Best 75mm / 90mm lens?......totally kidding, but not really...read on pls

[AdamD]

Okay, my thread title is an attempt at LF humor....I know it's rough, but some of you just though, 'Oh no, not another 'best' lens thread!'

If there's one thing I've learned through this large format experience, it that there is no "best" lens; they're all pretty much amazing for the most part.

It's a little like me asking you, what kind of chocolate chip cookies should I get? How the hell are you supposed to know that!! Do I like thin, crispy cookies or thick, moist ones? How about my chip-density? Do I like more chips or less? Or what about the size of the chips? Small chopped chips or big plumpt ones? There's so many different aspects to a good chocolate chip cookie, how can anyone say, Chips Ahoy are the best when Grandmother's might also be considered?

Same holds true for large format lenses. So, for all you experienced LF photographers out there, put your shotgun, spears and hand grenades down. Put the pin back....and read on. 😉


The question actually applies to the 75mm and 90mm lens choices. This is what I'm looking for:

1. I shoot mostly landscape. Color transparencies, print film and B&W. I will occasionally shoot architecture and portrait.

2. I prefer the more modern look. I have a Fuji 150mm. I'd consider that a mordern look, but I'm not married to that look and feel.

3. I would like something that is more contrasty than the Fuji 150mm. I notice I always need/want to add contrast to my images and feel like the 150mm could use a bit more pop. But it's not a problem.

4. I'd love to stick with 67mm threads if possible.

5. I really don't want a bohemith lens, but I'm not counting ounces either. Just a modest size and weight would be just fine.

6. 4x5 image circle is all that is needed, but It would be very nice to not run into limited movements due to an overly small image circle. I don't see a reason to limit myself with this lens unless the image quality was over the top amazing.

7. I've read a thread about lens personality, and I get it, but like I mentioned earlier, the modern look is what I'd prefer, but I'm open to see what other manufacturers can do. I'm not married to an all Fuji kit or all-German kit. I don't care if I sample them all, but I do value a high quality images from an excellent lens. Yet I'm not quite ready to drop $1500 on a stupid lens!! The $600 or less range is palitable and the $400 range is very reasonable, I think...

Ok....now, with that all said, got suggestions on the "best" 75mm and 90mm lenses??? 😁

Many thanks!!!

Adam

[Dan Fromm]

As you said, your question is silly. For your purposes, 75s from the big four (in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider) are functionally equivalent. Same goes for 90s. There are faster ones and slower ones, respectively heavier and lighter.

Don't buy on maker, buy on price and condition. Fujinons tend to be less expensive than equivalent Nikkors, Super Anglonons and Grandagons. None is available new.

[MAubrey]

The biggest difference in 75's and 90's is coverage.

For the most part the larger aperture ones have larger coverage for movements than the slower ones.

I think the f/4.5's incredible, but really big. The f/5.6's and the f/6.8's seem like the best compromise between lens size and format coverage.

[Bob Salomon]

Are you including the cost of the center filter to help correct fall off in your price? They all have similar fall off but only Rodenstock and Schneider offered them for all of their wide angle lenses. Fuji for some of their lenses and Nikon didn’t seem to understand the need to offer center filters.

[MAubrey]

Are you including the cost of the center filter to help correct fall off in your price? They all have similar fall off but only Rodenstock and Schneider offered them for all of their wide angle lenses. Fuji for some of their lenses and Nikon didn’t seem to understand the need to offer center filters.

Good advice!

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, for center filters see my article http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html, which recommends CFs from (in alphabetical order) Heliopan, Rodenstock and Schneider for Fuji and Nikon wide angle lenses.

OP, note that there's a consensus to the effect that a CF is needed for lenses shorter than 90 mm shot on 4x5. Many LF photographers don't feel the need for a CF on their 90 mm lenses.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, for center filters see my article http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html, which recommends CFs from (in alphabetical order) Heliopan, Rodenstock and Schneider for Fuji and Nikon wide angle lenses.

OP, note that there's a consensus to the effect that a CF is needed for lenses shorter than 90 mm shot on 4x5. Many LF photographers don't feel the need for a CF on their 90 mm lenses.

Unless they shoot transparency film, especially when using movements. Then the CF on a 90 becomes very important. Or using the 90 on panoramic like 617 cameras or backs, or on 57.

[AdamD]

Very interesting. I need to read up on Center Filters. And no I was not considering the added cost of a CF.

That's also good info on the size/weight issue with the f-stop. I'm fine with a 5.6 or smaller starting point.

[Michael R]

Adam, your question is not silly, but aside from that Dan is correct - don't quibble about sharpness, contrast etc. as long as you stick to the big four. All excellent. Look for relatively recent and best condition.

MAubrey and Bob make some important points.

If you need/want absolute maximum coverage, technically the last versions Schneider made in these focal lengths give you the largest image circles, However as you already know now, everything is a tradeoff. These lenses are BIG and relatively heavy, and take huge, expensive filters.

Realistically the Rodenstock and Nikon equivalents give you plenty of movement, and are a little smaller.

In addition, both Schneider and Rodenstock made center filters for these lenses. If you want to add those, they are also large, and big $. However you don't necessarily need the center filters. Not sure if you know what those are, but basically they are graduated neutral density filters that get more dense toward the center (usually 1.5-2 stops) to help compensate for falloff. Nikon and Fuji never made center filters for their lenses.

While the f/4.5-5.6 models typically have the most coverage, this isn't always the case. Nikon made two 90mm models - f/4.5 and f/8, and if memory serves they had the same size image circle. I have a preference for the faster lenses because I have a hard time seeing anything properly through these things as it is.

Full disclosure: I own the Schneider models. In retrospect I could have done without the extra coverage and gone with the Rodenstocks

[AdamD]

Ok hold on a second...

Center Filters are filters that look like an ND filter but only in the very center? Is that to try to balance the lighting in the center to match the light that inevitably falls off on the edges? Is that what's going on here?

CRAP they are expensive and not readily available!!

[Michael R]

Correct, see my post above. They are graduated neutral density filters (more dense toward the center).

Lots of people get away without them. Depends to some extent on what you are photographing, movements, personal preference and how much latitude your film has (think B&W negative film vs colour chromes, for example).

[Chauncey Walden]

Adam, you mentioned adding contrast. Are you scanning the transparencies? If so, you can do your filtering in Photoshop. Negatives, of course, you can take care of in the darkroom.

[Oren Grad]

Nikon made two 90mm models - f/4.5 and f/8, and if memory serves they had the same size image circle.

Not quite. The specs aren't directly comparable. The image circle numbers specified by Nikon seem at first glance to be the same for the two lenses - 154 mm for open aperture and 235 mm stopped down - but for the f/8 that means f/8 and f/22 while for the f/4.5 the image circles are specified for f/4.5 and f/16. This suggests that at a given aperture the f/4.5 lens has a slightly larger circle per whatever criterion Nikon uses to measure it, but doesn't tell us by how much.

FWIW, in the 75mm focal length, I have the f/6.8 Grandagon-N for view camera use and the f/5.6 Super-Angulon in helical-plus-cone mount for my Cambo Wide. The Grandagon is nicely compact and comfortably does double duty as a semiwide for roll film.

[Michael R]

Agreed, but realistically does anyone shoot at wider than f/22? :)


Not quite. The specs aren't directly comparable. The image circle numbers specified by Nikon seem at first glance to be the same for the two lenses - 154 mm for open aperture and 235 mm stopped down - but for the f/8 that means f/8 and f/22 while for the f/4.5 the image circles are specified for f/4.5 and f/16. This suggests that at a given aperture the f/4.5 lens has a slightly larger circle per whatever criterion Nikon uses to measure it, but doesn't tell us by how much.

[Doremus Scudder]

If you want to stick to the 67mm filter size, that rules out f/5.6 and f/4.5 90mm lenses and leaves the f/8s and the Rodenstock f/6.8 (that is assuming you don't want lenses that barely cover 4x5 like the 90mm Angulon).

Of these, the Nikkor SW f/8 has the largest image circle. It's the one I carry. I also have a Schneider SA 90mm f/8 that is really nice, but it gets left at home most of the time when I've got anything to do that will require lots of front rise (think cityscapes and architecture). Otherwise, results from the two are indistinguishable.

My Fujinon SW f/5.6 75mm takes 67mm filters. I haven't compared it to any others in this focal length. I use it rarely, but really like it when I need it. Coverage is minimal for 4x5; just a bit of rise/fall and forget front tilts/swings. Other 75s are likely similar.

Bottom line: go for the f/8 90mm Nikkor SW if you need the best coverage and that smaller lens that takes 67mm filters. If you need a larger maximum aperture for brighter focusing (I don't; I've never had problems with illumination from f/8 - f/9 lenses) then go for a larger f/5.6 or f/4.5 90mm. Coverage will be great with those, but the trade-off is size, weight and larger filters (i.e., not for me!).

Those are really the only considerations I can think of.

BTW, I shoot b&w only and get along just fine without center filters for my 90mm and 75mm lenses. I just expose fully enough to get the needed exposure in the corners and deal with the fall-off when enlarging by "center burning."

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

If you want to stick to the 67mm filter size, that rules out f/5.6 and f/4.5 90mm lenses and leaves the f/8s and the Rodenstock f/6.8 (that is assuming you don't want lenses that barely cover 4x5 like the 90mm Angulon).

Of these, the Nikkor SW f/8 has the largest image circle. It's the one I carry. I also have a Schneider SA 90mm f/8 that is really nice, but it gets left at home most of the time when I've got anything to do that will require lots of front rise (think cityscapes and architecture). Otherwise, results from the two are indistinguishable.

My Fujinon SW f/5.6 75mm takes 67mm filters. I haven't compared it to any others in this focal length. I use it rarely, but really like it when I need it. Coverage is minimal for 4x5; just a bit of rise/fall and forget front tilts/swings. Other 75s are likely similar.

Bottom line: go for the f/8 90mm Nikkor SW if you need the best coverage and that smaller lens that takes 67mm filters. If you need a larger maximum aperture for brighter focusing (I don't; I've never had problems with illumination from f/8 - f/9 lenses) then go for a larger f/5.6 or f/4.5 90mm. Coverage will be great with those, but the trade-off is size, weight and larger filters (i.e., not for me!).

Those are really the only considerations I can think of.

BTW, I shoot b&w only and get along just fine without center filters for my 90mm and 75mm lenses. I just expose fully enough to get the needed exposure in the corners and deal with the fall-off when enlarging by "center burning."

Best,

Doremus
It’s a lot faster and convenient to correct fall off when you take the shot then correcting while printing. It’s also far more consistent then making multiple identical prints which is pretty difficult when burning and dodging.

[Oren Grad]

Agreed, but realistically does anyone shoot at wider than f/22? :)

In reality, some people unrealistically do it. :)

Seriously, there's a larger point to make here. Don't get carried away splitting hairs about small differences in coverage specs between manufacturers. AFAIK their criteria for determining coverage aren't published (though you can sort of get a sense of what Rodenstock and Schneider are up to by studying their published MTF curves closely), and they aren't necessarily consistent.

If you need larger coverage and/or brighter viewing, get one of the bigger/faster versions; if you need the largest possible coverage, get the Schneider SA-XL. If you don't have any particular requirements, just grab anything you can reasonably afford and are willing to carry, and go make pictures.

[Corran]

Just get a Nikon Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 and be done with it, really.

And no, you don't need the CF, even for transparencies, unless you are an evenly-lit-single-colored-wall photographer.

[drew.saunders]

The Schneider 80/4.5 SSXL is a modern lens, takes 67mm filters, isn’t huge, and has a 211mm image circle @ f/22. I bought mine new many years ago, so I don’t know if the used ones are in your price range or not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bob Salomon]

The Schneider 80/4.5 SSXL is a modern lens, takes 67mm filters, isn’t huge, and has a 211mm image circle @ f/22. I bought mine new many years ago, so I don’t know if the used ones are in your price range or not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I believe that it also suffers fall off that would need the CF.

[Havoc]

I just like my Fujinon SWD 75. The SWD 90 is also nice but heavy.

[drew.saunders]

I believe that it also suffers fall off that would need the CF.

Long ago, I shot Ektachrome E100VS with the 80/4.5 SSXL and, looking over those scans, I do see a bit of corner vignetting. It doesn't bother me, but, of course, if it bothers someone, they'd need the CF.

The 80/4.5 SSXL takes the IIIB center filter, along with a few other lenses.

Here's one sample image from 12 years ago (I need to get back to Yosemite more often!) that shows fall off in the upper corners in the sky:
https://live.staticflickr.com/3240/3099746032_956c0dac71.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/5HV1v7)
C-12-03-08-3 (https://flic.kr/p/5HV1v7) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr

If I hadn't botched the exposure, there would be falloff at the bottom.

For some reason, the falloff is more noticeable in the TMax shot taken almost at the same time:
https://live.staticflickr.com/3022/3102193758_1f4627bb7d.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/5J8y8h)
12-03-08.6 (https://flic.kr/p/5J8y8h) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr

[Bob Salomon]

Long ago, I shot Ektachrome E100VS with the 80/4.5 SSXL and, looking over those scans, I do see a bit of corner vignetting. It doesn't bother me, but, of course, if it bothers someone, they'd need the CF.

The 80/4.5 SSXL takes the IIIB center filter, along with a few other lenses.

Here's one sample image from 12 years ago (I need to get back to Yosemite more often!) that shows fall off in the upper corners in the sky:
https://live.staticflickr.com/3240/3099746032_956c0dac71.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/5HV1v7)
C-12-03-08-3 (https://flic.kr/p/5HV1v7) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr

If I hadn't botched the exposure, there would be falloff at the bottom.

For some reason, the falloff is more noticeable in the TMax shot taken almost at the same time:
https://live.staticflickr.com/3022/3102193758_1f4627bb7d.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/5J8y8h)
12-03-08.6 (https://flic.kr/p/5J8y8h) by Drew Saunders (https://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/), on Flickr

It is not vignetting. It’s fall off. Vignetting is a different thing all together. But nice shots. Some people accept the fall off as “the wide angle look.”

[AdamD]

As with many of you, when Doremus speaks, I listen....

But something has me concerned....



My Fujinon SW f/5.6 75mm takes 67mm filters. I haven't compared it to any others in this focal length. I use it rarely, but really like it when I need it. Coverage is minimal for 4x5; just a bit of rise/fall and forget front tilts/swings. Other 75s are likely similar.


Wait....are you saying that typically any 75mm will lack the ability to tilt???? I use at least a little front tilt on just about every image I've taken. I can think of only a couple where I was parallel on standards.

This sounds like a pretty significant limitation to the shorter focal length. Am I understanding this right?

[Corran]

196mm image circle. Plenty of room for movements it seems, though I don't own that lens myself.

See this table:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

PS: you can use rear tilt for DOF control as well. Forgive me if you know this already, but just thought I'd mention that.

[AdamD]

Totally true, yes. And Corran, I appreciate you not just assuming I know about rear tilt.

I tend not to use it except to exadurate the up close foreground for special effect. Otherwise, I'm using front tilt for depth of field and to optimize my focal plane. I typically shoot photos where there's something of interest up in close as well as way off in the distance.

[Corran]

With that much IC you should be able to use plenty of tilt for DOF. I use the 47mm and 58mm XL lenses and they have only 166mm of IC and I can still use front tilt fine. Don't need much anyway with those lenses! I've just realized that the needed tilt for DOF is proportional to the focal length, so as you get wider and wider you need less and less...

[Bernice Loui]

75mm f5.6 Fujinon SWD, 75mm f5.6 Super Angulon, 75mm f4.5 Nikkor SW, 75mm f4.5 Grandagon have very similar-identical spec image circle of 196_ish mm at f22 _ infinity. They are essentially far more similar than different.

75mm f6.8 Grandagon, 75mm f8 Super Angulon, 75mm f8 Fujinon SW have an image circe about 180_ish mm at f22 _ infinity.
Again these are essentially far more similar than different.

Any of these 75mm modern wide angle lenses easily covers 4x5 with more than adequate camera movement. The most common problem with using a 75mm on any view camera is bellows restrictions (addressed by using a bag bellows), less than the lens and it's image circle. On a flat bed folder, the front of the camera bed can be an issue (dropping the bed helps) and getting the camera front standard into the camera enough to focus, specially at infinity.

The only larger image circle modern wide angle about this focal length is the 72mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL with a spec image circle of 229mm at f22 _infinity. This lens covers 5x7 _ 13x18cm with modest camera movements.

Before believing the lens with the largest image circle is "Best".. have a look at these three together.
210816

210817

The 72mm Super Angulon is HUGE compared to the 75mm f6.8 Grandagon. All three covers 4x5 with ease, images made at f22 would be far more similar than different. IMO, for 4x5, pick the lowest cost good used 75mm and move on. Unless this focal length will be used with 5x7 or 13x18cm, batting about which lens is better is mostly academic and not worth stressing out over.

As for center filter, not likely needed for 4x5, even with color transparencies, light fall off could be ok. Try first before making the leap to a center filter as these will impose a different set of limitations and benefits.

This image (re-post from recent) was made with a 72mm Super Angulon, no center filter on 5x7 film..
210818

There will be less light fall of with a 75mm lens on 4x5..


As for camera movements & wide angle lens. Have a look at this recently posted discussion about the 72mm.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?161306-What-focal-length-taking-aperture-used

All this brings up the Zeiss 75mm f4.5 Biogon.. and it's military variants by contract manufactures. For the majority of 4x5 view camera images, not recommended for a long list of reasons.


Bernice




As with many of you, when Doremus speaks, I listen....

But something has me concerned....

Wait....are you saying that typically any 75mm will lack the ability to tilt???? I use at least a little front tilt on just about every image I've taken. I can think of only a couple where I was parallel on standards.

This sounds like a pretty significant limitation to the shorter focal length. Am I understanding this right?

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, most of the modern wide angle lenses used on 5x7 images are made at f16 or f22 smallest. Using a smaller f-stop than absolutely needed is a trade-off.

On roll film 6x9, f11 is surprisingly common with a lens like the 65mm Fujinon SWD or 47mm Super Angulon XL.


Bernice


Agreed, but realistically does anyone shoot at wider than f/22? :)

[Bob Salomon]

196mm image circle. Plenty of room for movements it seems, though I don't own that lens myself.

See this table:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

PS: you can use rear tilt for DOF control as well. Forgive me if you know this already, but just thought I'd mention that.
Front and rear tilts and swings control the plane of sharp focus, not DOF. DOF is only controlled by your aperture setting.
Rear tilts and swings also control image shape.

[Michael R]

Technically Corran is right. DOF decreases as swings/tilts are applied.

[Corran]

Well Sal, you know what I meant.

[Alan Klein]

I just started 4x5 this year. I have a Nikkor 90mm f4.5 with Schneider IV center filter. The lens is huge. The CF even bigger.


I also have a Fujinon 75mm f5.6 which I tend to pick to use before the 90mm even though I don't have a center filter for it. I haven't noticed too much falloff without a center filter and it's very sharp.
Fujinon 75mm: https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=75mm&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

The 90mm with the center filter requires 105mm filters to fit the center filter. I haven't bought those yet. The rest of my three lenses including 300mm and 150mm as well as the 75mm only need my existing 77mm filters that I have from my medium format camera system. I use step-up converters to 77mm

I think I made a mistake getting the 90mm because now I have to go out and buy all these 105mm filters. Also, graduated filters really become a problem at that size. Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful lens. And I have the CF. But I'm not sure I really need it.

So my recommendation is whatever you do, consider filter sizes. You want to get a system where one filter size can be used for all your lenses. Keep it simple.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49078896253_8833033949_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2hLWaYr)First 5x7 Norma Test 75f8 SA CF E3 150F9 Aristo2 Perfection 3.5min (https://flic.kr/p/2hLWaYr) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

This is a test image taken with my Sinar Norma 75mm F8 chrome Super Angulon, mounted on my 5x7 Sinar Norma. The apple tree in my back yard.

As you can see it doesn't cover the field. I have the 75mm correct vintage Schneider Center Filter, but I wanted to see the falloff at the edges in this case.

This is a 4x5 lens and that is fine with me. I have no need for humungeous expensive glass.

[AdamD]

I just started 4x5 this year. I have a Nikkor 90mm f4.5 with Schneider IV center filter. The lens is huge. The CF even bigger.


I also have a Fujinon 75mm f5.6 which I tend to pick to use before the 90mm even though I don't have a center filter for it. I haven't noticed too much falloff without a center filter and it's very sharp.
Fujinon 75mm: https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=75mm&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

The 90mm with the center filter requires 105mm filters to fit the center filter. I haven't bought those yet. The rest of my three lenses including 300mm and 150mm as well as the 75mm only need my existing 77mm filters that I have from my medium format camera system. I use step-up converters to 77mm

I think I made a mistake getting the 90mm because now I have to go out and buy all these 105mm filters. Also, graduated filters really become a problem at that size. Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful lens. And I have the CF. But I'm not sure I really need it.

So my recommendation is whatever you do, consider filter sizes. You want to get a system where one filter size can be used for all your lenses. Keep it simple.

YES! Exactly....this is why I mentioned wanting to stick to 67mm threads.

I actually got a set of filters BEFORE I got more lenses. I have a 150mm (I think it has 52mm threads), but I got a step up ring to 67mm. It just lives on the lens. I even got a len cap that fits the step up ring!

Anyway, you guys go me straight. The 75mm lens is easy...there are a few options with 67mm threads. So I'm good there.

I think that's where I'll start. If I feel like I need something a little less wide, I can get the 90mm otherwise I might shoot for something in the middle (75 and 150).

Thank you all!

[Bernice Loui]

Possible 4x5 focal length set of four:

~75mm

~115mm to 135mm

~150mm to 210mm

~300mm to 360mm

The very common set of three (IMO most useful focal lengths for 4x5):

~90mm

~150mm to 210mm

~300mm



Bernice







I think that's where I'll start. If I feel like I need something a little less wide, I can get the 90mm otherwise I might shoot for something in the middle (75 and 150).

Thank you all!

[Len Middleton]

The 75mm lens is easy...there are a few options with 67mm threads. So I'm good there.

I think that's where I'll start. If I feel like I need something a little less wide, I can get the 90mm otherwise I might shoot for something in the middle (75 and 150).

Thank you all!

And of course, if you want the 90mm look, you can always crop either in the darkroom or on the computer...

[Doremus Scudder]

It’s a lot faster and convenient to correct fall off when you take the shot then correcting while printing. It’s also far more consistent then making multiple identical prints which is pretty difficult when burning and dodging.

I don't know Bob, I'm gettin' pretty good at it after all these years :)

Certainly, if I were shooting chromes as much as I used to when I was doing commercial work back in the 80s, I'd have a slew of center filters. But with b&w and all the manipulations I do anyway, added to the PITA of using center filters in the field with a lightweight kit (carrying oversize filter to fit the center filter, etc.) I just don't think it's necessary.

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

As with many of you, when Doremus speaks, I listen....

But something has me concerned...

Wait....are you saying that typically any 75mm will lack the ability to tilt???? I use at least a little front tilt on just about every image I've taken. I can think of only a couple where I was parallel on standards.

This sounds like a pretty significant limitation to the shorter focal length. Am I understanding this right?

Don't misunderstand me. It's not that you can't use a little tilt or swing by itself with a 75mm lens (although I don't really consider the 196mm of image circle "generous" or "plenty of room for tilts" as Corran does :) ) And, you don't usually need much to do the job with a short lens.

However, when shooting cityscapes, I'm often in the situation where I need front rise and then a bit of "point-and-swing-the-standards-parallel" to get a façade parallel, since camera positions are not always available to do this without swing. Or I need rise and some tilt. This was the situation I was referring to; using tilts/swings together with rise, which the 75mm (nor a regular 135mm Plasmat) can't really do well. Just a bit of front rise gets the 75mm to the edge of the image circle. Adding a bit of tilt or swing at that point vignettes a corner. That was in contrast to the generous coverage of the Nikkor SW 90mm. Maybe I was unclear about that; sorry for any confusion.

At any rate, I always seem to come up against the limits of my 75mm when I'm using it, ending up having to compromise one thing or the other, especially when working in close quarters in the city. For landscapes I still fight with dark corners with it when tilting or using a bit of fall (for overlook type shots). It's not that I don't like the focal length, though, and I use the lens when I need to, just with the awareness that I can't do much in the way of movements. Not a "significant" limitation, but a limitation nonetheless.

Oh, and I just thought of something else when answering Bob's post: Adding a filter to the 75mm, especially a polarizing filter, which is kind of thick, will cut down the effective coverage of the lens as well due to the mechanical vignetting, making available movements even more sparse.

Others here seem to find the coverage adequate, and it really is for small, basic, movements, so maybe the OP would as well. FWIW, I have the same trouble with a 135mm Plasmat, which is why I carry my WF Ektar in cities and when I'm in close quarters in canyons, etc.

Glad you're listening and calling me out when things don't make sense so I can clarify. :)

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

I don't know Bob, I'm gettin' pretty good at it after all these years :)

Certainly, if I were shooting chromes as much as I used to when I was doing commercial work back in the 80s, I'd have a slew of center filters. But with b&w and all the manipulations I do anyway, added to the PITA of using center filters in the field with a lightweight kit (carrying oversize filter to fit the center filter, etc.) I just don't think it's necessary.

Best,

Doremus
What PITA? You mount the cf before leaving for the job. You stop the lens down at least 2 stops from wide open and dial in a 1.5 filter factor on your meter. That way the only extra step is the filter factor, which you would have anyway if you use most filters.

[Doremus Scudder]

What PITA? You mount the cf before leaving for the job. You stop the lens down at least 2 stops from wide open and dial in a 1.5 filter factor on your meter. That way the only extra step is the filter factor, which you would have anyway if you use most filters.

Well, for one thing, the CF for a 90mm that takes 67mm filters steps the filter size up to 86mm. So, it's harder to pack and requires the expense and bulk of carrying a set of 86mm filters just for use with the CF. That's in addition to the 67mm filter kit (or 52mm filter kit) I already carry in the field.

That's what I call a PITA, especially when I can get by with no center filter and a 67mm filter mounted directly on the lens when I need it.

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

Well, for one thing, the CF for a 90mm that takes 67mm filters steps the filter size up to 86mm. So, it's harder to pack and requires the expense and bulk of carrying a set of 86mm filters just for use with the CF. That's in addition to the 67mm filter kit (or 52mm filter kit) I already carry in the field.

That's what I call a PITA, especially when I can get by with no center filter and a 67mm filter mounted directly on the lens when I need it.

Best,

Doremus

Or you could just buy a couple of step up rings and use the 86mm filters on all the lenses and just have to carry one set of filters, yes, they are more expensive then the smaller sizes but should be the same, or less, then buying filters in both smaller sizes.

[Corran]

Or don't worry about because most of the times the CF isn't needed!

Doremus - I was only talking about tilt, wrt the image circle. Certainly for rise/shift you don't have as much to work with as other lenses. But I would imagine you could tilt as much as possibly needed for "max DOF" reasons with almost 200mm image circle yes?

I've debating picking up a 75mm lens of that spec. I have a 75mm Biogon for reasons as well as the 72mm XL, both of which are of course huge and heavy w/ commensurately big filters. I tend to go from 90mm straight to 58mm though.

[AdamD]

You guys got me tied back in a knot!!

Now I'm thinking I should go with a 90mm and if I want a wider lens then jump to the 75mm, but if all good, then I'm done...

I think I'm going to stop posting questions!!!

Not...

[Michael R]

This should be dictated by the type of photography you are planning on doing most. Given limited funds, generally speaking a 90mm is probably a more useful choice than a 72/75mm for a first short focal length purchase.

[AdamD]

So to put this in 35mm perspective, I shoot with a Nikon D810 and I either have the 18-35mm or the 70-300mm on it. When I use the wide angle lens, I typically zoom in just a bit from 18mm, I'd say about 20-22mm is my sweet spot OR I zoom to 35mm. So, more that 60% of the time I use 20mm and 35mm. The other 40% of the time is right about 24mm to 28mm.

This is what lead me to wanting the 75mm to start. The reason I asked this question (this thread) was to see if there were any technical issues I might consider when selecting a 75mm or 90mm.

By the sounds of it, the 75mm might present a few issues that might detract from it's glory whereas the 90mm is ready to go with little, if any issues at all.

[Alan Klein]

I just checked DOF for a 75mm on 4x5 at .07 COC. YOu have an awful lot of DOF at f22, better yet at COC=.1. Would you even have to bother with tilts?

[Havoc]

This should be dictated by the type of photography you are planning on doing most. Given limited funds, generally speaking a 90mm is probably a more useful choice than a 72/75mm for a first short focal length purchase.

Indeed, I have both and because limited distance to subjects a 75mm is more useful for me then a 90mm. But then that's me.

[Bob Salomon]

I just checked DOF for a 75mm on 4x5 at .07 COC. YOu have an awful lot of DOF at f22, better yet at COC=.1. Would you even have to bother with tilts?

Tilts control the plane of sharpness. Apertures control the DOF. 2 different things that work together.

[Alan Klein]

Tilts control the plane of sharpness. Apertures control the DOF. 2 different things that work together.
But if I can get a DOF at f/22 with .1COC from 5 feet to infinity, why bother with tilts?

[Michael R]

Tilts control the plane of sharpness. Apertures control the DOF. 2 different things that work together.

It’s a good point. Leaving image shape aside to keep things simple, tilts/swings are used to more closely align the plane of sharp focus with the object space one wants to keep in focus. At the same time, DOF is often more closely aligned with the object space one wants to keep in acceptable focus (although there are some gotchas to watch out for). Therefore when discussing tilts/swings in relation to focus, people sometimes say the movements are increasing DOF. If everything happens to fit, this might be effectively true, but strictly speaking is not correct, since any “de-squaring” of the lens and film plane decreases DOF.

Said another way, tilting/swinging decreases DOF about the plane of sharp focus, but might “better” orient the plane of sharp focus and DOF in relation to the object space. The simplest case is obviously forward front tilt for a receding subject that is more or less flat. One can quickly get into trouble with DOF if that receding object space includes things with significant vertical size relatively close to the camera. This is why in practice, rarely do tilts/swings allow you to use large apertures.

[Corran]

So to put this in 35mm perspective, I shoot with a Nikon D810 and I either have the 18-35mm or the 70-300mm on it. When I use the wide angle lens, I typically zoom in just a bit from 18mm, I'd say about 20-22mm is my sweet spot OR I zoom to 35mm. So, more that 60% of the time I use 20mm and 35mm. The other 40% of the time is right about 24mm to 28mm.

This is what lead me to wanting the 75mm to start. The reason I asked this question (this thread) was to see if there were any technical issues I might consider when selecting a 75mm or 90mm.

By the sounds of it, the 75mm might present a few issues that might detract from it's glory whereas the 90mm is ready to go with little, if any issues at all.

35mm of course has a different aspect ratio. Therefore, actually both the 75mm and 90mm lenses are roughly equal to the ~22mm viewpoint, in different crops. See illustration:

210863

In other words - 90mm is like your 22mm with the edges cropped off, or 75mm is like your 22mm with extra on the top/bottom.

[Bob Salomon]

But if I can get a DOF at f/22 with .1COC from 5 feet to infinity, why bother with tilts?

Because there is only one sharp point and depth of field increases what appears to be sharp. Depending on the amount of enlargement and the print viewing distance.
Tilts/swings extends that sharp plane so it will be sharp regardless of magnification and viewing distance.
So, over the entire image area, tilts/swings, combined with aperture let’s you extend apparent sharpness and actual sharpness over the entire image area.

Stand on a stage and focus your camera on a seat in the audience. The sharpness will extend across that row of seats but seats in front and behind that row will be apparently sharp to unsharp depending on how far away they are from that seat you focused on.
Now use a tilt and you can make every seat in a straight row sharp from the front row to the back row. But seats to each side will be apparently sharp to unsharp depending on your aperture. Now close your lens down and the amount of apparently sharp seats will be extended.

[AdamD]

Yeah there's like two different conversations going on right now...That's pretty cool because both a great!!

For lens equivalents, I found this site very interesting:
https://xw.is/wiki/Focal_length_equivalents_between_formats

This hits on the crop factors of different formats. I can clearly see how my 150mm lens (LF) can be = to a 42mm on my FF camera OR a 35mm FF if I set my crop to 4x5 in-camera.

I can play around with my 18-35mm lens and figure out which focal length might be best to start with.

As for the depth of field conversation...to me, I use front tilt so I can increase my depth of field. I know this is technically incorrect, but effectively that what I'm doing. I placing my optimum plane of focus between two points that I want sharp and I stop down to achieve a compromise for everything else. But look at the end game. When a person who has no idea what kind of camera was used to take the picture sees it. They see the pretty flowers in focus and the pretty mountain in the distance in focus and they see everything else in focus too, unless they scrutinize the image.

So, what does tilt do for you and why do you use it? Forget the technical reasoning and what physics is involved; what is the end game?

Not every image is a good fit for tilt such as the Grand Canyon. You'll get the flower and the far side of the Rim in sharp focus, but everything in the middle will look soft even at f/64!! So don't tilt, you just need to stop down a lot.

Now, apply that to the 75mm that has all kinds of DOF at f/22. I STILL say I would use tilts because again, it optimizes what you want sharp. Further, I can use a wider aperture and still get my compromised middle ground in focus. So I think you'd still want to use tilt on a 75mm if the scene lent itself to it. At the Grand Canyon, I'd stop down to f/45 and be satisfied.

I appreciate the technical aspects of the movments and what they actually do. But it's also helpful to understand the practical application of the movements and how and when to use them.

Am I wrong?

[Alan Gales]

Home made chocolate chip cookies are the best. They beat store bought hands down!

As for lenses, I'd be more concerned with max aperture or focal length over brand name.

Faster lenses are easier to see in low light. Slower lenses are less weight for back packing.

To me a 90mm is more useful. The 75 would be nice for the occasion when you want wider.

That's my 2 chocolate chips worth of advice. :rolleyes:

[AdamD]

YES!! My wife makes insanely good chocolate chip cookies and the best apple pie ever!! In fact, I keep her mostly for that!!

I'm starting to move back to the 90mm "camp". According to that website I linked above (which seems accurate), my 18mm FF focal length when in-camera crop to 5x4 is set will give me a 75mm view. Further, when I zoom that lens to 22mm I'd get a 90mm view. I kinda think I like the 90mm view a bit more. Fact is, they are both really nice. When I zoom to 35mm, I can see it matches up perfectly with my 150mm lens.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the fast aperture 90's.

But don't hold your breath....I might change my mind in a minute!!

[Bernice Loui]

Why always f22? There are times when using full aperture is a must and a means to achieve an image goal. Taking aperture is just another tool in the view camera tool kit.

IMO, that calculated COF is not as relevant and some believe as these are calculated values and does not always apply to what is expressive or good visually in the finished image. This is where artistic vision, skill of technique, experience and knowing precisely what is desired makes these charts essentially useless.

As for camera movements with extreme wide angle lenses, do this ALL the time. It is why the bag bellows is always used with any wide angle lens (120mm to 72mm on 5x7 and why I've given up on field folders as they can never offer the camera movement ability a GOOD monorail VC can with a bag bellows can). It might not be apparent of obvious initially, but camera movement with a wide angle lens is essential for exploiting all the capabilities of what these modern wide angle lenses are capable of offering in their excellent image making abilities. A GOOD fine grit ground glass (NO fresnel lens), a GOOD focusing loupe, a GOOD dark cloth and knowing how best to apply these basic tools makes ALL the difference.


Bernice




But if I can get a DOF at f/22 with .1COC from 5 feet to infinity, why bother with tilts?

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, start with a 90mm wide angle with 4x5 as this has been proven to be the most useful and commonly used 4x5 wide angle focal length for a long list of very good reasons.

Once enough film has been burned and images viewed, digested and considered that would be the time to consider adding a wider focal length.


Bernice






Right now, I'm leaning towards the fast aperture 90's.

But don't hold your breath....I might change my mind in a minute!!

[AdamD]

Why always f22? There are times when using full aperture is a must and a means to achieve an image goal. Taking aperture is just another tool in the view camera tool kit.

IMO, that calculated COF is not as relevant and some believe as these are calculated values and does not always apply to what is expressive or good visually in the finished image. This is where artistic vision, skill of technique, experience and knowing precisely what is desired makes these charts essentially useless.

As for camera movements with extreme wide angle lenses, do this ALL the time. It is why the bag bellows is always used with any wide angle lens (120mm to 72mm on 5x7 and why I've given up on field folders as they can never offer the camera movement ability a GOOD monorail VC can with a bag bellows can). It might not be apparent of obvious initially, but camera movement with a wide angle lens is essential for exploiting all the capabilities of what these modern wide angle lenses are capable of offering in their excellent image making abilities. A GOOD fine grit ground glass (NO fresnel lens), a GOOD focusing loupe, a GOOD dark cloth and knowing how best to apply these basic tools makes ALL the difference.


Bernice

YES!! I totally agree Bernice!!

You connect a LOT of dots for my line of thinking in this single thread!!

If I'm going to shoot LF, you have to bet I want/need to fully exploit the ability to move my lens around. Further, and you might have read that thread "Chamonix F2 vs. Xxxxxx". In there I was looking for an alternative to the field camera because of the many "complaints" I've read about field cameras being fiddly especially when using wide angle lenses. I gravitate towards the wide side, so I was in a conundrum with the F2. I love how monorail cameras afford you a ton of flexibility at the wide end and long end.

The trick is finding the right balance in a monorail camera that can effectively be used in the field. Again considering the sacrifices that need to be made...

I have settled on the Arca-Swiss F-Line and now you guys have me convinced to start with the 90mm (add that to my 150mm).

So you got me all straightened out now!!

Just need to spend the $$ now. Gulp!!!!

[neil poulsen]

. . . The question actually applies to the 75mm and 90mm lens choices. This is what I'm looking for:

1. I shoot mostly landscape. Color transparencies, print film and B&W. I will occasionally shoot architecture and portrait.

2. I prefer the more modern look. I have a Fuji 150mm. I'd consider that a mordern look, but I'm not married to that look and feel.

3. I would like something that is more contrasty than the Fuji 150mm. I notice I always need/want to add contrast to my images and feel like the 150mm could use a bit more pop. But it's not a problem.

4. I'd love to stick with 67mm threads if possible.

5. I really don't want a bohemith lens, but I'm not counting ounces either. Just a modest size and weight would be just fine.

6. 4x5 image circle is all that is needed, but It would be very nice to not run into limited movements due to an overly small image circle. I don't see a reason to limit myself with this lens unless the image quality was over the top amazing.

7. I've read a thread about lens personality, and I get it, but like I mentioned earlier, the modern look is what I'd prefer, but I'm open to see what other manufacturers can do. I'm not married to an all Fuji kit or all-German kit. I don't care if I sample them all, but I do value a high quality images from an excellent lens. Yet I'm not quite ready to drop $1500 on a stupid lens!! The $600 or less range is palitable and the $400 range is very reasonable, I think...

Ok....now, with that all said, got suggestions on the "best" 75mm and 90mm lenses??? 😁

Many thanks!!!

Adam

For the 90mm focal length, there's a pretty clear response . . . A 90mm Nikon f8 lens would be excellent. I have one of these. I photograph both landscape and exterior architecture, and this lens works really well for me.

It's the smaller f8, yet it has the same image circle as other f5.6 lenses. (235mm at f22.) So, it would be excellent for landscape, and while it may be a little more difficult to focus for interior architecture, it's got the movements that you would need.

When John Sexton was working for Ansel Adams, he was part of conducting tests on different brands to compare contrast. Nikon lenses were generally more contrasty.

The Nikon f8 90mm has a 67mm filter ring.

As for 75mm, you might consider staying with a Nikon f4.5 for the contrast advantage. Plus, it has an edge on maximum aperture compared to other lenses . . . f4.5 versus f5.6. As for image circle, it's specs are 200mm at f16, where others quote similar image circles at f22. You do not want the f8 version of these lenses. Very little image circle.

[Bernice Loui]

Tested and verified aka been there done this and why no Nikkor view camera lenses are in the collection.

Higher contrast rendition by an lens alone is NOT an advantage it is merely a look, nothing more, nothing less. For some this feature is of high value, for some this feature is of zero value. It depends on image goals.

The belief-idea a famed image maker prefers a specific brand of hardware does NOT mean it is best for another image maker and their specific needs.


Bernice





When John Sexton was working for Ansel Adams, he was part of conducting tests on different brands to compare contrast. Nikon lenses were generally more contrasty.

[Doremus Scudder]

You guys got me tied back in a knot!!

Now I'm thinking I should go with a 90mm and if I want a wider lens then jump to the 75mm, but if all good, then I'm done...

I think I'm going to stop posting questions!!!

Not...

Adam,

Sorry for adding to the confusion, if I did. But, you know, life is a fractal; the closer you look, the more complex it becomes :)

What you suggest is exactly what I would recommend: Go for the 90mm first and add the 75mm (or a 65mm) if you find you need it later. The 90mm focal length is a workhorse and a standard for a good reason.

And, you can get by more easily without a center filter with the 90mm, especially if you shoot b&w. Get one of the f/8 versions (or the Grandagon f/6.8) and you'll be able to use your 67mm filters.

And, don't stop posting questions :)

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

Or don't worry about because most of the times the CF isn't needed!

Doremus - I was only talking about tilt, wrt the image circle. Certainly for rise/shift you don't have as much to work with as other lenses. But I would imagine you could tilt as much as possibly needed for "max DOF" reasons with almost 200mm image circle yes?

I've debating picking up a 75mm lens of that spec. I have a 75mm Biogon for reasons as well as the 72mm XL, both of which are of course huge and heavy w/ commensurately big filters. I tend to go from 90mm straight to 58mm though.

Corran,

I suppose that you're correct here and that a 196mm image circle is enough to allow tilts/swings for many situations, especially with a shorter focal length lens and when one is just interested in repositioning the plane of sharp focus optimally and doesn't need other movements in combination. I really should have been clearer in my original post and not thrown a wrench into the works of the discussion. My opinion is highly personal and based on things I like to do with image management.

But, there are other reasons to use tilts and swings besides just repositioning the plane of sharp focus in a scene. One of the most common, for me, is using them to get things parallel in architectural and city photography. It's nice to be able to set up with the camera back parallel horizontally to whatever you're photographing, but in many instances it is simply not possible. Nor can I get the camera exactly in front of where I want the optical center of the photograph to be.

Therefore, it's set up as close to the ideal camera position as possible. Then make sure the back is plumb and use front rise/fall to frame the image vertically. Then the fun starts: using shift and swings on both front and rear standards to get the horizontal lines parallel and get the plane of focus aligned with the façade and to frame the image how I want it. This, coupled with the rise I've usually already applied, uses up a lot of image circle.

I apply similar movements when photographing in canyons, interiors or in other close-quarter situations, so even for "landscape" photography, having a fairly large image circle is pretty important for me.

Plus, I often like to offset the optical center of images, getting away from the "bullseye" look of most photography and really drawing the attention to an area not in the center of the frame. I use cropping to do this too, but doing as much as I can do in-camera is better. So, I'm using lateral shift a lot and, if I run out of that, then the point-and-swing-parallel method to add more effective shift. That uses up image circle too.

Like I mentioned earlier, I run out of image circle with my 75mm all the time, especially when using filters, so have to rethink my original visualization and compromise or abandon the shot. I rarely have that problem with my 90mm Nikkor SW f/8, but did with the Schneider SA f/8, which is why I acquired the Nikkor with the larger image circle. It's also why I carry my WF Ektar 135 more than a standard Plasmat, even though it's a bit larger.

For fun, here's a photo of my Wista SW with the WA bellows and the 135mm WF Ektar in action in close quarters in Vienna. I've got extra rise applied by using the point-up-and-tilt-parallel trick plus a fair bit of shift and swing applied as well. I'm was at the edge of the 229mm image circle this lens projects.

210867


Best,

Doremus

[AdamD]

UPDATE:

I am very fortunate in that one of our forum members lives somewhat close to me. He's helped me out on many occasions.

He again helped me out by letting me borrow his 90mm Schneider f/8. I was then able to see first hand how it looked and probably more importantly, use it on my camera (Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171). I was concerned that 90mm would be too short for the bellows.

The great news is, it works. While it is true my movements are somewhat restricted in that I can't use gobs of rise/fall, but at least enough for "normal" composition. And I also can't combine rise/fall AND shift or swing. But, most importantly I can use rise/fall and lots of tilt (which actually relieves pressure on the bellows). So...I'm good.

I have since ordered a Rodenstock 90mm f/6.8. I'm very excited about that!!

So again, this thread has been hugely helpful to me. Thank you all.

[Bernice Loui]

Bag bellows for this Arca Swiss will likely solve the limited camera movement problem. This is often true for using WA lenses on any view camera.

Bernice





my camera (Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171). I was concerned that 90mm would be too short for the bellows.

The great news is, it works. While it is true my movements are somewhat restricted in that I can't use gobs of rise/fall, but at least enough for "normal" composition. And I also can't combine rise/fall AND shift or swing. But, most importantly I can use rise/fall and lots of tilt (which actually relieves pressure on the bellows). So...I'm good.

I have since ordered a Rodenstock 90mm f/6.8. I'm very excited about that!!

[neil poulsen]

UPDATE: . . . on my camera (Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171). I was concerned that 90mm would be too short for the bellows. . . .

Just a comment . . .

I used to have the 171mm front format frame on my Arca, and I liked the "wide angle" pleated, leather bellows, because they could handle wide angle optics, yet extend far enough for use with a 180mm lens. It was only for lenses 250mm and above that I needed the accordion bellows. (Mine was the long 70cm accordion bellows.) But for use with a 75mm lens (as I recall), I needed the non-pleated bag bellows. Else, it became cramped. So, three sets of bellows was I needing to carry.

I now have basically the same 171mm camera, but with the 110mm (medium format) front format frame. With the reduced front format frame, the pleated wide-angle leather bellows can accommodate all my super-wide lenses. I have a non-pleated bag bellows for this camera, but I never use it.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Not to take this thread off topic so much as to recenter it on center filters: I finally had a chance to catch up on developing the other day with E6 and noted for the first time what may be a need for CF's after skimming through this thread. In short, I first thought I must have done something wrong in handling some of my negs (not all), as they "looked" good until scanned. Scanned, there is a defect in the center where exposure seems to be too bright. At least that's what I thought. With the same lens in the same location shot, there is zero issue using FP4. After initially scratching my head, "Hmmm another thing to scan the books for answers?" I realized here on this thread that maybe this is a CF issue since mention is made that with chromes this is a more prevalent problem. YES! Okay, I'm not convinced because it was in fact a 135mm lens and not all THAT wide, but still it didn't show up with the 240mm. And it's possible the angle of the sun played a role... but not much as that was more behind my left shoulder (not far, but still behind). Still... with limited understanding.... PILOT error is my assumption. So I need to debug this problem. So I wonder, "Am I on the right track with this, need more information, or what?" Thanks for reading.

[Dan Fromm]

If you shot a 135 on 4x5 you absolutely positively shouldn't need a CF. The corners will be down 3/4 stop from the center, or the center up 3/4 stop from the corners.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Yeah. Looks about 3/4 or so overexposed in the center. So, "Uh oh." Will have to look elsewhere for what to do I guess.

[Alan Klein]

Couldn't someone actually measure this by shooting at a white wall? Then measuring the intensity of the scan by sampling different areas of the image to see the falloff in stops?

[Kiwi7475]

Couldn't someone actually measure this by shooting at a white wall? Then measuring the intensity of the scan by sampling different areas of the image to see the falloff in stops?

The fall off follows a cos^4, no need to waste a negative to confirm that IMO. All you need to know is the angular FOV of your lens, diagonally.

[lenicolas]

So to put this in 35mm perspective, I shoot with a Nikon D810 and I either have the 18-35mm or the 70-300mm on it. When I use the wide angle lens, I typically zoom in just a bit from 18mm, I'd say about 20-22mm is my sweet spot OR I zoom to 35mm. So, more that 60% of the time I use 20mm and 35mm.
[...]
By the sounds of it, the 75mm might present a few issues that might detract from it's glory whereas the 90mm is ready to go with little, if any issues at all.

Someone smart will probably expand or explain this better, but there is a difference between retrofocus wide angles for SLRs and wide angles for view cameras.

On a 4x5 view camera, a 75mm lens sits about 75mm away from the film.
That is so close that light that travels from the lens to the corners of the film has a significantly longer path than light that travels to the center of the film. See the inverse square law, you lose relative illumination really fast as you increase the distance from the light source.

On your Nikon, even if you use a 20mm there is a 46.5mm space between the lens and the sensor. That’s the space needed to fit the mirror assembly. At a distance of 46.5mm to cover a 24x36mm surface, the light paths to the center and the corners are of much closer length.

The maths is easy enough if you know the flange focal length (the distance from the film plane for infinity focus) of the lens you’re considering, and the formula for light fall off (inverse square law).
It is then up to you to decide if that fall off is acceptable or not.

Me personally, I cannot stand the kind of fall off you get with a 75mm and no CF.
Every time this topic comes up I cringe at most of the examples posted by those who find the fall off acceptable.
I don’t understand why one would invest the money, time and effort to use a large format view camera to produce images reminiscent of the toy camera æstetic. Might as well just use a Holga, like Troyce Hoffman. (https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/08/05/troyce-hoffman-captures-stunning-black-and-white-landscapes-using-a-holga/amp/)

[Drew Wiley]

A densitometer with actual film works better for checking, unless one has a film plane probe meter that will get clear to the corners. But what I do first, just to detect for falloff, is overdevelop the film so that if any falloff is present, it will be more obvious. But you'd have to do it relative to different f-stops and applied movements to get the full picture. Any lens that is not longer than "normal" is likely to have an amount of falloff.

[Kiwi7475]

Someone smart will probably expand or explain this better, but there is a difference between retrofocus wide angles for SLRs and wide angles for view cameras.

On a 4x5 view camera, a 75mm lens sits about 75mm away from the film.
That is so close that light that travels from the lens to the corners of the film has a significantly longer path than light that travels to the center of the film. See the inverse square law, you lose relative illumination really fast as you increase the distance from the light source.

On your Nikon, even if you use a 20mm there is a 46.5mm space between the lens and the sensor. That’s the space needed to fit the mirror assembly. At a distance of 46.5mm to cover a 24x36mm surface, the light paths to the center and the corners are of much closer length.

The maths is easy enough if you know the flange focal length (the distance from the film plane for infinity focus) of the lens you’re considering, and the formula for light fall off (inverse square law).
It is then up to you to decide if that fall off is acceptable or not.

Me personally, I cannot stand the kind of fall off you get with a 75mm and no CF.
Every time this topic comes up I cringe at most of the examples posted by those who find the fall off acceptable.
I don’t understand why one would invest the money, time and effort to use a large format view camera to produce images reminiscent of the toy camera æstetic. Might as well just use a Holga, like Troyce Hoffman. (https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/08/05/troyce-hoffman-captures-stunning-black-and-white-landscapes-using-a-holga/amp/)

It’s all a matter of personal taste and no two photographers have the same aesthetic but at least for landscape and portrait photography there is not a lot of useful information in the corners (generally) and focusing the attention away from the corners is usually quite forgiving. Some even add vignetting when none is present.

So you may cringe and others will not. Even in LF.

Also these filters are usually very costly so it’s not just a question of spending a few dollars. It’s a serious investment! And then there’s the fact that it adds more steps and requires more attention to follow to make the right exposure. Nothing insurmountable of course but just more chances to make a mistake. And if you shoot color slides, every mistake is an expensive mistake.

Lots of folks out there shooting 75mm without filters and I don’t think most people will actually notice the fall off in the prints. Just other photographers, for the most part :-)

[lenicolas]

It’s all a matter of personal taste and no two photographers have the same aesthetic but at least for landscape and portrait photography there is not a lot of useful information in the corners (generally) and focusing the attention away from the corners is usually quite forgiving. Some even add vignetting when none is present.

So you may cringe and others will not. Even in LF.


Hi,
Of course this was just my personal opinion and taste. I don’t mean to be the police of what others are doing with their cameras, what an exhausting job that would be!!

I just think in all these threads about wise angles and CFs there should be at least one voice saying “Center Filters exist for a reason, and I happen to prefer using them”.

Another thing I’m noticing :
The overwhelming majority of this forum seems to advocate for immense depth of field. Just in this thread OP mentioned that he used front tilt in nearly all his pictures, and someone else declared “does anyone ever shoot wider than f/22?”
So I’m deducting that there is a fraction of this forum that believes all parts of the image should always be in focus, but at the same time don’t fret when the corners of the image are two stops underexposed?
They say being able to hold two opposing ideas in ones mind is a sign of great intelligence... I must be a lesser mind, to me you either care about capturing detail or you don’t. I’d rather create the best negative I can, and add vignette if needed rather than risk discovering on my contacts that a corner with important information is underexposed and muddy.

[Corran]

Of course they exist for a reason. And of course one should use them if they are really, really worried about even illumination.

Whilst I often shoot at f/22, or beyond, I also don't mind shooting at f/2.8 if I'm after something else. I also shoot a 47mm XL w/o a center filter - the horror! While my non-usage of a CF on a 47mm is certainly debatable (and once or twice I later realized I probably should have), insisting on the use of a CF on a 75mm lens or even a 90mm is a bit anal IMO, most especially on b&w landscapes where the slight amount of fall-off is almost never particularly noticeable or problematic when printing (I have never in my experience felt the need later on to have used a CF on those types of images).

On the other hand, I have absolutely been unable to make images due to long exposures and slight movement of leaves in the frame, even when shooting 400-speed film and simply not having enough light for fast shutter speeds. Another 1.5 or 2 stops would increase this issue...oh and don't forget about reciprocity in some cases!

Here's a particularly heinous shot with my 47mm XL on Fuji Velvia:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yx-_hVBmnhA/X_7ux615KpI/AAAAAAAANUs/YL6bw8Aw_twxQlH-etrkWKDYpiSd92WsACLcBGAsYHQ/s800/stricklandmill-1167ss.jpg

Due to the nature of the shadowed frontal area, I doubt a CF would've done much for me anyway, and I ended up actually burning in the sky and foreground a bit more in the final print IIRC, which was printed very large. I used a GND on this as well, which I would've been unable to do with my equipment if I had used a CF due to the size of the front element and the small IC of the 47mm (A GND in this situation is way more relevant and important than a CF).

[Michael R]

The fall off follows a cos^4, no need to waste a negative to confirm that IMO. All you need to know is the angular FOV of your lens, diagonally.

Yes (and no, possibly). Some short focal length LF lenses apparently reduced it to ~cos^3 using a pupil distortion/tilting pupil design. Just to add some more minutiae. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Yes (and no, possibly). Some short focal length LF lenses apparently reduced it to ~cos^3 using a pupil distortion/tilting pupil design. Just to add some more minutiae. :)

You're probably thinking of f/4.5 Biogons. One, the 75/4.5, covers 4x5. Big heavy expensive lens.

[Corran]

Dan, don't most modern wide-angles use the tilting pupil design? Glancing at a couple of my lenses, they all seem to have it to an extent (compared to my actual 75mm Biogon).

[Alan Klein]

The fall off follows a cos^4, no need to waste a negative to confirm that IMO. All you need to know is the angular FOV of your lens, diagonally.

1) Why don't 35mm lenses have that falloff? Why are their designs different?
2) If it's a simple formula, why do different people say the falloff varies? There seem to be arguments on this point.
3) Why is the falloff more noticeable with chrome film as some people claim?

[Corran]

1) Why don't 35mm lenses have that falloff? Why are their designs different?
2) If it's a simple formula, why do different people say the falloff varies? There seem to be arguments on this point.
3) Why is the falloff more noticeable with chrome film as some people claim?

1. Retrofocus design (SLR, due to mirror constraint) vs. non-retro ~symmetrical design (RF / LF) PS: they do have fall-off that is corrected by stopping down, due to mechanical vignetting, just like LF lenses but there's still the inherent fall-off from traditional designs that isn't corrected.
2. As mentioned above, designs vary, and also consider that image circle may affect this (if you are closer to the edge of the IC, more fall-off).
3. Less dynamic range available - 2 stops underexposed means you are dangerously close to just having nothing usable on the film.

[Havoc]

The fall off follows a cos^4, no need to waste a negative to confirm that IMO. All you need to know is the angular FOV of your lens, diagonally.

From what I find in the documentation of filters is that wideangle lenses follow cos³. The cos⁴ and cos (no power) is more for "contactcopy machines with point source light" and large format copy machines.

[Kiwi7475]

From what I find in the documentation of filters is that wideangle lenses follow cos³. The cos⁴ and cos (no power) is more for "contactcopy machines with point source light" and large format copy machines.

Now that we get into the the weeds, let me repeat here what has already been discussed in this very forum a few times before:

“cos^4 is the basic limiting physics, cos^2 from inverse distance squared fall off, another cos factor from the incident angle of light on the film surface, and the final factor of cos from the apparent ellipticity of the aperture off axis. There are two ways that real lenses differ from this theoretical rule. First, the apex of the off-axis angle can be moved forward using a retrofocus design. Second, some superwide designs mitigate one cos factor somewhat by using the trick of tilting the enterance and exit pupils. This mostly eliminates the ellipticity of the off-axis aperture, leaving only three factors of cosine theta and an improved fall off of the off-axis illumination.

You can determine whether a particular lens uses this trick by looking at it from various angles. Stop the lens down a couple of stops and look at the front straight on -- both the outside barrel of the lens and the diaphragm will be circular. Next, keep looking at the center of the lens and slowly rotate the lens so that your eye is no longer on the optical axis. On most lenses both the outside of the barrel and the aperture diaphragm will become elliptical. On lenses using the tilting pupil principle, the diaphragm will remain almost circular as you tilt the lens.”

[Michael R]

Sorry I'm not sure if you mean Biogon "design" or a specific lens. I thought most of the modern short focal length lenses used this "trick". For example here is what Rodenstock said about the Grandagon-N range:


"...light fall-off at the edge has been greatly reduced thanks to an optical trick (“pupil distortion” = the entrance pupil diameter
increases when viewing at an angle)..."


You're probably thinking of f/4.5 Biogons. One, the 75/4.5, covers 4x5. Big heavy expensive lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Sorry I'm not sure if you mean Biogon "design" or a specific lens. I thought most of the modern short focal length lenses used this "trick". For example here is what Rodenstock said about the Grandagon-N range:


"...light fall-off at the edge has been greatly reduced thanks to an optical trick (“pupil distortion” = the entrance pupil diameter
increases when viewing at an angle)..."

I meant specific lenses. 35/4.5, 45/4.5, 53/4.5 and 75/4.5 Biogons for, respectively, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5.

Your R'stock quote is marketing fluff. I just looked at the "relative light fall of at ratio 0.03x" curves for Grandagon-Ns. It is worse that cos^4 at all apertures larger than f/16, marginally, as in practically speaking not at all, better at f/16.

Bob look at the charts before jumping in to tell us that R'stock is always right.

Kiwi, there's no profit in wrangling with people who think they're right.

[Michael R]

I don't think anyone is wrangling regarding the laws of physics. I posted the Rodenstock quote for reference/comment. It's not my quote. I didn't work there.

[Dan Fromm]

I don't think anyone is wrangling regarding the laws of physics. I posted the Rodenstock quote for reference/comment. It's not my quote. I didn't work there.

You're not wrangling about the physics and I didn't blame the quote on you. I blamed Rodenstock's marketers.

[Drew Wiley]

35mm wide angle lenses do have equivalent falloff, Alan. I personally hate that Natl Geographicky look. Falloff is more noticeable with chrome film simply because chrome film has more native contrast to begin with than negative film.

[Corran]

35mm wide angle lenses do have equivalent falloff, Alan.

No they don't, if we are talking about modern retrofocus designs. Sure, the 21mm Biogon for Contax 35mm rangefinder has the same basic fall-off characteristics of the 75mm Biogon on 4x5, but the retrofocus Nikon 14-24mm for 35mm / DSLR, when stopped down a bit, has very little fall-off comparatively.

[Drew Wiley]

Retrofocus would apply mainly to SLR's. But if the lens design is similar, apples to apples, the format size won't make much difference relative to angle of view unless image circle movements are in play. But I'd hypothetically be interested in actual factory bench test results rather than general impressions, that is, if I was even in the market for something 35mm wide-angle, but I'm not.

[Corran]

Yes that is what I said Drew. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that most people have experience with 35mm (or 120) SLRs or modern DSLRs and there are not center filters for those lenses and they are all retrofocus designs, especially digital due to the issue of angle of incidence with respect to the sensor.

[AA+]

My Superangulon XL 72mm (I shoot 5x7) was designed to have slight retrofocus to make it more manageable for focusing in normal view cameras.
Best wishes --- Allen Anway

[Bernice Loui]

Consider the back focus distance and film format size -vs- lens angle of view.

For a non-retrofocus view camera or similar lens with a large angel of view at the front light entrance of the lens, the exit angle of the lens is equally larger to project an image large enough to cover the sheet film area. The greater distance light is required to travel to the corners of the sheet of film relative to the center areas of that same sheet of film results in light fall off. To this is why a "center filter" has higher density in the center relative to the outside area of the center filter.

Retrofocus wide angle lenses invented by Angénieux in the 1950's is essentially a reversed telescope to make a wide angle of view lens work with a camera film plane that has a smaller lens exit angle than lens entry angle. This was required to meet the fixed lens mount to lens exit distance in cinema cameras initially. It was soon applied to Single Lens Reflex camera lenses. By reducing the angle of light exiting the lens (mandated due to the fixed lens to film plane mounting of the camera) relative to the larger angle of light at the lens entry, light fall off is REDUCED but NOT eliminated. Example:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3037426A/en

To achieve back focus compensation along with the optical requirements of a Retrofocus lens design, there are LOTs of optical elements involved as there is much light contortions that happen within the lens. This will have an effect on the image quality produced by the Retrofocus wide angle lens. The view camera wide angle optics is inherently simpler with the inherent trade off of light fall off due to it's optical design and how they are used, but there can be better image performance due to it's simpler optical design.

There is no free lunch or ideal optical for all image making needs. All goes back to what they image making goals are.


Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

Retrofocus wide angle lenses invented by Angénieux in the 1950's

Another myth. TTH introduced this type of lens in 1931 for the 3 strip Technicolor process. Lenses occasionally surface on, e.g., ebay.com.

[Bernice Loui]

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

Initial idea -vs- development into better performance optic.


Bernice



Another myth. TTH introduced this type of lens in 1931 for the 3 strip Technicolor process. Lenses occasionally surface on, e.g., ebay.com.

[Drew Wiley]

I prefer to use an ordinary 125 Fujinon W (or NW) to something like a 120 Super Angulon for general use on 4x5, not only because it's a much lighter lens, but because there's way less falloff and corner "stretch" distortion. But forfeiting a huge image circle comes with the territory; so it's not a good choice for architectural interiors. There's never a single correct answer. Right tools for the right job.

[Dan Fromm]

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

Initial idea -vs- development into better performance optic.


Bernice

Learn to read. He explicitly mentions TTH and says too that Angenieux used the TTH's idea to develop many more lenses. And he says nothing about Wide Angle Rectilinears or early w/a anastigmats such as the f/18 Protar Ser. V, the f/14 Perigraphe Ser. VIa and other w/a Dagor types including Goerz' (and later CZJ) own.

[Bernice Loui]

None of which are retro focus designs.

Stop fighting Dan.


Bernice


And he says nothing about Wide Angle Rectilinears or early w/a anastigmats such as the f/18 Protar Ser. V, the f/14 Perigraphe Ser. VIa and other w/a Dagor types including Goerz' (and later CZJ) own.

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, learn to read. The link you posted is headed


The Development of Wide-Angle Lenses
By Roger Cicala
Published March 8, 2011

[Drew Bedo]

I have long felt that the "best" camera gear to shoot with is the gear currently in your kit: Go out and shoot with it!

Now then; there are lenses designed and manufactured in recent years that are formulated to be as sharp as is optically possible with color correction as good as can be done using the materials available. computer design and really close and consistancy of quality control have never been better. If you want a reasonably fast tack sharp apo-chromatic lens brand new in the box . . .get out your high limit credit card in some elite color (Gold, Platinum, Sapphire, black etc)

Will that be the "best " lens? Maybe not.

[Alan Klein]

Is it true with old LF lenses (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Schneider) that the sharper more expensive ones are better wide open? But once you start to stop down, they're all about the same?

[neil poulsen]

. . . Higher contrast rendition by an lens alone is NOT an advantage it is merely a look, nothing more, nothing less. For some this feature is of high value, for some this feature is of zero value. It depends on image goals.

Good point. To be considered, but not an end-all, be-all. I've sold lenses because of their high contrast.

That said, I gathered that high contrast was an important consideration for Ansel Adams, et.al.

[neil poulsen]

For the 90mm focal length, there's a pretty clear response . . . A 90mm Nikon f8 lens would be excellent. I have one of these. I photograph both landscape and exterior architecture, and this lens works really well for me.

It's the smaller f8, yet it has the same image circle as other f5.6 lenses. (235mm at f22.) So, it would be excellent for landscape, and while it may be a little more difficult to focus for interior architecture, it's got the movements that you would need. . . .

Something else worth mentioning that Kerry Thalmann observed in his comments on the topic. . . The Nikon 90mm f8 lens has eight elements, whereas other 90mm f8 or f6.7 SW's have six elements.

[Bernice Loui]

Nikkor, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Schneider would be consider modern as they made LF lenses for a long time and continued making them until the market collapsed. Majority of modern LF lenses were optimized for f22.

This was not the case for the previous LF lenses made by Kodak, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Taylor Hobson, and many others. Examples. Zeiss Biogon (aero recon version and..) were optically good at f4.5-full aperture, Kodak Commercial Ektars (Tessar) were good at full aperture of f6.3 then improved at two f-stops down and begins to degrade at smaller apertures. This generation of LF lenses were used by image makers with a different need and market. If one were to look at commercial ad images from the 1950-late 1960's -vs- mid-70's on, the style of commercial images took on a very different style and feel that in many ways were in sync with what those cultrual-social times were.

There are modern LF lens exceptions, Rodenstock Grandagon 35mm, 45mm, 55mm f4.5 had published these wide angle lenses had good performance at apertures larger than f22. Other examples are the current crop of digital sensor lenses where f22 becomes diffraction limited for a image sensor that needs more resolution that is possible with larger optically optimized apertures.


Bernice





Is it true with old LF lenses (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Schneider) that the sharper more expensive ones are better wide open? But
once you start to stop down, they're all about the same?

[Bob Salomon]

Nikkor, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Schneider would be consider modern as they made LF lenses for a long time and continued making them until the market collapsed. Majority of modern LF lenses were optimized for f22.

This was not the case for the previous LF lenses made by Kodak, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Taylor Hobson, and many others. Examples. Zeiss Biogon (aero recon version and..) were optically good at f4.5-full aperture, Kodak Commercial Ektars (Tessar) were good at full aperture of f6.3 then improved at two f-stops down and begins to degrade at smaller apertures. This generation of LF lenses were used by image makers with a different need and market. If one were to look at commercial ad images from the 1950-late 1960's -vs- mid-70's on, the style of commercial images took on a very different style and feel that in many ways were in sync with what those cultrual-social times were.

There are modern LF lens exceptions, Rodenstock Grandagon 35mm, 45mm, 55mm f4.5 had published these wide angle lenses had good performance at apertures larger than f22. Other examples are the current crop of digital sensor lenses where f22 becomes diffraction limited for a image sensor that needs more resolution that is possible with larger optically optimized apertures.


Bernice
There were no Rodenstock 35, 45 or 55mm Grandagon lenses. Those were the Apo Grandagon series. Proper names are always more useful if one was to look them up.