Widest lens for whole plate?

[audioexcels]

Looking to find a modern lens, but it doesn't seem like that's possible. I want something to an extreme that the 47mm XL is on 4X5. Anyone know of anything that can do both color and black/white work well on the Whole Plate format "and" have an "extreme" wide focal length?

Also, what multiplier does one have to use from 4X5 focal length to get the equivalent in 6.5X8.5? In other words, say I wanted to find a lens that is 47mm on a 4X5...what do I multiply the 47mm with in order to get the lens equivalent on 6.5X8.5?

Thanks everyone!

[Oren Grad]

The diagonal for a whole plate negative - and thus the normal focal length - is 260 mm give or take, with the exact value depending on the holder. I think the 4x5 diagonal is 154 mm or so.

So if you just go by the diagonals, then the multiplier is 260/154 = 1.69, and for a counterpart to the 47 SA-XL you'd want something around 80 mm. Alas, the 80 SS-XL won't cover, at least not per Schneider's specifications. But the 90 SA-XL might just do it, likely with no room for movement at infinity. Of course, you also need a camera that will compress that far.

The big wide angle lenses in the 110 mm - 120 mm range will easily cover.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

In my experience, the 90mm Schneider Super Angulon will hit the corners of 4x10 (image diagonal ~265mm depending on your holders). So, it should cover WP with a teeny bit to spare. If you're shooting color transparency film, you may find a center filter beneficial to help even out the illumination.

Kerry

[audioexcels]

In my experience, the 90mm Schneider Super Angulon will hit the corners of 4x10 (image diagonal ~265mm depending on your holders). So, it should cover WP with a teeny bit to spare. If you're shooting color transparency film, you may find a center filter beneficial to help even out the illumination.

Kerry

Not bad. I think the 90 XL should "definitely" cover then with some movements I would think? As the regular super angulon isn't too much of a price to pay, it's worth seeing what it can do. Have seen the 90XL go for $900 recently in mint condition and was very tempted as they usually go for $1200 or so. I imagine if I did decide to go with the 90mm XL, it would be going for $1200 again...my luck;):)

We are talking the regular SA 90mm F5.6 and not the XL version, correct?

[audioexcels]

The diagonal for a whole plate negative - and thus the normal focal length - is 260 mm give or take, with the exact value depending on the holder. I think the 4x5 diagonal is 154 mm or so.

So if you just go by the diagonals, then the multiplier is 260/154 = 1.69, and for a counterpart to the 47 SA-XL you'd want something around 80 mm. Alas, the 80 SS-XL won't cover, at least not per Schneider's specifications. But the 90 SA-XL might just do it, likely with no room for movement at infinity. Of course, you also need a camera that will compress that far.

The big wide angle lenses in the 110 mm - 120 mm range will easily cover.

You know I have never understood the production of the 80mm XL...it has very little coverage and the 72mm actually has more if I am not mistaken. But yet it costs a bundle and people seem to have interest in it???

[Oren Grad]

You know I have never understood the production of the 80mm XL...it has very little coverage and the 72mm actually has more if I am not mistaken. But yet it costs a bundle and people seem to have interest in it???

The 80 SS-XL is much smaller and lighter than the 72 SA-XL. And the focal length is different enough that you might prefer one or the other.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Not bad. I think the 90 XL should "definitely" cover then with some movements I would think? As the regular super angulon isn't too much of a price to pay, it's worth seeing what it can do. Have seen the 90XL go for $900 recently in mint condition and was very tempted as they usually go for $1200 or so. I imagine if I did decide to go with the 90mm XL, it would be going for $1200 again...my luck;):)

We are talking the regular SA 90mm F5.6 and not the XL version, correct?

Sorry, I was referring specifically to the 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL. In my experience it covers 4x10 straight on with very little left over for movements. The published image circle at f22 is listed as 259mm. The actual usable coverage, in my experience is slightly more.

I have no experience with the regular 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon on 4x10, but I doubt if it would cover. The published image circle is 235mm. So, it would need another 25mm of image circle just to hit the corners of WP. Schneider has grown more conservative in their coverage specs over the years, but the Super Angulons do mechanically vignette at some point establishing an absolute maximum on coverage. If you can borrow a 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon, it may be worth a tray, but I suspect a 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL will be your best option.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

You know I have never understood the production of the 80mm XL...it has very little coverage and the 72mm actually has more if I am not mistaken. But yet it costs a bundle and people seem to have interest in it???

It all depends on the application.

For architecture on 4x5, the 72mm Super Angulon XL offers very generous movements. It's huge, takes a very large very expensive center filter and is on the heavy side. But, for architectural photography, where you'd be able to drive to your location, already have a heavy monorail system and lighting equipment (for interiors), the size and weight aren't an issue.

It also has enough coverage that it can be used as a VERY, VERY wide lens on the 5x7/13x18cm formats.

However, it wouldn't be my ideal lens for backpacking with a 4x5. The coverage is more than I need and the size and bulk are a significant drawback when counting ounces.

For 4x5 landscape shooters, the 80mm Super Symmar XL is much smaller and lighter, and while the coverage is less than the 72mm Super Symmar XL (211mm vs. 229mm), it's more than adequate for 4x5 landscape shooting. In fact, other than the 72mm XL, the 80mm XL has a larger image circle than any other lens shooter than 90mm.

Price wise, the two are within about $50 of each other, but the 80mm takes much smaller, less expensive filters, negating the slight cost advantage of the 72mm XL.

Kerry

[audioexcels]

Wish I would have posted this sooner...would have had the chance at the 90mm. Ahhhh well.

[Accentuate The Negative]

While it's not a lens per se, don't overlook pinhole as an alternative option for extreme wide angle shooting in large formats.

Even if you spend the cash for a commercial precision micro-drilled or laser-drilled pinhole aperture, the $25 - $40 you'll spend is a lot cheaper than any fully functional WA lens I've ever seen.

And providing you're willing to accept some light falloff at the edges (or build your own camera with a curved film plane, or make a "center filter" to place in front of the film plane) you can get "optimum" pinholes for focal lengths far shorter than any lens maker has ever dared to engineer.

End result: a rectilinear image without the distortion common to wide-angle lens designs.