Lens image circle vs available lens movements

[cirwin2010]

I hope I am posting this in the right section.

How does available image circle translate to camera movements? If I have a lens that has an image circle of 200mm and 4x5 film requires an image circle of 153mm, does that mean I could get 47mm of rise out of the lens? Is it that simple or does it not work like that?

Been debating between a Nikkor SW 75mm lens and a Schneider 72mm XL lens for architecture. The Nikkor has an image circle of 200mm and the Schneider is 229mm. My Chamonix 45F-2 camera allows for 45mm of rise. Would the extra image circle of the Schneider 72mm XL be a waste in this case?

Obviously you can combine rise with shift and tilt which would require more image circle, but I'm mostly considering rise.

[sharktooth]

Your combined movement is 47mm, but the rise is only going to be half that, or 23.5mm. The rise/fall from the neutral position is half the diameter difference.

[Mark J]

It's a shame that Nikkor didn't provide a table of movements for their lenses.
Schneider, at least since the 1970's, have .
The Schneider 75/5.6 Super-Angulon is just under the 200mm dia. image circle so it's close to the Nikkor 75.
If you look at the tables on page 3 of this brochure, you can see the max shift ( use the f/22 part of the tabel, not the f/5.6 )
There are notes underneath that explain that this is for a landscape-format picture and show the symbols for vertical or horizontal movement.
The numbers are slightly more than Sharktooth said, 30.7 or 26.6 - and a touch more if the Nikkor is 200mm dia circle, rather than 198.

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/02156/02156.pdf

I had to dig a bit for the 72 XL, but it's in here :

https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/schneider_11.pdf

The table of data is split across two pages, which is awkward, but I think the image circle is 226mm, and the vertical/horizontal movement available is 48/42 , so usefully more.

If you are taking a portrait format shot, then the numbers swap - so the vertical shift limit would be the same as the horizontal shift for a landscape-format picture.

[Drew Wiley]

An image circle is round, but sheet film is rectangular. If you superimpose that rectangle on the circle, there is only so much you can shift it before the corners are out of bounds. But remember that is relative to the f-stop given in relation to that specific circle, which is often f/22. At a smaller stop, you get a larger circle. And rise is more limited with the frame in vertical mode than horizontal. Then you've got added complications like tilts and swings, which can dig into the resolution question around the margins. In your case, for architecture, it would be wise to go with the Schneider XL.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

The formulae giving the amount of possible shift for a given image circle C and a rectangular image format of size Height X Length can be derived from simple geometry.
They are easy to compute.

Amount of shift horizontally +- (square-root((C*C-H*H))) /2 - L/2 along X / L-direction
Amount of shift vertically +- (square-root((C*C-L*L))) /2 - H/2 along Y / H-direction

For sheet film, actual image size HxL is roughly equal to the nominal size of film format minus about 6 mm (1/4")

4x5" image size approx 94x120 mm
5X7" image size approx 121x172 mm
8x10" image size approx 197x248 mm

120-rollfilm image sizes
6x7 cm 56x70 to 56x74
6x9 cm 56x82 to 56x84
6x12 cm 56x112 to 56x114


example
C = 200 mm
H = 94 mm
L = 120 mm

shift-X = +- sqrt(200x200-94x94)/2 - 120/2 = +- 28 mm
shift-Y = +- sqrt(200x200-120x120)/2 - 94/2 = +- 33 mm

attached file: a minimal spreadsheet (zipped) to compute this easily

[Conrad . Marvin]

If I’m not mistaken, it seems to me that the Nikkor brochure had a lens circle chart at the end of the descriptions of the lenses with different formats and lenses superimposed. Maybe someone has one that you could look at.

[MartyNL]

Like this one.

[xkaes]

All of these comments are correct, but all you need to do is compare the hypotenuse of the film you are using to the image circle of the lens. If, for example, your film hypotenuse is 160mm and the IC is 200mm, you'll have a maximum of 20mm of movement (200mm - 160mm / 2) from the corner of the film to the edge of the IC.

Pretty simple, really.

[Mark J]

But that's a calc for a diagonal shift. People tend to work in vertical or horizontal shift.
Emmanuel gives the exact calc above, which is the basis of the Schneider tables.

[xkaes]

But that's a calc for a diagonal shift. People tend to work in vertical or horizontal shift.

I'm not familiar with your definition of "people", but the diagonal is the conservation point when you will first run into problems. If you're a more liberal person, you have more leg room, but you're getting into the trouble zone -- especially with any swings and tilts.

[Mark J]

For swings & tilts, yes it's more complicated. But the OP asked specifically about rise.
in any case it looks like the 72 is a better bet.

[bdkphoto]

I hope I am posting this in the right section.

How does available image circle translate to camera movements? If I have a lens that has an image circle of 200mm and 4x5 film requires an image circle of 153mm, does that mean I could get 47mm of rise out of the lens? Is it that simple or does it not work like that?

Been debating between a Nikkor SW 75mm lens and a Schneider 72mm XL lens for architecture. The Nikkor has an image circle of 200mm and the Schneider is 229mm. My Chamonix 45F-2 camera allows for 45mm of rise. Would the extra image circle of the Schneider 72mm XL be a waste in this case?

Obviously you can combine rise with shift and tilt which would require more image circle, but I'm mostly considering rise.

From a practical point of view either lens will be just fine - especially for shooting architecture in all but very extreme circumstances- like skyscrapers in an environment where you are limited in moving back from the building for a decent perspective. For interior work you will almost never need to use the full range of rise. Tilt is also largely unnecessary. I have found that a 90mm SW was the sweet spot for architectural work, and I rented something wider or moved to medium format if needed. What are you planning on shooting that requires such coverage?

[Drew Wiley]

I agree that a 90 is more versatile, but people who shot in cramped indoor spaces like kitchen and bathroom remodels often required not only a short 75mm focal length, but had to make ample use of tilts and swings too. In this area particularly, on the West Coast, never underestimate how intricate expensive properties can be. Now most architectural photography intended for publication is done digital MF.

[Alan Klein]

I agree that a 90 is more versatile, but people who shot in cramped indoor spaces like kitchen and bathroom remodels often required not only a short 75mm focal length, but had to make ample use of tilts and swings too. In this area particularly, on the West Coast, never underestimate how intricate expensive properties can be. Now most architectural photography intended for publication is done digital MF.

...and corrected during editing?

[bdkphoto]

I agree that a 90 is more versatile, but people who shot in cramped indoor spaces like kitchen and bathroom remodels often required not only a short 75mm focal length, but had to make ample use of tilts and swings too. In this area particularly, on the West Coast, never underestimate how intricate expensive properties can be. Now most architectural photography intended for publication is done digital MF.

The OP is unlikely to be needing to shoot cramped bathrooms or tiny kitchens - but even if he did these spaces hardly ever need anything more than a 24mm equivalent focal length to do them justice. The majority of architectural photography is done in 35 digital these days - most everyone is shooting sony mirrorless w/ the Canon TS lens adapted or with canon bodies. Publications routinely ask you to downsize your files for them, there's no big advantage in shooting MF anymore.

[bdkphoto]

...and corrected during editing?

The majority of the work these days is 35mm digital - the canon TSE lenses are really nice - 17 24 45 and 90 - I rarely fix it in post but it can be done easily in a pinch.

[Drew Wiley]

The present lens question was specifically in relation to 4X5 work. He didn't say what he intends to do with the shots. And he must have a reason for wanting a 75. Although I no longer do commercial architectural shoots, I still sometimes take personal architectural shots for sake of printmaking. For my current needs, a 120 is plenty wide for 4X5, or a 240 for 8X10; but I did find a 90 valuable at one time. I'm really more of a long lens type.

[pgk]

The majority of the work these days is 35mm digital - the canon TSE lenses are really nice - 17 24 45 and 90 - I rarely fix it in post but it can be done easily in a pinch.
I have shot some extremely distorted architectural images on a 21mm (FX) looking up at 30~40 degrees and then applied substantial correction in post to square everything up, before finally uploading them onto a photo forum (not here). Nobody seemed to notice although to me the images looked very odd due to the distortions introduced by correcting in post. Make of this what you will.

[John Layton]

There are occasions when I'll choose rear (axial and/or base) tilts, as opposed to front tilts...simply to preserve what image circle exists, and/or to keep the whole of the resulting image within an optical "sweet spot," keeping in mind that front tilts (especially axial ones) move the image circle around, while rear tilts do not, although rear tilts do introduce a bit of image distortion (which I sometimes also prefer!).

Edit: Then again, there are those times when I prefer front tilts (to minimize distortion for example), and if these are extreme enough to compromise the available image circle, I'll simply also employ a concurrent rise or fall (or shift if sideways) to re-center the image.

[phdgent]

As an example: the Schneider tech. info sheets are explaining it rather clearly:

252891
252892
252893

[cirwin2010]

OP here. Thanks for the replies everyone! First of all, yes I did my math wrong regarding available image circle. Since you tend to center the film in the image circle the amount of available rise is about half of what I was mathing out.

After an internal struggle between my wallet and my heart, I decided to go for the Nikkor-sw 75mm over the Schneider 72mm xl. Yes it doesn't have nearly as much available movements, but I would need to buy the bag bellows in order to take full advantage of that. Also I would need to buy 95mm filters for the lens. Granted I would only need a red filter for the most part, those can cost $200. Between that, $250 for bag bellows, and additional $500+ for the 72xl instead of the nikkor, the overall package would cost me nearly $1000 extra. Might as well save that for something even wider like the 58xl.

[MartyNL]

Wise choice, I like your thinking!

As you mentioned in your original post, the Nikon has an image circle of 200mm but if you look closely, it states that's @f16 so @f22 the the difference with the 72XL will be even less.

Also if you're into wides, the 58XL is a beauty too.

[neil poulsen]

. . . How does available image circle translate to camera movements? If I have a lens that has an image circle of 200mm and 4x5 film requires an image circle of 153mm, does that mean I could get 47mm of rise out of the lens? Is it that simple or does it not work like that? . . .

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello all!

For those interested, you'll find in the attached pdf file a derivation of above formulae, including the link between maximum values of X-shift and Y-shift when combined, for a given image circle of diameter C and a rectangular image format L x H.

Transcribed in pure-ASCII FORTRAN-like code, the useful formulae read as
Ys=(1./2.)*(-H+sqrt(C*C-4*(Xs+L/2.)**2))

Xs=(1./2.)*(-L+sqrt(C*C-4*(Ys+H/2.)**2))

[Conrad . Marvin]

OP here.
After an internal struggle between my wallet and my heart, I decided to go for the Nikkor-sw 75mm over the Schneider 72mm xl. Yes it doesn't have nearly as much available movements, but I would need to buy the bag bellows in order to take full advantage of that. Also I would need to buy 95mm filters for the lens. Granted I would only need a red filter for the most part, those can cost $200. Between that, $250 for bag bellows, and additional $500+ for the 72xl instead of the nikkor, the overall package would cost me nearly $1000 extra. Might as well save that for something even wider like the 58xl.

I mounted my 75mm Nikkor on a recessed board in spite of the inconvenience to make it usable on my 5x7 Gandolfi. I was just able to squeeze the 5x7 at f22 or f32 at infinity. Closer than that was less of a problem and it is quite a small lens. Sharp too! Enjoy!

[Robert Opheim]

If you are using your camera for architectural images with a 90mm and maybe a 75mm lens I would recommend that you will need a bag bellows. Years ago, I specifically bought a Linhof Technicardan camera with a bag bellows for architectural marketing work. I trained as a photographer before I went into architecture as a profession. I needed to use rise on many images - almost always for exteriors. I do use a 75mm lens quite a bit - as well. Often, there is a required lens for exterior images because of where a tripod and camera can be set up. Roads, other buildings, fences - get in the way - of possible ideal images. This can create a need for a number of lenses. My first two cameras had fixed standard bellows and I would bind the bellows in these cameras - if I used a small amount of rise or other corrections. I tend now to use a digital camera with a perspective control lens for my architectural practice images; as my primary use for this type of image is to post on my firms website. Best of luck in your image making endeavors.

[cirwin2010]

Just got my Nikkor-SW lens. I like to test my lenses before I put them to use. Surprised to see it was bigger than my Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8, but only just. It definitely needs a recessed lens board or bag bellows since I can't move the lens too much. I have a recessed board on the way to see if I can avoid bag bellows for now.

For m test I shot a fence with some lens test charts that were tapped to it just to provide an area of contrast to focus on and access on the light table. Looking at the film with a 10x loup I was surprised to see that it was sharper and higher contrast than my Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 at f22. I think it's my sharpest 4x5 lens assuming I didn't mess up my test shots with other lenses.

[cirwin2010]

Maybe getting off topic, is it worth getting a ~20mm deep recessed lens board over a ~12mm?

[xkaes]

The deeper the recess on the board the harder it is to access the controls on the shutter -- but that depends on the width of the recess and the width of the shutter. 10-12mm is as far as I could go on my cameras.

[phdgent]

The deeper the board the harder it is to access the controls on the shutter -- but that depends on the width of the recess and the width of the shutter. 10-12mm is as far as I could go on my cameras.

Recessed lens boards are not that easy to handle, not with the Linhof Technika's.
To be able to reach the aperture lever of a S-A 75mm (which isn't that a wide angle lens), I had to DIY extend that lever and put some extra markings...
And that cable release attachment wasn't that practical neither and needed a typical Linhof nipple.

253034

[cirwin2010]

I ordered a 21mm recessed lens board. I'll see how well I get along with it. To the point of the other posters, probably going to be a pain, but if I hate it I'll just go back to a flat board and eventually just get bag bellows. 21mm recessed board will probably still come in handy for a wider lens in the future if I don't end up using it for the 75mm.

[xkaes]

Good luck with that. It's hard enough to read the settings on my shutter in bright light with a 12mm recess -- let alone actually access & adjust them. I'd suggest you bring along a small screwdriver to make adjustments. And if you're lucky, you'll discover that you don't need that much recess.

[phdgent]

Good luck with that. It's hard enough to read the settings on my shutter in bright light with a 12mm recess -- let alone actually access & adjust them. I'd suggest you bring along a small screwdriver to make adjustments. And if you're lucky, you'll discover that you don't need that much recess.

That's why I modified, with a simple folded pice of aluminium strip, the (too-) little aperture handle and put some markings on the outer border of the Technika recessed lens board (see post #30).
I attached that strip on the crew holding the plastic end of that handle, simple but it worked...

[xkaes]

Is that shutter actually up against the back of the recessed board? It doesn't look like it to me -- although it does look like a 20-22mm recess.

Here is my 10-12mm recessed board. The shutter is in all the way so the shutter face is almost flat with the front of the board -- as it does in your photo (above). I can adjust the shutter speeds easily, and the f-stops without too much trouble.

253175

[cirwin2010]

I don't have my recessed lens board yet, but I went out and used the Nikkor-sw 75mm today on a flat lens board. Looking at the negatives on a light table with a 10x loupe, at f/22 the lens is very sharp with strong contrast. Definitely one of my sharpest 4x5 lenses.

I was able to get enough rise on my Chamonix 45f-2 (universal bellows) to be useful, but the bellows felt a bit stressed. Assuming the recessed lens board is usable for me, I'm hoping to get the front standard pushed out about as far as it would be with my 90mm. That way I don't need to push the rear standard in to get infinity focus and the amount of extension I need for the 90mm allows for more comfortable movements.

[phdgent]

Is that shutter actually up against the back of the recessed board? It doesn't look like it to me -- although it does look like a 20-22mm recess.

Here is my 10-12mm recessed board. The shutter is in all the way so the shutter face is almost flat with the front of the board -- as it does in your photo (above). I can adjust the shutter speeds easily, and the f-stops without too much trouble.

253175

I bought that recessed board at Linhof, mentioning it was particularly for a S-A 75mm, and eventually I got the lens mounted by them.
It was so deeply recessed that I hardly could put my not so thick fingers between the rim and the shutter to set the aperture, the exposure times ware just settable...
As Linhof couldn't offer a solution for a Copal shutter, I toke action myself and I dismounted the rear element so I could reach the retaining ring and toke off the whole unit.
Then, with some DIY I, attached a strip of aluminium on the aperture handle, folded it somewhat the right way and re-assembled the lot.
The only difficulty was that cable release attachment...

BTW, the shutter was directly mounted on the board, nothing in-between.

[cirwin2010]

I was warned and yet I am still surprised at how difficult it is to access the controls using a 21mm recessed lens board.

I mounted my Nikkor 75mm to the lens board. Starting with the bad. Obviously reaching the controls is a PITA. Its doable, but not fun. The aperture controls probably being the worst. It's hard to see without a light and f22-f32 are blocked by the shutter cocking lever. Also the lens board is harder to mount to the camera than the other boards since the recessed portion gets in the way of the opening when seating the board. Also the the shutter release threads on the lens board get very close to the front standard so screwing the release on before mounting is preferable. Oh and lens tilts and swings will slightly change the composition.

The good is I don't need to push the rear standard in to achieve infinity focus. The front standard is now located about where it would be when using my 90mm which makes movements easier with the standard bellows. Doesn't feel like I am going to rip the bellows anymore. The additional freedom of movement will help with the last con of tilts/swings changing the composition.

I haven't field tested this setup yet. At the moment it seems doable, but I might get sick of it eventually. Might depend on how much I end up using the 75mm over the 90mm. Right now my biggest worry is improperly mounting the lens and dropping it, didn't foresee this being an issue. Just takes some finesse to get in right.

[xkaes]

At this point, you can easily determine if you would find life easier with a 10-12mm recessed board. Just focus on infinity, and see how much farther back you can move the front standard. If it's more than 10mm and you can still get some movement, you can use a shorter board. Only you can decide.