PDA

View Full Version : Very lightweight older 65mm lens?



Former Member 8144
14-Nov-2007, 06:17
Hi,
I have put together my current 5x4 location/landscape lens set..fairly lightweight, great lenses, etc etc (nikkor 90mm SW F8, 135mm apo-sironar s, and a nikkor 200mm M).
Now I'm also looking for an ultrawide lens (65mm) that is to be used only as a lightweight landscape lens for those odd superwide shots so it does not need a huge image circle..just enough for a touch of rise or shift or perhaps a tiny but of front tilt).
I won't be using this lens for any interiors, etc (other lenses do that job much better) but I am wanting something really lightweight..so you just don't mind adding it to the backpack as a 4th lens for certain locations.

All the more modern 65mm are all around the same weight (315gm+) so in the older lenses, the various super angulons and older nikkors and rodenstocks, are ther any that combine that really lightweight and compact size, just enough image circle for 54 use and do not produce soft images!

Thanks,
Marc

David A. Goldfarb
14-Nov-2007, 06:48
I use an older 65mm/8 Super-Angulon, which is pretty sharp and just covers. I've exceeded the coverage occasionally with too much movement, so you need to check carefully. It's quite light and compact, particularly if you find one in a 00 shutter. There is an original center filter for it, which is very difficult to find, but I have one. Maybe there's an appropriate Heliopan center filter, if you don't find a lens with the original one.

Gary Tarbert
14-Nov-2007, 06:48
Fujinon 65mm single coated forget the maximum aperture but only has 46mm filter front,sharp covers 5x4 no problems and as light as a polititions promise,,cheers Gary

Ole Tjugen
14-Nov-2007, 07:40
There isn't really any alternative to the Super-Angulons and similar lenses in these focal lengths. I use an Ilex Acugon 65mm/8, which is practically identical to the Schneider Super Angulon. At 260g I believe that is just about the lightest lens in that focal length range which will cover 4x5".

Bob Salomon
14-Nov-2007, 07:56
That old 65mm f8 SA in 00 shutter weighed 9.17 oz. A modern Grandagon N 65mm 4.5 MC in 0 shutter weighs 11.6 oz. How important is 2.43 oz?

2 Ansmann AA NiMH plus one Ansmann AAA NiMh cells weigh slightly more then 2.4 oz.

But for that 2.4 oz. you would get the benefit of modern MC coatings and modern optical performance with better sharpness, contrast and color. As well as increased coverage. An important consideration as the 1968 Schneider brochure that we have shows that the 65mm f8 only covers 155mm at infinity at f16. That is too litlle for 45 with movements. The 65 4.5 covers 170mm so there is no problem doing some movement, or no movement on 45.

Former Member 8144
14-Nov-2007, 08:35
Thanks for the replies so far...
Yes Bob, that is one thing I am trying to find out here...if there are any alternatives to the modern lenses that are that much lighter and more compact to make it worthwhile...if the older variations are not that much lighter then yes of course it makes more sense to carry a more modern lens...that I will have anyway for my interiors work...such as the grandagon you mention.

Marc

Kirk Gittings
14-Nov-2007, 09:04
That old 65mm f8 SA in 00 shutter weighed 9.17 oz. A modern Grandagon N 65mm 4.5 MC in 0 shutter weighs 11.6 oz. How important is 2.43 oz?

2 Ansmann AA NiMH plus one Ansmann AAA NiMh cells weigh slightly more then 2.4 oz.

But for that 2.4 oz. you would get the benefit of modern MC coatings and modern optical performance with better sharpness, contrast and color. As well as increased coverage. An important consideration as the 1968 Schneider brochure that we have shows that the 65mm f8 only covers 155mm at infinity at f16. That is too litlle for 45 with movements. The 65 4.5 covers 170mm so there is no problem doing some movement, or no movement on 45.

My experience with the Schneider 65 f8 is that it really does not adequately cover 4x5. On axis barely, but with tremendous falloff towards the edges. I consider it a 6x9 lens.

Mark Tweed
14-Nov-2007, 11:33
All of the previous replies are correct in that any 65mm lens current or old that will cover a 4X5 frame will be approximately the same physical size and weight. Kirk is right in saying that the older Schneider 65mm f8 really should be considered a 6X9 lens. I own one and that's how I use it. For my 4X5 system I have the same 65mm f8 Ilex Acugon Ole mentioned, and it provides a surprising amount of movement. These Ilex wide angles are superb lenses but they don't surface on the market as often. If you're looking for a small, compact wide angle for landscape purposes (perfect for backpacking use) let me suggest a 75mm f6 Goerz Rectagon. It's what I carry into the backcountry for a wide angle (equivalent to a 23mm in 35mm terms). A 65mm for landscape is usually too wide for me (it's like a 20mm). These 75mm Rectagons are found in older Synchro Compurs or Rapax shutters and their elements barely protrude beyond the front and back of the shutter. The one I have is in a (#2) Synchro Compur which is not much bigger than a Copal 0 and weighs 7.5 oz (and that includes a Technika style lensboard). The lens is a 4 element Gauss design, similar to the Kodak Wide Field Ektars, the Wollensak f12 159mm or the Bausch and Lomb Metrogon. They were originally developed for aerial photography and mapping. Their coverage is 100 degrees, very similar to the modern 6 to 8 element wide angles and much easier to focus than the f8 counterparts. They are sharp, 'contrasty' and easily cover the 4X5 diagonal. The downside . . . they are hard to find. I hope this is helpful.

Mark

Former Member 8144
14-Nov-2007, 11:50
Thanks again for the posts.

I use a 90mm as my 'standard wide lens' so this really wide is for those one off occasions where you just need the huge sweeping vista..from mountain tops, some open flat land/seascapes,etc.

That's why I'm thinking 65mm...not sure 75mm will really be wide enough for those shots.

But if all 65mm are roughly the same size, weight then I guess it comes down to availablity, price etc for my needs.

Marc

Richard Littlewood
15-Nov-2007, 03:02
The 65 f8 SA is a cracking little lens, bit of a pain to compose/focus with, but it's pretty cheap. I regularly make 40" wide B+W prints, and this lens does brilliantly. If you like Schneider lenses you will like this little lens even though it really needs its very own centre filter and Schneider filters are as rare as hens teeth - I have one and I dare say it is more valuable than the lens.

jnantz
15-Nov-2007, 05:10
marc

don't forget to get a center filter.
it will increase your weight, (and cost)
but it will be helpful .

Former Member 8144
15-Nov-2007, 07:39
Its looking like the modern grandagon may just be the best bet even for my landscape work (I'll have one anyway so will just live with extra 80gm or so and bit of size...I'll use lighter bread in my sandwiches!)

Cheers,

Marc

www.marcwilson.co.uk

Daniel Unkefer
17-Nov-2007, 16:44
Hi All,

I have a Norma barrel-mounted 65mm f8 Sinar Schneider Super Angulon lens, with Norma rabbit-ear cables. It really only works with the Sinar Norma shutter. I also have the original center filter for this specific lens. This is the same lens that was also available in the #00 shutter. Mine is engraved SINAR:p

It is great to use, I mainly have shot 4x5 architectural Fujichromes with it, which definately require the use of the center filter. With the 65 5.6, I believe the falloff is less severe. I personally prefer the 65mm f8 SA.

If you get a good one, it is outstanding. Focusing hyperfocally will increase the image circle to a much more usuable degree. Or you can leave it focused at infinity, but I can't imagine why :confused:

I don't use it much, but it's a gem of a lens:cool: