Nikkor sw 120mm/super angulon 120mm

[scott russell]

Anyone have any experience with either of these lenses? I currently have a 150mm 5.6 which is good for normal shots, but can't get me in to any tight places. The ridiculous amount of coverage that both the nikkor SW and SA offer is very intriguing to me as I had previously been considering a 90mm as a second lens which wont offer nearly as much. Im just not sure if there is a significant difference in wideness between 120mm and 150mm which would warrant buying one; and more importantly, packing in a camera bag. I could almost see myself keeping the 150mm at home a lot and using the 120mm 24/7 and then opting for a super wide (65-75mm) in the future. I was thinking of either doing that, or spending the extra money on a 90mm with plenty of coverage and only having 2 lenses, ever. any opinions?

[Kirk Gittings]

The Nikkor 120 SW is my favorite lens. It is about the equivalent of a 35 on 35. So it is definitely a change from a "normal" 150. Do a search here for it. It has been discussed allot.

[Nick_3536]

I'm going out on a limb and betting most of us who've bought Nikon 120SW did it for 5x7 and 8x10. If it was only 4x5 landscape I'd have leaned toward the 125mm Fuji lens. Why go with such a big and slow lens for 4x5?

The other thing would be a 105 Fuji SW wide. The thing covers almost 260mm. Should be ample for 4x5.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm going out on a limb and betting most of us who've bought Nikon 120SW did it for 5x7 and 8x10. If it was only 4x5 landscape I'd have leaned toward the 125mm Fuji lens. Why go with such a big and slow lens for 4x5?

The other thing would be a 105 Fuji SW wide. The thing covers almost 260mm. Should be ample for 4x5.

I use it on a 4x5. For architecture there is no substitute for coverage.

[Walter Calahan]

The Nikkor is great for 4x5 or 8x10. I usually don't use it for 4x5, but instead use my Fujinon 125 mm 'cause the Nikkor 120 mm is BIG! Great field of view on 8x10.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use the SW 120 on 8x10 a lot. Love it. The image is a bit dark on the gg due to small opening but that is minor.

[BarryS]

I just got a Nikkor 120mm SW to use with 8x10 and it's a lot of glass to carry around for a 4x5 unless you really need the coverage. I'd much rather carry around a 90/150 combination with my 4x5 than the 120mm. I also feel like the 120mm doesn't get you into tight spaces unless you hang an 8x10 on the back of it. I honestly think you'd be happier with nice Nikkor 90mm f/8 which is compact and has pretty good coverage. *Unless* you're planning on getting an 8x10 camera--in which case it's good to buy lenses that will cover both formats.

[scott russell]

I can get the nikkor 120 for about 450 dollars from keh, whereas the 90mm goes for the 650-800 range which is way more than i have to spend. I figure its cheaper, has a lot more coverage, and can see using only that lens most the time. I had a 135 on my super graphic and i found that to be good focal length to get most things i was shooting. i dont' really do any landscape photography, most if it you could call architectural i suppose so being able to rise the front 3.5 inches and tilting the lens 35 degrees is really appealing to me. I could also achieve lifesize reproduction at 240mm, so i could shoot with the 11" rail and bag bellows almost all of the time. Right now i have a cambo sc with the 150mm that all fits in a lowepro backpack with spot meter, 6 film holders, polaroid back etc with bit of room to spare (hopefully enough to replace the leave the 150 at home and take the 120 nikkor). The only thing is i would probably be forced to shoot wide open a lot, so if that lens doesn't perform well at F8 there might be a problem. I don't really have plans to shoot 8x10, but having a lens that would cover one may open that world up for me someday.

[Nick_3536]

Those prices don't sound like the same condition of lenses. If B&H still has any 90mm in stock you can get one brand new for the prices you quotes.

[BarryS]

KEH seems to run a bit high on their 90mm lenses, for the most part the lenses are equal in cost--both around $500 in excellent condition. Since you're using a Cambo SC, weight isn't a big issue, so the 120mm may be just what you're looking for. I'd say the 120mm would be easier to handle on a 4x5 monorail as opposed to a lightweight field camera. I have a 3 pound and change Chamonix 4x5 and the 120mm just seems a little unwieldy. Why would you be shooting wide open?

[butterflydream]

Since I started LF I have bought several lenses, and now Nikkor sw 120mm is the mostly used lens for me to 4x5, 4x10 and 5x7. I tend to stick to this lens and change the format depending of the subject. Very useful to me. Heavy and dark are only minor drawback.

[scott russell]

Why would you be shooting wide open?

I don't typically shoot on bulb with a stop watch or anything, so I kind of limit my self to exposures no longer than the longest one on the lens (in this case, 1 second). Most of the lighting situations i find myself in will only allow me to stop down so far before i'm down to a one second exposure.

[Sheldon N]

I don't typically shoot on bulb with a stop watch or anything, so I kind of limit my self to exposures no longer than the longest one on the lens (in this case, 1 second). Most of the lighting situations i find myself in will only allow me to stop down so far before i'm down to a one second exposure.

Why would you limit yourself this way?

[scott russell]

I could shoot for longer exposures, but how long can you go before you have to start factoring reciprocity?

[Robbie Shymanski]

I can't say enough about the Nikkor SW 120. It is a great general purpose lens for the work I do, which happens to be architectural work, both exteriors and interiors. These are also for longer exposures at f64 from a 15 seconds to four minutes.

I guess a question is what you using the 120 SW for?

[Don Dudenbostel]

I have both the 121 SA and the 120 Nikkor SW. I purchased the 121 SA new in 1973 and have been very pleased with the results. I had an accident a few years ago and damaged the shutter and put the lens on the shelf for fifteen or so years. Rather than get the lens fixed I purchased a new 120 Nikkor and love that lens too. In reality other than a little more coverage with the Nikkor on 8x10 the lenses perform about the same. I've made some particularly nice images with the SA but also some with the Nikkor. Last month I deceided to get a new shutter for the SA and have schneider do a full CLA. the lens is like new almost and I now am selling the SA. NO good reason for selling the SA over the Nikkor. It was more a toss of the coin rather than a real reason. If you're looking for one it's on the big auction site.

[LFstudent]

Why don't you just try them both. You can sell the one you don't like. try It. Craig

[scott russell]

The fact that there is SOO much extra coverage got me thinking about whether or not camera movements would be as effective, as they would be using a lens that is meant more for 4x5. The image circle the 120 sw produces would essentially be cropped in half on a 4x5 camera; so would back movements still act the same way, or would they be less extreme? I've read in the "view camera technique" book that movements which effect image shape, have the most effect around the edges, and that something like an apple in the center of the image would not be as affected by them. It also said that images that are closer which draw the bellows out more are not as effected by shape-changing movements either. Does any of this come into play when using a lens with twice the coverage as the film size?

[Kirk Gittings]

Scott all that has more to do with focal length than amount of coverage. And IMO the 120 SW, which barely covers 8x10 was for my purposes (mostly architecture), not much of an 8x10 lens, but a great 4x5 or good 5x7 lens.