View Full Version : Classic normal with good coverage on 4x5?

29-Nov-2006, 18:37
I use an Optar 135mm f4.7 on the Crown Graphic, but several times lately I ran out of coverage; and I couldn't /see/ it clearly in the corners of the groundglass at the time so I ended up with negs & slides with severe vignetting in the corners.

I was wondering if there were equivalent "classic" 135-ish with better coverage, at reasonable prices. I must say I am quite happy with the Optar's resolution; I tested it on my DSLR and it has pretty good sharpness, even compared to "35mm" 135mm lens (despite the legend that large format lens are not sharp).

Anyway, any good oldies out there ? Would a Xenar be better, or just more of the same ? Wide Field Ektars are getting pricey these days too, and not that easy to find... Just shelled out for a 100mm one and I'd like a breather before the next :D

John Kasaian
29-Nov-2006, 18:44
You might consider a 120 0r 165 Angulon

Jim Jones
29-Nov-2006, 19:39
In a 1948 booklet on their lenses, Kodak recommended the 100mm Wide Field Ektar for 4x5 without swings, and the 135 Wide Field for 4x5 with swings or 5x7 without. I occasionaly use an Angulon 165 on 4x5 for extreme rises. The longer 203mm f/7.7 Ektar is a classic lens with good coverage for adjustments on 4x5. However, it sometimes sells for classic prices.

Ole Tjugen
30-Nov-2006, 00:03
A Xenar would be no better, but a Symmar is a different matter. Or an APO-Lanthar if you can find one.

I have used a 135mm Planar, and 150mm Tessar, Xenar, Symmar, Heliar, Apo-Lanthar, G-Claron and Germinar-W. If I need something a little wider than 150mm the 120mm Angulon is fine, or 165 Angulon for extra extra coverage. Apart from that the 150 Apo-Lanthar sees the most use, with a 180 Symmar as "backup". I sold the Symmar since I have other lenses to use for more coverage, and the lens was the most "neutral" of all. All the others have some special property one way or the other (for the Tessar and Xenar it is price), the Symmar is "just all round good".

Jim Galli
30-Nov-2006, 10:51
Why not treat yourself to your first Dagor. The 165's don't fetch all that much. In fact someone very close to me has an extra. You can start a whole new expensive bad habit. AND when you go entirely off the deep end and buy an old B&J 5X7 it will cover that format perfectly. A 150 G-Claron is another very nice lens if you're into clinically sharp.

Michael Graves
30-Nov-2006, 16:27
I'm a Fuji addict. I have a 150, a 210 and a 300. They all throw very wide image circles. The 150 covers 5x7 with room to spare. The 210 gives me a tiny hair of movement on my 8x10, and I can tie the 5x7 in knots. The 300 gives me room for very large movements on 8x10 and I don't have enough rise and fall on the 5x7 to run out of coverage. And they're all quite sharp.