Angulon at f32

[Scott Kathe]

I have a nice 90mm Schneider Angulon f6.8 but when I use a step up ring for my filters I can't see the aperture scale. I like to shoot at f22 but I'm wondering if diffraction will be a problem at f32 if I don't enlarge past 16x20. f32 is convenient because when I move the aperture lever all the way to the smallest f-stop I'm at f32. But shooting at f32 via the limit of lever travel method doesn't allow me to adjust in 1/3 stops for exposure. I can set the f-stop where ever I want and then screw in my filter but I always wonder if I moved the aperture lever. I had a cleaver idea the other day and mounted a piece of tape on the side of the shutter under the aperture lever arm and labeled the location of the f stops but I'm concerned that either the tape will fall off or the adhesive is going to stick if and when I remove the tape. A slip on adapter from SK Grimes would be great but a lot more expensive than tape or just shooting at f32 all the time. Any thoughts?

Scott

[John Brady]

Hi Scott, I shoot with a 47sa, 58sa and a 72 sa. I frequently shoot at f32 and have been happy with the results. I am sure others will weigh in differently but I think these modern lenses can handle it. Have you noticed though that the lever will push past f32 and the aperature will continue to get smaller?

I attended a workshop with Clyde Butcher and I was setting up for a shot with my 58xl. Clyde told me to set the aperature a f45 for the shot to achieve maximum depth of field. I told him the lens only went to 32 and he said push the lever all the way and now you have f45. I metered the shot at f45 and tried it. I think it is still plenty sharp and the depth of field was great.
Here is a link to one shot with the 58 at f45
http://www.pbase.com/jrbrady/image/77646973
___________________
www.timeandlight.com

[steve simmons]

He said he has a f6.8 Angulon which is an older version of the Super Angulon.

I would not shoot at 32 unless I had to but if I had to I would not worry about doing so. A little diffraction is better than not enough DOF.

Take the time to set the needed f=stop and then put on the filter ring.

BTW, how do you add exposure for the filter?


steve simmons

[Scott Kathe]

Thanks John but Steve is right I have the plain old Angulon, not the Super (yet!). Steve, to compensate for filters I add time but the shutter speeds work in full stops so I need to adjust the aperture for 1/3 stops. It hasn't been a big deal since I've been shooting FP4+ for the most part but now that I feel comfortable with 4x5 I'm going to expose some transparency film as well. Of course if the light levels are low enough I use a digital watch with the shutter set on B and I can take care of 1/3 stops that way taking into account reciprocity as needed.

Scott

[Ole Tjugen]

Some people believe that the 90mm f:6.8 Angulon has to be shot at f:32 to cover 4x5". Since many of those people still use Angulons, I'm sure they haven't been particularly bothered by diffraction! :)

[steve simmons]

My question was intended to be

how do you determine how much additional exposure to give for a specific filter?

Do you use an arbitrary filter factor, meter through the filter, ?

steve simmons

[Frank Petronio]

I used my 90 angulon at f/22 - 32 all the time, I think it needs to be at f/22 to look as sharp as a modern 90 at the same aperture. I think /32 may start to introduce diffraction but the more even coverage and greater DOF easily outweigh the minor diffraction potential... remember the 90 angulon has very soft edges, so f/32 really helps those corners out.

[Scott Kathe]

Ole,

Mine covers 4x5 with no problem, it may be soft in the corners but I haven't noticed since I have yet to enlarge past 8x10. In fact I shot the Angulon at f22 and used all the front rise I could get out of my Shen Hao for an architecture shot (something I rarely do) a couple of month ago and I got vignetting in the sky as expected. But I was surprised because I thought the vignetting was going to be a lot worse than it actually was given the amount I rise I used.

Scott

[Scott Kathe]

Steve,

Sorry I misunderstood your question. I use an arbitrary filter factor, that is to say I don't take a meter reading through the filter. I observed an interesting filter problem over the summer though with 135. I was shooting grasses and plants on beach sand dunes this past summer with my Nikon FM2n through a yellow filter onto FP4+. These were quick grab shots taken in the middle of the afternoon. I used the camera's meter reading through the filter and all the shots were underexposed by at least one if not two stops. Of course I didn't take any without the filter for comparison.

Scott

[Ole Tjugen]

Scott, I tried two 90/6.8 Angulons on 5x7" to see if there was any difference in coverage, and just how much I could "stretch" the image circle:

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

At f:32 I would be willing to use it on 5x7", unless I were planning big enlargements!

[Gene McCluney]

While diffraction can limit theoretical resolution at very small apertures, it is hardly a consideration with a 4x5 or larger negative at moderate enlargements, and the other qualities of the lens are improved when stopping down, such as depth-of-field, covering power, even illumination. I often use a 90mm Graflex Optar at F32 and while there is very little room for movements with this lens, it is quite sharp, and I would think the 90mm Angulon would be better.

[Ole Tjugen]

a propos diffraction: My 121mm f:8 Super Angulon is in a non-original shutter, so all the apertures are off by a bit. When the scale says f:5.6, the real aperture is about f:10!

I once needed a long exposure tilme, and had left all my filters at home. The negative (5x7" FP4+) looks very crisp and sharp, even if it was shot at f:80...

[Gene McCluney]

f:80...well there you go!

[Robert A. Zeichner]

Scott,

According to my source book, the 90 f6.8 Angulon would take a 42mm slip-on adapter. I have a series 6 adapter in that size if you are interested. It would at least make it easier to remove and replace the filter. You have my email address if interested.

[Emil Ems]

Robert,

Good idea with the slip-on series 6 adapter. However, I tried that with my 90 mm Angulon some years ago and, as I remember, there was vignetting with using that outfit even for only moderate rises of the lens. Thus, recommendable only if the Angulon is used without movements.

I hope this helps

[Alan Davenport]

Scott, you've gotten a lot of good replies here, esp. Ole's examples. We probably need say no more than that. But what fun would that be?

Keep in mind that diffraction at any given f/stop is identical regardless of the focal length. So a 300mm lens at f/32 will produce the exact same amount of diffraction blur as will a 90mm at f/32.

Although there will be more diffraction at f/32 than at f/22, the gains in depth of field and in edge sharpness may outweigh that, and besides you can get away with a lot of diffraction with 4x5 and larger films.

FWIW, here's a link to a photo that I took at f/45, and which prints very nicely up to 16x20: Link to 819x1024 image (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/100/274395161_ab314a58f8_o.jpg)

My short conclusion: go for it at f/32.

[Alex Tymków]

Hi Scott
The underexposure you experienced on the beach may not be the fault of the filter but the because you were taking reflected light readings from sand. I don't know where your beach was but if it had yellow sand the meter would have made it grey hence underexposed. How do you take light readings when using LF, incident or reflected, using the zone system or another method. You might find it useful to do some tests with your system and the filters - dead boring to do but it will give you the info.
good luck
Alex

[Scott Kathe]

Thanks to everyone who answered. This is such a great community it definitely helps speed up the learning process:) I usually learn the most from my mistakes and considering all the mistakes I've made I should be smart by now;) Alex, right now I'm using incident metering with a Gossen Luna Pro SBC but at some point in the future I'm planning on trying out a spotmeter.

Sincerely,

Scott Kathe