Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm [Archive]

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 12:01

I use 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and I'm considering the purchase of a lens in the range of 90mm to 165mm. This thread is mostly a vehicle to post the attached chart, which shows some of the characteristics of the lenses on my shortlist. Some people, now or later, may find the chart, and the explanation below, useful. Except on one issue, I'm not really looking for advice.

I would, however, appreciate comments on the following question. My shortlist only includes modern lenses by Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider (Fujinon didn't make the cut). The cost of some of the options, particularly of the 150mm to 165mm lenses for 8x10, may well be more than I'm prepared to pay. I know little about other brands. I wonder whether there are lenses by, for example, Kodak or Wollensak, that are solid alternatives but less expensive.

I'd love to get two lenses, one for 4x5 and one for 8x10, but that is not an option financially.

So, there are two basic considerations behind my shortlist and the resulting chart.

I use an Arca-Swiss F-Line monorail for 4x5 and 8x10, with 171mm lens boards, standard bellows capacity up to 700mm and a leather bag bellows for 4x5. I have a 5x7 camera (a Linhof Kardan Bi), but it's doubtful that I'll use it going forward. Consequently, 5x7 format is not a major consideration for me. I am considering 4x10 for some purposes, which means either masking an 8x10 sheet of film or composing with the intention of cropping.

For the foreseeable future, my focus is on urban landscape, environmental portraiture and occasional macrophotography. I need to be able to get closer to subjects than a "standard" lens will allow; for example, photographing a storefront without trying to do it from the middle of the street. Hence the interest in wide lenses.

I've also taken into account my current lenses that cover 4x5:

Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm f/4.5 (note to self: do I really need a 90mm lens?)
Nikon Nikkor AM ED 120mm f/5.6 (only for macrophotography)
Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N 150mm f/5.6
Docter Optic 210mm f/4.5
Wollensak Portrait Veritar 10"/254mm f/6

And my current lenses that cover both 4x5 and 8x10:

Nikon Nikkor AM ED 210mm f/5.6 (only for macrophotography)
Nikon Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6
Nikon Nikkor W 360mm f/6.5
Fujinon C 600mm f/11.5 (think photographing Manhattan from the Brooklyn/Queens side of the Hudson River)

The cost of an additional centre filter is a consideration. Currently, I have Rodenstock's E67/86, which fits lenses that take 67mm filters.

So is the cost of standard filters. I don't have screw-in filters larger than 95mm or rectangular filters larger than 100mm².

Notes to the Chart's Column Headings

Street Price New: I've taken the street prices from this forum's lens comparison charts. I see those prices as a very rough guide. For example, there's a thread in this forum that says that Badger Graphic, at least, was offering Schneider's Super-Symmar XL 110mm for significantly less than $1,670.

Centre Filter: The ✓ means that my Rodenstock E67/86 will work with the lens.

Coverage in 35mm Equivalent: Also from the forum's lens comparison charts. As I'm sure everyone knows, different methods yield different numbers. I use "~8x10" in two cases to signify that the lens barely covers 8x10, or doesn't quite, at least without stopping down beyond f22. I'm not keen to go as wide as 110mm to 120mm for 8x10 or 4x10 anyway (EDIT: See post #20).

Weight: I place this column last because it's a secondary consideration for me. Some may place it first :)

I should also note that the chart does not contain information on lens design. That's a potentially significant consideration when I get the list narrowed further.

Perhaps some people will find the foregoing discussion, and the chart, useful in making their own decisions about lens choice.

220585

Bernice Loui

18-Oct-2021, 12:38

Keep in mind the baked in light fall off of any LF wide angle lens as exampled by this 8x10 Agfachrom 100 image made using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22.
Could be ok, could be not ok.
220513

Bernice

Oslolens

18-Oct-2021, 12:51

Michael E

18-Oct-2021, 12:59

I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".

I just wanted to suggest the Super Angulon 121mm. I love that lens: A moderate wide angle on 4x5", a strong wide angle on 5x7", an extreme wide angle on 8x10" (which it barely covers). Very versatile and not very expensive.

Ari

18-Oct-2021, 13:37

A good 210 for 8x10 is indispensable, but expensive.
A decent option is the older Fuji W-210.

alan_b

18-Oct-2021, 13:49

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 13:56

A good 210 for 8x10 is indispensable, but expensive.
A decent option is the older Fuji W-210.

Hi Ari. There's a Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6 in my post under "current lenses that cover both 4x5 and 8x10". In 8x10, I don't think that there's enough difference between 240mm and 210mm for me to get a 210.

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 14:04

I think I remember you talking about using the Artist’s Viewfinder App, and I understand you’re not really looking for focal length advice. I’ve used it as a visual to weigh a lens’ position in my lineup before, so thought it worth noting here.

Yes, I use Artist's Viewfinder and talked about it in a thread called What Scouting/Planning Apps Are You Using in 2021? (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164815-What-Scouting-Planning-Apps-Are-You-Using-in-2021)

That app helped me decide to get the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm f/4.5 mentioned in the first post in this thread.

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 14:35

Keep in mind the baked in light fall off of any LF wide angle lens as exampled by this 8x10 Agfachrom 100 image made using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22.
Could be ok, could be not ok.
220513

On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?

I included Rodenstock's E105/127 Centre Filter for this lens in the Chart attached to post #1. Haven't checked yet to see what it costs, assuming that I can even find one. According to the forum's lens comparison chart, street price was US$1,040.

Dan Fromm

18-Oct-2021, 17:03

On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?

Falloff is a property of the lens, not of the film. However, negative films have broader exposure latitude than reversal films so with them falloff can somewhat be dealt with when printing. On the whole, it is better to use a CF with color film.

Drew Wiley

18-Oct-2021, 17:51

It's risky to go with generalizations. Not all CN films are the same in terms of contrast. For example, Ektar gives one about one stop more latitude either way versus most chrome films, but not anywhere near the latitude of Portra "portrait" films. But as I have already hinted, that's not the real problem because density shifts at the extremes of the usable contrast range are not neutral like with black and white film, but often exhibit dye curve crossover issues. Then there's the additional problem of potential unsymmetrical falloff due to camera movements. Mere density changes might be fixable, but unequal crossover could be a real bear to fix. It's just so much easier to instantly correct the shot, if needed, with a CF right from the start. I'm not implying they're always needed. It all depends. But having one on hand is certainly wise if one can realistically afford it.

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 18:31

Falloff is a property of the lens, not of the film. However, negative films have broader exposure latitude than reversal films so with them falloff can somewhat be dealt with when printing. On the whole, it is better to use a CF with color film.

You know perfectly well from earlier discussions that I know how this works. I get it Dan. You wrote an article about centre filters several years ago and you can't resist an opportunity to interject whenever the subject comes up, including explaining that 1+1=2. Now, if you don't mind, I'm more interested in Bernice's response to my questions. I'm thinking that maybe I should discuss this with her offline so that the thread can stay on topic rather than get derailed and turned into yet another discussion about centre filters.

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 19:09

I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".
You miss out on the 190mm wide field ektar, but I suppose it's as expensive as a modern lens.
The 159mm wollensak is good for 8x10", but only rivals a 165mm S-A in the corners at f32 to f45 ;)
But the weight difference makes a 165mm stay at home anyway...

Thanks very much. I'll do some research on the Ektar and Wollensak, and also have a second look at the 120mm Super-Angulon.

I just wanted to suggest the Super Angulon 121mm. I love that lens: A moderate wide angle on 4x5", a strong wide angle on 5x7", an extreme wide angle on 8x10" (which it barely covers). Very versatile and not very expensive.

Thanks to you as well. I'll revisit the 121mm as well as the 120mm.

Ari

18-Oct-2021, 19:19

Hi Ari. There's a Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6 in my post under "current lenses that cover both 4x5 and 8x10". In 8x10, I don't think that there's enough difference between 240mm and 210mm for me to get a 210.

Hi Rory,
I saw that, and as I have both the 210 and a 250, I thought it somewhat relevant to mention.
You mentioned urban landscape and environmental portraiture, so my mind went naturally to a 210.
One man's wide angle is another man's normal lens. In my case, my 210 is my normal lens.

I have a 210 which is quite compact, it folds into the camera's clamshell and covers 8x10 well enough for me to do most of what I need with it.
When some extra "presence" is needed, out comes the 250. 210 and 250 are not nearly as close as the FLs will have you believe.
They're brothers from different mothers.

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 19:37

Hi Rory,
I saw that, and as I have both the 210 and a 250, I thought it somewhat relevant to mention.
You mentioned urban landscape and environmental portraiture, so my mind went naturally to a 210.
One man's wide angle is another man's normal lens. In my case, my 210 is my normal lens.

I have a 210 which is quite compact, it folds into the camera's clamshell and covers 8x10 well enough for me to do most of what I need with it.
When some extra "presence" is needed, out comes the 250. 210 and 250 are not nearly as close as the FLs will have you believe.
They're brothers from different mothers.

Which 210mm do you have? What do you use as normal in 35mm? 28mm?

I've never used a Leica Q with its fixed 28mm lens, but a lot of people apparently love it.

Ari

18-Oct-2021, 20:26

It's very much a matter of one's preference. On FF digital, I like 24mm lenses. When I had a Contax G, the 21mm was my go-to.
My 210 is a Rodenstock Ysarex. Sharp and contrasty enough, and allows for some movement on 8x10.
Essentially, a slightly smaller version of the Fujinon-W 210 in a Compound shutter.
This is with about 1.5 inches of front rise:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217136073_01022c1595_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2m2Tdbe)

I should have moved in a bit closer, but it was the first shot of spring, a relatively new lens, and I was pretty excited.

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 20:32

It's very much a matter of one's preference. On FF digital, I like 24mm lenses. When I had a Contax G, the 21mm was my go-to.
My 210 is a Rodenstock Ysarex. Sharp and contrasty enough, and allows for some movement on 8x10.

I looked at your website a short while ago. Your lens choices really fit. Very nice work. The fact that I know several of the locations made it fun, too.

Mark Sampson

18-Oct-2021, 21:33

As I understand it, Schneider re-designated their 121/8 Super-Angulon as a 120/8 when that lens became multi-coated in the 1970s. Of course I may have read that on this forum, or another, and I can't back up the assertion.
For your purposes, though, one millimeter more or less shouldn't make any difference.
I will admit that I've owned and used a 1957 121/8 SA since the mid-'90s, and it's a fine lens on 4x5. When I had an 8x10 camera, I never thought of a picture that required such a wide view, so never tried the 121 on 8x10.
However, on the job we had a 165/8 SA, and I used it a few times on an 8x10 camera when an assignment called for it. Also a very good lens, if very large and heavy. However, that wasn't really an issue for the industrial and studio work we did.

r.e.

18-Oct-2021, 21:50

r.e.

19-Oct-2021, 05:21

The idea of using a lens of about 120mm on 8x10 doesn't appeal to me either. I'd use one as a 4x5 lens.

In post #1, I said that I may also want to use the 4x10 format. Unsurprisingly, Kerry Thalmann says in a 2004 thread called Which Lenses Would You Have for 4x10 and Why? (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?11661-Which-lenses-would-do-you-have-for-4X10-and-why) that a 110mm/120mm lens has the same look in 4x10 as in 8x10. Looking at threads on 4x10, it appears that even owners of those focal lengths use them for 4x10 very sparingly, if at all.

For me, what this comes down to is that I don't regard coverage of 8x10 or 4x10 as a consideration when it comes to choosing a lens in the 110mm to 120mm range, including the following lenses on my shortlist chart in post #1:

110mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL f5.6
115mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f6.8
120mm Schneider Super-Symmar HM f5.6
120mm Nikon Nikkor SW f8

There are a lot of posts on the forum that point out that three of those lenses cover, or sort of cover, 8x10. Some, with different taste than than me, may see it differently, but my reaction is So what? It just isn't a reason for me to choose one of those lenses over another. I'm more interested in price, maximum aperture, range of movement for 4x5, filter size, centre filter requirement and, although secondary for me, weight.

Thalmann was responding to another post. See the second last paragraph:

As everybody knows 4x10 needs at least 273.56 mm.

The actual image diagonal is a little bit less. It will vary slightly depending on which holders you're using, but should be somewhere in the 266 - 267mm range.

I have my eye for Nikkor 120 SW lens. It is 105 Deg, filter size 77mm, circle coverage 310 mm - little movement possible. No center filter needed. Price is very acceptable.

The 120mm Nikkor SW is a great lens and offers the most coverage of the modern wide angles in this focal length range. But, why don't you think a center filter will be necessary? I think the Nikkor SW series are some of the truly great wide angles ever made, but they have to obey the same laws of physics as lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock and Fuji. The fall-off will be comparable to other brands of similar focal length and design. For most standard (non wide angle) large format lenses, illumination closely follows the theoretical ideal cos^4 function. Most modern wide angles (Nikkor SW, Grandagon-N, Super Angulon, Fujinon SW) use a tilting entrance pupil design that results in less iluumination fall-off. In this case, the fall-off of these lenses closely follows the cos^3 function. I've seen illumnation curves for Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, and the illumination does indeed come fairly close to the theoretical ideals (cos^4 for standard designs and cos^3 for tilting entrance designs). I haven't seen any illumination curves for Nikon or Fujinon lenses, but based on my experience with the 90mm f8 Nikkor SW and the 75mm f4.5 Nikkor SW, I'd say they have not been granted an excemption from following the same laws of physics as everybody else.

I'm not saying you will definitely NEED a center filter with the Nikkor SW. It will depend on several variables (your own personal sensitivity to fall-off, your materials and printing methods, etc.). However, you are no less likely to need a center filter with the 120mm f8 Nikkor SW than comparable lenses from Schneider, Fujinon or Rodenstock. Of course, the Nikkor does have other advantages (coverage, size/weight, cost) over most of the competitors.

You also seem to be confusing the terms angle of view and angle of coverage. 120m will be very wide on 4x10. In fact, it's a focal length I like a lot on 6x12cm and 6x17cm (but then, I'm not a huge ultra wide angle user). On 4x5, something in the 150mm - 165mm range is usually considered "normal". Since you're familiar with the 35mm format... a 150mm lens on 4x10 will have the same angle of view in the vertical direction as a 37mm lens in the 35mm format and the same angle of view in the horizontal direction as a 21mm lens on 35mm. So, you can see even the "normal", for 4x5, 150mm lens becomes quite wide on 4x10. For a 120mm lens, the 35mm equivalents become 30mm vertical and 17mm horizontal - extremely wide.

You also mention you need fast lenses for your work. I'm curous why this is a requirement? Do you plan to shoot handheld? Do you want minimal depth of field? Is it a focusing issue? Also, keep in mind that lens coverage specs are usually given at infinity. If you're shooting substantially closer than infinity, the coverage will be larger, possibly significantly, than the published specs.

Bernice Loui

19-Oct-2021, 10:14

Direct scan from the 8x10 sheet of Agfachrome 100. This image was made about 1991 using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22, E6 process at The New Lab in SF.

This image was re-posted to note the light falloff of the 155mm Grandagon at f22. This is typical of ANY wide angle lens of this variety. Blue sky was used to illustrate how light fall off renders on the combo of view camera wide angle lens on color transparency film. Larger angle of view or shorter lens focal length increases the light fall off. Light fall off is visually a bit more tolerable using color negative or B&W film. It does depend on the scene and how much lens image circle is used.

Will this degree of light fall off in the film image be ok, that depends on the image maker's goal and needs.

While the center filter for the 155mm Grandagon and similar are not common and pricy, far more rare and pricy is the 200mm Grandagon and the matching center filter. Other lenses of this group would be the 165mm f8 Super Angulon, 210mm f8 Super Angulon (think the 165mm SA is big, this 210mm SA is HUGE), 150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL (it is that GOOD, still has light fall off), 210mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL. All these mammoth size view camera lenses demand a camera that can not only support their physical size-weight, a bag bellows is a mostly must to utilize their image circle capability.

One can revert back to vintage 8x10 wide angle lenses such as 6 1/2" f8 wide angle Dagor small produces about 100 degree angle of view at f32 and smaller, Fact is, these vintage wide angle lenses do NOT have the optical performance of modern wide angle lenses... As a group they ALL still have the light fall off problem. There is no escape from this way of Nature. Only way is to accept this way of Nature then apply workable solutions to help (ie: center filter or spinning disc or _).

Given all these facts and more realities of 8x10.. are many of a long list of reasons why 8x10 became history over two decades ago. Replaced by 5x7 _ 13x18cm, far easier to deal with far more choices for wide angle lenses and many more advantages over 8x10.

The 120mm f8 SW Nikkor is near identical to the 120mm f8 Super Angulon (121mm SA is SO similar). This become a pick your fave brand or $ to purchase choice as they are so identical in nearly every way. Image circle wise Nikkor over states their IC, Schneider is more conservative with their IC specs. Regardless they both ~just~ cover 8x10 direct on center @f22 and smaller aperture. Think light fall off is not ok with the 155mm Grandagon on 8x10, both these 120mm f8 wide angles will produce MORE light fall off.

Keep in mind, image circle increases once away from infinity focus. Typically a wide angle lens will be used close_ish to the fore-ground subject which increases the effective image circle. This often helps lots to gain effective IC.

As for how "wide" much a matter of object size balance within the image:
http://annawu.com/blog/2011/09/focal-length-comparison/

This Foto basic is one basic visual so many Fotographers do not fully understand and apply to their image compositions effectively.

These are the optical realities of lenses for 8x10. The lens focal length that fits good for 8x10, about 200mm to about 500mm. More or less becomes problematic in unpleasant ways. Again, it all goes back to image goals.

Bernice

On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?

I included Rodenstock's E105/127 Centre Filter for this lens in the Chart attached to post #1. Haven't checked yet to see what it costs, assuming that I can even find one. According to the forum's lens comparison chart, street price was US$1,040.

Ari

19-Oct-2021, 10:41

I looked at your website a short while ago. Your lens choices really fit. Very nice work. The fact that I know several of the locations made it fun, too.

Thanks, Rory. Very kind of you to say.
Early on, I used a wide/normal for portraits, and I now stick with normal lenses for portraits.
I had a few 360mm lenses for 8x10 and honestly, I couldn't make it work for me. But now I know.

So try out a bunch of lenses.
Someone mentioned the 190 Wide Field Ektar. That'll work on both formats, as will an older Fuji 180-W.
There's also the Wollensak Wide Field Raptar 210.

r.e.

19-Oct-2021, 13:51

Update...

I've narrowed down the 4x5 wide-angle option (90mm to 120mm) to Schneider's f/5.6 110mm Super-Symmar XL.

I have Rodenstock's f/4.5 75mm Grandagon-N and have decided that a 90mm is not a priority.

That leaves the 110mm to 120mm options.

As far as I can see, the only argument against Schneider's 110mm is that it costs more than the other options. However, in my case the difference may not be very significant.

Context... I use both colour and black and white film. Neither is cheap, but colour is particularly expensive. I'm working on a project where the right approach is that I have one chance to make the photograph. In addition, I have a strong preference for getting the shot right in the camera rather than fixing it later. Everything about the XL 110mm, from maximum aperture to range of movement to the fact that I already have a centre filter for it, is conducive to making my life easier.

I use Rodenstock's E67/86 centre filter for the 75mm, but it will work also with Schneider's 110mm. In addition, I have a good range of screw-in and Lee100 filters that will work with the centre filter's 86mm front thread.

I know that some people feel that a centre filter isn't needed for lenses in this range. For the purpose of this decision, I prefer to assume that I'll find one useful. My current centre filter will not work with the other options, including the 120mm and 121mm Super-Angulons pointed to in earlier posts. An additional centre filter would cost several hundred dollars used. Depending on which centre filter I purchased, the front thread would be either 105mm or 112mm. Look at the price of a 105mm/112mm screw-in polariser, or of a square polariser, even linear, that's 125mmx125mm (5"x5") or 150mmx150mm (6"x6"). On the latter, one has to either handhold it or also purchase a mount. Plus carry around this lens-specific gear.

There's a point where the cost of Schneider's 110mm doesn't look so bad. That said, there are people offering this lens for more than it cost new. I may have a wait :)

Next step is to narrow down the 8x10 options.

Michael R

19-Oct-2021, 15:01

All I can say is I love the 110 xl. I use it more than I thought I would.

Update...

I've narrowed down the 4x5 wide-angle option (90mm to 120mm) to Schneider's f/5.6 110mm Super-Symmar XL.

I have Rodenstock's f/4.5 75mm Grandagon-N and have decided that a 90mm is not a priority.

That leaves the 110mm to 120mm options.

As far as I can see, the only argument against Schneider's 110mm is that it costs more than the other options. However, in my case the difference may not be very significant.

Context... I use both colour and black and white film. Neither is cheap, but colour is particularly expensive. I'm working on a project where the right approach is that I have one chance to make the photograph. In addition, I have a strong preference for getting the shot right in the camera rather than fixing it later. Everything about the XL 110mm, from maximum aperture to range of movement to the fact that I already have a centre filter for it, is conducive to making my life easier.

I use Rodenstock's E67/86 centre filter for the 75mm, but it will work also with Schneider's 110mm. Also, I have a good range of screw-in and Lee100 filters that will work with the centre filter's 86mm front thread.

I know that some people feel that a centre filter isn't needed for lenses in the range. For the purpose of this decision, I prefer to assume that I'll need one. My current centre filter will not work with the other options, including the 120mm and 121mm Super-Angulons pointed to in earlier posts. An additional centre filter would cost several hundred dollars used. Depending on which centre filter I purchased, the front thread would be either 105mm or 112mm. Look at the price of a 105mm/112mm screw-in polariser, or of a square polariser, even linear, that's 125mmx125mm (5"x5") or 150mmx150mm (6"x6"). On the latter, one has to either handhold it or also purchase a mount. Plus carry around this lens-specific gear.

There's a point where the cost of Schneider's 110mm doesn't look so bad. That said, there are people offering this lens for more than it cost new. I may have a wait :)

Next step is to narrow down the 8x10 options.

angusparker

19-Oct-2021, 15:10

All I can say is I love the 110 xl. I use it more than I thought I would.

It is a wonderful lens.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Bernice Loui

19-Oct-2021, 17:31

Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, good lens got one of the first handful (one year paid pre-order) that was hand carried by Robert Kipling (technical guy at Schneider) back to to the US from Germany. Schneider had a devil of a time trying to produce the aspheric element for this lens. The first hand full had individually made by their proto folks from optical glass. Later production, this aspheric element was not made the same way. This was circa late 1990's.

Yes, that was me who got Kerry T to venture into "Future Classics" on his web page:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

It is a very good lens, does NOT cover 8x10 properly regardless of what folks claim (tried, corners direct on for 8x10 was poor performance), has the same if not worst light fall off as other LF wide angle lenses. Very snappy, very contrasty, more than sharp enough.. burned piles of color transparency film with this lens back in the day. Never disappointed. Yet, the 110mm f5.6 SSXL does not get used much any more. It has been replaced by a 115mm f6.8 Grandagon in the 5x7 Sinar Norma kit. Prime advantage of the 110mm SSXL, size, lower weight with good optical performance. Be careful with the front element as it sits very close to the filter once the filter is seated. Some filters might NOT clear the front element.

These days, only B&W images. No more color any sheet film.

There has been discussion of some lens element problems with a few 110mm f5.6 SSXLs in the past. Check this out.
This lens and others were designed by a gal at Schneider (name escapes me ATM).

Bernice

r.e.

19-Oct-2021, 18:13

Yet, the 110mm f5.6 SSXL does not get used much any more. It has been replaced by a 115mm f6.8 Grandagon in the 5x7 Sinar Norma kit. Prime advantage of the 110mm SSXL, size, lower weight with good optical performance. Be careful with the front element as it sits very close to the filter once the filter is seated. Some filters might NOT clear the front element.

I had the f/6.8 115mm Grandagon on my short list (Chart, post #1). The problem, if I wanted to use a centre filter with it, is that I'd have to purchase Rodenstock's E82 in addition to the E67 that I already have. Plus the E82 front thread is 112mm, and the front thread on the Heliopan and Schneider alternative centre filters is 105mm. I'm not set up for those diameters. As you know, screw-in filters for them, and square filters large enough to cover them, are expensive. Not a financially attractive proposition.

Bob Salomon says that Rodenstock's E67 centre filter should not interfere with the Schneider XL 110mm front element. I wouldn't mount 67mm filters directly to the lens. If I wasn't using the centre filter, I'd use either a step-up ring to a round filter or Lee's 67mm Wide Angle Adapter Ring to a Lee100 Filter Holder and square filter.

I read your post #21 on 8x10 wide angle lenses. Very helpful, but sobering :)

Peter De Smidt

19-Oct-2021, 18:22

The Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL is my favorite lens of all the lenses I've owned. Alas, I had to sell it at one point.

Jody_S

19-Oct-2021, 18:34

I went through a similar deliberation recently, but without your budget, and for me weight is a greater consideration than aperture. I settled on the Nikon 120 as an ultra-wide, a G-Claron 210 (Dagor-type) as a moderate wide, and I still have a Radar Anastigmat and a Wolly Ser III to complete the vintage ultra-wide experiment. I've already rejected the Protar V and the Metrogon is too heavy and unwieldy. I don't have the budget for the Super Symmars or anything in that range, even if I was prepared to carry the weight. And of course I have the Fujinon-W 210/5.6 and 250/6.7s for when I want closer to 'normal', though I'm leaving the Fujinon 210 at home in favor of the G-Claron because the latter is a much better lens for my purposes, and tiny.

But dealing with older and budget lenses, condition of the copy I happen to come across is probably more a factor in my choices than the merits of any particular lens design or manufacturer. My Fujinon 210 has never given me a good image. My first 210 G-Claron was the best 8x10 lens I ever owned, I don't know why I sold it. I understand why you want the most recent lens possible, in condition as close to new as possible. If I had a budget and a project at hand, I would do the same.

Drew Wiley

19-Oct-2021, 18:48

It's interesting how many of Kerry's "Future Classic" lenses I went for myself, prior to even knowing about his own list. But I neither need nor can afford them all.

Bernice Loui

19-Oct-2021, 19:16

Don't get this as a negative in any way about the 110mm SSXL, this lens and the 150mm SSXL (absolute winner of a wide angle lens, same as the 110mm SSXL) and 72mm SAXL will never be sold long as I'm doing LF sheet film. All three of these Schneider lenses were purchased new. All three are excellent and fit in their speciality need.

Regardless of what folks say about the 110mm SSXL, it can and does benefit from a center filter. Oh, has mostly neutral color balance too. Tested this lots.

IMO, the 110mm SSXL makes a LOT of sense with your current lens kit. Filter step ring (67mm to 72mm) helps move the filter seating area forward to help clear the 110mm SSXL front element.

Bernice

r.e.

19-Oct-2021, 20:08

IMO, the 110mm SSXL makes a LOT of sense with your current lens kit.

I think so. It would wind up looking like this:

4x5:
75mm f/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon-N
110mm f/5.6 Schneider Super-Symmar XL
150mm f/5.6 Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N
210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic

4x5 & 8x10:
240mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor W
360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W
600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C

Specialty:
120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)
210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)
10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)

I'll sort out the 8x10 wide option in the next day or two, but it's going to be either/or, at least for the time being.

This thread is very helpful.

neil poulsen

20-Oct-2021, 05:51

A good 210 for 8x10 is indispensable, but expensive.
A decent option is the older Fuji W-210.

Exactly! This reality shapes how I approach both 4x5 and 8x10 photography . . .

My comfort level is overwhelmingly towards 4x5 photography. But, I do like having 8x10 capability, and years ago, I was even lucky enough to pick up a Zone Six Type II enlarger with 8x10 capability. So, my approach is to photograph primarily in 4x5, and to photograph in 8x10 only those compositions that are "well suited" towards that format.

I have a wide selection of optics for 4x5, so I can photograph from very wide to rather long. And, I like having this capability. But, to have a similar capability in 8x10 is cost prohibitive. Imagine the layout in $'s needed to purchase super wides in 150mm, 165mm, and 210mm focal lengths. Jeepers! And a few months ago, someone commented that he's never been able to achieve in 8x10 an image that had sharp focus at infinity and also in the foreground. (Not to mention all the other complications that are inherent in 8x10 photography. As I say, these considerations cause me to cherry-pick what I photograph in 8x10. I have a nice example of the venerable Fujinon 250mm f6.7 lens. But, that's as wide as I need to go in 8x10.

I'm also an Arca Swiss user, and over time, I put together a nice 8x10 Arca Swiss camera that had the capability of photographing from very wide to rather long. But, I recently sold that camera. Instead, I use an old Bender kit 8x10 that was practically free. It came with a lens that I later sold for a price that exceeded the purchase price of both the camera and the lens.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?162241-Bender-8x10-Project-Camera

After some customizations that I made to this camera, it meets all my needs. It's both capable and reasonable in cost.

r.e.

20-Oct-2021, 07:33

Turning to 8x10 wide, I've made a version of the Chart from post #1 that contains just the 8x10 options (attached below). I haven't included the Nikkor SW and Schneider XL 120mm lenses. Leaving aside the coverage issue, for my taste 120mm is too wide for 8x10 and 4x10. The lenses are:

150mm Nikon Nikkor SW f8
150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL f5.6
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f6.8
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon f8

Some of the posts above make interesting, and cost saving, suggestions for older lenses. I haven't included these because I still have some learning to do about them.

Note the Schneider Center Filter V (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/469353-REG/Schneider_08_010592_110_mm_5_Center.html) for the 165mm Super-Angulon and the Rodenstock E105/127 Center Filter for the Grandagon-N 155mm. These centre filters appear to be unique to these lenses. The link for the Schneider centre filter is to an old B&H page.

Notes to the Chart's Column Headings:

Lens Street Price New: As noted in post #1, I've taken the street prices for lenses from this forum's lens comparison charts. I see those prices as a very rough guide. I'm aware of one instance where the price in the comparison charts is significantly higher than the actual street price.

Centre Filter Street Price New: I've added this column because there are significant price differences for the centre filters for these four lenses. These prices are also from the lens comparison charts.

Chart for 8x10 Wide Lenses:

220542

Ari

20-Oct-2021, 08:23

I have the 150XL and can vouch for its excellence. Noticeable light falloff at the corners, but I don't care.
Some friends who shoot transparencies for reproduction, and are thus more demanding/critical than I am, prefer the Grandagon.
Not only for the improved corners, but for the higher color fidelity.
That's, like, just their opinion, man.

Bernice Loui

20-Oct-2021, 10:55

The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic is a classic Tessar formula lens, will be difficult to find unless one has been found. Most available as of now would be the
210mm f4.5 Fujinar like this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/403220466169?hash=item5de1d009f9:g:JFUAAOSwzMhhYibF

f4.5 Tessars were common post WW-II up to the early 70's when the LF world began to transition to the f5.6 Plasmat.
Single coated Tessar is GOOD. They were made by Kodak as Ektar, Schneider as Xenar (last production lenses are multi-coated), Fujinar/Fujinon L, Rodenstock Ysaron, Boyer Saphir and others. Prime difficulty will be shutters due to age and lack of maintenance and service. Of all the tessar formula lenses from that era, Kodak Ektar remains the absolute Fave with Schneider Xenar second. Sinar camera and Sinar shutter allows using virtually any lens in barrel and ignores problems with old shutters long as their shutter blades can be held in "T".. and older lenses in barrel have nice round iris which aids lots in out of focus rendition.

Previous discussion:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?163239-Suggest-a-12-quot-(300mm)-lens-for-portrait-work-on-8x10

The 360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W is HUGE! Big image circle, modern plasmat contrasty look, designed to good at f22, pretty much the standard 8x10 lens with the other 360mm modern plasmats. There are smaller alternatives and lenses with different rendition if desired as 360mm / 14" is a common LF lens focal length for 8x10.

600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C, now pricy and IMO over rated with very specific limitations. This with the Fujinon A series have become Internet LF lens "gotta have" lenses.

~120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)~
~210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)~

As a pair, suggest APO process lenses (APO ronar, APO artar, APO nikkor and etc) instead. Been there done this. LF "macro" specific lenses do not have any advantage over APO process lenses and in many ways, the APO process lenses offer better optical performance. LF macro lenses are typically designed for repro ratios of 3:1 or 1:3 _ish. While the APO process lens is excellent from infinity to 1:1 with insignificant reduction in optical performance. Once past the 1:1 reproduction ratio, reverse mounted enlarging lenses are a better choice then LF "macro" lenses.

~10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)~

World of Sorta Focus lenses is a universe to it's own.. topic all to it's own.

Bernice

I think so. It would wind up looking like this:

4x5:
210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic

4x5 & 8x10:
360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W
600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C

Specialty:
120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)
210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)
10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)

I'll sort out the 8x10 wide option in the next day or two, but it's going to be either/or, at least for the time being.

This thread is very helpful.

Bernice Loui

20-Oct-2021, 11:05

Second on the Schneider 150mm f5.6 SSXL. It IS that good. Light fall off remains an issue. Having owned both the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon and 150mm f5.6 SSXL at the same time for a brief amount of time to allow a comparison, the 150mm SSXL became the choice keeper.

150mm f5.6 SSXL compared to the 165mm f8 Super Angulon, physical size and weight difference between the two must be considered. Full aperture of f5.6 can help in focusing.

150mm f8 SW nikkor is similar to the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon with slight higher contrast and slightly dimmer to focus due to f8. Been there tried the 150mm f8 SW nikkor, stuck with the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon. This was near three decades ago.

Bernice

r.e.

20-Oct-2021, 11:45

I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses listed in post #34, but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive, and might overcome the reservations that I talk about below.

If I'm going to purchase one of these 8x10 wide angle lenses, I want to have a centre filter for it. I base that on what I see as the workflow and image requirements of my principal use for the lens. Bernice (post #2, #21 and #37) and Arri (post #35) have talked about light falloff for the 150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL and 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N. Bernice's comments suggest that it's also an issue for the 150mm Nikkor SW and 165mm Schneider Super-Angulon.

New, a centre filter for the two 150mm lenses, at about US$430, cost less than half the centre filters for the 155mm and 165mm lenses (Chart, post #34). My assumption is that that will be reflected in used prices.

Then there's the cost of regular filters. For me, I see a polariser as essential for dealing with reflections. I also use solid neutral density filters and occasionally graduated neutral density filters. I'm able to use my current filters for diameters up to 100mm. After that, I'm in for some shopping.

This shows where the shopping kicks in...

Filter requirements of the two 150mm lenses: 95mm (112mm with a centre filter)
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N: 105mm (127mm with a centre filter)
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon: 110mm (125mm with a centre filter)

To limit financial damage, I'd purchase a coated polariser and forego neutral density. New, screw-in polarisers are only available up to 112mm, about US$270 new, don't know the used price. The other option is 150mmx150mm (6"x6") square or larger, which I suspect would cost at least as much new. Square means handholding or the purchase of a mount. Lucky break would be a used linear polariser. The market appears to have decided that these are almost worthless.

Finally, depending on lens movement requirements, there's the cost of an 8x10 bag bellows to take into account.

I have not forgotten about the older lenses discussed in some of the posts above. I just haven't finished learning about them.

If it was still around, I'd be paying a visit to a New York store called Lens and Repro about now :)

Bob Salomon

20-Oct-2021, 12:58

I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses listed in post #34, but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive, and might overcome the reservations that I talk about below.

If I'm going to purchase one of these 8x10 wide angle lenses, I want to have a centre filter for it. I base that on what I see as the workflow and image requirements of my principal use for the lens. Bernice (post #2, #21 and #37) and Arri (post #35) have talked about light falloff for the 150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL and 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N. Bernice's comments suggest that it's also an issue for the 150mm Nikkor SW and 165mm Schneider Super-Angulon.

New, a centre filter for the two 150mm lenses, at about US$430, cost less than half the centre filters for the 155mm and 165mm lenses (Chart, post #34). My assumption is that that will be reflected in used prices.

Then there's the cost of regular filters. For me, I see a polariser as essential for dealing with reflections. I also use solid neutral density filters and occasionally graduated neutral density filters. I'm able to use my current filters for diameters up to 100mm. After that, I'm in for some shopping.

This shows where the shopping kicks in...

Filter requirements of the two 150mm lenses: 95mm (112mm with a centre filter)
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N: 105mm (127mm with a centre filter)
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon: 110mm (125mm with a centre filter)

To limit financial damage, I'd purchase a coated polariser and forego neutral density. New, screw-in polarisers are only available up to 112mm, about US$270 new, don't know the used price. The other option is 150mmx150mm (6"x6") square or larger, which I suspect would cost at least as much new. Square means handholding or the purchase of a mount. Lucky break would be a used linear polariser. The market appears to have decided that these are almost worthless.

I have not forgotten about the older lenses discussed in some of the posts above. I just haven't finished learning about them.

If it was still around, I'd be paying a visit to a New York store called Lens and Repro about now :)

Be aware, areas of the sky are naturally polarized, other areas are not. If you use a polarizer with an extreme wide angle lens and capture wide areas of sky you will end up with darker and lighter streaks in the sky.

r.e.

20-Oct-2021, 13:10

Be aware, areas of the sky are naturally polarized, other areas are not. If you use a polarizer with an extreme wide angle lens and capture wide areas of sky you will end up with darker and lighter streaks in the sky.

Thanks Bob. That's why I said that I'd be using the polariser to control reflections. Many years ago I used a 35mm camera, 24mm lens and a polariser at Wadi Rum (Valley of the Moon) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Rum). Several of my photographs included a fair amount of sky. My images didn't look at all like Freddie Young's in Lawrence of Arabia. I learnt my lesson :)

r.e.

20-Oct-2021, 13:11

The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic is a classic Tessar formula lens, will be difficult to find unless one has been found...

Hi Bernice,

Thanks for your comments on some of my current lenses (post #32 and #36).

The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic isn't a 1970s or older Tessar. It was made in the 1990s and is in a Copal shutter. @Arne Croell wrote an excellent article about Docter Optic lenses called Large Format Lenses from Docter Optic 1991-1996 (https://www.arnecroell.com/docter.pdf). I got the lens from Kerry Thalmann, who was selling a number of new old stock Docter lenses.

I purchased the Nikkor macro lenses from B&H when Nikon was exiting the large format lens market. As you know, macro lenses versus standard and process lenses has been debated in many threads. The Nikons meet my needs.

The Fujinon C 600mm is just the ticket if you're in Brooklyn or Queens and want to photograph Manhattan across the East River.

r.e.

21-Oct-2021, 08:48

I've now had a look at older lenses in the range of 150mm to 180mm that will cover 8x10. These lenses fall into two categories.

First, there are lenses that cost more than a used modern lens would cost. I assume that the market is collectors and photographers who want a specific look. I don't see myself as a buyer of one of these lenses.

Secondly, there are lenses that cost less, perhaps quite a bit less, than a used modern lens. However, this is not the whole story on cost. These were workhorse lenses, and my working assumption is that I'll have to hire someone to clean, lubricate and adjust the lens and shutter and, if necessary, replace parts. I'm reluctant to purchase one of these lenses sight unseen, but in New York a vendor like Lens and Repro no longer exists. There may be a significant investment of time to identify a lens that I'm prepared to buy. The lens is likely to just cover 8x10 with little room, if any, for movements. I'd have to use the lens for one-off photographs because the "look" of the image will be different from my modern lenses. That doesn't work for my current project.

I've decided that I won't be adding one of these lenses to the 8x10 shortlist and chart in post #34.

Bob Salomon

21-Oct-2021, 09:01

r.e.

21-Oct-2021, 10:12

Have you tried Foto Care?

Hi Bob. Thanks for the suggestion. Having just spoken with Foto Care, I'll be visiting them early next week.

Almost everybody here will know B&H and Adorama. Much less well-known is Foto Care (https://www.fotocare.com). It's a New York camera store and rental house that's been in business for over 50 years and has a first-rate reputation. Think of a well-known New York photographer, and the odds are that they're a Foto Care customer.

I'd already been looking at Foto Care's rental inventory with a view to trying out one or more of the lenses on my shortlist. They offer the Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm, but not the 8x10 wide-angles.

Prompted by Bob's post, I phoned and asked whether they're still selling used large format lenses. I doubted it. Large format lenses, except in the rental side of the business, aren't even mentioned on Foto Care's website. I was wrong. They have two of the 8x10 lenses on hand. Odds are, they can get the Schneider 110mm in a reasonable time.

As a Foto Care customer over the years, including for a couple of used Leica lenses, I'm not expecting low prices. They may want more than I want to pay, but price isn't everything.

Andrew O'Neill

21-Oct-2021, 10:24

The widest lens I have for 4x5 is 90mm. For 8x10, I use Nikkor SW 120, W210, W240. I tend to use more wide lenses with 8x10, than I do with 4x5.

Bernice Loui

21-Oct-2021, 11:23

Got this, thanks for sharing.

Bernice

Hi Bernice,

Thanks for your comments on some of my current lenses (post #32 and #36).

The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic isn't a 1970s or older Tessar. It was made in the 1990s and is in a Copal shutter. @Arne Croell wrote an excellent article about Docter Optic lenses called Large Format Lenses from Docter Optic 1991-1996 (https://www.arnecroell.com/docter.pdf). I got the lens from Kerry Thalmann, who was selling a number of new old stock Docter lenses.

I purchased the Nikkor macro lenses from B&H when Nikon was exiting the large format lens market. As you know, macro lenses versus standard and process lenses has been debated in many threads. The Nikons meet my needs.

The Fujinon C 600mm is just the ticket if you're in Brooklyn or Queens and want to photograph Manhattan across the East River.

Bernice Loui

21-Oct-2021, 11:31

IMO, very short list for ~150mm lens for 8x10 would be the 150mm f5.6 SSXL. They have now become pricy and in demand likely due to the current fashion of 8x10 sheet film.

Notable, back when Schneider first announced the pre-order for the Super Symmar XL series, $ difference between the 110mm -vs- 150mm was about $300. Add to this Schneider had a trade in your "old" lens for a 20% discount of a new lens. This was also applied when the 72mm SAXL, 110mm SSXL and 150mm SSXL was purchased. No regrets for that purchase to this day as all three has served far better than ever expected.

Do use a 165mm f6.8 Angulon in barrel as an easy to carry around moderate wide for the 5x7 Norma. Optical performance is tolerable and ok enough. IMO, give the option of a single wide angle, pick the 150mm f5.6 SSXL if possible.. It is THAT good.

Bernice

I've now had a look at older lenses in the range of 150mm to 180mm that will cover 8x10. These lenses fall into two categories.

First, there are lenses that cost more than a used modern lens would cost. I assume that the market is collectors and photographers who want a specific look. I don't see myself as a buyer of one of these lenses.

Secondly, there are lenses that cost less, perhaps quite a bit less, than a used modern lens. However, this is not the whole story on cost. These were workhorse lenses, and my working assumption is that I'll have to hire someone to clean, lubricate and adjust the lens and shutter and, if necessary, replace parts. I'm reluctant to purchase one of these lenses sight unseen, but in New York a vendor like Lens and Repro no longer exists. There may be a significant investment of time to identify a lens that I'm prepared to buy. The lens is likely to just cover 8x10 with little room, if any, for movements. I'd have to use the lens for one-off photographs because the "look" of the image will be different from my modern lenses. That doesn't work for my current project.

I've decided that I won't be adding one of these lenses to the 8x10 shortlist and chart in post #34.

r.e.

21-Oct-2021, 15:06

This is my final shortlist. As noted earlier, this is either 4x5 or 8x10, not both, at least for now.

4x5

Schneider Super-Symmar XL f/5.6 110mm

8x10/4x10

For 8x10, I'm listing the lenses in order of preference rather than eliminating lenses from consideration. The preferences take into account the factors discussed in post #38. To quote from that post: "I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses ..., but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive..."

150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL f/5.6
150mm Nikon Nikkor SW f/8
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/6.8
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon f/8

Thanks for all the comments. They helped a lot with sorting through the options.

EDIT: I've attached a new version of my Chart, limited to these lenses, in post #52 below.

Peter De Smidt

21-Oct-2021, 15:27

That's a great list.

Tin Can

21-Oct-2021, 15:27

I like my Nikkor 120 for 8X10

Very good in studio

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36877-GREY/Nikon_1346_Wide_Angle_120mm_f_8.html

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2021, 15:32

Well, hardly a wide angle candidate, but since it somehow came up, the Fuji 600 C can do excellent things with 8x10 film. Good optics and excellent color correction, and "C" standing for compact makes it practical to tote around. No, it's not an apo superstar like my 760 Apo Nikkor; but that thing is a cumbersome draft horse.

r.e.

21-Oct-2021, 15:50

Further to post #48, I'm attaching a new version of the Chart with only the shortlisted lenses; that is, the Schneider XL 110mm for 4x5, and the four 8x10 lenses in order of preference.

Notes to the Chart's Column Headings:

Lens Street Price New: As noted in post #1, I've taken the street prices for lenses from this forum's lens comparison charts. I see those prices as a very rough guide. I'm aware of one instance where the price in the comparison charts is significantly higher than the actual street price.

Centre Filter Street Price New: Note that there are significant price differences for the centre filters for the 8x10 lenses. These prices are also from the lens comparison charts.

220631

unityofsaints

22-Oct-2021, 01:16

A little outside your range but a Fujinon 180mm "inside lettering" will cover 8x10" nicely and is a great focal length in both formats in my opinion.

r.e.

22-Oct-2021, 05:51

I like my Nikkor 120 for 8X10

Very good in studio

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36877-GREY/Nikon_1346_Wide_Angle_120mm_f_8.html

Thanks. For my taste, 120mm is too wide for 8x10. See posts #19 and #20.

A little outside your range but a Fujinon 180mm "inside lettering" will cover 8x10" nicely and is a great focal length in both formats in my opinion.

Thanks, this lens was mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't need a 180mm lens for 4x5, and 180mm is longer than I want for 8x10. The Schneider Super-Angulon, at 165mm, is at the outer limit of my 8x10 shortlist (posts #48 and #52).

That said, the Fujinon lens is quite a bit less expensive than the lenses on my list. However, it raises some of the issues discussed in post #42. For me, I think that purchasing this lens for 8x10 would lead to impatience, and very limited use, if any, or replacement.

Some details on this lens for readers down the road...

Fujinon W f/5.6 180mm, lens description inside rather than outside the lens rim:

Lens: single coated, made before 1979
Shutter, depending on copy: Copal S, Seiko, Copal 1
Angle of coverage: 80°
Image circle @ f/22: 305mm (just covers 8x10, no movements)
Filter thread: 58mm

As I understand it, Fujinon W f/5.6 180mm lenses made in 1979 or later have the lens description outside the rim, are multi-coated and have a smaller image circle that doesn't cover 8x10.

The foregoing information comes from various internet sources and should be confirmed by anyone interested in this lens.

Bernice Loui

22-Oct-2021, 10:39

Image circle of 312mm is needed for 8x10, image circle of 305mm is a tad small.

Much depends on how the 8x10 film image is used. For contact prints, lens performance is not demanding if at all. This is why pressing the lens beyond it's designed image circle can be ok. If the 8x10 film image is projection enlarged 10x, lens/camera/8x10 image making system performance Will be significant.

This Fujinon page was previously posted noting that generation of Fujinon Plasmats offered 80 degree angle of view at f22.
220604

Bernice

Fujinon W f/5.6 180mm, lens description inside rather than outside the lens rim:

Lens: single coated, made before 1979
Shutter, depending on copy: Copal S, Seiko, Copal 1
Angle of coverage: 80°
Image circle @ f/22: 305mm (just covers 8x10, no movements)
Filter thread: 58mm

As I understand it, Fujinon W f/5.6 180mm lenses made in 1979 or later have the lens description outside the rim, are multi-coated and have a smaller image circle that doesn't cover 8x10.

The foregoing information comes from various internet sources and should be confirmed by anyone interested in this lens.

Oslolens

22-Oct-2021, 11:04

Fujinon W f/5.6 180mm, lens description inside rather than outside the lens rim:

Lens: single coated, made before 1979
Shutter, depending on copy: Copal S, Seiko, Copal 1
Angle of coverage: 80°
Image circle @ f/22: 305mm (just covers 8x10, no movements)
Filter thread: 58mm

As I understand it, Fujinon W f/5.6 180mm lenses made in 1979 or later have the lens description outside the rim, are multi-coated and have a smaller image circle that doesn't cover 8x10.

.

The Fujinon-W 180mm might have light in the corners, but at 1:10 to infinity there is missing an inch of sharpness in the corners.
I sold both of my Fujinon-W 180mm with text on the inner ring due to this.
One of them was lent out to a photographer to document a wall painting before it was gone.
He had his reasons not use a 150mm Nikkor-SW offered from a friend.
But the Fujinon was not sharp and the 8x10" Provia lacked in all corners.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

Bernice Loui

22-Oct-2021, 11:23

Thanks for sharing this. Not surprised, there remains a marketing advantage to over sell lens image circle as this remains one of the deciding factors for many LF folks. For some loss of optical performance at the lens image circle edges is more than acceptable, for some never acceptable.

This is the reality of lens and optics as the sheet film sizes goes up. Seems these days as more and more view camera folks endeavor into contact printing using alternative image making processes, rendering lens performance less a factor.

All goes back to image goals that drive lens choice and what camera/system is required to support these needs.

Bernice

The Fujinon-W 180mm might have light in the corners, but at 1:10 to infinity there is missing an inch of sharpness in the corners.
I sold both of my Fujinon-W 180mm with text on the inner ring due to this.
One of them was lent out to a photographer to document a wall painting before it was gone.
He had his reasons not use a 150mm Nikkor-SW offered from a friend.
But the Fujinon was not sharp and the 8x10" Provia lacked in all corners.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

Mark Sampson

22-Oct-2021, 11:40

Bernice's post above is her constant and thoughtful refrain, which can always bear repeating.
I'd add "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Buy a lens and go make pictures. If, after a few months and some sheets of film, you don't like that lens, then trade it in on another. In the meantime, you'll have made some new photographs... and if they turn out well, no one (except you) will know that the lens didn't meet your specs; they'll just see a good photograph.

Tin Can

22-Oct-2021, 11:51

Agree with all

Most want something, that others may not

I am constantly intentionally vignetting to add Dark Shadows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Shadows)

Michael R

22-Oct-2021, 12:21

If you buy a 110 XL make sure you get one without haze or whatever. Mine is very late production (which may or may not matter although I haven’t had any issues) but some people had problems with the 80 and I think the 110 also. Schneider sort of seemed to acknowledge the issue (circa the early 2000s I think?) but at some point stopped fixing them for people, at least without charging a lot of money. I don’t know if the original issue was addressed in later production.

Drew Wiley

22-Oct-2021, 12:40

The specific serial number span of the early defective 80 and 110 XL's has been published. I don't know the exact link; but it would be important to look up if contemplating buying one of these. I don't know if they were even "fixable" or just replaced. But at a certain point, Schneider simply flaked out.

r.e.

22-Oct-2021, 12:50

... I'd add "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Buy a lens and go make pictures. If, after a few months and some sheets of film, you don't like that lens, then trade it in on another. In the meantime, you'll have made some new photographs... and if they turn out well, no one (except you) will know that the lens didn't meet your specs; they'll just see a good photograph.

You raise a popular perspective that I don't question for some people and some needs, but it's 180° from where I'm at on this.

My approach to purchasing a wide-angle 4x5 or 8x10 lens is more disciplined. That's no doubt apparent from my posts, which some may see as somewhat inflexible. Indeed, it's why I made a conscious effort to avoid starting this as an open-ended "What lens should I buy?" thread.

For me, planning and organisation is half the battle. That attitude comes from making short films, where planning and organisation keep stress and waste, of resources and time, in check, and can make the difference between finishing a film and not. For the stills project that I'm working on over the next year, I want camera gear fully under control so that I can focus on my subject. @Oslolens's post (#56) describes the kind of situation that I don't want to encounter. I also don't want to invest time buying a lens, discover that it won't do what I had hoped, then try to sell it on eBay or wherever (while feeling an obligation to be honest about the deficiency or limitation that I discovered) and then buy a replacement that I hope will work "better".

And from my post #23: "Context... I use both colour and black and white film. Neither is cheap, but colour is particularly expensive. I'm working on a project where the right approach is that I have one chance to make the photograph. In addition, I have a strong preference for getting the shot right in the camera rather than fixing it later. Everything about the XL 110mm, from maximum aperture to range of movement to the fact that I already have a centre filter for it, is conducive to making my life easier."

Thanks for your comments, which provide an opportunity to explain the thinking that's behind my decisions, and my posts in this thread.

Michael R

22-Oct-2021, 12:52

Thanks. I didn’t realize it was narrowed down to a specific span of serial numbers. Someone once told me 15xxxxxxxxx was safe but perhaps the problems were addressed way before that.

Depending on which old thread you read, Schneider variously attributed it to the glass itself, then a coating gap which could allow tiny amounts of humidity in. But yeah it seemed like eventually they just said yup there’s a problem too bad for you.

It would make me nervous buying used, especially on eBay or whatever other scamhole.

The specific serial number span of the early defective 80 and 110 XL's has been published. I don't know the exact link; but it would be important to look up if contemplating buying one of these. I don't know if they were even "fixable" or just replaced. But at a certain point, Schneider simply flaked out.

r.e.

22-Oct-2021, 13:03

Thanks. I didn’t realize it was narrowed down to a specific span of serial numbers. Someone once told me 15xxxxxxxxx was safe but perhaps the problems were addressed way before that.

Depending on which old thread you read, Schneider variously attributed it to the glass itself, then a coating gap which could allow tiny amounts of humidity in. But yeah it seemed like eventually they just said yup there’s a problem too bad for you.

It would make me nervous buying used, especially on eBay or whatever other scamhole.

Thanks very much, something that I really need to know about and will do some research on.

Bernice Loui

22-Oct-2021, 16:33

Problems with the Schneider 110mm f5.6 SSXL has been discussed on LFF years ago.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?15123-Schneider-Super-Symmar-XL-series-haze-and-fog-problems

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?96673-Schneider-lens-defects-800mm-and-110mm-XL

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?94746-110mm-Super-Symma-Hazer%97Schneider-Drops-the-Ball

This is one of the first 5-7 Schneider 110mm f5.6 SSXL brought into the USA when they were introduced, serial# 14624959. Schneider's sn dating comes up with early 1997 which is about the time when this lens was delivered. Zero problems with this specific 110mm f5.6 SSXL to date.
220611

Note how close the front element is relative to where the front filter would be seated.

Bernice

Bernice Loui

22-Oct-2021, 16:37

FYI, Schneider lens size comparison:

150mm f5.6 SSXL -vs- 165mm f8 Super Angulon (barrel for Sinar) -vs- 165mm f6.8 Angulon.
220642

150mm f5.6 SSXL on Sinar P2.
220643

Bernice

r.e.

22-Oct-2021, 17:09

Hi Bernice,

Thanks for the links to threads about the problem with haze with some of the 80mm and 110mm XL lenses. Important to know about that.

Re the clearance issue that you mention below... Bob Salomon says (in this post (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?165777-Using-a-Rodenstock-Centre-Filter-on-a-Schneider-Lens&p=1618617&viewfull=1#post1618617)) that the Rodenstock E67/86 centre filter shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, I would confirm that with the copy of the lens that I purchased. If I wasn't using a centre filter, I assume that a step-up ring would address the clearance issue.

Note how close the front element is relative to where the front filter would be seated.

[Now Fixed]: Your photos just above (post #66) aren't showing as thumbnails, and the links aren't working.

Torontoamateur

23-Oct-2021, 03:07

r.e.

23-Oct-2021, 06:10

My Nikkor 120mm and Grandagon 155mm do a fantastic job on my 8x10, No movement with the Nikkor 120mm , bu twhen that wide , who really needs movement? The Grandagon 155MM is a perfect lens. You must get one!!!! You will never be without one when you start using the Grandagon 155MM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello Toronto (my home town),

The Grandagon 155mm is on my shortlist. See the Chart attached to post #52. As explained in posts #19 and #20, I've decided that I don't want to go wider than 150mm for 8x10 (in 35mm terms, using the forum's lens comparison chart, about 21mm).

arthur berger

23-Oct-2021, 08:13

I just checked my 110 xl lens which I purchased new From Badger, I can’t remember when, however the serial number indicates that it was made between 1998 and 1999. It looks good and is my wide lens for 5x7. When I bought it I was concerned about filters touching the front element, so I had SK Grimes make a very thin 67mm to 67 mm ring that I have always kept on the lens as a spacer.

r.e.

23-Oct-2021, 10:20

Bernice Loui

23-Oct-2021, 11:13

Fixed.

Bernice

Hi Bernice,
Your photos just above (post #66) aren't showing as thumbnails, and the links aren't working.

Bernice Loui

23-Oct-2021, 11:15

67mm filter space can be made using an old style 67mm filter that uses a threaded retainer. Unscrew the threaded filter retainer ring does it.

Bernice

Do you recall, roughly, what SK Grimes charged for the spacer?

r.e.

23-Oct-2021, 18:03

FYI, Schneider lens size comparison:

150mm f5.6 SSXL -vs- 165mm f8 Super Angulon (barrel for Sinar) -vs- 165mm f6.8 Angulon.
220642

That photo certainly paints a picture.

Unless it's quite a bit less expensive in comparison, is there any argument for the 165mm Super-Angulon over the 150mm XL?

The differences in focal length, angle of coverage and image circle are insignificant, at least for my purposes.

Weight
Super-Angulon 165mm with shutter: 1605g/3.54lb
XL 150mm: 740g/1.63lb

Shutter
Super-Angulon 165mm: Copal 3
XL 150mm: Copal 1

Maximum Aperture
Super-Angulon 165mm: f/8
XL 150mm: f/5.6

Centre Filter Street Price New
Super-Angulon 165mm: $1080 (unique to this lens and probably uncommon used)
XL 150mm: $430

Filter Requirements
Super-Angulon 165mm: 110mm (125mm with centre filter fitted)
XL 150mm: 95mm (112mm with centre filter fitted)

Comparison of all the specs is in the Chart attached to post #52.

Bernice Loui

23-Oct-2021, 19:04

Or why Schneider stopped the 165mm f8 Super Angulon not long after the 150mm f5.6 SSXL _ which is simply a better lens in every way.

The 165mm f8 SA has been made for decades, initially single AR coated, then later versions became Multi-Coated. Later MC versions do have higher contrast rendition and all that, still it is a whopper of a lens. $ on the used market is likely the only significant advantage the 165mm f8 has over the 150mm f5.6 SSXL.

Due to the current fashion of 8x10 view camera and sheet film, the market $ of these wide angle lenses continue to grow.

Bernice

That photo certainly paints a picture.

Unless it's quite a bit less expensive in comparison, is there any argument for the 165mm Super-Angulon over the 150mm XL?

The differences in focal length, angle of coverage and image circle are insignificant, at least for my purposes.

Weight
Super-Angulon 165mm with shutter: 1605g/3.54lb
XL 150mm: 740g/1.63lb

Shutter
Super-Angulon 165mm: Copal 3
XL 150mm: Copal 1

Maximum Aperture
Super-Angulon 165mm: f/8
XL 150mm: f/5.6

Centre Filter Street Price New
Super-Angulon 165mm: $1080 (unique to this lens and probably uncommon used)
XL 150mm: $430

Filter Requirements
Super-Angulon 165mm: 110mm (125mm with centre filter fitted)
XL 150mm: 95mm (112mm with centre filter fitted)

r.e.

21-Dec-2021, 17:01

Oslolens

21-Dec-2021, 19:51

Follow-up... I went with the Schneider Super-Symmar XL f/5.6 150mm and Schneider's 4a centre filter. The one downside is that the centre filter has an outside thread of 112mm. However, I've been able to obtain a good 112mm polariser at an attractive price, so it's a start.

I got some great advice in this thread, for which I'd like to thank everyone who contributed.Late version of the S SS-XL has 62mm threads on the back for filters. Early version need a Snap-on filter holder from SKGRIMES.COM or glue on a modified 62mm filter ring - without the threads.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

r.e.

21-Dec-2021, 20:52

Late version of the S SS-XL has 62mm threads on the back for filters. Early version need a Snap-on filter holder from SKGRIMES.COM or glue on a modified 62mm filter ring - without the threads.

I haven't used filtration on a rear element, but my impression is that it tends to be problematic unless you're just using colour correction gels. If you're using a gel, I would think that it's easier to use it on the front. I mostly use a polariser for reflections and neutral density filters. I don't think that trying to use a polariser on a rear element would be a fun way to spend time. Nor would focusing the camera after screwing an ND filter onto the rear element (to avoid focus shift), although depending on the light maybe a couple of stops might not interfere with focusing too much. Anyway, can't hurt to try it.

John Layton

22-Dec-2021, 06:08

xkaes

22-Dec-2021, 06:22

I don't think that trying to use a polariser on a rear element would be a fun way to spend time.

I haven't had any trouble using a polarizer (and any filter!) on the rear of my Mamiya 37mm fisheye -- that's the only place I can put filters. Haven't had any problem with focus shift either.

r.e.

22-Dec-2021, 07:41

As much as I find myself enjoying my recently-acquired 110XL (mainly for 5x7)...I still cannot seem to let go of my 120mm f/8 Super Angulon - despite its being twice as large and half as bright as the newer, "better" lens. Something about the geometry of the SA's rendering I think, perhaps as this relates specifically to 5x7, but might be more than this. Interesting.

For financial reasons, for me it was either Schneider's Super-Symmar XL 110mm or 150mm, not both. My reasons for choosing the 150mm should be fairly clear from earlier posts.

This is where I've wound up on the wide end:

4x5 & 6x12
Rodenstock APO-Grandagon 55mm f/4.5
Rodenstock Grandagon-N MC 75mm f/4.5
Rodenstock Grandagon MC 90mm f/6.8

I acquired the 55mm and 90mm after I started this thread. The 90mm was on my "long list" on the chart in post #1. All three lenses will take Rodenstock's 67/86 0.45ND centre filter.*

8x10
Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150mm f/5.6 & Schneider's 4a centre filter

* There are posts in the forum about a different centre filter for Rodenstock's APO-Grandagon 55mm f/4.5. I'm comfortable with using the centre filter that I have. Note from the photo below that Rodenstock specifically approves it for use with all three lenses (see label on the left).

Rodenstock E67/86 0.45ND Centre Filter

222638

Bob Salomon

22-Dec-2021, 08:27

For financial reasons, for me it was either Schneider's Super-Symmar XL 110mm or 150mm, not both. My reasons for choosing the 150mm should be fairly clear from earlier posts.

This is where I've wound up on the wide end:

4x5
Rodenstock APO-Grandagon 55mm f/4.5
Rodenstock Grandagon-N MC 75mm f/4.5
Rodenstock Grandagon MC 90mm f/6.8

I acquired the 55mm and 90mm after I started this thread. The 90mm was on my "long list" on the chart in post #1. All three lenses will take Rodenstock's 67/86 0.45ND centre filter.*

8x10
Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150mm f/5.6 & Schneider's 4a centre filter

* There are posts in the forum about a different centre filter for Rodenstock's APO-Grandagon 55mm f/4.5. I'm comfortable with using the centre filter that I have. Note from the photo below that Rodenstock specifically approves it for use with all three lenses (see label on the left).

Rodenstock E67/86 0.45ND Centre Filter

222638

You have the later version of the filter. Earlier ones were available in two different versions. One for the Apo and one for the non apos. The earliest version of the 55 also had a different size front element and used a smaller center filter.

r.e.

22-Dec-2021, 10:51

You have the later version of the filter. Earlier ones were available in two different versions. One for the Apo and one for the non apos. The earliest version of the 55 also had a different size front element and used a smaller center filter.

Yes, and thanks very much for helping, in a pm exchange, to clear up my confusion on the question.

r.e.

22-Dec-2021, 11:58

This may interest people who need filters larger than 100mm, and 112mm filters in particular.

I say earlier in this thread that I'm standardised on 82mm screw-in filters and Lee100 100mm square filters. This means that I'm not set up for the 112mm outside thread on Schneider's 4a centre filter. Filter choice in that size is limited and prices are high.

Enter Nikon's fairly new Z-mount lens, the ultra-wide Nikkor Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S. This is a US$2400 lens with a 112mm filter thread. In response, several manufacturers are suddenly making 112mm filters, marketing them specifically to owners of this lens. In addition to the usual UV filters, they are offering polarisers and neutral density filters. Prices are high, but still lower than some brands. These are niche filters, and brief, attractive offers are quite liable to come up. Indeed, that's how I obtained the filter mentioned in post #76, NiSi's NiSi Pro Natural Circular Polariser, 112mm (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1604775-REG/nisi_nir_112_natcpl_112mm_circular_natural_cpl.html), at 50% off (B&H Flash Deal). In the next while, these filters may also start coming up on the second-hand market.

There are a couple of other options for ND, but they aren't cheap. The first is Lee's SW150 System (https://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150) for ultra-wide lenses if it can be set up to work with this lens. Lee's/Panavision's excellent ProGlass IRND filters are available for the SW150 system, but pricing is stiff. The other is to use my Arca-Swiss compendium shade and rig a filter holder for appropriately sized rectangular ND filters. This leads me in the direction of what is essentially a matte box system. As someone who shoots video, a matte box and filter tray was precisely what I wanted to avoid when I standardised around 82mm screw-in filters and Lee100. C'est la vie :) As mentioned in post #78, I'll also take a shot at trying limited ND - up to, say, two stops - on the rear element of the Schneider XL 150mm lens. If it doesn't interfere too much with focusing, and taking into account the light loss from the centre filter (added after focusing), this just might give me enough ND control. I'll have to do some reading on what impact, if any, an ND filter on the rear element may have on overall image quality.

ic-racer

22-Dec-2021, 12:36

If I need to correct for converging lines, I do it while printing.
This allows me to use some compact, easy to obtain lenses.
125mm and 180mm Fuji lenses on 8x10.
Also, since the sky or top portion of the image is farther away on the baseboard during correction, it prints lighter, so one does not have to worry about light falloff or center filters that would be needed when shifting a lens during camera exposure.

222651
222652
222653
222654

xkaes

22-Dec-2021, 12:48

This may interest people who need filters larger than 100mm, and 112mm filters in particular.

Thanks for the info.

It makes me glad I settled on 77mm filters as my standard long ago. These are easy to find and relatively inexpensive. Not too many lenses go over that -- and I couldn't afford them anyway.

r.e.

22-Dec-2021, 13:09

ic-racer

22-Dec-2021, 16:51

Lot of reading in this thread, but I did read your post #42, but I'd call both the Fuji 180mm and 125mm very modern lenses with the latest design, construction and shutters.

rawitz

23-Dec-2021, 03:00

For myths and facts of SuperAngulon MC and SSymmar XL here some original Schneider datas for SA 165 MC and SSXL 150

222682

What we see clearly is, the SSXL 150 is a better optical performer at aperture 8, but (slightly) worse at 22 to the SA 165.
More important, the 150 has clearly more light-falloff compared to the 165, at 22 in the extreme image-border 20% to 30%.
I remember, the Schneider folks at the Photokina around 2000 told me, the advantage of the SSXL is the much smaller size and the simpler and cost reduced manufacturing, therefore they will discontinue the bigger SA 165 and 210 sooner or later. So they did.
But they also told me, that the 150 and all the SSXL are not recommended to use without centerfilter. the SAngulons lightfallof at 22 is not too critical.

happy holidays
Rainer

r.e.

23-Dec-2021, 11:17

@rawitz/Rainer also made the post above in another thread. I think that it's useful to paste @Bernice Louie's response in that thread:

Yes indeediee. Schneider phased in the 150mm SSXL to replace the 165mm f8 SA in time.

Back in the 8x10 film days, the 155mm Grandagon was the "go to" very wide angle for 8x10. Needed a center filter for color transparencies to correct for light fall off. In time the 8x10 sheet film stopped. This turned the 155mm Grandagon into a medium wide for 5x7, center filter not really needed. Keep in mind the 155mm Grandagaon is HUGE and about the same size as the 165mm f8 SA.

It was the later 1990's when Schneider announced the SSXL aspheric wide angle lenses. Decided to go for the 110mm SSXL and 150mm SSXL as a pre-order promo. Nearly a year passed before delivery. Adding to this deal, Schneider did a trade in your old view camera lens for new discount, any view camera lens was eligible for this discount. This further sweetened the deal. It was the 110mm SSXL that arrived first, good lens on 5x7, does NOT cover 8x10 and has significant light fall off. Yet, text on the web-internet continues to float the fantasy the 110mm SSXL covers 8x10 and .... This simply NOT true as the optical performance image circle dies before properly covering 8x10 and the light fall off is BAD.

The 150mm SSXL got pressed into medium wide duty for 5x7, center filter not really needed and it was about half the size of the 155mm Grandagon.

Being one of those who does not press view camera lenses past f32 and often not past f22, both SSXLs worked very good. Based on decades of experience with these two copies, Optical performance is good at f8 to f22, there after the performance begins to drop off.

In recent years, the 110mm SSXL got parked being replaced by a 115mm Grandagon or 105mm Fujinon. The 150mm SSXL still serves for medium wide 5x7 as needed, but for lug around portability the 165mm f6.8 Angulon works good enough.

Regardless of what folks say about the SSXLs, they NEED a center filter if the light fall off problem is to be corrected and the image goals demand this.

Link to Bernice's post in the other thread: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?161241-Preferences-for-150-165mm-lenses-in-8x10&p=1627053&viewfull=1#post1627053

r.e.

23-Dec-2021, 16:16

Further to post #84, I started this thread: Using a Neutral Density Filter a Rear Lens Element (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166701-Using-a-Neutral-Density-Filter-on-a-Rear-Lens-Element)

There's some good discussion about the issues raised by mounting filters on the Schneider Super-Symmar XL 150mm rear lens element, as well as about various ways of doing it.

r.e.

25-Dec-2021, 09:53

Further to the thread linked in the post just above...

I've made a decision, at least for the time being, about filters for Schneider's Super-Symmar XL f/5.6 150mm when used with its IVa centre filter.

Note that the centre filter requires the lens to be used at f/11 or smaller, and comes with a loss of about 1.5 stops of light.

Polariser, 112mm screw-in

I would much rather add a 112mm polariser to the centre filter than spend time trying to get the rotation right on a 62mm polariser screwed onto the lens's rear element. Indeed, I see a 112mm diameter as a benefit. I can use my hand to hold up a filter that large in front of my eyes and easily see how rotation is affecting the image. Normally, I use B+W and Heliopan screw-in filters, but neither makes a 112mm polariser. Consequently, I've chosen NiSi's Natural Polariser, which appears to be well-regarded.

Neutral Density, 112mm screw-in

Very few companies currently make 112mm ND filters. With one exception, those that do offer very limited selection in terms of strength. Japan's Tokina makes a line of prime and zoom cinema lenses that have 112mm filter threads. It makes its Cinema Pro IRND filters in 112mm, eight strengths, for these lenses*. IRND means that the filters cut infrared as well as visible light, which has become more or less standard in digital filmmaking. Yesterday, I acquired two of the Tokina filters, which will serve my needs for the time being.

Rationale

I'm satisfied that adding filters to the front of the lens is preferable, from both ease of use and optical perspectives, to adding them to the rear element. My decision was made easier by the fact that I've been able to acquire the three filters at prices that make them affordable, which means that I should be able to sell them eventually without losing a meaningful amount of money.

I have a Nikkor W f/6.5 360mm lens that also made the decision easier. This lens has a 95mm filter thread. I think that a step-up ring to the 112mm filters may be more convenient in some cases than using my Lee100 system.

Follow-up

I plan to speak with S.K. Grimes after the holidays about how I might be able to use Lee's SW150 System graduated neutral density filters. I also plan to ask Lee whether it sees a problem if I have S.K. Grimes make a 112mm adapter for its SW150 holder. Lee's own largest adapter is 105mm.

If B+W responds to my query about the thickness of the glass on its XS-Pro line of filters (see post #25 of the thread linked above), I'll post what it says.

I think that the ideas in the thread linked above are of on-going interest because they offer ways to address vignetting from stacking filters.

* Tokina also makes its Cinema Pro IRND filters in five other other diameters, as well as in 4"x5.65" and 6.6"x6.6" for matte boxes. Tokina owns Formatt-Hitech, but my understanding is that the Cinema Pro filters are made in Japan rather than in the U.K.

rdenney

25-Dec-2021, 23:04

I haven't had any trouble using a polarizer (and any filter!) on the rear of my Mamiya 37mm fisheye -- that's the only place I can put filters. Haven't had any problem with focus shift either.

Don’t know about the Mamiya, but the Ukrainian Arsat 30mm fisheye for the Pentacon Six mount uses a 30mm rear filter. But the filter is part of the optical formula and required. It comes with a UV-Haze filter mounted and three colored filters.

Given its 180-degree field of view, a front filter would have to be hemispheric.

Rick “suspecting a typical approximately symmetrical large-format lens won’t much care which end the filter is mounted to ” Denney

Alan Klein

26-Dec-2021, 08:58

r.e.

26-Dec-2021, 13:21

I'm in a similar situation with my 90mm Nikkor f/4.5 lens. It has a Schneider CF that takes 105mm filters in the front. All my other lenses (75, 150 and 300) take my 77mm filters with step-up adapters. So anything you find out and can pass along would be helpful to me.

Hi Alan,

You said in our pm exchange that you want to use graduated NDs. There are several filter holders on the market that have 105mm adapter rings. Then it's a matter of buying 150mm graduated NDs for the holder. Not cheap, but I don't think that there's an inexpensive solution.

At least you don't have my problem, which is that nobody appears to offer a holder with a 112mm adapter ring. I plan to drop by B&H this week to see if staff there have a solution. Maybe there's a holder that can be attached to the outside of the lens barrel by compression. Failing that, I suspect that it's a matter of what S.K. Grimes can come up with and what it costs. Before speaking with Grimes, I plan to ask Lee Filters whether its SW150 Holder is likely to work if I have a 112mm adapter ring made for it.

Alan Klein

26-Dec-2021, 13:57

Hi Alan,

You said in our pm exchange that you want to use graduated NDs. There are several filter holders on the market that have 105mm adapter rings. Then it's a matter of buying 150mm graduated NDs for the holder. Not cheap, but I don't think that there's an inexpensive solution.

At least you don't have my problem, which is that nobody appears to offer a holder with a 112mm adapter ring. I plan to drop by B&H this week to see if staff there have a solution. Maybe there's a holder that can be attached to the outside of the lens barrel by compression. Failing that, I suspect that it's a matter of what S.K. Grimes can come up with and what it costs. Before speaking with Grimes, I plan to ask Lee Filters whether its SW150 Holder is likely to work if I have a 112mm adapter ring made for it.

Thanks for the input. My current cheap solution if I need a 105mm filter for my 90mm with center filter is to switch to my 75mm lens that only needs one of my 77mm filters with my step-up adapter ring and do without the center filter.

Kiwi7475

26-Dec-2021, 14:17

Hi Alan,

You said in our pm exchange that you want to use graduated NDs. There are several filter holders on the market that have 105mm adapter rings. Then it's a matter of buying 150mm graduated NDs for the holder. Not cheap, but I don't think that there's an inexpensive solution.

At least you don't have my problem, which is that nobody appears to offer a holder with a 112mm adapter ring. I plan to drop by B&H this week to see if staff there have a solution. Maybe there's a holder that can be attached to the outside of the lens barrel by compression. Failing that, I suspect that it's a matter of what S.K. Grimes can come up with and what it costs. Before speaking with Grimes, I plan to ask Lee Filters whether its SW150 Holder is likely to work if I have a 112mm adapter ring made for it.

If you’re into 3D printing or you know someone that does, that route could be the easiest and cheapest option. There’s a lot out there already, for example I found this which included 112mm adapters.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4257081

(See post #2 referencing https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2485988)