Ultra-Wide Angle Lens Questions

[JPlomley]

I'm hoping for some feedback from users of ultra-wide lenses since I'm about to buy my first ultra-wide for 4x5 (Rodenstock 55mm APO Grandagon). When I used to shoot full frame DSLR I spent a lot of time between 16 - 20mm and so would like to emulate that perspective in 4x5. I have a trip planned to Zion in November and so want to get started early in learning the "ins and outs" of using an ultra-wide on 4x5. I must admit that I'm a bit nervous given the apparent difficulty in using these optics, so here are my newbie questions:

1. Do I really need the ultra-expensive (:eek: ) Rodenstock CF (2.5x FF) to go with the ultra-wide, or can I get away with the less expensive Heliopan (3x FF); about $200 less.

2. I'm a big fan of polarizers and had settled on the Singh Ray slim mount warm tone and color enhancer polarizers when shooting DSLR. Unfortunately, Singh Ray only manufactures threads up to 82mm. So I need a 86mm alternative to go on top of the CF. But do I need a thin mount filter, or can I get away with a regular mount (for which there are more polarizer types available)? Any preference for Heliopan vs B+W?

3. I am currently using an Arca Swiss F-Field camera and was wondering if a Maxwell wide angle focussing screen is critical for the evaluation of corner sharpness (apparently evens out the illumination when using wide angle lenses). Up to now I have been using a Schneider 4x loupe for evaluating focus, but also have the Silvestri, which due to it's ability to tilt should help with the redirection of light rays for focusing. But will this be enough on the OEM screen.

4. How much will I need to stop down to get full coverage? Is there any focus shift in the corners? I can't imagine one focuses these lenses wide open. Do you focus with the CF in place, or add it after focus is achieved?

5. How much is it going to cost me to shoot these ultra-wides :eek:

I know I'm going to visit this thread in a year from now and laugh at these questions, but any help on technique for getting me started with these optics would be much appreciated.

Jeff

[Nick_3536]

Why do you want to use a polarizer on this type of lens?

Buy yourself a 5x7 camera. Then stick something like a 72mm or 75mm in front of it -)

B&W film or? How much you need a CF will depend.

[JPlomley]

Good points Nick. I'm shooting strictly chromes, so I believe the CF will be essential.

The polarizers are crucial to eliminating those nasty surface reflections from river streams and foliage on wet days (the conditions I most love to shoot landscape in). Of course they also increase saturation. A regular polarizer is too cool for my palette, so i prefer a warm tone polarizer. To punch up reds when using RVP 50, I have used the color enhancing polarizer by Singh Ray to good effect (do not attempt this on RVP 100 unless you like lots of magenta).

[Gordon Moat]

Your alternative to a centre filter is using PhotoShop to correct the edges. Basically you could create a mask that would allow adjustments. Since you plan on shooting transparency films, and are likely to scan prior to printing, it might be a viable alternative.

A 55mm on 4x5 is very extreme. It will not be easy to focus nor compose on the ground glass. Some patience and practice will probably help when starting with a super wide. Best of luck.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[al olson]

A couple of thoughts, Jeff, on using the polarizer with a wide angle lens and color transparency film.

Western skies tend to photograph as deep blues without the use of a polarizer. Using a polarizer often gives the sky a deeper blue that looks artificial.

A wide expanse of sky that has been polarized will not appear uniform. It will be darkest in the direction normal to the sun's rays and lighten up away from that direction. Thus you may end up with dark sky on one side of the image and lighter sky on the other, or dark sky in the middle and lighter sky on the sides.

I have ruined some beautiful landscape scenes by using a polarizer here in the west. I don't use them anymore. If I were to use one, it would only be with a lens having a narrow angle of view.

Good luck with your trip to Zion.

[JPlomley]

Agreed Al. I'm thinking more of using the polarizer to eliminate reflections off of slick rocks for example in the Virgin Narrows.

[Paul O]

Hi. The 55mm is one of my fave lenses - especially when combined with a 6x12 roll film back! This lens is a superb performer and sharp right across the frame - even into the extreme corners of a sheet of 5x4. Movements are limited by image circle and bellows compression but it is sooo wide I doubt you will need them anyway. If you plan on using it on full frame 5x4 on transaprency film then a CF is advisable or the film will darken in the corners. I use the Schneider CF that is designed for the 110XL/58XL as I have found that it works admirably on this lens and I already owned it for the 110. If you shoot 6x12 then the CF is not necessary. One point - although a newcomer to Photoshop I have found that it is easy to play down the effect of slight vignetting on full frame 5x4 :D

I have the LEE push on filter holder that I mount to the front of the CF and this allows me to use a single LEE filter without vignetting.

Regarding Polarisers - I have found that if I need to use one then I simply use a 77mm filter on a 67-77mm step-up ring (77mm is my standard filter size for all lenses). The non-uniformity of polarising effect on the sky with such a wide lens seems to negate the need for a CF - it is difficult to determine if the darkening is vignetting or degree of polarisation. With a 55mm you will get some difference in polarisatio levels in a landscape so I wouldn't use the CF/Polariser combo - just a polariser. Hope this helps! Paul

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have the 55 Apo-Grandagon.

I use it with a Schneider III CF--1.25 stops at the center, because that's the one I happen to have. A stronger center filter like the Heliopan 3X would probably be better. It's somewhat subjective, since even the dedicated CF will undercorrect somewhat, and a certain amount of falloff looks natural. The CF works best around f:22. I usually focus wide open without the CF (or with the CF if it's bright enough), then check again with the CF in place and again when I stop down. I haven't noticed any focus shift when stopping down.

If you want to use a polarizer with a lens wider than about 75mm, you need to be careful about it and be aware that you're only getting selective polarization. If you have a substantial amount of sky in the picture, you'll have uneven polarization in the sky, or if you are trying to reduce a reflection on a lake that takes up most of the frame, you can only reduce the reflection on a part of the lake, and it may mess up your composition somewhere else in the frame.

The Silvestri loupe is handy with this lens, but whether it works for you in the corners will depend on your fresnel, which may black out in the corners with such a wide lens. If you have an easily removable fresnel, that's ideal, since you can view the whole composition with the fresnel in place (or even two standard fresnels), and check focus in the corners with a Silvestri loupe on the plain glass. Checking the corners with a loupe is overrated anyway. Test the lens, know its limits, and you can figure out how much you need to stop down to know that the corners will be sharp, even when you can't see it on the glass.

[Jack Flesher]

My .02...

1) The 55 Grandagon has about the same total usable IC as either the 45 APO Grandagon or Schneider 47SAXL -- if you like wides, I'd get one of these instead.

2) Center filters: For lenses wider than 65 on 4x5 when shooting chromes, you will need one. Personally, I have found that less is more... IOW, if the manufacturer calls for a 2-stop, I prefer a 1.5 stop. Over-correcting the falloff on the really wide lenses looks somehow fake to me; so I use the iiib for my 110SSXL on my 47SAXL which specs the stronger iiic.

3) Polarizers: I hear you on just using it for rocks and water howeverbut; Polarizers eliminate reflections most at 90 degrees to the offending light-source and this tapers off in a sine-wave pattern as you approach 180 or 0. This is readily apparant if shooting a large expanse of sky with a wideangle, as you end up with a dark blue sine-wave pattern in your sky. Surprisingly, I have noted the same pattern effect in the way reflections are mitigated on rocks with the really wide lenses. I actually discovered this on one of my first my first view camera trips where several images were essentially ruined by the very visible effect -- a fall trip to Zion ironically... Anyway, for this reason I no longer use polarizers on lenses wider than normal, and even then only use them sparingly, and best relegated to lenses longer than normal IMHO.

Cheers,

[Bob Salomon]

My .02...

1) The 55 Grandagon has about the same total usable IC as either the 45 APO Grandagon or Schneider 47SAXL -- if you like wides, I'd get one of these instead.
Cheers,

Jack,
You use funny math.
The 45mm Apo Grandagon covers a 131mm circle at infinity at f11.
The 55mm Apo Grandagon covers a 163mm circle at infinity at f11.

They do not have "about the same total usable IC". The 55mm covers quite a bit more.

[Jack Flesher]

Right enough Bob, and thanks for correcting me! I was giving unfortunate credit to the Rodenstock short lenses. Your correction better underlines the point I wanted to make, that the Schneider 47 SAXL covers better than the longer Rodenstock Grandagon 55...

So, using the charts, the 47SAXL is 166 -- though in use it covers even more -- and IMO is the best choice for 4x5 ultrawideangle...

FWIW, this is why I personally sold my Rodenstock short lenses and shoot Schneider now for wides...

Cheers,

[Carsten Wolff]

Jack, don't get up Bob's nose so much. He was only trying to help....:)

[Jack Flesher]

Huh? Me up Bob's nose??? I thought I thanked him for correcting me...

Cheers,

[JPlomley]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. This is just a great forum and a great group of helpful individuals. Cheers to Bob from HP as well who provided a lot of off-line technical support and patience for newbie questions.

I ended up ordering the APO Grandagon from Midwest who had one in 9+ condition for less than half the price of a new 47 XL. Being my first ultrawide on 4x5, and something of a specialized optic, I really did not want to sink over 2K into the Schneider (or $1.5K in a new Grandagon) when I still have several "core" lenses to acquire. I usually buy everything new, but made an exception in this case given the reputation that Jim at Midwest has earned on this forum. If in a years time I am frustrated with less than ample movements on the Grandagon, I know there is a strong resale market and I'll just flip it for the 47 XL (although I suspect I could end up with both if I get hooked on the 4x5 ultrawide).

[audioexcels]

Right enough Bob, and thanks for correcting me! I was giving unfortunate credit to the Rodenstock short lenses. Your correction better underlines the point I wanted to make, that the Schneider 47 SAXL covers better than the longer Rodenstock Grandagon 55...

So, using the charts, the 47SAXL is 166 -- though in use it covers even more -- and IMO is the best choice for 4x5 ultrawideangle...

FWIW, this is why I personally sold my Rodenstock short lenses and shoot Schneider now for wides...

Cheers,

How much coverage does it have at larger apertures on 4X5 and can you actually get some movement with it for architecural use? Do you use a center filter on it?

[audioexcels]

Why do you want to use a polarizer on this type of lens?

Buy yourself a 5x7 camera. Then stick something like a 72mm or 75mm in front of it -)

B&W film or? How much you need a CF will depend.

What 75mm can cover 5X7?

[Carsten Wolff]

What 75mm can cover 5X7?

Good point. There's the 72mm SA-XL (226mm), but no 75mm lens I guess.
Although my 75mm SW Nikkor can just reach, it does so only dead-on @ f32, or so and without center filter things are starting to look less than bright in the corners.

[Ron Marshall]

What 75mm can cover 5X7?

72mm or 80mm. My 75mm grandagon, with a 195mm image circle covers with hyperfocal focus.

[JPlomley]

Just an update on the 55mm Grandagon. Jim at Midwest described it in 9+ condition, and I have to say that when I took it out of the box yesterday it looked brand new :eek: ! Not even a smudge anywhere. Everything seems to be in good working order.

Mounting it in my Arca Swiss Field camera, the corners sure get dim. So I'm wondering if anyone on this forum using Bill Maxwell's wide angle focussing screen could provide some feedback on it's efficacy. It is not a minor surgery getting one of these into the AS. In fact, I would need to buy a new holder and send it off to Precision Camera Works to have it modified to accomodate the Maxwell screen. By the time all is said and done, I'm probably looking at around $600. So before I go this route, I'd like to know from those who have gone before, is it worth it?

[andrew vincent]

long dead thread, but in case anyone is looking, my 2 cents: I have shot with the Schneider 58XL and traded it for the 47XL on my Master Technika, and found both to be incredibly sharp, and a huge pain to use, though I love them dearly. I spoke with Bill Maxwell at length about this, and to cut to the chase, we concluded that if you were the kind of person who had some doubts about paying $250 for a fresnel screen, you were not in the market for his wide angle screen. I haven't personally used one, and I have no doubt its a phenomenal device, but the laws of optics dictate that you just can't have a screen that does a great job on ultra wide lenses that can still do normal and/or long. Bill said that his clients typically purchase a whole second back that's used as a dedicated ultra-wide back for this purpose. (Of course, that's around $1000 all told, so you better be doing a lot of this kind of photography.) The ultra wide fresnel only works with 47-90mm on 4x5, I believe.

Personally, I use the regular maxwell screen - which is phenomenal - and just place a linhof fresnel on top of it when I go ultra wide. Yes, you have two fresnels, and sometimes you want to just use the one to check sharpness at 10x before you shoot - but the protective sheet of glass on top of the maxwell screen gets rid of most of the moire interference, and it brightens up the image considerably when you're using this lens for dim interiors, as I do, where there's practically no image at all at the corners. This way you can do all your basic framing and movements.

If I money was no object, I just get a second back with the maxwell screen. (Of course, if money was NO object, I'd probably get out of 4x5 altogether and get an H3 outfit ;)