Opinion: Would a 90mm f8 or f6.8 lens be too dark for dawn and dusk landscape?

[cirwin2010]

I'm starting to move over to large format to medium format landscape photography. I almost exclusively shoot black and white with the end goal of producing a silver gelatin print (up to 16x20"). My most commonly used lens for landscape type work in medium format is a 50mm-55mm f4.5 so I would be looking at getting a 90mm for a wide angle.

I like to get up to shoot a location well before the sun comes up so I can catch the early morning glow (and to avoid people). I am often setting up while the first hints of morning light start to show and I usually leave once the sun is fully over the horizon.

My current lens is a 161mm f4.5 which I found to be extremely difficult to compose and focus on my Calumet cc-400 ground glass. I replaced the ground glass with a "cheap" fresnel lens off ebay which has aided greatly, but isn't perfect. I am on a wait list for a Chamonix fn-2 which I assume will have a much brighter and nicer viewing experience.

Ideally I would like to get an f8 (or f6.8) lens for size, weight, and cost over a f5.6/f4.5 90mm lens. I am a bit concerned that the ground glass experience (even on the Chamonix) may be a bit too dark for my use case, but I wanted to hear what some people thought about it.

[Greg]

For ultra WA work I use a 90mm f/5.6 Schneider Super-Angulon XL on my whole plate Chamonix, and a 5.9" f/14 No. 5 Gray Periscope on my 11x14 Chamonix. The XL has a central ND filter on it that I prefer not to remove (for simple fear of accidentally dropping it). The Gray does open up to f/10 for focusing only. I have no problem using both cameras after sunset, I like the quality of light at that time. I am only using the OEM Chamonix GG. I did adapt a fresnel to the 11x14 (at no small expense), but found it more difficult to focus with it on. The "ridges" of the fresnel interfered with image on the plain GG. Loupe does matter - I use a large very bright Pentax loupe. You won't run into this before sunrise, but after sunset the ambient natural lighting can get really dark very fast, so I always have a small LED headlight on hand and use it a lot when breaking the equipment down.

[Jody_S]

Depends on your eyesight. I've had no issue focusing f16 lenses indoors in abandoned buildings, but I have exceptionally good night vision. Some people seem to need the f4.5 of some LF plasmats to focus outdoors.

[LabRat]

Depends... A good new GG helps a lot, but one can get used to dim old lenses with a good focusing cloth...

But most important is allowing enough time for your eyes to properly dark adapt in darkness before viewing GG... A minute or two under cloth without peeking outside allows eyes to adjust...

In normal daylight, wearing dark sunglasses before getting under the cloth speeds up light adaptation a bit...

Steve K

[maltfalc]

spend some of the money you'll save on a laser pointer or bright, focusable flashlight.

[Oslolens]

spend some of the money you'll save on a laser pointer or bright, focusable flashlight.And consider prefocusing the day before.
Laser may be subject to regulation where you live...

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[cirwin2010]

And consider prefocusing the day before.
Laser may be subject to regulation where you live...

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

Prefocusing the day before is not really an option for me with how I plan my trips (short couple hour trips for now). Shining a light on my subject at night sounds pretty amusing but may actually work for a few scenes, though I'm not sure I'm brave enough for that for some others.

[djdister]

Create your own infinity stops and shoot at f/16. All you need is a flashlight to set your focus at the infinity stop (or other preset hyperfocal distance) and set the f stop and you're done.

[Mark Sampson]

A good loupe (low-magnification but a large eyepiece) might help. Many loupes have too much magnification; you don't need 7x to see a groundglass.
On the rare occasions I've made photographs in similar situations to what you describe, I was able to focus on the skyline, which gave me (effective) infinity. I've always used 90/8 lenses, a faster lens might have helped. But I'd just buy a lens and give it a try. Practice makes perfect!

[Kiwi7475]

Let’s see…. Yes I find F8 too dark to focus reliably in low light conditions. F5.6 is much better. I don’t typically use many f6.8 lenses in those situations. And I have a good and bright fresnel.

Focusing during sunset is easier because you start from more light to less light and if you arrive a little early you can focus no problem and then shoot as dark as you want. You can even rotate or point elsewhere and you don’t need to refocus, assuming you’re not changing drastically the distances involved. I routinely shoot for example with a foreground element and then tilt to get the infinity background in focus and if I roughly keep proportions I can just te-point and shoot even when it’s really dark.

Focusing at sunrise it trickier because you start with less light and by the time you have enough to focus your sunrise colors are gone. It’s a race against time. You can try and play safer by using smaller apertures than you’d normally need. Plain out of focus is worse than diffraction limited!

I’ve tried strong flashes, and laser pointers. Don’t work for me if you have complicated scenes that require tilting. YMMV.

[Oslolens]

Prefocusing the day before is not really an option for me with how I plan my trips (short couple hour trips for now). Shining a light on my subject at night sounds pretty amusing but may actually work for a few scenes, though I'm not sure I'm brave enough for that for some others.A TravelWide90 or a WillTravel from ebay comes pre focused. I have 58 and 65 on each of mine, using 4x5" and 6x12cm film.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[John Layton]

I've had great luck with my 90mm f/6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon-N. A wee bit brighter than f/8 which does help in focussing, plus very close to the compactness/weight of most 90 f/8 lenses. Nice and sharp...will cover 5x7 at infinity if used with care. A perfect compromise IMHO.

[Drew Wiley]

Infinity shots are pretty easy, or setting up a little bit early if foreground tilts are needed. I don't know what all the fuss is about. I rarely carry lenses brighter than f/9, and for ny wide angle lens generally had a CF in place, plus maybe a contrast filter - even dimmer viewing. Helps to have a good ground glass; I've never liked fresnels. I always aim for acute focus in large format work, never hyperfocal. Your eyes need to be adjusted to dim light when focusing under the cloth; that's important. Wear sunglasses if turning your head toward the setting sun or a bright camp stove or campfire.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

There are often details that are brightly lit and focus well. I find that an 8/90 is enough. Furthermore, the focal length is short. The depth of field is large. You can also invest in Fresnel screens and good loupes.

In my opinion, with this focal length, the question of whether you need a center filter is also crucial. Because the center filter often costs more than the lens. I would take the lens for which you do not need a center filter. Maybe that is the lens with the smaller image circle. But at 90 mm you don't need a very large image circle, 216 mm is enough.

It is also important how the lens reacts to backlight. If the lens has a good coating: great! I can highly recommend the Fuji EBC. The Fujinon NSW 8/90 is an excellent lens with 216mm image circle and moderate vignetting. It fits 67mm filters.

- The Fujinon SWD 5.6/90 is more expensive, has 236mm image circle, a filter size of 82mm, and it needs a center filter for $300.

[_tf_]

In normal daylight, wearing dark sunglasses before getting under the cloth speeds up light adaptation a bit...


Oh, why haven’t I thought of that! Thanks.

[r.e.]

In my opinion, with this focal length, the question of whether you need a center filter is also crucial. Because the center filter often costs more than the lens. I would take the lens for which you do not need a center filter.

Hi,

I'm curious about this. What tells you that one 90mm lens needs a centre filter and one doesn't? There are some design differences between lenses that may have a bearing on this (e.g. Schneider Super-Symmar XL vs Rodenstock Grandagon-N lenses), but it sounds like you're talking about other factors.

[Bob Salomon]

Hi,

I'm curious about this. What tells you that one 90mm lens needs a centre filter and one doesn't? There are some design differences between lenses that may have a bearing on this (e.g. Schneider Super-Symmar XL vs Rodenstock Grandagon-N lenses), but it sounds like you're talking about other factors.

They all need one but not all lens companies offered one.

[r.e.]

They all need one but not all lens companies offered one.

Yes, but I think that he's talking about something else. He says that one of the Fuji lenses needs a centre filter.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, but I think that he's talking about something else. He says that one of the Fuji lenses needs a centre filter.

Of course it does, it is a wide angle and has the same falloff as all of the others.

[r.e.]

Of course it does, it is a wide angle and has the same falloff as all of the others.

Just curious about what distinction Daniel is drawing.

[Bob Salomon]

Just curious about what distinction Daniel is drawing.

All of them are hot center to edge. They all can benefit by the cf if the fall off bothers you. Some people,it doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean that it is not there.

[r.e.]

All of them are hot center to edge. They all can benefit by the cf if the fall off bothers you. Some people,it doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean that it is not there.

Bob, I know how it works. I was just interested in knowing what distinction Daniel is drawing. Now I'm sorry I asked :)

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Just curious about what distinction Daniel is drawing.

That is a very good question. Perhaps my conjectures aren't justified at all.

I don't know, in fact. But I don't see any need for a center filter here.

http://fotografie.ist/lohensteins-sicht/wdm-06.jpg

I heard this from time to time: lenses with larger apertures could have more falloff. I don't know if this is true. But I would like to consider and discuss this.

Here is another one.

http://fotografie.ist/lohensteins-sicht/wdm-01.jpg

[Bob Salomon]

That is a very good question. Perhaps my conjectures aren't justified at all.

I don't know, in fact. But I don't see any need for a center filter here.

http://fotografie.ist/lohensteins-sicht/wdm-06.jpg

I heard this from time to time: lenses with larger apertures could have more falloff. I don't know if this is true. But I would like to consider and discuss this.

Here is another one.

http://fotografie.ist/lohensteins-sicht/wdm-01.jpg

Faster lenses cover a larger circle then the slower ones. Fall off starts about 1/3rd out from the center of the circle. So, slower ones can exhibit more fall off since their circle of illumination is smaller.
Your image shows fall off in the upper right corner.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Faster lenses cover a larger circle then the slower ones. Fall off starts about 1/3rd out from the center of the circle. So, slower ones can exhibit more fall off since their circle of illumination is smaller.
Your image shows fall off in the upper right corner.


Ok, then I am blind. I have not seen a falloff in the upper right corner.

I have to learn and understand this lens.

[Joshua Dunn]

It takes practice to focus in low light, placing a flashlight in the scene to focus on (and then remembering to retrieve it) is a pretty foolproof method. The infinity stops are a good idea as well. If you are shopping for a fast 90mm, Rodenstock (also branded as a Sinar lens) and Nikkor both made f/4.5 lenses in the 90mm focal length. I have a Sinar branded one and it's a great lens. I use my 90mm Super Angulon XL the most, as I do a lot of architecture with movements, so I like the additional coverage and being able to use a center filter.

FYI when comparing a 90mm to your 161mm, it is not an apples to apples comparison. A 90mm will be inherently a little brighter at infinity simply because it is closer to the focal plane than the 161mm.

-Joshua

[Bob Salomon]

Ok, then I am blind. I have not seen a falloff in the upper right corner.

I have to learn and understand this lens.
It’s the dark corner.

[John Layton]

Sometimes I actually embrace a bit of corner falloff - can eliminate the need for "edge burning" as a means to help a viewer's eyes from wandering off the edge of a print.

On the other hand...in cases when I do find a bit of corner falloff to be somewhat distracting - its an easy matter to gently dodge these corners a bit, and with a bit of practice this gets so easy that the only reason I'd choose to seek out a center filter might be when shooting chromes.

[Bob Salomon]

Sometimes I actually embrace a bit of corner falloff - can eliminate the need for "edge burning" as a means to help a viewer's eyes from wandering off the edge of a print.

On the other hand...in cases when I do find a bit of corner falloff to be somewhat distracting - its an easy matter to gently dodge these corners a bit, and with a bit of practice this gets so easy that the only reason I'd choose to seek out a center filter might be when shooting chromes.

Or you want to make a series of matching prints easily.

[r.e.]

Or you want to make a series of matching prints easily.

I don't understand going to the expense of a bag bellows and a wide angle lens and getting hung up over a centre filter. The one that I purchased recently for a 75mm lens cost about the same as a new name brand polariser. I may soon be able to use it with an additional lens. With a couple of exceptions where the centre filter is unique to a specific lens, they aren't that expensive. Unless stopping down the lens two stops, or losing 1.5 to 2 stops of light, is a significant impediment to making the photograph, or you positively want falloff in the image, why not use one? Reading threads over the years, I'm left with the impression that a lot of people just have a psychological block about centre filters :)

[Drew Wiley]

It not just chromes. As I've noted numerous times before, it's easy to get off the separated part of the respective dye curves with color neg film and into crossover territory with significant falloff. Mere "overall latitude" talk won't spare you from that. Unlike b&w film, you don't just get a density shift, but risk a hue shift, and even more, a cleanness of hue loss. Whether one considers that a minus or a creative opportunity all depends; but it's there. And it's not going to be easy to post-correct, if doable at all by routine means. Ektar can be a bear in that respect; but Portra certainly isn't exempt, though it might be a little less noticeable due to the lower contrast.

[Dan Fromm]

I heard this from time to time: lenses with larger apertures could have more falloff. I don't know if this is true. But I would like to consider and discuss this.



Daniel, aperture has nothing to do with cos^4, which center filters more-or-less correct. That said, shooting a wide lens at a large aperture risks mechanical vignetting, which a center filter can't correct. This is why CF manufacturers recommend shooting at f/11 or smaller with a CF.

By the way, I didn't include the two photos in your post that I quoted, but the first one is darker in the upper corners. Can't see anything in its lower corners.

In post #14 above you wrote:

In my opinion, with this focal length, the question of whether you need a center filter is also crucial. Because the center filter often costs more than the lens. I would take the lens for which you do not need a center filter. Maybe that is the lens with the smaller image circle. But at 90 mm you don't need a very large image circle, 216 mm is enough

Cos^4 affects all lenses of the same focal length approximately equally, coverage has nothing to do with it. Biogons -- the only f/4.5 Biogon suitable for LF is the 75/4.5 -- are the big exception, with them falloff is closer to cos^3.

FWIW, there's a general consensus that a CF isn't really needed with a 90 mm lens shot straight ahead on 4x5. Shooting a 90 decentered is another matter and so are shorter focal lengths.

And if you want a light and inexpensive 90 mm lens that covers 4x5 with ample movements, get a 90/14 Perigraphe Ser. VIa #2. In barrel and no CF was offered for it. My #1, #1bis and #2 f/14 Perigraphes are all in the same barrel and can be stuffed into the front of an Ilex #3 shutter.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Daniel, aperture has nothing to do with cos^4, which center filters more-or-less correct. That said, shooting a wide lens at a large aperture risks mechanical vignetting, which a center filter can't correct. This is why CF manufacturers recommend shooting at f/11 or smaller with a CF.

By the way, I didn't include the two photos in your post that I quoted, but the first one is darker in the upper corners. Can't see anything in its lower corners.


Thanks to all. Even if I sometimes embarrass myself: I always keep learning.

r.e., Bob, Dan, I have mixed everything up.

Obviously the lens barrel can cut off-axis light at large apertures ("mechanical vignetting", as Dan said). But that has nothing to do with "natural vignetting, which is a product of the angle the light strikes the film" (I found this here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/center-filters-wtf.85909/#post-1156357)

Also, it seems that in the past they didn't use a center filter at all. At least in my older literature I didn't find anything about it ... - When did the wish for center filters come up?

Thanks!

[Alan Klein]

Daniel, aperture has nothing to do with cos^4, which center filters more-or-less correct. That said, shooting a wide lens at a large aperture risks mechanical vignetting, which a center filter can't correct. This is why CF manufacturers recommend shooting at f/11 or smaller with a CF.

By the way, I didn't include the two photos in your post that I quoted, but the first one is darker in the upper corners. Can't see anything in its lower corners.

In post #14 above you wrote:


Cos^4 affects all lenses of the same focal length approximately equally, coverage has nothing to do with it. Biogons -- the only f/4.5 Biogon suitable for LF is the 75/4.5 -- are the big exception, with them falloff is closer to cos^3.

FWIW, there's a general consensus that a CF isn't really needed with a 90 mm lens shot straight ahead on 4x5. Shooting a 90 decentered is another matter and so are shorter focal lengths.

And if you want a light and inexpensive 90 mm lens that covers 4x5 with ample movements, get a 90/14 Perigraphe Ser. VIa #2. In barrel and no CF was offered for it. My #1, #1bis and #2 f/14 Perigraphes are all in the same barrel and can be stuffed into the front of an Ilex #3 shutter.

What about 75mm lenses?

[Bob Salomon]

What about 75mm lenses?

All wide angles. 35mm, 45mm, 55mm, 65mm, 75mm, 80mm, 110mm, 115mm! Etc. and some that I missed.

[Dan Fromm]

What about 75mm lenses?

Alan, what do you want to know about them?

[r.e.]

What about 75mm lenses?

Looks like you're talking about @Dan Fromm's sentence, which you highlighted in your post #34:


"FWIW, there's a general consensus that a CF isn't really needed with a 90 mm lens shot straight ahead on 4x5. Shooting a 90 decentered is another matter and so are shorter focal lengths."

I've read a lot of posts on this forum about centre filters. I don't see a "general consensus". What I see are some people who regard the falloff for a given lens as acceptable, in some cases desirable, and some people who don't. People may have a different view depending on whether one is talking about negative film or reversal film. Some people draw a distinction between colour negative film and black and white negative film. There are also a couple of experienced forum participants whose view is that the design of the lens can have a bearing on this question. This comes through in discussions about Schneider Super-Symmar XL lenses. Schneider's XL focal length in this range is 80mm, but there is at least one highly experienced Schneider XL owner here who regards a centre filter as necessary not just for that lens, but for Schneider's XL 110mm lens.

Whether someone finds falloff acceptable also depends on when they want to address it. Obviously, some people will prefer to address falloff in camera. However, a good number say that they are happy to deal with falloff post-capture. I guess that depends on how much time one wants to spend in Capture One/Photoshop (digital) or dodging and burning (analogue).

Re Dan's comment about shooting "straight ahead"... I don't understand why somebody would purchase a wide angle lens for use with a 4x5 view camera (as distinct from a 4x5 point and shoot), or decline to purchase a centre filter, on the basis that they will never use any movements. In fact, I don't see anybody saying pre-purchase that that is their plan, nor saying that that is what they are doing post-purchase. As a practical matter, I think that rise, at a minimum, is basic to composing with a wide angle lens.

I've set out my own general perspective on centre filters in post #30.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

By the way, I didn't include the two photos in your post that I quoted, but the first one is darker in the upper corners. Can't see anything in its lower corners.



This is exactly why I thought I am blind. I have used front rise. The upper right corner should be lighter and the lower right corner darker. I would also have thought at first that the falloff on the right was related to the small but bright light source in the image, the sun.

- But here's the problem: I don't see a uniform wall, but a backlit scene ...

The problems will come when I have uniform light and lighting. Not good!

r.e. is right: what's the point of a wide angle if I'm not willing to screw on the right center filter in the last consequence to avoid falloff I don't want?

But: which center filter do I need? https://galerie-photo.com/center_filters_for_large_format_lenses.pdf if I understand Dan correctly, I would need an E67/86 with 1.5 EV correction, right? A 90/8 M67x0.75 IIIa (III?) Schneider, or a Rodenstock +1.5 E67/86 or a 67mm ND Center Filter 3X Heliopan?

It seems that they no longer exist ...

[r.e.]

But: which center filter do I need? ... A 90/8 M67x0.75 IIIa (III?) Schneider, or a Rodenstock +1.5 E67/86 or a 67mm ND Center Filter 3X Heliopan?

You could use any of those three. That gives you a broader search field and therefore more room to take into account price and condition. I have the Rodenstock E67/86 0.45ND myself. I use it with a Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm. I may purchase a Schneider Super-Symmar XL f/5.6 110mm, in which case I'll be able to use the same centre filter.* You might find it useful to read this Bob Salomon post from 2000:


I don't think you will find many people, if any, who have actually used all 3 [Heliopan, Rodenstock and Schneider centre filters] on the same lens with the same film at the same time who could answer your question.

We are in a unique position. We are the Heliopan and the Rodenstock importer and also the Linhof importer. As such we import the Heliopan and Rodenstock ceter filters as well as Schneider ones for the 58 through 90mm XL lenses we sell.

WE HAD THE SAME QUESTION.

The editor of Shutterbug prior to Bob Shell was an extremely knowlgeable photographer named Lief Erickson (tragically died too early) and he too had this question.

So he took the Linhof Technorama 617 and the old Fuji 617 with a Schneider, Rodenstock and heliopan center filter for a test.

He found no difference on film between them.

However that was before Rodenstock redesigned their center filters.

No center filter is totally neutral. They tend to shift torwards green under cetain conditions. The latest version of the Rodenstock ones are the most neutral of all center filters.

Rodenstock does publish an interesting 2 page sheet on center filters and there use which we would gladly MAIL to anyone in the U.S. who would like it. Simply send a request in info@hpmarketingcorp.com and request it. If you ask Rodenstock for it they will forward the request to the same address so your direct request would be the fastest.

Link to the thread containing Bob's post: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?1862-Compensating-for-light-fall-off-110-XL


* Owners of the Schneider lens advise that I'll need a centre filter for it. The Schneider is more expensive than two other lenses that I've considered in about that focal length, but if I wanted a centre filter for those I'd have to purchase one. The fact that I can use a centre filter that I already have with the Schneider reduces the price difference significantly.

[Dan Fromm]

But: which center filter do I need? https://galerie-photo.com/center_filters_for_large_format_lenses.pdf if I understand Dan correctly, I would need an E67/86 with 1.5 EV correction, right? A 90/8 M67x0.75 IIIa (III?) Schneider, or a Rodenstock +1.5 E67/86 or a 67mm ND Center Filter 3X Heliopan?

It seems that they no longer exist ...

The ones you listed are functionally equivalent. Same threading, same correction.

They still exist. I have 4 CFs in the drawer. I don't think CFs are still made, but I haven't checked which, if any, are available new from Rodenstock and Schneider. Used ones are available. I bought all of mine used. I just checked what's offered on ebay.ch, found 45 CFs.

[Oslolens]

The ones you listed are functionally equivalent. Same threading, same correction.

They still exist. I have 4 CFs in the drawer. I don't think CFs are still made, but I haven't checked which, if any, are available new from Rodenstock and Schneider. Used ones are available. I bought all of mine used. I just checked what's offered on ebay.ch, found 45 CFs.B&H is offering new Zeiss, Rodenstock and Horseman center filters, starting above $1000 for the big ones, luckily I am equipped...

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[r.e.]

I don't think CFs are still made, but I haven't checked which, if any, are available new from Rodenstock and Schneider. Used ones are available. I bought all of mine used. I just checked what's offered on ebay.ch, found 45 CFs.

See the U.K.'s Linhof Studio/Center Filters (https://www.linhofstudio.com/products/Centre-Filters) for the current status of new Rodenstock and Schneider centre filters. As far as I know, Heliopan no longer makes them. Linhof Studio has very few available for lenses for film. Most of the current offerings are for digital lenses. The Rodenstock center filter that Oslolens refers to in the post just above is for extremely expensive (~US$9,000) Rodenstock digital lenses.

Linhof Studio lists the Rodenstock and Schneider 67/86 centre filters for Daniel's lens as "no longer available". B&H says "discontinued". On a simple eBay search for "center filter", there will be a lot of responses but the great majority are for a different product. It appears that no eBay vendors are currently offering the 67/86. There is one Schneider 67/86 III available, but it comes with a very expensive lens :)

Having purchased a 67/86 myself last summer, I think that this is a matter of keeping an eye on potential sources until one comes up in good condition and at a reasonable price.

[Dan Fromm]

Having purchased a 67/86 myself last summer, I think that this is a matter of keeping an eye on potential sources until one comes up in good condition and at a reasonable price.

Exactly. Patience helps a lot. FWIW, I found one of my with a Google search. The seller was Spanish camera store. Chain, actually.

[Jim Noel]

I don't understand going to the expense of a bag bellows and a wide angle lens and getting hung up over a centre filter. The one that I purchased recently for a 75mm lens cost about the same as a new name brand polariser. I may soon be able to use it with an additional lens. With a couple of exceptions where the centre filter is unique to a specific lens, they aren't that expensive. Unless stopping down the lens two stops, or losing 1.5 to 2 stops of light, is a significant impediment to making the photograph, or you positively want falloff in the image, why not use one? Reading threads over the years, I'm left with the impression that a lot of people just have a psychological block about centre filters :)

A $325 filter may not be expensive to you, but it certainly is to me.

[Jim Noel]

Back to the original question, an f8 or f 6.8 lens should not be too dark to focus at dawn and dusk. If it is for you, you may have an eye problem. At 92 i still use an f18 WA lens and focus on plain ground glass. An annual ophthalmologist appointment may be able to do a lot for ones vision.
If it is truly dark I carry a small bright LED pocket light and place it in the image at the point of focus. Of course, it comes out of the scene prior to exposure.

[r.e.]

A $325 filter may not be expensive to you, but it certainly is to me.

Of course. Some people may not want to spend the money or may not be able to. That said, the last few center filters that I know the sale price of, including one for sale on this forum a few weeks ago, sold for less than $325.

[Bernice Loui]

Sheet of 4x5 B&W film cost about $2.50 per sheet. Sheet of color 4x5 film cost about $5.00 per sheet.

Burn then process 100 sheet of 4x5 film equals or exceeds the cost of a center filter at $325.

Much about priorities, values and goals.


Bernice

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Sheet of 4x5 B&W film cost about $2.50 per sheet. Sheet of color 4x5 film cost about $5.00 per sheet.

Burn then process 100 sheet of 4x5 film equals or exceeds the cost of a center filter at $325.

Much about priorities, values and goals.

Of course.

Usually wide angle photos make up only 10% of my pictures (90-125). 50% are taken with the normal lens (135-210), 40% with long focal lengths (240-600). I take 30 photos per week, so 3 photos with wide angle.

So for $325, at $2.50 per photo, I would have to shoot 3 wide angle photos each for 130 weeks with camera shift, rise, swing and tilt. I would have to print them without cropping. As soon as I darken the corners to keep the view in the photo, however, the photo no longer counts because I would not have needed a center filter to do so.

The expense of a center filter is not amortized by the amount of film. It only adds to the cost of the film. The amount is only amortized if I also sell those wide-angle prints.

What I do in the meantime: I see if I can find a used center filter, for less money. And I make sure I don't shoot flat surfaces, with even lighting. Because I only photograph nature, this is less difficult.

[_tf_]

Make that at least 200 sheets, 4x5 sheet of Foma is $1.20. (Or perhaps 250, the only CF I see on eBay is ~$400, and they will only get more expensive, as is the general trend with all of the analogue camera equipment.) Definitely question of priorities.

[Bob Salomon]

Make that at least 200 sheets, 4x5 sheet of Foma is $1.20. (Or perhaps 250, the only CF I see on eBay is ~$400, and they will only get more expensive, as is the general trend with all of the analogue camera equipment.) Definitely question of priorities.

Except the cf is also needed for many digital view camera lenses.

[r.e.]

Make that at least 200 sheets, 4x5 sheet of Foma is $1.20. (Or perhaps 250, the only CF I see on eBay is ~$400, and they will only get more expensive, as is the general trend with all of the analogue camera equipment.) Definitely question of priorities.

From my perspective, getting it right in camera saves me time later. It's not just about the cost of film. Indeed, it haven't even thought about centre filters in terms of cost per sheet of film over time.

On centre filter price... A Rodenstock E82/112 in excellent condition was sold on this forum recently. I was considering it and discussed it with the vendor. He wanted US$290 for it. Note that a lot of the offers for large format gear on North American and European eBay are from vendors in Japan that sell camera gear as a business. Their prices are notably higher than prices for the same items from people selling personal gear.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

From my perspective, getting it right in camera saves me time later. It's not just about the cost of film. Indeed, it haven't even thought about centre filters in terms of cost per sheet of film over time.

Please don't get me wrong. I am convinced that a center filter is important. Also because - as r.e. writes - the image should be better adjusted correctly at the beginning than in post-processing / print. - However, I will not buy it new. Once I manage to sell a picture, I will be able to afford everything ;-)

[Drew Wiley]

Center filters in effect, to control falloff, go back as far as those whirly little fans in the front center of Hypergon lenses.

[Jim Andrada]

I don't worry to much about a center filter on my SA90/8 on 4 x 5 - but I do when I have the lens on my 5 x 7

[r.e.]

This is further to discussion earlier about the cost of centre filters...

I purchased a Rodenstock E67/86 0.45ND centre filter for use with a Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm. I can use the same centre filter with the Rodenstock Grandagon MC f/6.8 90mm that I received yesterday. I may purchase a Schneider Super-Symmar XL f/5.6 110mm. I could use the Rodenstock E67/86 with that lens as well. The Schneider lens is more expensive than its competitors, but they take a larger centre filter than E67/86.

The Rodenstock E67/86 may wind up costing me less than US$100 per lens.

[r.e.]

Of course. Some people may not want to spend the money or may not be able to. That said, the last few center filters that I know the sale price of, including one for sale on this forum a few weeks ago, sold for less than $325.

This is the recent forum ad for a Rodenstock E82/112 center filter for an asking price of US$290/€250: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?165681-FS-Rodenstock-cemter-filter-E82

Unsurprisingly, center filter cost is lower if one purchases a lens and center filter together.