Fuji 90mm f8 SW or Nikon 90mm f8 SW

[Ben]

I'm new to LF world.

The Fuji is about half the price of the Nikon.

Anyone here know both lenses and have compared them?

Nikon seems slightly lighter at 355g, Fuji at 407g.

Thanks!

[Dan Fromm]

They are both very bad.

Buy on price and condition.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, both real "bad" lenses (why is Dan speaking like a teenager? - "super-baaaaad"), which is why you should get one, not even try it out, reduce the price even lower, and then watch it get instantly snatched up by someone else on this forum. Both are excellent options if you can work in the limitations of f/8 max aperture - typically no problems outdoors, but sometimes potentially an issue with dim architectural interiors. Nitpicking between Fuji and Nikon is a waste of time.
You can't go wrong with either - they're both top quality, so simply go for condition and price, all other things being equal.

[Ben Calwell]

I bought a new Nikon 90mm f8 in about 1985, and it’s still serving me well.

[Kiwi7475]

The Nikkor has a slightly larger image circle (235mm vs 216mm) that would cover 5x7 with almost no movement. If you’re thinking you may go there, get the Nikon. Otherwise just pick based on price and condition, as others say.

Even at f8, at this focal lengths, it will get dark at the edges — not great if shooting when there’s not a lot of light. The f5.6 versions are better — but come at some more weight.

There’s no perfect answer…

[Bob Salomon]

The Nikkor has a slightly larger image circle (235mm vs 216mm) that would cover 5x7 with almost no movement. If you’re thinking you may go there, get the Nikon. Otherwise just pick based on price and condition, as others say.

Even at f8, at this focal lengths, it will get dark at the edges — not great if shooting when there’s not a lot of light. The f5.6 versions are better — but come at some more weight.

There’s no perfect answer…

The Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm 6.8 is quite a bit brighter and not much anger and is a superior tic

[Dan Fromm]

Yeah, both real "bad" lenses (why is Dan speaking like a teenager? - "super-baaaaad"), which is why you should get one, not even try it out, reduce the price even lower, and then watch it get instantly snatched up by someone else on this forum. Both are excellent options if you can work in the limitations of f/8 max aperture - typically no problems outdoors, but sometimes potentially an issue with dim architectural interiors. Nitpicking between Fuji and Nikon is a waste of time.
You can't go wrong with either - they're both top quality, so simply go for condition and price, all other things being equal.

Drew, I take it you never heard the story of the man who was condemned to death and was offered a choice of deaths. One was to be torn apart by four wild horses, the other was to be burned at the stake. To which he said "They are both very bad."

I was being sarcastic too. I haven't used either, would be surprised if either wasn't more than good enough. So the OP's question, although asked with good intentions and genuine curiosity, was somewhat silly.

[Mark Sampson]

Not a silly question if you really don't know. It's worth remembering that both lenses are top-quality professional optics from well-respected companies. As, in fact, are just about all post-WWII view camera lenses.
To speak from experience, I bought a used Nikkor-SW 90/8 thirty years ago and have happily used it since. As my most-used lens for architecture, it has satisfied some rather picky architects and made me a fair amount of money. I plan to keep it... but had it been a Fujinon 90/8 all those years ago, I'm sure that the story would be the same.
Mr. Fromm's advice is good; buy on price and condition.

[Ari]

I've owned both and prefer the Nikon.
My Fuji was was older and single-coated, while the Nikon was a more recent multi-coated version.
Contrast and sharpness were close, but the Nikon clearly had the edge.

[Chuck Pere]

I've owned both and prefer the Nikon.
My Fuji was was older and single-coated, while the Nikon was a more recent multi-coated version.
Contrast and sharpness were close, but the Nikon clearly had the edge.

This was also my experience.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I bought a 90 back when I was sometimes doing a architectural interiors, so opted for the Nikkor SW 90/4.5 - distinctly bulkier and heavier, especially with an attached center filter, but massive image circle plus the brighter viewing. I was worth the extra hassle to me, since some of those interiors were relatively dim and I hate the effect of fresnel screens, and I needed all the wiggle room, especially rise, that I could get.

But when I reaaalllly needed some extra image circle yardage, there was the 120/5.6 Super Angulon - even bulkier - not an ideal lens to lug up a 13,000 ft peak with a Sinar and whole nine yards of backpacking and mountaineering gear too - but I did that at least half a dozen times. Wish I were that young again. Now I use a tiny 125/5.6 Fuji NW instead, with rather limited wiggle room on 4x5.

[Doremus Scudder]

IM-HO, the real difference is the image circle. If you plan on using the lens for situations where you need a lot of image circle, e.g., architectural work in cities in close quarters where you need a lot of front rise along with other things, then the Nikon wins hands down.

I found my 90mm f/8 Schneider Super Angulon just didn't cut it in situations like these. Don't get me wrong, its a fine lens and one of the sharpest I own, but I kept running out of image circle with it and vignetting a corner when I used both front rise and some shift together.

I got a Nikon 90mm f/8 SW and haven't really had the vignetting problem since. That's the lens that goes in my architectural kit along with the 135mm WF Ektar. My 90mm Super Angulon and my Plasmat 135mm lenses are in the landscape kit for use when I don't anticipate the need for lots of coverage.

As far as image quality goes, both the Fuji and the Nikon should be on a par. You might want to avoid the older single-coated Fujinons in that focal length, though; just too much flare in my experience; or use a good lens hood.

As for the f/5.6 (f/4.5) larger versions of the 90mm wides: Just too heavy for me. Great for both coverage and illumination if you have a strong assistant, pack mule or just set up beside the car. For my use (hiking and biking with lots of 4x5 gear) they are just too heavy. And, the filter size is much larger, meaning more expense for filters.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

There are essentially no "hobbyist" view camera lenses made in the era when sheet film was the primary means to high quality images.

IMO, the only significant difference between the 90mm f8 SW Fujinon -vs- 90mm f8 Nikkor would be image circle. Beyond that the EBC coated version of the 90mm f8 Fujinon -vs- 90mm f8 Nikkor would be identical in higher contrast rendition as their coating technology would be more similar than different.

That said, higher contrast in itself does not and never does make a "better" lens than a lens with lower contrast. It is FAR more complex than this often overly obsessed token among Fotographers.

Sharpness is more orange herring than sardine as the vast majority of modern view camera lenses are designed, produced to a very high standard. Anything less would results in a lens product that cannot be sold into that market place.

There are basically four 90mm wide angle LF lenses in this family:

~90mm f8 Super Angulon which was made for decades.

~90mm f8 Nikkor.

~90mm f8 SW Fujinon.

~90mm f6.8 Grandagon.

~~The f4.5 or f5.6 versions of the 90mm wide angle lenses have larger image circle, bit brighter on the GG to aid in focusing, slightly lower geometric distortion (not that significant in the majority of image making needs). Trade off will be a physically larger lens at higher cost.


All four of these classic LF wide angles are more similar than different. Proper examples of each are more than capable of producing excellent expressive images_entirely dependent on the ability of the image maker (photographer_creative artist) to apply them to meet their image goals.

Don't get caught up in the marketing mind-set of latest = greatest and all that marketing brain bending.. Consider your image goals, lens and process to achieve this then find a camera that best meets the needs of the lens and image goals most.



Bernice

[Thom Bennett]

As a broad answer...I landed on Fuji lenses 20 years ago (thanks Kerry Thalmann http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm) because they sold used for much less than similar Nikons, Rodenstocks, etc. Never been disappointed. As Mark said, "...both lenses are top-quality professional optics from well-respected companies." The main thing to look at is the condition of any particular used lens and shutter before buying. Our heroes (Weston, Adams, etc.) did ground breaking work with far fewer choices than we have.

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji did far less advertising in this country than the others; that's all.

[tgtaylor]

I've been using the Grandagon f4.5 for about 20 years now - bought it used at a local photo swap for $510. Its a stellar lens with an IC large enough for 5x7 with movements. A few years back I bought the Nikon f8 from a forum member for a little less than I paid for the Grandagon. I wanted the smaller lens for backpacking but didn't find the image quality comparable to the Grandagon so I sold it. After carrying the 8x10 and its lenses the larger size and weight of the Grandagon became insignificant and I never noticed a fall-off and therefore a need for a center filter.

Thomas

[r.e.]

I've been using the Grandagon f4.5 [90mm] for about 20 years now... I never noticed a fall-off and therefore a need for a center filter.

Hi Thomas,

Do you only use negative film with this lens, or also reversal? B&W? Colour? Both?

[Drew Wiley]

Falloff is there. Fact. And it's likely to be a full stop and a half, not chump change. Whether it bothers you or not is a different aspect of the question. But just because a category of film allegedly has more "latitude" than another, i.e., color neg versus color transparencies, doesn't mean that a odd color shift won't occur in the underexposed portions. Depends on the specific film and actual contrast range in play. With some black and white films, you might run out of detail in shadows toward the corners of the image - friend or villain creatively? - that's up to you. Broad areas of blank black which are hardly noticeable in a contact print might be very annoying in an enlargement. And one person's, "I don't even notice any falloff", might be another person's nightmare. Otherwise, matched center filters wouldn't even exist.

[r.e.]

Drew, I'd just like to get Thomas's take on the questions that I asked, as someone who has been using the f/4.5 90mm Grandagon-N for 20 years . I am quite capable of considering Thomas's response, if he has the time and inclination, without your assistance. Indeed, your aggressive response yesterday to my post about Ed Burtynsky's views on digital medium format means that I am not interested in what you have to say on this question or anything else. I spent some time putting that post together, with appropriate links, in a constructive effort to make his views available for people's consideration. Your attack on, and belittlement of, Burtynsky, for no apparent reason, was just astounding.

[Drew Wiley]

Fine with me. It is you who was, and still are, reacting in an insulting manner. This is a web forum for heaven's sake, and one where different opinions over gear and technique are supposedly welcomed and weighed. I have 30 years of experience with 90/4.5's; but you don't seem open to my own opinions, so there you go. Your loss, not mine. It has nothing to do with personal attacks. Welcome to my ignore list.

[r.e.]

Fine with me. ... Welcome to my ignore list.

Thanks. Next time I ask someone a simple question, I'll be able to get a response without your "assistance".

[Drew Wiley]

It's not a simple question. The fact you don't even realize that is just one more reason you should listen to the why of it. But learn the hard way if you must, and consider yourself ignored hereafter. You didn't start this thread to begin with, and don't think every comment I've made applies to you. Other people exist, and some of these threads get studied hereafter by people who actually are interested in appropriately balanced answers taking into account more than one variable.

[r.e.]

consider yourself ignored hereafter.

Thanks, the sooner the better. Immediately would be great.

[pdmoylan]

Have owned the Nikkor 90 F8 extensively and for a short time the 90MM F8 Fuji. My conclusion is the same as others in this thread who have used both. It's basically a toss up, and although I preferred the Nikkor, I found no faults with the Fuji.

[Alan Klein]

How would people compare either Fuji 90mm f8 SW or Nikon 90mm f8 SW with a Nikkor SW 90mm f4.5?

[Greg]

I have found the Nikkor SW 90mm f4.5 to be just so much easier to focus and use verses the f8 optics. No one has mentioned the 90mm f/5.6 Schneider Super-Angulon XL. I initially acquired mine to use with my whole plate camera. It covers the whole plate format with a little less than one cm to spare. My IVa central ND filter is pretty much always just left on the lens. Lately I have been using it more and more on my 4x5. It allows for extreme movements which I have come to love. Yes it is a huge lens in comparison to other 90mm optics, but I'm not backpacking or hiking very far with it so its size and weight are of no consequence to me. The cost of the 90mm XL is surprisingly low if one is not in a hurry. Mine actually cost me less than my Nikkor SW 90mm f4.5. Now for the IVa central ND filter, that's another story. It took me over a year to find one FS and it wasn't cheap.

[Bernice Loui]

Once the f4.5 / f5.6 90mm wide angles are considered Nikkor cannot be the only f4.5 90mm to be considered. These MUST also be on the list:

~90mm f4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon.

~90mm f5.6 Fujinon SWD.

~90mm f5.6 Schneider Super Angulon.

Larger full aperture can make focusing easier, these as a group have larger image circles of designed in optical performance, slightly lower geometric distortion (often makes zero difference for image results), physically larger, heavier and bulkier than any of the f8 / f6.8 90mm wide angle lenses of this lens family design.. They are all as a group more similar than different.

~Exception being the 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL which is the largest of this group, largest image circle of 259mm@ f22 with excellent optical performance.


Seems folks new to LF view camera that have origins in the 35mm or digital world recognize the Nikon brand which is familiar and known to them. This marketing created bias can be carried on to lens brands in their LF view camera preferences. Fact is, the big four LF view camera lens brands Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider, Nikon-Nikkor all share optical excellence and are all as a group more than good enough for the needs of most LF image making today.

Those new to LF view camera should only consider a modern lens from the big four with a know and proven good shutter. More important is to develop image making skills as this LF view camera stuff is significantly different than 35mm or digital or medium format or any fixed box camera.

Camera brand is far lower on the priority list due to the fact the innate way any view camera works is no the same as a fixed lens box based camera.. Discard the "Nikon -vs- Canon" wars too as this ideology simply does not apply to LF view camera image making.


Bernice









How would people compare either Fuji 90mm f8 SW or Nikon 90mm f8 SW with a Nikkor SW 90mm f4.5?

[tgtaylor]

Hi Thomas,

Do you only use negative film with this lens, or also reversal? B&W? Colour? Both?

B&W, Color, and Reversal - especially the latter in the beginning. I've read about the possibility of fall off but after close inspection of slides and prints never saw it. I project 6x7 chromes with a Pro Cabin 67Z projector onto a large Da-Lite projection screen and the illumination is even across the screen. My experience is apparently not unique as I have read the similar reports from others. Perhaps this is due to manufacturing sample variation, I don't know. For the record I have the MC Grandagon - not the later "N" version.

Thomas

[r.e.]

Once the f4.5 / f5.6 90mm wide angles are considered Nikkor cannot be the only f4.5 90mm to be considered. These MUST also be on the list:

~90mm f4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon.

~90mm f5.6 Fujinon SWD.

~90mm f5.6 Super Angulon.

...

Seems folks new to LF view camera that have origins in the 35mm or digital world recognize the Nikon brand which is familiar and known to them. This marketing created bias can be carried on to lens brands in their LF view camera preferences. Fact is, the big four LF view camera lens brands Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider, Nikon-Nikkor all share optical excellence and are all as a group more than good enough for the needs of most LF image making today.

I'd just like to add that filter size for the lens, and for the front of a centre filter if desired, is a consideration that rarely gets discussed, but can have significant cost ramifications.

The Lenses, Filter Thread
Nikkor: 82mm
Fujinon: 82mm
Rodenstock: 82mm
Schneider Super Angulon XL: 95mm

The Centre Filters, Front Thread
Rodenstock 82mm: 112mm
Heliopan 82mm 0.45 ND: 105mm
Schneider 95mm IVa: 112mm


Why can it matter?

In my case, I have the Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm and the matching Rodenstock centre filter. The lens takes 67mm filters, and the centre filter has a front thread of 82mm. Acquiring one of these 90mm lenses instead of, or in addition to, the 75mm would have cost ramifications if I also wanted a centre filter.

I'm standardised at 82mm for screw-in filters and also use Lee System 100mm² filters. In other words, I was already set up for the 75mm lens and centre filter when I purchased them. As it happens, I have one lens (a Nikkor W f/6.5 360mm) that takes 95mm filters. I'm not set up for 105mm or 112mm at all. A decision to acquire filters for those diameters would be expensive, especially if, as is likely, I wanted to include some neutral density filters. A polariser would come in at something approaching reasonable cost only because I'd get a linear rather than circular polariser.

Interesting what Bernice says about brands. Maybe it's just me, but my recollection is that discussions on this forum ten or more years ago tended to favour Schneider and Rodenstock, with Nikon down a step. When Nikon got out of making large format lenses, there were very attractive prices on remaining stock at B&H. What I notice about recent discussions is that all four of the major brands are seen as more or less equivalent. I think that this is good advice (four out of nine of my own lenses are Nikkors), but I think that it's something of a change from earlier days on this forum. I seem to recall that there were lengthy debates on brands, and within brands (especially Schneider), in hair-splitting territory. Again, maybe my memory on this is faulty. I've mentioned it only because for some people it might elicit a smile :)

[r.e.]

B&W, Color, and Reversal - especially the latter in the beginning. I've read about the possibility of fall off but after close inspection of slides and prints never saw it. I project 6x7 chromes with a Pro Cabin 67Z projector onto a large Da-Lite projection screen and the illumination is even across the screen. My experience is apparently not unique as I have read the similar reports from others. Perhaps this is due to manufacturing sample variation, I don't know. For the record I have the MC Grandagon - not the later "N" version.

Thanks Thomas. Very much appreciated.

[Dan Fromm]

B&W, Color, and Reversal - especially the latter in the beginning. I've read about the possibility of fall off but after close inspection of slides and prints never saw it. I project 6x7 chromes with a Pro Cabin 67Z projector onto a large Da-Lite projection screen and the illumination is even across the screen. My experience is apparently not unique as I have read the similar reports from others. Perhaps this is due to manufacturing sample variation, I don't know. For the record I have the MC Grandagon - not the later "N" version.

Thomas

Hmm. Did you shoot 6x7 without movements? I ask because 90 mm is the normal focal length for 6x7 so without movements a 90 that covers the format should have only minimal falloff.

[tgtaylor]

Hmm. Did you shoot 6x7 without movements? I ask because 90 mm is the normal focal length for 6x7 so without movements a 90 that covers the format should have only minimal falloff.

Movements when needed - especially rise, tilt, fall and shift in that order. The image I posted in the Architecture thread today was taken using maximum rise on the AX.

Thomas

[r.e.]

Movements when needed - especially rise, tilt, fall and shift in that order. The image I posted in the Architecture thread today was taken using maximum rise on the AX.

More helpful information. I asked about your Grandagon f/4.5 90mm and fall-off because I'm interested in the lens, and you have a lot of experience with it. Version noted. However, I'm not keen, for the reasons explained in post #29, to purchase the centre filter.

For anyone interested, the Rodenstock E82 centre filter for this lens, with a 112mm front thread, is being offered now in the appropriate subform of this site. It's also on eBay, but the price here is lower.

[Bernice Loui]

Rodenstock, Schneider were the LF view camera lens brands back in the days when sheet film color transparencies were THE high quality image production method. Nikkor was trying to gain_expand their photographic market share as Nikon-Nikkor had already held a good share of the 35mm film camera market, Nikon wanted more by expanding into the LF view camera market. What did happen, Rodenstock, Schneider remained the preferred lens brands as they worked excellent. Nikon was not much different optically, they did not have the marketing (much as they tried), brand recognition and long standing reputation among LF view camera users from that time (keep in mind, majority of 4x5 images from that time were made using monorail, in studio, high expectations images-work produced on color transparency film). Fujinon did not market in ways like Nikon or had the brand recognition as Schneider or Rodenstock.

~All four were essentially much the same, it came down to cost, lens availability and a long list of other factors_not image quality differences as if there were any significant image quality differences, there would be about zero possibility for any LF view camera lens brand to sell any significant numbers of lenses.

Fast forward to the here and now of what remains of the LF view camera world. Monorails have been over run by lightweight field folders, small light weight lenses and all related are in high demand commanding a market value premium, alternative image making processes have grown lots. Folks new to LF view camera today often have a history with 35mm film or digital as their points of reference and image making history. This history of Foto hardware is often carried over into their first steps into making-crafting LF view camera sheet film images. Reality, none of this should carried over into LF view camera image making without careful consideration due to the significant differences in hardware and often image making techniques.

It is quite true once Nikon-Nikkor stopped production of their LF view camera lenses, many excellent bargains could be easily found. Fujinon IMO never took the USA LF view camera market that seriously. While their LF view camera lenses were excellent in the same way as the other three, distribution and marketing was much less so compared to Schneider or Rodenstock... which continued to produce LF view camera lenses after Nikon-Nikkor stopped production due to lack of sales volume.

Fujinon LF view camera lenses came into popularity from a specific "lens test" that has been around on the web for years. Again, Fujinon makes excellent LF view camera lenses as does Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon-Nikkor.



Bernice







Interesting what Bernice says about brands. Maybe it's just me, but my recollection is that discussions on this forum ten or more years ago tended to favour Schneider and Rodenstock, with Nikon down a step. When Nikon got out of making large format lenses, there were very attractive prices on remaining stock at B&H. What I notice about recent discussions is that all four of the major brands are seen as more or less equivalent. I think that this is good advice (four out of nine of my own lenses are Nikkors), but I think that it's something of a change from earlier days on this forum. I seem to recall that there were lengthy debates on brands, and within brands (especially Schneider), in hair-splitting territory. Again, maybe my memory on this is faulty. I've mentioned it only because for some people it might elicit a smile :)

[Drew Wiley]

Dan - The angle of view of a "normal" 90mm for 6X7 is entirely different from a wide-angle angle design 90mm suitable for 4x5 coverage plus ample movements. Drop down to an actual wide-angle design for the P67 itself, like a 55mm lens, and you have just as much falloff to contend with as the typical 90mm lens specified for 4x5 usage. The shift lenses for the P67 contain optics made for them by Schneider, based on the Super Angulon formula.

[r.e.]

Now this is a woman who knows her history. She gets additional points for confirming that my memory isn't yet due for relegation to the dustbin :)


Rodenstock, Schneider were the LF view camera lens brands back in the days when sheet film color transparencies were THE high quality image production method. Nikkor was trying to gain_expand their photographic market share as Nikon-Nikkor had already held a good share of the 35mm film camera market, Nikon wanted more by expanding into the LF view camera market. What did happen, Rodenstock, Schneider remained the preferred lens brands as they worked excellent. Nikon was not much different optically, they did not have the marketing (much as they tried), brand recognition and long standing reputation among LF view camera users from that time (keep in mind, majority of 4x5 images from that time were made using monorail, in studio, high expectations images-work produced on color transparency film). Fujinon did not market in ways like Nikon or had the brand recognition as Schneider or Rodenstock.

~All four were essentially much the same, it came down to cost, lens availability and a long list of other factors_not image quality differences as if there were any significant image quality differences, there would be about zero possibility for any LF view camera lens brand to sell any significant numbers of lenses.

Fast forward to the here and now of what remains of the LF view camera world. Monorails have been over run by lightweight field folders, small light weight lenses and all related are in high demand commanding a market value premium, alternative image making processes have grown lots. Folks new to LF view camera today often have a history with 35mm film or digital as their points of reference and image making history. This history of Foto hardware is often carried over into their first steps into making-crafting LF view camera sheet film images. Reality, none of this should carried over into LF view camera image making without careful consideration due to the significant differences in hardware and often image making techniques.

It is quite true once Nikon-Nikkor stopped production of their LF view camera lenses, many excellent bargains could be easily found. Fujinon IMO never took the USA LF view camera market that seriously. While their LF view camera lenses were excellent in the same way as the other three, distribution and marketing was much less so compared to Schneider or Rodenstock... which continued to produce LF view camera lenses after Nikon-Nikkor stopped production due to lack of sales volume.

Fujinon LF view camera lenses came into popularity from a specific "lens test" that has been around on the web for years. Again, Fujinon makes excellent LF view camera lenses as does Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon-Nikkor.



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Been at this LF view camera stuff since the mid 1980's.. never really stopped since then.

After doing the cycle of modern LF lenses and many others, the most recent vintage LF wide angle lenses are THAT GOOD... from any of the big four.
Essentially pick any from the big four, difficult to go wrong unless the lens has a wonky shutter or whacked lens cells or these days alternative non-original shutter in set of "found" lens cells.. foisted to a unsuspecting buyer only to discover the optical performance is poor then blames the lens brand for this specific incident.


Bernice





Now this is a woman who knows her history. She gets additional points for confirming that my memory isn't yet due for relegation to the dustbin :)

[neil poulsen]

Drew, I take it you never heard the story of the man who was condemned to death and was offered a choice of deaths. One was to be torn apart by four wild horses, the other was to be burned at the stake. To which he said "They are both very bad."

I was being sarcastic too. I haven't used either, would be surprised if either wasn't more than good enough. So the OP's question, although asked with good intentions and genuine curiosity, was somewhat silly.

No question about it . . . I would definitely prefer to be pulled apart by four horses. :)

[ottluuk]

I'd just like to add that filter size for the lens, and for the front of a centre filter if desired, is a consideration that rarely gets discussed, but can have significant cost ramifications.

The Lenses, Filter Thread
Nikkor: 82mm
Fujinon: 82mm
Rodenstock: 82mm
Schneider: 95mm

The Centre Filters, Front Thread
Rodenstock 82mm: 112mm
Heliopan 82mm 0.45 ND: 105mm
Schneider 95mm IVa: 112mm
...



IIRC, it's only the Schneider Super-Angulon XL that has the larger 95mm filter size (and larger coverage). Older, non-XL 90/5.6 Super-Angulons have the more common 82mm filter thread. These should be comparable to Nikon, Fuji and Rodenstock f/5.6-4.5 lenses of similar vintage.

Focussing slow wide angles can be tricky and depends on your focussing screen, usual lighting conditions, eyesight, proper use of a focussing cloth, etc. So it's easier to say it's personal than to give exact guidelines. But for me, personally, a 65/8 Super-Angulon is a pain to focus, 121/8 SA is no problem except in very dim conditions and longer lenses (210/9, 300/9) are easy. For me, 90mm is about the tipping point where focussing at f/8 turns bothersome. If I were a heavy user of the focal length, I'd probably end up with two - a small slow one for hiking and a big fast one for everything else. But I'm not, so I 'll stick with my f/5.6 SA.

[r.e.]

IIRC, it's only the Schneider Super-Angulon XL that has the larger 95mm filter size (and larger coverage).

Yes, I've now amended post #29 to make it clear that I'm talking about the Super Angulon XL referred to in post #27 in the following sentence, and the centre filter for the XL: "Exception being the 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL which is the largest of this group, largest image circle of 259mm@ f22 with excellent optical performance."

[Bernice Loui]

Keep in mind wide angle lenses project the collected light rays across a larger area which will effectively reduce the light intensity on the ground glass/image recording method. Starting out with a wide angle lens that has a large aperture allows collecting more light to be projected/spread out across the ground glass/image recoding method. Trade off, the larger aperture lens will be bigger, heavier, more difficult to achieve excellent optical performance and more difficult to produce resulting in higher cost. It is all a fixed set of trade offs with no "magic miracles" regardless of who attempts to design/produce lenses like this.

f8 wide angle lenses are not that difficult to focus in bright sun or similar high brightness situations. This is balanced by the lens angle of view, per what was written above. Or, a 47mm f5.6 Schneider Super Angulon XL will be difficult to compose/focus if used in a dark interior scene compared to a 120mm f8 Super Angulon under the same conditions with the same film format size (4x5).

If the image making needs/goals are to make outdoor landscape or similar outdoor images in well lighted conditions that demands portability trading off other needs. Images like this might be best served by a light weight field folder with the smallest/lightest weight wide angle lens like a 90mm f6.8 Schneider Angulon or 4 3/8" f8 wide angle dagor instead of a modern f8 wide angle lens such as the Nikkor, Fujinon, Schneider... Trade off will be image circle (field folders tend to have limited camera movements with short focal length lenses as a given), light fall-off, distortion but NOT resolution per say.

In the case of technically difficult and challenging interior architectural images where camera movement abilities and lens capabilities are pushed to their absolute limits, any of the larger aperture f4.5 or f5.6 wide angle lenses are at a distinct advantage with their larger image circle, larger aperture aiding focus and more. Trade off, these are physically larger physically heavier and more lens which also required a non light weight field folder camera that will properly support the capabilities of these larger aperture wide angle lenses.


All back to what the image goals are, what lenses are required to support the image goals not until these basic two conditions are well defined, the camera choice can be possibly made.

Fresnel lenses that can aid in concentrating the image light collected by the normal or longer focal length lens producing a brighter ground glass image can produce a double image due to the interaction between light collected by wide angle lens to the ground glass then effectively bouncing between the ground glass and fresnel lens making focusing difficult in many ways. Using a good ground glass is often best. Tilting the focusing loupe can aid in viewing the ground glass edges and corners.


Bernice





Focussing slow wide angles can be tricky and depends on your focussing screen, usual lighting conditions, eyesight, proper use of a focussing cloth, etc. So it's easier to say it's personal than to give exact guidelines. But for me, personally, a 65/8 Super-Angulon is a pain to focus, 121/8 SA is no problem except in very dim conditions and longer lenses (210/9, 300/9) are easy. For me, 90mm is about the tipping point where focussing at f/8 turns bothersome. If I were a heavy user of the focal length, I'd probably end up with two - a small slow one for hiking and a big fast one for everything else. But I'm not, so I 'll stick with my f/5.6 SA.

[Mark Sampson]

You know, my eyesight isn't perfect, and I've never had trouble focusing the two 90/8 lenses I've owned. Outdoors- no problem. And when I was shooting interiors... there were the modeling lights from the strobes.
Add in exposures at f/16 and I've always been good. No doubt f/4.5 would be brighter on-screen, but I've never felt deprived. Coverage? Never ran out yet.

[pdmoylan]

One question I might have in deciding on lenses is whether the latest design of the xl series, for instance, has improved color/contrast characteristics. From what I have seen the SSXL seem to provide more nuanced color, perhaps leading to a false conclusion that they are closer to APO quality than their predecessors.

The 90 xL I have never tried but the results I have seen in books and calendars seems a bit more vibrant, better differentiation. I wonder if anyone can speak to this? Also, never had problems focusing a 90mmf8 in very low light.

[Bernice Loui]

"Pro tip"... if the interior area to be images IS that dark, apply battery powered flashlights as needed. This can aid greatly to focusing on the GG.


Bernice



You know, my eyesight isn't perfect, and I've never had trouble focusing the two 90/8 lenses I've owned. Outdoors- no problem. And when I was shooting interiors... there were the modeling lights from the strobes.
Add in exposures at f/16 and I've always been good. No doubt f/4.5 would be brighter on-screen, but I've never felt deprived. Coverage? Never ran out yet.

[Drew Wiley]

Certain basics: illumination falloff comes with the territory of wide angle lens design. And the Achilles heel to just deciding to ignore falloff and not invest in a center filter is that once any significant view camera movement is applied - whether rise, tilt, shift, etc - your cone of light is off axis and the falloff itself will no longer be symmetrical in the image. In other words, you might end of with one side of the image significantly darker than the opposite side, or one corner mismatched to another. And don't blame me for complicating things. Blame God or the laws of physics instead. It is just a fact of life, optically.

And in terms of color film usage, significant density shifts do not necessarily remain color neutral, but can often induce actual hue shifts or color-crossover issues. So in that case, you can't simply dodge or burn away off-axis problems. A center filter becomes even more important. I don't want to go beyond that at the moment; but there are other potential issues too.

Any modern wide angle lens from the big four is designed to handle color film competently. But none of them should be classified as "apo" in the stricter graphics sense; but in general purpose photography they're going to be plenty good enough. Don't take books or calendars as a standard of comparison. In fact, almost no mode of color presentation other than an old fashioned slide show can due justice to hue differentiations achievable with most modern lenses.

The best way to avoid needing center filters is to use regular wide lenses instead of wide-angle ones. That works down to about 120mm for 4X5 coverage, provided you don't need strong architecture-style movements. Once you enter true wide angle territory, worse falloff and that stretched toward corners look becomes inevitable. The Super Symmar 110XL might allow a little more wiggle room with only modest falloff; but they're expensive and the earlier serial number had a serious quality control issue.

[Alan Klein]

Certain basics: illumination falloff comes with the territory of wide angle lens design. And the Achilles heel to just deciding to ignore falloff and not invest in a center filter is that once any significant view camera movement is applied - whether rise, tilt, shift, etc - your cone of light is off axis and the falloff itself will no longer be symmetrical in the image. In other words, you might end of with one side of the image significantly darker than the opposite side, or one corner mismatched to another. And don't blame me for complicating things. Blame God or the laws of physics instead. It is just a fact of life, optically.

And in terms of color film usage, significant density shifts do not necessarily remain color neutral, but can often induce actual hue shifts or color-crossover issues. So in that case, you can't simply dodge or burn away off-axis problems. A center filter becomes even more important. I don't want to go beyond that at the moment; but there are other potential issues too.

Any modern wide angle lens from the big four is designed to handle color film competently. But none of them should be classified as "apo" in the stricter graphics sense; but in general purpose photography they're going to be plenty good enough. Don't take books or calendars as a standard of comparison. In fact, almost no mode of color presentation other than an old fashioned slide show can due justice to hue differentiations achievable with most modern lenses.

The best way to avoid needing center filters is to use regular wide lenses instead of wide-angle ones. That works down to about 120mm for 4X5 coverage, provided you don't need strong architecture-style movements. Once you enter true wide angle territory, worse falloff and that stretched toward corners look becomes inevitable. The Super Symmar 110XL might allow a little more wiggle room with only modest falloff; but they're expensive and the earlier serial number had a serious quality control issue.
Just so I understand, Drew: do you also get falloff with Velvia 50 or Provia 100 or BW TMAX, when using a center filter and using movements? For regular landscape shooting like I do where there may only be a minor amount of tilt or slight rise, would there be noticeable falloff? I'm thinking of my Nikkor SW 90mm f/4.5 with Schnieder IV CF.

[Dan Fromm]

Alan, PMFJI. Alan, there's always falloff. This is a property of the lens, depends on focal length and angle off axis. Film used has nothing to do with it, BUT negative film usually has more exposure latitude than reversal so with it less detail is lost off axis.

There's a consensus to the effect that a CF isn't really needed when shooting 4x5 with a 90 mm lens and minimal movements. With the lens centered, the corners will be 1.5 stops down from the center. Whether you agree with the consensus depends on your preferences and how far you move the lens. You'll have to try and see how much darkness in the corners you can tolerate. There's no fixed rule that fits every photographer's tastes and situation.

[r.e.]

Further to comments in earlier posts on monorails and the weight savings of field cameras and smaller aperture lenses...

I use a monorail and, all things being equal, go with a wide aperture version of a focal length when I have a choice. The photo below shows an Arca-Swiss Discovery F-Line camera and Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm lens. A stock Discovery is 2.3kg (5lb) and the lens is 440g (0.97lb), for a total of 2.75kg (6lb). This camera would be a bit lighter with Arca-Swiss's more recent 141mm² lens boards. I've changed out the Discovery's friction carriers for geared carriers, which adds a few ounces, but I could also reduce rail weight by changing out the 30cm rail (12") for a 15cm rail (6"). I carry the camera one-handed by the rail, with the camera upside down.

I know almost nothing about folding field cameras. How much lighter would this setup be, if at all, with a well-made field camera that could be used with this lens or similar?


Arca-Swiss F-Line 4x5 with Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm Lens & Centre Filter

220417


Old B&H Catalogue Page on the Arca-Swiss F-Line Discovery

220418

[Bernice Loui]

Another monorail example

Sinar Norma:

4x5 rear standard about 1000 grams.

Sinar front standard about 1000 grams.

Cut down 7" rail about 200 grams.

Bag bellows, about 170 grams

Rodenstock 75mm f4.5 as previously exampled, about 445 grams.

Aprox total, about 2815 grams or about 6.2 pounds.

220419
Example with 47mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL. Note front rise on the Norma with the 47mm SAXL, this is possible with a field folder?
Need for this degree of camera movement is driven by image goals and lens image circle capability.


~Wista 45SP no lens, 6.3 pounds.
~Linhof Master Technika no lens, 6.5 pounds.
~Intrepid 4x5 no lens, 2.6 pounds.
~Chamonix 45f-2 no lens, 3.52 pounds.

Point being, yes there are lower weight field folders. Once the lens and all related (film holders about 170 grams per 4x5 holder and more)
are added up, focusing on reducing the weight of the camera alone is not a good idea as the other mandatory items that are a must to make LF
images add up to more than just the camera.

Lightweight camera outfit pays the price of stability. Specially outdoors when the wind blows, how to keep any lightweight camera stable/precise/accurate under these conditions. Add long shutter speeds and more, making lowest weight camera outfit into a big problem instead of a big advantage.


Bernice

[Doremus Scudder]

Just so I understand, Drew: do you also get falloff with Velvia 50 or Provia 100 or BW TMAX, when using a center filter and using movements? For regular landscape shooting like I do where there may only be a minor amount of tilt or slight rise, would there be noticeable falloff? I'm thinking of my Nikkor SW 90mm f/4.5 with Schnieder IV CF.

PMFJI2...

Alan,
If you're using a center filter, you are compensating for the light falloff in the lens design. I.e., for all practical purposes, there is NO falloff when you are using the proper center filter since you are blocking the light from the center of the image circle and then progressively less to the edges. You compensate for the even illumination by using the filter factor.

It's when you are using a wide-angle lens without a center filter that you get falloff, which can then be offset from center when you use movements, resulting in an uneven look, i.e., with one or more corners darker than the others.

Doremus

[r.e.]

Once the lens and all related (film holders about 170 grams per 4x5 holder and more)
are added up, focusing on reducing the weight of the camera alone is not a good idea as the other mandatory items that are a must to make LF
images add up to more than just the camera.

Lightweight camera outfit pays the price of stability. Specially outdoors when the wind blows, how to keep any lightweight camera stable/precise/accurate under these conditions. Add long shutter speeds and more, making lowest weight camera outfit into a big problem instead of a big advantage.

I share that view.

I don't hike/camp long distances, which may be why I'm not focused on saving every last ounce on camera and lens weight. I look first to keeping down the number of lenses and film holders I carry. I use a director's finder app (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164815-What-Scouting-Planning-Apps-Are-You-Using-in-2021) for scouting, which means that I know in advance what lens or lenses I need.

When it comes to tripods, I won't use anything lighter/less "solid" than a Gitzo Series 3 or equivalent, but I'll cut weight on the tripod head. The head in the photo in post #48, a Miller CX6 (https://www.millertripods.com/us/cx6-fluid-heads.html), weighs 2.3kg (5lb). However, in many cases I'm happy to dispense with a tripod head altogether and use a levelling base (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1286949-REG/gitzo_gslvls_leveling_base_for.html). I sometimes use a Manfrotto Junior Geared Head (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124665-REG/Manfrotto_410_410_Junior_Geared_Head.html) for closeup/macro, but that's also a case where the lens is chosen in advance.

I just like using a monorail camera with large aperture lenses. Makes life easier and photography a more enjoyable experience.

[Drew Wiley]

Alan - just getting back to you. But Dan already gave the answer. Wide angle lens falloff is inherent, and doesn't care what kind of film you are using. But a higher contrast film like Velvia, or higher contrast development of a black and white film, will make the problem more apparent. Whether or not it's tolerable, or requires the center filter, is up to you. But I would suggest that if you do use strong front movements for sake of a particular shot, that center filter might end up highly appreciated, especially if the scene is relatively high contrast to begin with. There's not a lot of forgiveness in that respect when using Velvia.

[Alan Klein]

Got it. There's no uneven look and falloff with movements as long as you use the CF.

[Drew Wiley]

Right. The correct center filter (which you have) used reasonably stopped down (about f/16 down in your case, using the Nikkor 90/4.5), will be even across the entire usable or specified circle of illumination, which is quite large.

[r.e.]

I just noticed that @Ben started another thread three days after this one about what camera to get, presumably to use with this 90mm lens. His question in that thread makes it clear that cost is a major consideration:


"I've looked at Wista 45, Toyo 45 and the Intrepid 3d-printed black edition. Both Wista and Toyo seem to retail used for about $300 used in good condition. The Intrepid 3d-printed black edition is over $400 new.

"- What is your preference of the three models?

"- Are there any 4x5 field cameras that sell for even less than these?"

When they were being sold new, the Fuji SW f/8 and the Nikkor SW f/8 were the two cheapest 90mm lenses, at US$795 and $840 respectively. Of the 90mm lenses, for a given condition they should also be the cheapest when purchased used. As between a used Fuji and a used Nikkor in equal condition, it makes sense, as others have said, to purchase the least expensive. If there's a desire to use screw-in filters, these lenses also take 67mm filters, which are somewhat less expensive than the 82mm filters required for some other 90mm lens options.*

@Ben hasn't said, in either thread, what he plans to use the camera and lens for. I assume that he wants to make rural or urban landscape photos, and maybe environmental portraits. For these subjects, camera movements aren't essential, but they provide more latitude for shot composition. They also make it possible to get perspective of buildings right in camera rather than correcting it in photo editing software. Consequently, it's useful to have a bellows that's flexible enough to use the camera's full range of movements with a 90mm lens. A standard bellows can be quite limiting. I would want to choose a camera that can accommodate a bag bellows, although a bag bellows would add to cost. All that said, there's no shortage of people making good landscape photos and environmental portraits with cameras that have no movements at all.

Every 90mm lens will result in light falloff toward the corners. This can be addressed with a centre filter. However, centre filters are expensive and come with an exposure penalty. To keep cost down, I'd use negative film, keep falloff in mind during shot composition and address any falloff that I thought was undesirable (many people like the "look") when editing the photograph. My impression is that most large format photographers are not using a centre filter with their 90mm lens.


* That said, I think that it's a good idea to standardise around a screw-in filter diameter, or go with the Lee 100 System or similar, from day 1. It will both simplify life and save money over time. On polarisers, a significant amount of money can be saved, especially when purchasing used, by choosing a linear rather than circular polariser for use with a film camera.