PDA

View Full Version : How to pick the right lens!



ViewIIguy
30-Jul-2008, 07:54
Okay, I've read around (mostly on this forum and the main site) about the lenses and everything else but still can't seem to totally understand the image circle. With my Kodak Ektar 152mm f/4.5 it seems like i have a pretty small circle. I was looking for something that was about as wide as I could get on my View II(I'm guessing around 90mm?) and something around 210. But I want something with a large circle so I can move the lens around a lot. It seems like a lot of people seem not to include that spec on ebay(boo!) and keh. I looked through the specs of the newer lenses from the main page, but it doesn't have a single Kodak so I can get some comparison to what mine does. It would certainly help to know that, then the numbers would perhaps make a little more sense to me. I have a 127mm Ektar that currently resides on my speed graphic, but I was going to keep that on their since it seems to be a good range for that camera. Regardless, I was just wondering if some one could perhaps break it down a little more, or perhaps tell me what range my lens might have, and possibly suggest a few moderatdly priced lenses?

Thanks, and hope I don't come off lazy! I did search, really!!!

-Will

Dan Fromm
30-Jul-2008, 08:35
To learn more about Ektars and other Kodak lenses, go here http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/Kodak_index2.htm and spend sometime looking around the site.

Sheldon N
30-Jul-2008, 08:36
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html

http://members.aol.com/subgallery/byfl.htm

http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

Your 152mm Ektar has an image circle of 182mm, which is fairly small.

200mm is about as small an image circle as I'd like to have for normal 4x5 movements. Most of the 90mm lenses (Super Angulon style, wide angle design) will have plenty of image circle (215mm - 235mm) and all the 210mm lenses will have LOTS of image circle. Typically the longer the lens the bigger the image circle, but the lens design has an impact as well.

Nick_3536
30-Jul-2008, 08:42
I wonder how much a View II would allow a wide lens to move. It's nice to have a lens with a big circle but if the camera limits you it won't matter. Anybody know how much movement a II has with a 90mm? It's not like you can stick a bag bellows on the camera.

ViewIIguy
30-Jul-2008, 08:44
Thanks both, sorry again for being such a moron, thanks for all the links! I figured the Kodak had a pretty small circle since my movements seemed limited. Very nice to have a number to go off of so I can look for larger circles than that, I would certainly like some more wiggle room!

Thanks again for answering the idiots question :D

-Will

ViewIIguy
30-Jul-2008, 08:46
I wonder how much a View II would allow a wide lens to move. It's nice to have a lens with a big circle but if the camera limits you it won't matter. Anybody know how much movement a II has with a 90mm? It's not like you can stick a bag bellows on the camera.

I figured 90mm might be to hard to move around, guess I'll be stuck with something above 100mm. Oh well! I'll get something to stick bags on some time later when I figure out this stuff on the little view II.

-Will

Ernest Purdum
30-Jul-2008, 08:54
I'm glad your 127mm lens is staying on your Speed Graphic. They sometimes do show up on view cameras which is a big mistake. When I see a view camera on eBay with such a lens on it I wonder if it is on sale because the owner got totally frustrated.

Most, though not all, f4.5 lenses are Tessar types (like your 152mm) with a fairly narrow angle of view. Newer plasmat types, typically f5.6, work at a much larger angle, so can be shorter and still give room for movements. Real wide angle types like the Super Angulon that Sheldon mentioned can be quite short and still cover.

If you are in doubt about a specific lens not covered by the links you have been given, ask again. Somebody is almost certain to be able to help.

Brian Ellis
30-Jul-2008, 09:32
It's my understanding that big image circles with short focal length lenses such as a 90mm lens (e.g. the 90mm Super Angulon and Super Angulon XL, the Rodenstock Grandagons, etc.) is a relatively new phenomenon, that it wasn't until the age of computer designs and other improvements that manufacturers could offer big image circles in shorter lenses. So I don't know how easy it will be to find older lenses like that. I also don't know what you consider "moderately priced" but new the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses mentioned here cost about $1000, obviously less on the used market.

Part of the reason why the term "image circle" can be difficult to grasp is that it's somewhat subjective, especially with older lenses. There is an "image circle" but within that circle there is what is called a "circle of good definition" or the "usable image circle" which is smaller than the "image circle." In addition, with any lens the usable image circle usually increases as the aperture is stopped down. With some lens designs (e.g. the Schneider G Claron series) the increase is constant and continuing as the lens continues to be stopped down, with others there's a point beyond which further stopping down doesn't increase the usable image circle. Different manufacturers had different ideas about what "good definition" meant and different manufacturers used different apertures for their specs.

So specifying an "image circle" for a lens is something like shooting at a moving target. What's "good definition," what aperture is being used and at what bellows extension? And it's part of the reason why many lenses are usable with 4x5 or 8x10 cameras and even have room for movements when the manufacturer's specs indicate it doesn't even cover the format.

aduncanson
30-Jul-2008, 11:54
It's my understanding that big image circles with short focal length lenses such as a 90mm lens (e.g. the 90mm Super Angulon and Super Angulon XL, the Rodenstock Grandagons, etc.) is a relatively new phenomenon

The "Biogon" patent was issued by the US Patent Office in October 1955, just a little more than a year before I was born, so I guess that I would agree that they are a relatively new phenomenon.

I also agree that http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html is a great resource to be bookmarked and referred to over and over. As Brian points out different people will have different ideas about what constitutes the usable image circle. Many might think that this table is conservative in some cases, or that at least it does not reflect the degree to which the image circle can increase at smaller apertures with some designs.


I wonder how much a View II would allow a wide lens to move. It's nice to have a lens with a big circle but if the camera limits you it won't matter. Anybody know how much movement a II has with a 90mm? It's not like you can stick a bag bellows on the camera.

Nick does not state that your camera will not allow much movement with a 90mm lens, he just raises the question. You might want to borrow a 90 to find out how much movement you really need. If you are not doing serious architecture work, but only landscapes, you might find that the answer is "not so much." If so, then you can save money on the wide angle lens and look for a simple, lightweight Schneider Angulon or W. A. Optar, etc. The classic book "Graphic Graflex Photography" recommends use of a sunken lens board for wide angle lenses such as a 90mm. It might be hard to find one, but some resourcefulness may turn up one or a work-around.

If you do settle on a 90 and a 210, then I would look for a 135 for an in-between focal length. (Comparable to 25mm, 38mm and 59mm on a 35mm camera if that is a familiar reference frame. Do not be concerned that the 210 is not comparable to the classic 85-105 recommended 35mm portrait length. I think you will find that the 210 gives adequate working distance.) A 135mm plain old Symmar, also known as a convertible Symmar because it is inscribed with a second focal length of 235mm, would be a good choice if you are looking for a bargain .

ViewIIguy
30-Jul-2008, 12:49
Adam,

Thanks for breaking it all down for me so well! Most of my work up to now has been with 35mm, so that certainly did help a lot. I would be doing mostly landscapes with some urban stuff in between, but nothing that particular about convergence issues and all. I'm just working on my own little project to photograph my town during the night hours. I've actually got to get an issue fixed with my wing-lynch processing machine as for some reason it didn't add the fixer to my last batch of negatives. I only do at most 4 at a time, so no huge loss and I should be able to fix them (pun!) still. I would use trays, but I'm so lazy now and love the consistancy of the wing-lynch, as well as being able to set it to go and not have to worry about anything till it gives me that evil high pitched WEEEEEE. As such, any ideas on that would be helpful too!

-Will

John Kasaian
30-Jul-2008, 13:23
It would seem that a 152mm Ektar would work well on a 4x5 since 150mm is considered normal for 4x5, but that isn't always the case! The 152 and your 127 want to live abourd your Speed Graphic or similar "press" type camera.

That way, nobody gets hurt! :)

A 90mm wide angle lens will work nicely on your GVII but my own preference would be for a 100mm Wide Field Ektar.

It you want a lens with lots of wiggle room the 203mm Ektar is a great bet as it will cover 5x7 with ease.

I think both a 100 WF and a 203 would make a great kit for a GVII. It'll take you just about anywhere you'll want to go quite economically and besides, they're Ektars! :D

Another Ektar worth looking at is the 135 Wide Field but these seem to be the darlings of backpackers and few ever choose to part with them.

Other lenses you'd probably enjoy are the Schneider Angulons from 90mm--210mm. The 215mm/8-1/2" Ilex or Caltars are also neat deals for a GVII

Carsten Wolff
30-Jul-2008, 20:06
Nothing wrong with a 135mm, or 150 Plasmat (e.g. almost any Sironar or Symmar) on most 4x5s of course. Even your 152mm Ektar should be fine. Just start using the darn thing before you get too hung up on image circles.... you can always sell it later if it doesn't do it for you. Beyond that, I agree with John's last post. Why not keep that 152mm lens for now and make it 100-152-203 then? ~x1.5 is a nice lens spacing.

erie patsellis
30-Jul-2008, 20:23
to get an idea of the true image circle of a 90mm f8 Super Angulon see this 8x10 scan:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/a4sm.jpg

The illuminated area is huge, but the sharp area is not nearly as big. (some of the lack of sharpness is due to wind, as it was rather brisk (and getting dark) when I shot this.


erie

Ernest Purdum
31-Jul-2008, 10:28
Wide angle lenses go back long before the Biogon. The Protar Ser. V dates from the earlt 1890's. The 1900 Goerz Hypergon is still pretty well at the limit of wide angularity.

What is different about the later wide angle lenses is that they are relatively fast. The old wide angles worked at about f16 or so. The Ross Wide Angle Xpres working at f4 is an exception.

If you want a coated lens, and most people do, The Wollensak Raptar Ser. III or IIIa is the only one of the earlier designs easy to find.