting chromes down the road in addition to BW. Would that change anyone's opinions on which 90mm lens? (Note that I have all filters in 77mm. So I don't want to go above that filter size)

I'm currently only doing black and white ( 4x5 TMax 100 and 5x7 Delta 100) on LF and then scanning for digital post-processing and printing.

That hybrid process allows me a fair degree of digital correction in post-processing and I have a wide-format Epson 7900 printer that can do excellent BW prints if carefully calibrated. That affects my own approach.

Some of the best aspects of LF photography are that a wide range of options and approaches are open to everyone, that nearly any age, make and model lens can be adapted to a LF camera, and that DYI is feasible for virtually anyone with a modicum of experience. That makes LF quite flexible and allows everyone to find their own approach.

Chromes are certainly more susceptible to vignetting and more difficult to correct. I cannot comment about shooting LF chromes as I lack personal experience there.

That said, while some may take a different and possibly idiosyncratic view, IMHO sharpness and contrast are very important optical criteria, although certainly not the only ones, because higher sharpness and crisp contrast usually record the image more faithfully and thus provide more "information" and more accurate information, than lenses that are not as sharp nor exhibiting crisp contrast.

You'll of course find differing opinions - think 1930s Pictorialists vs. the f/64 revolution by Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, et al. It all depends upon what you want to do and whether you want to achieve a particular result and do so in-camera via a particular lens.

If you want a softer image, that's possible after the fact IF you start out with enough information in the original image capture, but you can't go the other way and try to extract more information from an image where the underlying information was never captured when the shutter was clicked.

Older lenses would likely be less suitable for chromes than more modern lenses from Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Fujinon, all of whose more recent products have excellent reputations.

[Joseph Kashi]

Joseph, optical vignetting (the dread cos^4) afflects all lenses equally. There've been many discussions about when a center filter is necessary. To the extent that there's a consensus, it is that 90 mm is the shortest focal length that can be used on 4x5 without a CF.

When a 90 mm lens is shot straight ahead, i.e., with no movements, the very corners of the 4x5 frame will be 1.5 stops down from the center. Most photographers find this tolerable.

Benno, if this drop of is more than you can tolerate -- it will be if you shoot reversal film -- you should be aware that there are no center filters for the small thin inexpensive 90s you asked about. There are CFs for the modern wasp-waisted ones. To learn more, especially about CFs for lenses whose manufacturers never offered CFs, read my article on the French LF forum. http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html

Hi, Dan: Thanks for the information about the 1.5 stop vignetting - I forgot the formula. As I shoot only BW at this time on LF and then scan, post-process, and digitally print, I haven't been bothered by the vignetting due to my own style but I can certainly see how it would be a concern when shooting chromes as per the OP.

[Peter De Smidt]

Pick a lens and go shoot! Don't get bogged down with paralysis by analysis!

Yes!

[Joseph Kashi]

What were the "test" methods used to determine the SW Nikkor 90mm f8 was the "sharpest" of the lot?

*Camera used, film used, how was the film processed, subject & lighting conditions used, criteria used, how many representative sample(s) of SW Nikkor 90mm f8 lenses were tested......

It is more likely the 90mm f8 SW Nikkor had higher contrast not "sharper" than the others. This combined with a very long list of possibilities plus cognitive bias, image rendition bias and LOTs more all figure into that assertion of "sharper".

As for Fujinon LF lenses being "Superior" again, the is completely subjective and dependent on the needs of image maker and print goals.

Higher contrast is not "sharper"... In many real world sheet film to print image making realities, the sharpest lens is NOT the best lens for a given print. It is a LOT more complex than optical performance of any given lens.

As for which wide 90mm for 4x5 or 5x7_13x18cm, what is the print's goal? As previous mentioned and many times before, there are NO ideal lenses for ALL print goals. Go directly back to the intent and goal of the finished print, then figure out what lens-camera-lighting-film-post processing is required to achieve that print.


Bernice

Hello, Bernice:

FWIW, although I have mentioned that modern Fujinon lenses have proven to be reliably good for me and relatively more affordable used, I am not a Fujinon evangelist as I also use multiple modern lenses from Schneider, Nikkor, and Rodenstock. That said, the Fujinons and Rodenstocks have, for me, been the most consistently good optically.

I certainly understand your thoughts about the look of a certain lens as I also shoot regularly with eight classic lenses, four Zeiss Protar VIIa, a Voightlander 115mm Ultragon, and three Dagor lenses, and keep an appropriate one in every one of my large format kits from 4x5 through the 11x14 outfit. Some of these are as good as the better modern lenses and some less so.

[BennoLF]

Yep, you're talkin' real crazy! :)

Think about it: if f/8 (or any other f-stop) was different from lens to lens, then you'd not get the same exposure for the same f-stop when you changed lenses.

The whole idea of f-stops is that is proportional to aperture size so the amount of light transmission is always the same for a given number.

Example: f/8 on a 90mm lens = 90 ÷ 8 = 11.25mm. f/8 on a 150mm lens = 150 ÷ 8 = 18.75mm. The longer lens has a larger aperture at f/8 than the shorter, which lets in more light, which compensates for the smaller field of view.

For a given aperture size for both lenses, your reasoning is correct. It's just that the f-numbers would then be different.

Example: A 9mm aperture on a 90mm lens = f/10 (90 ÷ 9 = 10). That same 9mm aperture on a 150mm lens = f/16.6 (150 ÷ 9 = 16.666...). The division works both ways.

Some things can affect transmission, like haze on lenses, reflections from lots of elements, etc., but that's a separate issue from the f-stop.

Best,

Doremus

Wait now I'm further confused lol.

f/8 for any two different focal lengths is the same light input total. Isn't it kinda like slow, wide river or fast, narrow river?
A 3000000mm f/8 is picking up light from like .0005 degrees, so to get a balanced exposure it needs to pick up a HECK ton of light/degree.
A 30mm f/8 is picking up light from like a jillion degrees, so it's a much lower level of light/degree.

If you have a totally dark room with one lightbulb in it, metering a 'correct' exposure at f/8 will yield two different shutter speeds for two different focal lengths. Right?
The wider lens needs a longer shutter speed because it's viewing more darkness, so the lightbulb takes up a lower percentage of the exposure.
The tighter lens can have a faster shutter speed because it's just looking at a lightbulb.

This is all based on a metering system looking for an average of zone V.

I feel even crazier now but there's something in my mind that doesn't click.

[Dan Fromm]

Benno, do you know who Ring Lardner was? If you don't, look him up and look up his book You Know Me, Al. There's a great classic line in the book. "Shut up, he explained."

So, shut up and accept that f/a @ shutter speed b will have the same effect on film for all focal lengths, subject to the lenses used having the same transmission. Not all lenses transmit the same fraction of the light that strikes their front elements.

More seriously, Emmanuel Bigler posted a thorough explanation of the math behind the assertion somewhere on this site. Your next assignment is to find it.

[Drew Wiley]

I used a Nikor 90/4.5 SW for architectural use. Huge coverage and the extra brightness was highly welcome if doing dim interiors or focus with a center filter in place. Big.
I once ice axed my way up a steep 13,000 ft ridge with a big 120 SA as well as a full Sinar kit and a week's worth of backcountry gear. Tied myself onto a tiny ledge for sake of a sunrise shot, and found a block of stone barely large enough for the tripod. Reprinted that neg recently. Very sharp image, even with both a CF and 29 red filter involved. The 90 Nikkor is even sharper. But at my age, if I need a wide angle in my 4x5 backpacking kit, it's going to be a tiny Fuji 125W instead. Paid my dues long ago.

[Doremus Scudder]

Wait now I'm further confused lol.

f/8 for any two different focal lengths is the same light input total. Isn't it kinda like slow, wide river or fast, narrow river?
A 3000000mm f/8 is picking up light from like .0005 degrees, so to get a balanced exposure it needs to pick up a HECK ton of light/degree.
A 30mm f/8 is picking up light from like a jillion degrees, so it's a much lower level of light/degree.

Benno,

You're confusing the actual size of the aperture with the f-number. Just remember, f/8 means: focal length ÷ 8, which means the actual size of the aperture at f/8 is dependent on the focal length of the lens. The f-number is a ratio, not a fixed size.

Your imaginary 3,000,000mm lens at f/8 is going to have an aperture of 375,000mm, or 375 meters, if you prefer. So, yes, it will pick up "a HECK ton of light."

The impracticality of making long focal-length lenses with wide apertures becomes apparent when one realizes that the size of the aperture at a given f-number increases with focal length. A 500mm lens at f/8 has an aperture of 62.5mm; a 50mm f/8 lens has an aperture of 6.25mm. The 500mm lens has to be ten times bigger to have the same maximum aperture.


If you have a totally dark room with one light bulb in it, metering a 'correct' exposure at f/8 will yield two different shutter speeds for two different focal lengths. Right?

No, not right; the exposure will be the same at f/8 for all focal lengths. The longer lenses will have larger apertures to pick up more light, but the ratio of f-number to focal length remains the same: f/8 or focal length ÷ 8.



The wider lens needs a longer shutter speed because it's viewing more darkness, so the light bulb takes up a lower percentage of the exposure.
The tighter lens can have a faster shutter speed because it's just looking at a light bulb...

The wider lens projects the light bulb smaller on the film. The exposure of the bulb on a smaller area is just right. The darkness is spread over the rest of the film. The longer lens has a bigger light bulb on the film and less darkness.

Think of a light meter. It gives you ONE exposure for a given light measurement (yes this can be divided up into different aperture and shutter speed combinations, but it's the SAME exposure. f/8 at 1/60 sec. = f/5.6 at 1/125 sec. and f/11 at 1/30 sec. and so on.)

If different focal lengths required different exposures at a give f-number, then there would be focal lengths on the meter. There aren't; f/8 is f/8 for all focal lengths.

Hope that's clear,

Doremus

[swmcl]

I will say that as one gets long in the tooth ... the more light you have when focusing is a good thing. I cannot understand how the weight difference between a f4.5 lens and a f8 lens makes much difference in the field. Then again, I live in a flat land in comparison to others and I hate any gradient when walking !!

My Nikkor 90mm f4.5 is a dream come true. I just love it.

[Salmo22]

I used a Nikor 90/4.5 SW for architectural use. Huge coverage and the extra brightness was highly welcome if doing dim interiors or focus with a center filter in place. Big.
I once ice axed my way up a steep 13,000 ft ridge with a big 120 SA as well as a full Sinar kit and a week's worth of backcountry gear. Tied myself onto a tiny ledge for sake of a sunrise shot, and found a block of stone barely large enough for the tripod. Reprinted that neg recently. Very sharp image, even with both a CF and 29 red filter involved. The 90 Nikkor is even sharper. But at my age, if I need a wide angle in my 4x5 backpacking kit, it's going to be a tiny Fuji 125W instead. Paid my dues long ago.

Drew:

I recently acquired a Nikkor SW 90/4.5. I've been wondering about getting a center filter. What brand/type do you prefer?

Thank you;

Jeff

[Dan Fromm]

Jeff, PMFJI. There's a link to my article on center filters in post #39 above. Until someone writes a better one it is definitive. Read it.

To answer your question, they're all functionally equivalent. What matters is diameter -- the filter has to fit -- and central density.

[BennoLF]

Benno,

You're confusing the actual size of the aperture with the f-number. Just remember, f/8 means: focal length ÷ 8, which means the actual size of the aperture at f/8 is dependent on the focal length of the lens. The f-number is a ratio, not a fixed size.

Your imaginary 3,000,000mm lens at f/8 is going to have an aperture of 375,000mm, or 375 meters, if you prefer. So, yes, it will pick up "a HECK ton of light."


oh duh duh I was forgetting that I'm so smart haha

slightly different question (I think different?):
Do lightmeters measure total amount of light or light density? A softbox with, let's say, 3 sq. ft of area that given out light at, lets say, 50 cd./sq. ft would be 150 total candlepower, correct?
but a softbox of twice the size would give out 300 candlepower? (I may be botching the terminology here)


Think of a light meter. It gives you ONE exposure for a given light measurement (yes this can be divided up into different aperture and shutter speed combinations, but it's the SAME exposure. f/8 at 1/60 sec. = f/5.6 at 1/125 sec. and f/11 at 1/30 sec. and so on.)

If different focal lengths required different exposures at a give f-number, then there would be focal lengths on the meter. There aren't; f/8 is f/8 for all focal lengths.
Doremus

^^ the lightmeter is always reading the same angle. Will a meter is covering 30 deg will read a different exposure than an 80 deg meter unless the scene is of identical luminous density across 80 degrees?

I feel even crazier now. Sorry to keep on keeping on but the more I think about this the more I'm confused lol.

Also I can't find Emmanuel Bigler's math post. Could someone kindly link it?

[Oren Grad]

oh duh duh I was forgetting that I'm so smart haha

slightly different question (I think different?):
Do lightmeters measure total amount of light or light density? A softbox with, let's say, 3 sq. ft of area that given out light at, lets say, 50 cd./sq. ft would be 150 total candlepower, correct?
but a softbox of twice the size would give out 300 candlepower? (I may be botching the terminology here)



^^ the lightmeter is always reading the same angle. When a meter is covering 30 deg it will read a different exposure than an 80 deg meter unless the scene is of identical luminous density across 80 degrees.
I feel even crazier now. Sorry to keep on keeping on but the more I think about this the more I'm confused lol.

Also I can't find Emmanuel Bigler's math post. Could someone kindly link it?

Benno -

If you have questions about lighting and metering, please start new threads for those questions in the appropriate subforums rather than tangling together many different topics in the "Lenses" subforum.

Thanks!

[Doremus Scudder]

... Will a meter is covering 30 deg will read a different exposure than an 80 deg meter unless the scene is of identical luminous density across 80 degrees? ...

At the risk of tangling topics, here's the short answer:

A meter averages the light from the angle of view it sees. Meters with different angles of view will indeed give different readings. Think of a spot meter pointed at a shadow; it'll give a low-light reading. If you point a 30° meter at the same shadow, it's going to see the sky and the sunlit areas too, so the reading will be different.

If you want more info, start a new thread in the appropriate category or we'll get into trouble with Owen :)

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

From the point of view of one who spent decades burning LOTS of color transparency film between the early 1980's to late 1990's...

Higher contrast, Sharpest lens is NOT always desirable. It completely depends on the goal of the image. Back then color transparencies were the primary mean to color printing. Color prints from color transparencies were much secondary. Difficulty with color prints made using color transparencies becomes limited contrast range or excessively high contrast producing a "Cartoon" effect on these color prints (Cibachrome, later Ilfordchrome and Fuji had their variant of this color print paper). The high contrast problem could be controlled by contrast masking (Drew W, lots of experience with this and willing to share, discussed on LFF numerous times) or starting out with a lower contrast color transparency using a modest contrast lens (Tessar, Kodak Commercial Ektar, Schneider Xenar, etc) combined with modest contrast color transparency film like Fuji Astia, Agfa chrome RS100 or similar, this combined with contrast masking worked good to extend the contrast range of a print made using a color transparency.

High contrast is often perceived as "sharper" when under broader and closer examination higher contrast is much the same regarding "sharper".

After using every brand of modern lens from the big four (Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock, Fujinon) the preference for wide angle is Rodenstock's Grandagon due to their contrast & color rendition, Schneider's XL for pushing image circle requirements with Nikon higher contrast compared to the European brands, Fujion mixed in between. I've got the Fujinon 105mm f8 & 125mm f8 wide wide angle lenses, they are not preferred. In that focal length default is the 115mm f6.8 Grandagon. All of which means ZERO to another image maker-artist-photographer, this is more a point of view and preference base on experience and visual expectations. Overall speaking, I'm not a fan of high contrast, perceived sharpness prints as overall tonal rendition and visual perceived contrast range in the print is IMO, FAR more important. All this said, any of the modern wide angle lenses from Fujinon, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock are again, FAR more similar than different.

~Pick one and make images.. Don't get too caught up in the belief-idea a given lens alone can produce exceptional results.. This will NOT happen.~

Soft focus lenses are a completely different kettle of film-prints...

Vintage lenses work good for color transparencies, Really depends on what is considered "Vintage" which can mean a lens from 1900's or post WW-II or ?

Having been around, used, owned lenses from the early 1900's to late 1990's they All have their place dependent on the needs of the image maker with a print goal in mind. I'm no longer convinced or accept the f64 school if LF image making is the proper orthodoxy, as there are many, many, many ways the view camera and all it's possibilities can be utilized as a very powerful creative tool for print and image making.



Bernice





I'm currently only doing black and white ( 4x5 TMax 100 and 5x7 Delta 100) on LF and then scanning for digital post-processing and printing.

Chromes are certainly more susceptible to vignetting and more difficult to correct. I cannot comment about shooting LF chromes as I lack personal experience there.

That said, while some may take a different and possibly idiosyncratic view, IMHO sharpness and contrast are very important optical criteria, although certainly not the only ones, because higher sharpness and crisp contrast usually record the image more faithfully and thus provide more "information" and more accurate information, than lenses that are not as sharp nor exhibiting crisp contrast.

You'll of course find differing opinions - think 1930s Pictorialists vs. the f/64 revolution by Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, et al. It all depends upon what you want to do and whether you want to achieve a particular result and do so in-camera via a particular lens.

If you want a softer image, that's possible after the fact IF you start out with enough information in the original image capture, but you can't go the other way and try to extract more information from an image where the underlying information was never captured when the shutter was clicked.

Older lenses would likely be less suitable for chromes than more modern lenses from Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Fujinon, all of whose more recent products have excellent reputations.

[Drew Wiley]

Jeff, I'm just getting back to this thread and missed your question earlier. For the 90/4.5 Nikkor, the 82mm Schneider no. IV CF works perfectly @ 1.5 X added exposure.

[Jim Noel]

If you have trouble focusing with an f-8 lens you need to see an ophthalmologist, not an optometrist. Cataracts reduce the amount of light focused through the lens onto the retina. Removal is simple and quick. The resulting change in vision can be astounding!

[Alan Klein]

Jeff, I'm just getting back to this thread and missed your question earlier. For the 90/4.5 Nikkor, the 82mm Schneider no. IV CF works perfectly @ 1.5 X added exposure.

Drew Is there an issue with adding other filters with the CF relating to it's size or threads to mount the other filters? I read somewhere that could be a problem.

[Bob Salomon]

Drew Is there an issue with adding other filters with the CF relating to it's size or threads to mount the other filters? I read somewhere that could be a problem.

You can add additional filters to the front of the cf as long as they have a large enough front rim so they don’t vignette. You do not add them between the lens and the cf.

[Alan Klein]

You can add additional filters to the front of the cf as long as they have a large enough front rim so they don’t vignette. You do not add them between the lens and the cf.

So if let's say you're shooting a 90mm that has a filter size of 82mm and shoot with a CF, what filter type would you have to buy to work right to avoid vignetting? What size will they have to be? Ditto with 90mm lens with CF with a filter size of 68mm. There reason I;m asking is because I'm in the market for a 90mm or 75mm lens for 4x5 (with either 67mm or 82mm filter size) and I don't want to wind up having 2 or 3 sets of filters. Currently I'm using a set of 77mm filters with an adapter using them on a 150mm Schneider with a 67mm filter size. But of course, the 150mm does not need a CF. So it's the 90mm and 75mm lenses that are questioned when using the CF?

[Roger Thoms]

Pick a lens and go shoot! Don't get bogged down with paralysis by analysis!

This is excellent advice.

Roger

[Dan Fromm]

Alan, short answer, read this: http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html. Your 77 mm filters are too small for most CFs for 75 and 90 mm lenses, but it depends on the lens. Read the article.

Oh, and by the way, there's a link to the article in the list. Consult the list early and often.

[Drew Wiley]

Alan, I've never had a vignetting issue with any added 82mm contrast or color correction filter, having both carefully tested for this and after quite a bit of practical usage. The oversized nature of the CF itself seems to be engineered with this in mind. I use any supplementary 82mm filters BETWEEN the CF and lens itself. (Schneider IV on a Nikkor 90/3.5). But with the originally intended application of this same center filter on a Super Angulon 120, the bulge of the front element actually requires a thin 82mm shim ring or threaded extension to prevent the lens and CF rubbing together. No problem with the Nikkor 90, however. But I rarely use this lens anymore and would be willing to sell both it and the CF together at a very fair price, but haven't taken the time to list them yet. Both are in mint condition. PM me if you're interested.

[Salmo22]

Jeff, I'm just getting back to this thread and missed your question earlier. For the 90/4.5 Nikkor, the 82mm Schneider no. IV CF works perfectly @ 1.5 X added exposure.

No worries on the timing Drew. They are like finding hens teeth, so I'll just need to be patient. One will show up sooner or later.