Wide angle on a budget?

[Donald Qualls]

Can anyone suggest a lens (barrel or shutter) of 90-105 mm focal length that will cover 4x5, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg? I'm looking for a wide for my Speed Graphic; minimum length that will focus infinity is said to be 90 mm, but a 105 would be acceptable (and let me put the standard on the bed and shoot without dropping the bed). Doesn't have to be super-fast -- f/8, even, would be okay, though I'd guess most in this class will be a little faster than that. Budget, however, is a major consideration; I've seen complete Speeds sell with a 90 mm Angulon for under $250, so it's silly to suggest a lens/shutter combination more expensive than that. My budget is much more likely to be under $200, and the more under the better.

Since I make and bore my own lens boards, and have a good focal plane shutter, standard sizing isn't a big concern, nor is fitting a shutter (in the case of barrel, enlarging, or process lenses).

This isn't for immediate purchase, just for future planning (and to set up an eBay search).

[Nitish Kanabar]

Can anyone suggest a lens (barrel or shutter) of 90-105 mm focal length that will cover 4x5, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg? I'm looking for a wide for my Speed Graphic; minimum length that will focus infinity is said to be 90 mm, but a 105 would be acceptable (and let me put the standard on the bed and shoot without dropping the bed). Doesn't have to be super-fast -- f/8, even, would be okay, though I'd guess most in this class will be a little faster than that. Budget, however, is a major consideration; I've seen complete Speeds sell with a 90 mm Angulon for under $250, so it's silly to suggest a lens/shutter combination more expensive than that. My budget is much more likely to be under $200, and the more under the better.

Since I make and bore my own lens boards, and have a good focal plane shutter, standard sizing isn't a big concern, nor is fitting a shutter (in the case of barrel, enlarging, or process lenses).

This isn't for immediate purchase, just for future planning (and to set up an eBay search).

90mm Schneider Angulon seems to fit the bill here. Some of the earlier ones (circa 1950s) were not very good (except the ones picked for Linhof and marked as such), but the later ones are good as Schneider's quality control improved.

One point to note: instead of buying just the lens, buy a camera + lens combination and then sell off the camera. This will usually be more economical than buying just the lens.

[Nick_3536]

If you can find one an Agfa process lens. I think they were made in 105mm.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=10311&highlight=agfa+process+lens

Doesn't address the shorter lengths but does mention the line. IIRC the 105mm are faster [F/5.6? No worse then F/8]. Downsides they will never fit a shutter. Upside if you can find one is they tend to be cheap. The 105mm should be even cheaper. You might pay more for shipping.

[Dan Fromm]

If you can find one an Agfa process lens. I think they were made in 105mm.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=10311&highlight=agfa+process+lens

Doesn't address the shorter lengths but does mention the line. IIRC the 105mm are faster [F/5.6? No worse then F/8]. Downsides they will never fit a shutter. Upside if you can find one is they tend to be cheap. The 105mm should be even cheaper. You might pay more for shipping.
At even odds, $1 says the lens -- Magnogon? -- won't cover 4x5 at infinity. Normal lens for 2x3, maybe. W/A lens for 4x5, probably not.

[Dan Fromm]

Donald, the obvious well-known easily-found cheapies are 88/6.8 B&L, 90/6.8 Angulon as you mentioned, and 90/6.8 Optar/Raptar. W/A anastigmats from Dallmeyer and Wrays show up from time to time on ebay.co.uk. Often, not always, in barrel, sometimes out of your price range.

A less-obvious longer cheapie is the 105/6.3 Leitmeyr Anastigmat Weitwinkel. I have an uncoated one in a busted Prontor II. It will go straight into the #0 barrel for a 135/5.6 Convertible Symmar that I have lying around. If you want to borrow the Leitmeyr and the barrel or have a spare #0 you can put the cells it, I'll lend it to you. 4/4 W/A double Gauss, ought to cover 4x5 handily. I haven't got around to shooting it myself, its coverage is a bit wasted on my 2x3 Graphics.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Donald,

I picked up a late model 90mm f8 Ilex Acu-Veriwide in copal 1 shutter a few months ago for $215. Considering the amount I spent, it is a very sharp lens (much sharper than my 90/6.8 Angulon) and has more coverage than a f8 Super Angulon (Ilex claims 103˚ but I think it has a bit more usable coverage, maybe 105˚).

jason

[Jack Flesher]

FWIW, I have a little 105 Tominon that covers 4x5 nicely even with a bit of movement. (I know it's not supposed to at infinity, but this one does and does it well.) They can be found pretty cheap on eBay as they were used in Polaroid process cameras.

I over-paid for mine and the front ring is slightly bent too boot, but at least it is sharp ;) I don't use it any more and would be willing to sell it for what I have in it: $135 plus shipping and fees. It is in a Polaroid Copal Press #0 shutter.

Cheers,

[Bill McMannis]

Another vote here for a Schneider 90mm/f8. I had a "Linhof" version of this lens and it really did a nice job. I never had a problem with coverage and I use some extreme movements. My only reason for parting with this lens was I needed a faster lens for my low light interior work.

[Kevin Crisp]

If you can fudge ever so slightly on your requirements, I recommend the Wollensak extreme wide angle 5X7 lens, focal length 4 3/16th. This works out to about a 110mm lens, or a little less. It is an f:12.5 lens. While a little soft on the corners with 5X7 film, it covers 4X5 well with room for movements. They are very sharp when stopped down, some have some focus shift and some don't. (I have one of each) Though uncoated, the construction is simple and contrast is fine. I was very disappointed with the 90mm Optars I tried, but these are quite decent. You can get them in Betax shutters for well under $100. Otherwise, the f:6.8 90mm angulons are an option, but in your price range finding a late production one will be a stretch and movements will be minimal to none.

[Brian Ellis]

I have a 100mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar that's a very nice lens. I think I paid about $300 for it.

[Donald Qualls]

Wow, lots of good suggestions. The Angulon and Raptar/Optar are indeed the obvious choices; I see the Raptars on 2x3 press cameras from time to time.

The reason I specified 105 mm as the longest is because I already have a 13.5 cm f/4.5 Skopar (in a barrel that came to me as most of a Compur shutter -- unrepairable due to too many missing parts, I removed the shutter parts and left the aperture in the empty case), and anything longer than 105 isn't likely to be enough wider to bother (though that 4 3/16" Wolly is worth a look, especially because it looks like it'd easily support more movements than an Anny Speed has).

And that's the thing -- I only have rise and shift, not much of either, and the Skopar gives *no* movements already (8 mm of rise resulted in cropping off the top third of the negative to remove the blurry arcs); I'm basically using the camera as a BIG Leica with these short lenses anyway (or will be when I get a new beamsplitter in the Kalart and adjust it for a particular lens). A shorter lens that covers with no movements isn't a problem, especially if it's enough shorter to give significantly more scene coverage in limited space.

Jack, the Tominon is tempting, but as I said, this is for future reference, not immediate acquisition -- I just blew all the photography money I'll have for a while on film that I hope will last a couple months (my limited supply of film holders helps stretch the supply, anyway).

Dan, your offer to lend me the Weitwinkel is tempting, though I don't have a barrel or shutter to fit it, unless it would go in the front-focus shutter currently holding a 105 mm Apotar (unlikely, I think, due to the inside thread for the middle element). However, I'm not in a hurry here, and a little uncomfortable with borrowing equipment, so I'll decline for the time being.

[Nick_3536]

At even odds, $1 says the lens -- Magnogon? -- won't cover 4x5 at infinity. Normal lens for 2x3, maybe. W/A lens for 4x5, probably not.

No the wide angle process lenses. Similar maybe a bit more coverage of the G-Clarons. But will never fit a shutter without spending big money and no filter threads.

How do I collect my dollar ? -)

[Dan Fromm]

No the wide angle process lenses. Similar maybe a bit more coverage of the G-Clarons. But will never fit a shutter without spending big money and no filter threads.

How do I collect my dollar ? -)Send a 4x5 negative shot at infinity with the lens and your address. I'll return the negative with the dollar. Look in your PMs for my address.

Sorry to be so skeptical, but I've seen too many hopeful or over-optimistic or flat out lying claims about coverage on eBay to believe any that seem unlikely.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jack Flesher]

The reason I specified 105 mm as the longest is because I already have a 13.5 cm f/4.5 Skopar

If you already have a 135 I would encourage you to lean more toward the 90 suggestions -- IMO 90/135/180 (or 210) is an almost is ideal 3-lens set.

Cheers,

[Joseph O'Neil]

How much of a budget is a budget? The Fujinon CMw 105mm is a superb little lens, and I bought mine used from Badger. See them new here

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=164

I notice they are now special order, but if you ever see one new or used, they are, IMO, reasonably priced, I find the image circle as stated is a bit conservative, and it's a great performer. An undervalued lens, IMO.

joe

[Vick Vickery]

No one mentioned the Wollensak EWA f12.5 90mm...I've been well pleased with mine over the years and its coverage is very good, allowing for plenty of movement on
4x5. The lens/shutter is tiny and weight practically nothing. The only thing I don't like about it is that the Alphax shutter its in is unsynced and I sometimes need a strobe inside. Oh, by the way...I've never had any trouble seeing the image even with the small maximum stop.

[Donald Qualls]

If you already have a 135 I would encourage you to lean more toward the 90 suggestions -- IMO 90/135/180 (or 210) is an almost is ideal 3-lens set.

My 150 Componon converts to approximately a 265 mm (f/12.5, not exactly a hand holder, but I bought it originally for my Aletta monorail, currently waiting for some upgrades to be really usable), and I've gotten along for about 35 years in 35 mm without ever owning anything between 50 mm and 135 mm, so I doubt I'll miss 180 and/or 210 for the time being. I'd prefer a 90, no question, but 105 would do for most of what I want and wouldn't require dropping the bed (is it just me, or do others find it problematic to focus a Speed with the bed dropped?). Neither one will work on the Aletta until I make or buy a new, properly flexible and properly nesting bellows for it (I'm not sure a 90 would work on there even with a bag bellows due to the depth of the front and rear frames)...

Joseph? My budget will be, at most, about 1/3 that price... :P ...and given that used lenses seem hardly cheaper than new for current production models, I don't see owning one of those any time soon.

[Nick_3536]

Send a 4x5 negative shot at infinity with the lens and your address. I'll return the negative with the dollar. Look in your PMs for my address.

Sorry to be so skeptical, but I've seen too many hopeful or over-optimistic or flat out lying claims about coverage on eBay to believe any that seem unlikely.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan I'm not sure I have a 105mm. It might be in the parts box. I do have a 210mm that covers 8x10.

You don't need to take my word for it. Post a question about the lenses. I think you'll find more then a few people on this website have used the different focal lengths. It's a wide angle design.

[Nick_3536]

given that used lenses seem hardly cheaper than new for current production models, I don't see owning one of those any time soon.

Look for the older Fuji lenses in Seiko shutters. My 105 F/8 wasn't much more then $200. It was in a Seiko shutter with a bad filter ring but otherwise fine. All the Fujis seem to have poor resale the ones in the Seiko shutters worst of all.

[Dan Fromm]

Dan I'm not sure I have a 105mm. It might be in the parts box. I do have a 210mm that covers 8x10.

You don't need to take my word for it. Post a question about the lenses. I think you'll find more then a few people on this website have used the different focal lengths. It's a wide angle design.Nick, I have no doubt about y'r 210, its the 105 that you might not have after all whose coverage I questioned. You have my address, I think you lost the bet, which was about the 105/5.6 Agfa/Staeble process lens.

It takes a 70+ degrees 105 mm lens to cover 4x5 with no movements, and that's stretching it for a process lens, even a plasmat type.

Cheers,

Dan

[David Karp]

Try a 90mm f/8 Fujinon SW single coated. Very nice. Call Jim at MPEX.COM and he will give you an idea of cost and if he does not have one, he will find one for you.

[Donald Qualls]

Well, a surprising angle just came up on this.

I have a 105 mm f/4.5 Agnar in a #0 sized 4-speed Pronto (front element focusing, it came off an Ansco Viking folder, I think), and since I had it and had a board for my Aletta with the correct hole already drilled, I've had it mounted for a while but never used it -- there was no way the Aletta would come close to focusing infinity with it, even if it'd cover 4x5 (which it won't, no common 105 mm triplet will).

However, I've been thinking about using it for macro; while the image would degrade some at extreme magnification, it would let me record images to around 4:1 on my Aletta or around 2.5:1 with the Speed Graphic. So, today, I stuck the lens in the Speed, eyeballed the position on the rail, and stepped outside to see how close I had to get to cover the ground glass.

Hmm, that's odd -- can't see much fall-off in the corners. Okay, that's why they make those clipped corners on ground glass -- say, I can see quite a bit of aperture through the corner! In fact... Yep, stop down to f/22, and I can see the full round aperture, and pretty close to it at f/16 (lens goes to f/32). Well, that's interesting...

Okay, I don't expect to get usable image quality in the corners of a 4x5 with this, but film is cheap -- I shot one holder, two different subjects, at f/22, 1/100 on Classic 400. Should be able to get those developed tomorrow or Saturday, we'll see what's what here. With fast film, outdoors, and even modest extension for focus, I might have my wide angle without spending a dime.

But now I'm going to have to get some brass strip stock and make up some focus scales... ;)

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, the test shots with the 105 mm f/4.5 Agnar are drying now (finally -- I hate when my wife takes vacations at home).

I'm surprised how good they are -- eyeballing the negatives shows some visible blurring in one corner, which might be due to the lens being off center (the Aletta board it was mounted on is about 1/8" narrow for the Speed, which can cause unintended shift -- someday I'll convert the Aletta to use standard 4x4 boards, but meanwhile I'll just remount the lens on a board that fits the Speed properly). Shot at f/22, there's good illumination to the corners, looks like less than 1/2 stop falloff. I'll be back later to post the scans, but it looks as if I might have found my budget wide-angle, already in the house. :)

[Dan Ingram]

I'll put in my vote for the 90mm Ilex-Calumet WA Caltar -- they come in Seikosha shutters, and I bought mine four years ago for $125. Similar in design to the Super Angulon at a fraction of the price. I love mine, and they offer plenty of coverage for 4x5. I use mine on my Crown Graphic and have never had a problem.

[Donald Qualls]

Another good suggestion, Dan -- well within the hypothetical budget (hypothetical because I don't know when or how much I'll actually have), and if it performs like a Super Angulon it's going to be quite good.

Here's a scan of one of the two negatives I shot the other day with the Agnar. Pretty decent for a triplet designed to cover 6x9 cm, I'd say; there's a little light falloff at the corners (and it shows more on the other negative), and a little blurriness out there as well (likewise).

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/dqualls/Speed%20Graphic/81191f88.jpg

This negative was focused at about 50 feet, the other at infinity (or nearly so -- I focused on tree tops about 1/4 mile away), so even the focus movement for 50 feet makes a difference. Looking at the 2400 ppi scan at 1:1, I'm very happy with the sharpness and I'd call this acceptable for things like doing street photography with the Speed, once I work out a couple other issues, though I doubt I'd be happy with it for landscapes unless I compose to crop quite a bit.

OTOH, for now, until I have money for another lens, this will do a lot better than having nothing shorter than 135 mm... :)

(And yes, I have a light leak, probably in the dark slide velvet -- I might have to spend money for film holders before I can spend more on lenses.)

[archivue]

maybe i'm stupid, but when i see how much film and processing cost in LF, i don't try to buy the cheapest lens available... otherwise i use 6x7 !
Considering that, if you don't need movements i will go for a second hand 105 fuji,
not so expensive, and much better than an old angulon...or any of the 90 MC

[Alan Davenport]

Another vote for the f/8 Super Angulon. With so many photographers going crazy for another stop on the groundglass, there are lots of these being sold. (I dunno why everyone wants faster lenses since they're gonna stop down to f/8 or smaller 99% of the time. Maybe it's just me.)

Watch for the Caltar W-II 90mm f/8. It's a rebadged Schneider SA. Mine is multicoated and was only $300. A Super Angulon by any other name...

[Dan Fromm]

Donald, I second Dan's suggestion of a 90 Ilex. Solidarity among Dans and all that. Also, I have its 65 mm little brother, which is super.

Not to carp or cavil or anything evil like that, but to my eye the corners in the example you kindly posted really aren't there. As you pointed out, they're blurry.

[Ralph Barker]

Donald, I second Dan's suggestion of a 90 Ilex. Solidarity among Dans and all that. . . .
So, you're saying the 90 Ilex is "Dan Good"? ;)

[Dan Fromm]

So, you're saying the 90 Ilex is "Dan Good"? ;)Retty Dan good, Ralph, pretty Dan good.

[Donald Qualls]

maybe i'm stupid, but when i see how much film and processing cost in LF, i don't try to buy the cheapest lens available...

Archivue, on my budget, if I tried to do everything in LF "the right way" I'd still be saving up for film holders, and wouldn't yet have a camera, lens, or film. I paid $150 for the Speed Graphic, $180 for the 150/5.6 Componon in shutter (which, with its ability to convert, serves as two), traded another lens in a shutter I repaired myself (for which pair I paid the princely sum of $10 plus shipping) for the Skopar 135/4.5, and received the Agnar I posted about above as a gift (and traded some camera construction work, still in progress, for the Aletta). The seven film holders I own were a gift, possibly because the giver didn't want to mess with unknowns (five are wood, two of those came to me with pretty stiff dark slides, though a little graphite helped that a great deal, and one may have bad velvet).

I agree completely that it's better to have a good lens, but I don't pay that much for film or processing (I shoot Arista student films in 4x5, all B&W, and process them myself in plastic food containers that were three for $4 at the grocery store, chemical cost no more than $1 for a batch of up to 6 films). IMO, a lens I can use now is better than a perfect lens I won't be able to afford until 2010.

[Dan Fromm]

Donald, don't feel bad about not having the latest most best lens(es) and don't apologize either.

Its a long story, but I've been doing an exercise that involves using my oldest (pre-WWI) and newest (a lot younger) lenses. Theory be damned, lab measurements be damned, with the emulsions I shoot and my so-so technique I get equally good (not that bad, really) images with all of 'em. As in, a person who doesn't know which lens I used for a shot can't match the shot back to the lens. I'm convinced that much of the noise about the importance of having the latest most best gear comes down to the old "my thing exceeds yours" story.

One other thought. Jim Galli and I have financed our personal gear by buying low (usually) and selling higher (usually). I did this back when, when I built my Super 8 kit. Jim's right, the arbitrage opportunities seem to be drying up, but every time I start mourning "what used to be" another turns up.

Cheers,

Dan

[Donald Qualls]

Dan, you're exactly right. My pre-War Tessar-class glass will stand up to anything newer, at least in the print sizes I'm able to handle in a bathroom doing part-time duty as a darkroom. At least two of my Tessars were made before the merger that formed Zeiss-Ikon in 1926, but the physics that governs optics hasn't changed in that 80 years, just the availability of computing power and glasses of different properties.

Sadly, I have a poor record in the "buy low, sell high" department, though I have been considering selling off the Kawee Camera that started me into large format by convincing me I didn't need a stack of Franklins in my wallet to be able to do this stuff (cost me under $25 including shipping); I've never used it much, and though it's compact and light, it's just that much less versatile than even my Ica/Zeiss Ideals. That ought to at least finance the purchase of a reasonably quantity of modern plastic film holders.

OTOH, I'm hoping that in another six months or a year I'll reach the point of (at least occasionally) being able to buy new enlarging paper cheaply, and sell it, used, for a lot more... ;)