Really wide lenses - examples?

[Ed Richards]

My "normal" lens for 4x5 is a 90mm, in that I use it about 80% of the time. When I shot 35mm, I really liked using a 17, which is about 55mm for 4x5. Can any post an image or two with a really wide lens - 47/55/58? Do these support any movements, or would they would as well on a Fotoman? If I get one, I will need a cheap camera to go with it, since I cannot use it on my Technika.

[Helen Bach]

I've just posted a picture taken with a 55 mm Apo-Grandagon with some rise in the 'how about a picture post?' thread, and here is a link (http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4916760-md.jpg) to it.

Best,
Helen

[Jack Flesher]

Here is one I took about 6 years ago with a 58XL. I am about 14 inches from that rock and it is about 14 inches in diameter:

http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/Web-Images/Virgin_River_Black_Rock_Web.jpg

[Capocheny]

Jack,

What a great image! :)

Cheers

[Ron Marshall]

Do these support any movements, or would they would as well on a Fotoman? If I get one, I will need a cheap camera to go with it, since I cannot use it on my Technika.

Ed, Here are the movements possible with modern lenses:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's one I've posted before, Berthiot 120mm/f:14 Perigraphe on 8x10"--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/79bb.jpg

If you are an APUG subscriber (if not, I think you only can see a thumbnail), here's one with a 55mm/f:4.5 Apo-Grandagon on 4x5"--

http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=11108&cat=500&ppuser=60

And here's another with an older 65mm/f:8 Super-Angulon--

http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=15792&cat=500&ppuser=60

[Ed Richards]

Ron,

Thanks! I had missed that. I can visulize what 9mm of rise will do, but is 9 degrees of tilt useful? It is not a lot, but then I guess with a 58, it does not need to be a lot. Jack, did you use tilt? Bet these are REALLY sensitive to not having the camera aligned exactly.

David and others,

Are you using center filters?

[Henry Ambrose]

Excellent picture, Helen!

Ed, here is one with a 58 Schneider using about 3/4 inch of fall on the front and the center filter. I rarely use this lense without the CF. Here, I'm backed into the corner of an apartment bedroom. (Link) (http://www.henryambrose.com/webposts/bedroom_58.jpg)

I wouldn't worry about movements too much. Most cameras won't let you do much with a lens this short anyway and when stopped down it mostly does not matter. Exceptions might be Jack's picture with the rock at 14 inches from the camera.

[Ed Richards]

My question about movements is really about the cheapest camera I can use one of these on - there is no way I can use it on my old Technika, so I need a second camera. I want to hold on to the Technika because I like to use the nangefinder, so I do not want to spend a lot on the second camera. If movements were not an issue, I could use a Fotoman. If they are useful, I might be able to use a Shen-Ho with the bag bellows. (I really want to avoid recessed lens boards.) Anyone know the minium bellows extension on a Crown Graphic - the flange focal length for a 58 is 70mm.

[Frank Petronio]

Why can't you use one of those Chinese made (or the original OEM) helical focusing mounts on a Technika board? And just go wide enough that movements are ridiculous (like >65mm).

[Jack Flesher]

Jack, did you use tilt? Bet these are REALLY sensitive to not having the camera aligned exactly.


My shot has a few degrees of both tilt and swing as well as a few mm of shift and rise. I was jammed in-between the black rock and the wall of rock and the only way to get the composition was using all of the movements. If you look closely, you can see the wall on the far left is a tad soft; impossible to get it all sharp in this kind of composition, so decisions about what el;ements stay sharp need to be made.

As for 9 degrees of tilt -- that is a HUGE amount of tilt on a short lens; the effects of tilt (and swing) on PoF are magnified as you go shorter in focal length.

Cheers,

[Henry Ambrose]

I think a Crown Graphic would work by dropping the bed. A Fotoman would be fine as I don't think movements matter that much for basic superwide pictures. Whatever camera without movements would work much like a super wide on a 35mm camera. If you didn't miss movements then, you probably won't now. f16 or f22 covers a lot of dof on a 58mm lens.

[Nick_3536]

My question about movements is really about the cheapest camera I can use one of these on - there is no way I can use it on my old Technika, so I need a second camera. I want to hold on to the Technika because I like to use the nangefinder, so I do not want to spend a lot on the second camera. If movements were not an issue, I could use a Fotoman. If they are useful, I might be able to use a Shen-Ho with the bag bellows. (I really want to avoid recessed lens boards.) Anyone know the minium bellows extension on a Crown Graphic - the flange focal length for a 58 is 70mm.


The B&J press could just handle the 70mm but you can't drop the bed with that short a lens and forget much if any movements.

[Joseph O'Neil]

My question about movements is really about the cheapest camera I can use one of these on - there is no way I can use it on my old Technika, so I need a second camera. I want to hold on to the Technika because I like to use the nangefinder, so I do not want to spend a lot on the second camera. If movements were not an issue, I could use a Fotoman. If they are useful, I might be able to use a Shen-Ho with the bag bellows. (I really want to avoid recessed lens boards.) Anyone know the minium bellows extension on a Crown Graphic - the flange focal length for a 58 is 70mm.


I have a Crown, and with the drop bed, you can use something very wide, but your movements will be restricted, even with a recessed lens board. (and if you can find a recessed lens board for a Crown too! :( ). Add to that, I ahve used recessed lens boards int he past, I still have one for my monorail, and I find them a complete PITA.

My personal feeling is, at 90mm or smaller (in 4x5 at least) a monorail rules supreme when you want the best possible range of movements. Even if you just won a lottery, walked into Badger Graphic, and saw one of every field camera ever made all ready for an instant sale, I still think monorails rule for movements on super-wide lenses. However, monorails - any type, style, brand - are not simply as portable, especailly if you are backpacking.

So dunno where to go. I woudl not go smaller than say 75mm on a Crown myself, but other's milage may vary.

good luck
joe

[Ed Richards]

Why can't you use one of those Chinese made (or the original OEM) helical focusing mounts on a Technika board? And just go wide enough that movements are ridiculous (like >65mm).

I have not seen the Chinese versions - do you have a link? The OEM (Linhof) version is only sold with the lens, and the pair go for more than 3K!!! The old linhof wide focusing adapter looks like a real kludge and the cheapest one I can find is $600.

[Frank Petronio]

http://cgi.ebay.com/WIDE-ANGLE-DEVICE-4-LINHOF-TECHNIKA-4x5-helical-focus_W0QQitemZ140026000704QQihZ004QQcategoryZ29980QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I do not have any experience with these, I only noticed it - YMMV.

[Ron Marshall]

My question about movements is really about the cheapest camera I can use one of these on.

Ed, KEH has a Toyo 45F monorail with bag bellows for $265. Not very convenient for field use, but cheap and with the bag bellows should handle a 58mm.

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx

[Ole Tjugen]

Another alternative is a really old really cheap German plate camera!

My 24x30cm (9.5x12") plate camera has a minimum flange focal length of 38mm, maximum of 88cm. It offers 6cm each way of rise and shift, as well as 10 degrees rear tilt and swing (both axial).

My 13x18cm camera offers slightly less max. extension and slightly less front movements.

An interesting modern "superwide" camera, seemingly based loosely on these, is the Argentum xl. (http://www.argentumcamera.com/_angol/html_pages/xl.htm)

[Jack Flesher]

I wouldn't worry about movements too much. Most cameras won't let you do much with a lens this short anyway and when stopped down it mostly does not matter. Exceptions might be Jack's picture with the rock at 14 inches from the camera.

Good point Henry and one that should be clarified. With these hyper wide lenses, there is very little additional image circele to play with -- usually only a few mm. In my black rock shot, since I was close to the main subject I had some additional bellows extension for the close focus on the rock. This in turn gave me some added image circle to work with (image circle is smallest at infinity focus) and allowed for more movement than normally available.

Here is a second example with the same lens from the same trip. In this one I did added a few degrees of tilt to span the log, but was further away and actually added some fall (rear rise) to "help" the image circle re-center on the frame. In this image I am about 4 feet above the base of the tree, the root ball is about 3 feet in diameter and I have the camera above and only slightly behind the roots, but angled down about 20 degrees (the tripod legs are just outside the frame):

http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/Web-Images/Virgin_River_Pointer_Web.jpg

Cheers,

[CXC]

1. I keep my 65mm semi-permanently mounted on a Gowland 4x5 monorail with bag bellows; I am sure it would accommodate wider lenses just as well. My guess would be that any decently designed monorail with a bag bellows should pretty much handle any lens 90mm or wider; you run out of lens coverage before you run out of camera movements.

2. Personally I find rise to be the only useful movement with superwides. What do others think?

3. Sometimes tilt/swing is limited by the rear element colliding with the ground glass.

4. Rise can also be provided by a lensboard with an off-center hole, in which case a camera that takes big lensboards is an advantage, as is one that takes exactly square boards, or may be readily shot sideways or upside down.

Just some thoughts...

[David A. Goldfarb]

Various questions--

I don't have a center filter for 120mm Perigraphe, so I don't use one with that. The example I posted with the 55 does have the center filter, and I usually use it. The example I posted with the 65 was without a center filter, but I didn't have one at the time, and now I do, so I usually do use it. I usually use one with a 75mm as well.

I don't find myself using tilt much with the 55, but progressively more with the 65, 75, and so on up the line. I'm also more likely to use rise/fall than tilt with the superwides.

[G Benaim]

For those of you using superwides on a Gowland, how do you get it square precisely enough for these lenses? I've had trouble w a 90mm!

[Ted Harris]

I use a little pocket bubble level that I just put on the front and rear standard to check and adjust.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use a level or often a clinometer-compass, which is fairly precise and can be used to check swing as well as tilt and the level of the rail.

[Ole Tjugen]

Instead of moving down in focal length, I really prefer moving up in size with the same lens...

This one was shot on 5x7" film with a 90mm f:8 Super Angulon:

[John Schneider]

Jack, let me say that your two images are fine indeed.

What equipment did you use besides the 58XL? This question is more broadly directed at all those who take large format gear into tight spaces with a fair risk of environmental damage (impact, water, grit).

The reason I'm asking is that I'd like to take something bigger than my Nikonos into some of the water-filled slot canyons here in Arizona. The canyons are too pretty not to record on larger film, but getting into them involves rappelling, wading or swimming, and squeezing through tight spaces. If a Cambo Wide or Fotoman pancake camera will work fine with only front rise I'd prefer that for its greater robustness, otherwise I'll have to bring my Gowland.

Although I realize that this is largely a matter of personal preference, what wide angle do you find most usable in slot canyons? I used to have a 65 Grandagon before I moved to AZ, which I sold because it was too wide to be really usable for landscapes. Now I wish I had it back...

[John Brady]

this is a recent one with a 58xl...
http://timeandlight.com/cart/lrg.php?q=2&cp=LIMITED&n=69&c=0&i=0&p=0&z=dunes+6&stat=0.jpg
one more....
http://timeandlight.com/cart/lrg.php?n=70&c=0&i=0&p=0&q=2&cid=1&z=mosaic+5&cp=LIMITED&stat=0.jpg
___________________
www.timeandlight.com

[sparq]

Does anyone have any experience with the Chinese helical focusing device mentioned by Frank on a Technika? Is the hole is properly positioned off the center; or does one get unwanted raise? (and how much of it?)

[eric black]

While I agree that 58 is certainly wide- Im wondering if anybody has tried Schneiders 47mm XL or the 38mm(which doesnt quite cover 4x5 but cropping might produce something interesting to share- Ive always been curious about those lenses on a 4x5

[John Brady]

Hi Eric, I have never tried a 38 on 4x5 but here is the 47xl on 4x5...

[Alan Davenport]

I've been very happy with my 90mm Super Angulon and 4x5 film.

Until now.

Now, thanks to this thread, my EAS (Equipment Acquisition Syndrome) is raging stronger than ever.

I hate all of you. ;)

[Jack Flesher]

The 47 XL is a very good lens. Interestingly however, for me at least, I finally settled on a 65 as my widest 4x5 lens. Neither the 47 or 58 (or 55 Rodenstock) really allow for any movement other than the slightest tilt or rise/shift. In the end, I found I prefer the 65 due to its larger IC and more generous movement capability. THere is also the issue of falloff, and all of these lenses demand the use of a center filter.

My .02,

[Tom Diekwisch]

I really like the 47mm Super-Angulon XL. There is even some vertical shift possible. It's very sensitive to focus alignment and plane of film. I have had very nice results using it with a Lupa Fantuz architectural camera. http://dentistry.uic.edu/Depts/oralb/ChicagoLinks.htm.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Nice architectural shots Tom!

Cheers, Klaus

[Roger Krueger]

This is a 35mm APO-Grandagon on 4x5 at f22 (on a pre-DS Cambo Wide), with a center filter. First image is the raw scan, 2nd is the final, with some cloning in the corners to accomodate a wider crop.

I don't even have a ground glass for this camera, I just scale focus, it has a helical with a good distance scale. (I really like scale focusing, I even scale focus my DSLR when I've got the 19 on. Pity the AF lenses have such worthless distance/DOF scales). If I'm going all the way to the edge of the image circle with the 35mm I need f22 to get the edge reasonably sharp anyway.


http://www.rogerkrueger.com/photonet/BalboaParkRaw800.jpg


http://www.rogerkrueger.com/photonet/BalboaPark800.jpg

[C. D. Keth]

Roger, I nearly fell backwards out of my chair wit vertigo at those :P

That perspective is so cool and makes the space look enormous. What is the real scale of the place, out of curiosity?

[Geert]

Instead of moving down in focal length, I really prefer moving up in size with the same lens...

Ole,

not everyone has the luxury of having a lot of cameras in different formats, but it is a perfectly good solution...
I'm currently experimenting with 120 Angulon (not super) on the 8x10" :)
It seems to work, but I guess not at infinity.

Jack, I really love your images!

G

[Ole Tjugen]

Geert,

A 120 Angulon on 8x10" should look about the same as a 90 Angulon on 5x7", I guess...

http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/

Just be more careful with sun shining directly on the lens than I was!

[eric black]

Awesome John and Roger- my equipment acquisition syndrome might be waking up again as well- thanks for sharing the images