Best Lenses for the 7X11 Format and Contact Printing

[audioexcels]

Hello to all 7X11 shooters.

I have read very little about the format but otherwise know it is the size of choice to go with IMHO for the ratio and the fact that one that argues for 8X10 can chop of 1" of the sheet and insert it in for a full 7X10 print, thank you.

With respect to how 7X11 has a bit more of the wide perspective, even wider ratio based than 5X7, what types of lenses do people use for their wide angles and also just a general all purpose lens that seems to do the magic with this format and contact printing?

I know many have used wide angles on 8X10 and know many feel that the contact print is not worth having when shooting wide angle lenses since the detail is too far away into the print to make it effective.

Just want to start up a 7X11 thread since I know many are going this direction due to the ratio, IC=basically the same as 8X10, and for those that didn't put an ounce of thought into it, you can make a "lot" of neat sizes in the 7X11 frame that you cannot do too well on with the 8X10 frame:

I.E. 7X11, 7X10, 7X9, etc...vs. 8X10, 8X9?...

[Richard K.]

You'll get essentially the same perspective (oh no! I didn't mean it! don't let's start another perspective thread!! :eek: ) on 7x11 as on 8x10 with any given lens. If you want to be more accurate, multiply the 8x10 lens focal length by 10/11 to get the equivalent perspective (sorry, sweating now!) on 7x11. Example 300mm on 8x10 (x 0.15 or ~45mm on 35mm camera) would give the same perspective on 7x11 as 300 x 10/11= 272 mm on 8x10 (~41mm on 35mm camera). This simple geometrical result can be worked backwards to let you know what focal length lens to use to get any specific 35mm camera or 8x10 perspective. Example, if you want the 35mm camera perspective of 35 mm you would need 35/0.15 =233mm on 8x10 or 233 x 11/10=256mm on 7x11. And yes I am using only ratios of long dimensions for all three formats; I don't get why people use diagonals!

[audioexcels]

I think I made my sleepy self a bit unclear. I have read that when using say, a 300mm lens on 8X10, you see the square in front of you vs. the 7X11 piece of GG. In other words, it produces a different way of seeing the image vs. the square look of 8X10. I have also read that wide angle lenses are not wise choices for the format but have not figured out why, but feel it has something to do with both the resulting look of the contact print and the different perspective of 7X11 vs. other more square based formats such as 8X10/4X5/etc.

[Nick_3536]

7x11 isn't that overly panoramic.

I think it was Kerry that posted an explanation of why he didn't use really wide lenses on pan formats. But I think he was talking more about the 2+:1 formats then something like 7x11 is about 1:1.5 or 2:3.

[Colin Graham]

Isn't this just speculation until you set the camera up with a lens and your choice of subject?

I don't understand that bit at all about wide angels not making effective contact prints. IMO pano formats and wides are the bee's pajamas.... Unless there's some really wild and spectacular Fibonacci thing going on with 7x11 format specifically.

[E. von Hoegh]

Isn't this just speculation until you set the camera up with a lens and your choice of subject?

I don't understand that bit at all about wide angels not making effective contact prints. IMO pano formats and wides are the bee's pajamas.... Unless there's some really wild and spectacular Fibonacci thing going on with 7x11 format specifically.

If I was using this format, I'd likeley choose a 270 G-Claron. I don't understand the "contact print" component, but that's just me.

(you also have the "golden mean"; the "golden section", and etcetera)

[E. von Hoegh]

..golden ratio, golden spiral, yes indeed. But what I was wondering was: how much impact would the Fibonacci sequence have on lens angle and the 7x11 format as opposed to other formats?

I need to sleep; before I can address your question in any semblance of an intelligent manner.

My interest was the contact print thingy. I don't get it.

[Colin Graham]

Me too! And no fair quoting a deleted post. ;). My brain has finally against turned back on itself in a cramped mobius strip...

[E. von Hoegh]

Me too! And no fair quoting a deleted post. ;). My brain has finally against turned back on itself in a cramped mobius strip...

It could be worse, Colin. Your psyche could be trapped in a Klein bottle...



I'd delete my quote of your deleted post; if only I knew how...

[Mike Castles]

Not sure there is a best lens (other than the whole best lens you can afford thing) but I use a 240 - 450 on my 7x11. If I had a wider format, say 150-210 would use it as well, if it worked with what I was seeing (that whole visual thing :) ) Since all I do is contact print, have no issues with a wide format vs something longer or a longer lens vs wider.

Would seem that is more a personal preference, or more likely I just don't understand the question....but then it's HOT here (not a real excuse, just wanted to mention that)

[Colin Graham]

It could be worse, Colin. Your psyche could be trapped in a Klein bottle...



I'd delete my quote of your deleted post; if only I knew how...

No problem- serves me right for wandering above my pay-grade.

And the psyche in the klein bottle conundrum is for sure going to keep me up tonight.

Hey- a klein bottle lens, now that might suit the format just so!


*apologies to Mike- I'll shut the * up now, promise. Long day at work.

[jnantz]

i use a wollensak 13-20-24 triple
and like it quite a bit. i use a
11x14 century portrait camera
and reduce it to 7x11 in-camera.
the lens will cover 11x14 in all
3 focal lengths.

have fun!

[audioexcels]

Isn't this just speculation until you set the camera up with a lens and your choice of subject?

I don't understand that bit at all about wide angels not making effective contact prints. IMO pano formats and wides are the bee's pajamas.... Unless there's some really wild and spectacular Fibonacci thing going on with 7x11 format specifically.


Hey Colin. It is obviously very subjective, but at the same time, and answers already being given (thanks everyone) regarding the semi-pany format of 7X11 being less prone to issues such as 4X10 formats, I just wanted to be sure it is not the case with the larger panoramic ratios of 410/512/etc. etc. where wide angle lenses are many times not preferred or they do not work well with the format for whatever reason. Have to find what Kerry wrote about the subject.

Regarding contact prints and use of a wide angle lens, I think maybe the philosophy goes into the thinking that "most" shoot in locations where having wide wide lenses are not very useful whereas us up in the Pacific NW that want to get tight headlands type shots, or narrow creeks/rivers, etc.-whatever the context may be would be able to "feel" into the shot. I'd have to see some contacts of both wide angle lenses on the larger sheet film vs. ones done with more normal lenses to get more of an idea of what people are referring to when they say that a contact print using a wide angle lens is not "effective" like one done with a normal/regular/telephoto etc. lens.

[audioexcels]

i use a wollensak 13-20-24 triple
and like it quite a bit. i use a
11x14 century portrait camera
and reduce it to 7x11 in-camera.
the lens will cover 11x14 in all
3 focal lengths.

have fun!

That's just what I am looking for;)...something sharp, but also can produce fine color, but be used in three different lengths...how much did this triplet cost?

I'm pretty much on the Ansel Adams kinda path at the moment...one to two lenses maximum for me;).

[Jim Galli]

My favorite lens by far on the 7X11 format is my 18" Verito. Don't try to unscrew the inscrutable as to why. It just works. Period.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Great_Race/09Thomas_3s.jpg
Thomas Flyer

[Ken Lee]

With a very wide lens, we get a certain kind of distortion towards the far edges. The distance from the center of the lens to the farthest film edges is so large (compared to the distance from center of lens to center of the film), that a kind of "magnification" takes place at the edges. In a sense, the focal length is longer out on the edges, than it is in the center. That same greater distance from center to edge, is also why we see light fall-off with very wide lenses. Light decreases with the square of the radius of the circle. When the circle gets big enough, these things start to matter.

View camera movements aside, by shooting a very wide or tall format, we are taking a more complete slice of the circle of coverage, and thus more likely to see any distortion and fall-off. If we are also using a very wide lens, then we'll certainly see it.

At the opposite extreme - by using a square format - using only the center of the image - distortion and fall-off is least likely to be seen.

The question of Fibonnaci or Golden Section is an aesthetic consideration, about the 7x11 ratio. It's really only loosely related to this issue.

[Dave Wooten]

all lenses used on 8 x 10 will work fine on 7 x 11, and some lenses listed for 5 x 7 will, i.e. 210 Sironar S for example. Many using large format and ULF do so because we are enamoured with the extremely fine detail, sharpness and definition possible with LF contact prints. So to me it is difficult to answer your question, it seems to be going in the direction of perspective etc....IMNSHO it would be good to begin a collection of lenses covering the format and not to limit your opportunities. There are many "perspectives" ratios and resolutions available. If I were to have just one or 2 lenses I might go for the little Nikor M 300, and a Wollensak 159 mm, both cover with ample movements. To me this perspective is Normal 300, and Wide 159.

[audioexcels]

Thanks Ken for your thoughts and I've seen your 7X11 images Jim...beautifully gorgeous tonality;).

[audioexcels]

all lenses used on 8 x 10 will work fine on 7 x 11, and some lenses listed for 5 x 7 will, i.e. 210 Sironar S for example. Many using large format and ULF do so because we are enamoured with the extremely fine detail, sharpness and definition possible with LF contact prints. So to me it is difficult to answer your question, it seems to be going in the direction of perspective etc....IMNSHO it would be good to begin a collection of lenses covering the format and not to limit your opportunities. There are many "perspectives" ratios and resolutions available. If I were to have just one or 2 lenses I might go for the little Nikor M 300, and a Wollensak 159 mm, both cover with ample movements. To me this perspective is Normal 300, and Wide 159.

The Wollensack will cover the format ok? I didn't know that. How about the Schneider regular Angulon? Curious about other lenses around this focal length of 140-160 that would cover.

The Nikkor is a real gem:). I think the Fujinon 300 would also be a good choice as many feel it has more surface coverage. That 210 Sironar S would also be another, as would a few other 210's.

Thanks for the recommendations and great helpful thread so far. Hopefully it is helping out others considering or waiting to shoot the format (waiting for S&S holders to be finished).

[Ken Lee]

Actually, the same issue holds when enlarging negatives. Even if a 50mm lens enlarging lens could cover 4x5, we would avoid it for enlarging purposes.

We would get a lot of light fall-off, and distortion towards the edges of the film. We use a 135mm or 150mm lens instead, not only because it covers better, but because it sits far enough away from the film to avoid distortion and fall-off.

[Dave Wooten]

When I got into 7 x 17 I contacted Fred N. at View Camera Store and he suggested that I use the Nikor 300 M. It is quite small. I was doubious of the coverage. It covers 7 x 17, Fred was correct. 7 x 11 should be no sweat! It is sharp, so if you are after the fuzzies it is not for you...

[Mike Castles]

The Wollensack will cover the format ok? I didn't know that. How about the Schneider regular Angulon? Curious about other lenses around this focal length of 140-160 that would cover.

Have been researching this range recently...most, but maybe not all, of the lens in this range that cover 8x10 should cover the 7x11 - this would include the 120 and 150 SW Nikkors, not sure about the159 Wolly f/12.5 or the f/9.5. Outside of the range by a little would be the 165mm Angulon and then the 210's and 240's.


Thanks for the recommendations and great helpful thread so far. Hopefully it is helping out others considering or waiting to shoot the format (waiting for S&S holders to be finished).

Last word I had was the S&S holders would be coming later this year, as there were a couple of other format builds ahead of them, but yes looking forward to these as well.

[jnantz]

That's just what I am looking for;)...something sharp, but also can produce fine color, but be used in three different lengths...how much did this triplet cost?

I'm pretty much on the Ansel Adams kinda path at the moment...one to two lenses maximum for me;).

hi

i paid about 300$ for it at igor's several years ago.

not sure where you might find one, maybe
igor's, equinox, pacificrimcamera, or dagor77 / eBoo ?
i've been out of the lens-$-loop for a few years now, so
i am probably not the best person to ask about where or
how much ...