Curvilinear Distortion in W.A. Large Format Lenses

[Andre Noble]

I am seeking to add one (perhaps two) wide angle LF lenses below the 90mm Nikon that I already have.

I have recently been also shooting aarchitecture on a Bronica 6x6 MF system with 40, 50, 65 ,a 80 mm lenses. I am dissapointed in the barrel distortion in these lenses. (I am NOT refering to converging verticals or keystoning, but to true barrel distortion. I am not just being a perfectionist, but this barrel distortion even in their normal 80mm lens truly detracts for me from the "believability and aesthetics" of the image.

On the other hand, I have had good luck in avaoiding objectionable curvilinear distortion in my only LF wide angle lens - a Nikkor 90mm f8 SW lens.

My question is will I be so lucky moving down to 75 and 47mm wide angle lenses? How much of a reality is barrel/pincushion distortion in current LF wide angle lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock, and Nikon?

I don't wan't spend any more money on lenses with noticeable curvilnear distortion.

Thanks for any knowledgeable input.

[neil poulsen]

Are you printing directly from your negatives or positives, or are you scanningfirst ? A lot can be dne in Photoshop to correct distortion, or using Panotools for more advanced correction. Still, it's better if one doesn't have to deal with the distorition in the first place.

I wonder if Hasselblad Zeiss lenses have the same kind of problems?

[David A. Goldfarb]

The modern wide lenses and even many older ones for LF have very low distortion. Your MF lenses have to be retrofocus lenses to clear the SLR mirror. Some of the newest LF wideangles are retrofocus, but not as much so as to cause an optically uncorrectable distortion.

You might find that the older Nikkor lenses for Bronica show less distortion than the later Zenzanons. The Bronica S-series cameras had a falling mirror design, and the EC-series had a split mirror, so the lenses could protrude into the mirror box. They are still retrofocus, but not as much so as the comparable Distagons of their era or later MF wideangle lenses.

[Jack Flesher]

Not sure this will be much help but...

I have not noticed significant distortion in my 55mm Rodenstock APO Grandagon, though admittedly it is a recent purchase and I have not yet shot extensively with it yet. In doing a bit of research before buying a hyperwide, I seem to recall both Schneider and Rodenstock spec less than 1% distortion for their SA and Grandagon lenses across the image circle.

[Leonard Evens]

I have a 75 mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N lens, and I don't see any barrel or pin cushion distortion. I'm usually sensitive to such things, and I've seen lots of such distortion in my 18-70 mm D70 kit lens. In principle it can be fixed with panaramic tools, but it seems hard to get it just right. I am happy I don't have to worry about it with my large format lenses.

[Jeff_6094]

I haven't noticed any distortion from my 58 XL.

[Jerry Fusselman]

I am pretty sensitive to the barrel distortion that I have seen with 35mm wide-angle zoom lenses, but my guess is that barrel and pin-cushion distortion are rarely visible on modern large-format lenses. I see nothing but wonderfully parallel lines when shooting buildings with 35 and 55 APO Grandagons, 47 Super Angulons (both XL and nonXL), and a 80mm Super Symmar. Here is a web example with a 35mm lens on 612 with lots of parallel lines: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vista612.html

[Ed K.]

I have a 75mm 5.6 Schneider / Technica Super Angulon, and I'm very picky about barreling/distortion. It is very good, perhaps nearly or as good as it gets for any wide angle, and at f22, tack sharp edge to edge on 4x5. For me, the center filter is a must-use for most anything. This lens can be reasonably priced too.

[Craig Wactor]

David nailed it. The retrofocus design required for SLR cameras is what leads to most of the distortion in wide lenses on those cameras. Modern lenses such as Super Angulons and Grandagons, etc. don't show much distortion at all. I use a 65mm f5.6 Super Angulon (circa 1970's), and I don't think I have ever seen noticable barrel distortion on a chrome shot with it. I have used some 35mm and digital cameras zoom lenses that will give you a queasy feeling in your belly there is so much distortion. This is one of those areas where more "technologically advanced" cameras have nothing on our 19th century technology!


Oh and I seem to be an anomoly, but I prefer not to use a center filter. I like the darker corners, I think it adds dimension to a photo, one that is for the non-photographer is purely subliminal.

[CXC]

Another MF idea would be a Brooks Veriwide, which was designed around its 47mm SA, and produces a 6x10 image. No slr internals, just a viewfinder on top, and a huge, 100 degree view. Close it down some to keep the corners from getting too dark. Sharp as a tack.

[Jerry Fusselman]

Agreed, CXC, but even better would be a Vistashift with an Apo Grandagon.

[John_4185]

Are you printing directly from your negatives or positives, or are you scanningfirst ? A lot can be dne in Photoshop to correct distortion,

It has come to this? When someone asks about inherent lens distortion, we reply with post-fixes that lead to further complications, more messing around with digital?

He asked about lenses, not distractions.

I have not had the pleasure of using the new XL lenses, but I can see distortion in all the Super-Angulons. Not a lot, and not enough to be terribly objectionable, but IMHO the only wide lens that is near perfect is the later Biogon design. Unfortunately, it is the rare Biogon that covers enough to allow even the most modest movements. I have one that allows 12 degrees of rear tilt, which is enough for a lot of work, but not enough for some. Depends on what you are doing.

The Veriwide mentioned above is either (nominal) 6x9 (Plaubel model) or 6x8 (Brooks). The former is always an F/8 lens, and some of the later had F/5.6 lenses. ...but we are drifting from LF.

[CXC]

I just measured a proof sheet to double check, and the Brooks-Plaubel frame occupies 60mm x 102mm, with an image of 56mm x 92mm. I've never used a 6x9 camera, but I believe their image is meaningfully shorter, hence the 6x10 designation.

[John_4185]

I just measured a proof sheet to double check, and the Brooks-Plaubel frame occupies 60mm x 102mm, with an image of 56mm x 92mm. I've never used a 6x9 camera, but I believe their image is meaningfully shorter, hence the 6x10 designation.

The Plaubel is as close to 6x10 as you are likely to get in a compact, dedicated rollfilm camera. If you look at it as ratios with 56mm height, saying 6x10 is about right. I like it a lot. See, next to my 4x5 enlarger is a Leitz IIa. It was built for true LF, 10cm wide. Unfortunately, (don't shoot me!) I sold the Plaubel during hard times to buy my first 4x5.

Pax,