PDA

View Full Version : 300mm lens choice for 8x10



Dan_1982
8-Jul-2001, 17:38
I'm shooting 4x5 now, but going to 8x10, mostly for landscapes - color transparencies and color neg. I'm looking for an xlnt 300mm lens -and I'm very picky (I'm not going up in format with the huge weight and expense increas e, just to get a lens that can 'cover' and produce an xlnt contact print or 2x; otherwise I should stick with 4x5). I tried a Nikkor 300mm M f9 which a lot of people rave about; it's xlnt for 4x5, but my experience with 8x10 is not good enough for me (not very sharp other than the ce ntral area of the image - using 8x magifier - I'd do better enlarging a 4x5 image done with that lens perhaps).

I suppose the best lenses are the big 5.6 guys like the Apo Symmar and Sironar S, maybe the Fuji 5.6. I've heard from som eone that the Fuji 8.5C is sharper than the Nikkor f9 M accross the full 8x10 image. The question is how the 8.5C compares t o the 5.6 lenses. I'm aware that out in the field a heavy 2.5 lb lens is more of a chore t han a .6lb lens, but I'm just concerned with image quality in my asking for help her e. For landscapes there's not much in the way of excess coverage needed (maybe a n inch or so of rise mostly for what I tend to do), but I am looking for truly x lnt image quality across the full 8x10 image. Obviously, if there's just small s mall difference in sharpness, illumination, color saturation, etc. between the l arge 5.6 lenses and the 8.5C then there's no point in getting the large lenses. But if that's the case, then why are those large lenses sold at all - just to co ver more for product and architectural shots? (Also, I've eliminated the G-claro ns from consideration because they are not multicoated (and I don't want to get in bellows lens hoods, etc.) I notice Richard Misrach uses a 300mm f5.6 Fuji (wi th his Deardorff), and he hardly uses any movements. I wonder why he uses such a large lens. Maybe just because it's brighter to view with? Thanks. Dan

Brian Ellis
8-Jul-2001, 19:38
I don't think the F 5.6 lenses are necessarily the "best" lenses in terms of detail and tonal range. They usually have a larger image circle and that's the main reason they're used. While some people carry them in the field, they're made primarily for studio work I believe. Who knows why Richard Misrach uses one - maybe he occasionally needs the larger image circle or maybe his mother gave it to him and he's reluctant to offend her by using another lens. I use three lenses for 8x10 contact printing, the 300mm Nikon M, a 210 mm G Claron, and an old Wollensak triple convertible. All produce stunning contact prints.

John Bowers
8-Jul-2001, 23:28
I salute you Dan! You are rare. You are someone who actually wants to move up to 8x10 for the increase in resolution - the right and only logical reason.

I say this becuase I just don't why so many 8x10 shooters use junk lenses and shoot at f32, f45 and smaller. At those apertures, diffraction as you know limits all resolution. Why not just stick with 4x5? They carry this enormous extra weight for no reason! If they want contact prints, then enlarge the 4x5 by 2x!

Now for the lenses. There are two types. The f9's as you say and the f5.6's. The first lot are "process" lenses. They include the Nikkor M, the G-Clarons and Apo-Ronars. They are optimized for 1:1 use and so really are macro lenses.

The second ones are the Apo-Symmars and Apo-Sironars. These are optimized for infinty or close to infinity. The performace difference between the two is significant. There is no way a process lens will perform like a modern lens optimized for infinity IF shooting at 1:5 and lower magnification ratios.

Now someone will come in and say "no way" and "I love my G-Claron or Apo-Ronar". But they are the ones which probably shoot at f32 or smaller and they are right! At those small apertures it makes no differnce which lens you use! You could use a magnifying glass!

So yes, get the f5.6 ones, but remember shoot at f16 or f22 and no smaller. Be prepared to focus very critically! Get a VERY rigid camera. Realize the lack of any depth of field. And also film flatness comes into effect too! Consider the Sinar Adhesive Film Holders seriously.

Then be prepared to be blown away with the results! Enlarge to 40" x 50" and be stunned!

Good luck.

Kerry L. Thalmann
9-Jul-2001, 00:15
"Now for the lenses. There are two types. The f9's as you say and the f5.6's. The first lot are "process" lenses. They include the Nikkor M, the G-Clarons and Apo-Ronars. They are optimized for 1:1 use and so really are macro lenses."

Not true - at least not for the Nikkor M. It is a tessar type (4/3) optimized for infinity. Coverage is tight on 8x10, but I use one on 4x5 and 5x7 and it is great for distant subjects (yes, even at f16 and f22). I also wouldn't dismiss the APO Ronars out of hand just because they are a "process" lens. Look at the MTF curves sometime (or better yet, shoot with one). Of course, in the 300mm focal length, the APO Ronar won't cover 8x10...

WRT to Dan's question about the 300mm f5.6 Fuji. I used to own one of these, and although it's a 300mm f5.6 plasmat in a Copal #3 shutter, it's considerably smaller than the other modern, multicoated 300mm f5.6 lenses. It takes 77mm filters (all the others are in the 86mm - 105mm range) - yet the Fujinon still has a 420mm image circle (plenty for 8x10). Perhaps that's why Misrach preferred it (or perhaps not, best to ask him).

Kerry

Paul Schilliger
9-Jul-2001, 04:20
Dan, the Fujinon C300/8.5 and also 450/12.5 are extremely sharp lense. You won't be desappointed. Remember that at apertures of f32-f45 or more required for obtaining DOF on 8x10, the sharpnes s of the lens is considerably blunted anyway. Go for a 5,6 lens if you need more movements than average.

Pete Andrews
9-Jul-2001, 08:52
Sounds like you're moving up to 10x8 for all the wrong reasons to me. I can't believe that many people enlarge to 40"x50" on a regular basis, and then scrutinise the print from 12" away. There's much more to image quality than pure resolution.Anyhow, Rodenstock's Apo-Gerogon lens is virtually the same as a G-Claron in coverage, but is available multi-coated. (As if it makes any real difference).

Kevin Kemner
9-Jul-2001, 11:35
Dan, you might take a look at Chris Perez' home page for comparative lens tests. Here's the address

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#300mm_and_longer

good shooting

Rick Moore
9-Jul-2001, 13:18
I own and use both the Fuji 300C 8.5 and 450C 12.5 lenses, and I can state without reservation that they are among the sharpest lenses I have ever used on my 8x10. At both the center and the edges. I use them for landscape and portraits, usually stopped down to F22-32.

The pair of lenses cost me (new) about what one 360 5.6 plasmat would have cost, also new.

One other factor not really mentioned in previous responses, is the matter of filters. Both the above lenses use 52mm filters. I use B- W filters, which list for 18.75 at B&H for 52mm. One 82mm B+W lists for $61.75 (for standard #22, 40, 60, 61, etc.). The set of four I routinely use costs a litte more than one larger filter and weighs about as much as two of the larger filters.

Unless you need the extreme coverage of the plasmats in a studio environment, save the money and weight and go with the smaller tessars and dialytes.

John Bowers
9-Jul-2001, 16:43
Kerry: Sorry, since the Nikkor M's are so similar optically to the G- Clarons and Apo-Ronars I thought that they too were process lenses.

Paul: You say you need to stop down to f32-f45 for 8x10 for a 300mm lens. So why not stop down to f16-f22 on a 150mm lens and shoot 4x5 instead???

Paul Schilliger
9-Jul-2001, 18:06
"Paul: You say you need to stop down to f32-f45 for 8x10 for a 300mm lens. So wh y not stop down to f16-f22 on a 150mm lens and shoot 4x5 instead???"

John, yes, why not? It's what I am doing in any case. Had I read your first thr ead a bit more carefully, I would not have repeated what you had already said! But as some suggested, there is a lot m ore about 8x10 than mere sharpness. I am not a convert, but I think someone who likes to drive a big car would not feel good in a small car, even it's speed is the same! ;-) By the way, I had shot a few samples to compar e the sharpness of those lenses at f22 and at f32 and f45. Passed f22, the degradation is drastic and at f45, the 8 x10 size will hardly compensate for the loss in details. But the richer tonal range remains and it's what makes 8x10 slightly superior. Still there are many subjects who do not require such DOF and can be shot at f22 even on 8x10. T here, I'd be blown up!

Kerry L. Thalmann
9-Jul-2001, 18:12
John,

But the 300mm Nikkor is NOT similar optically to the G Claron or the APO Ronar. In fact, all three are very different designs. As I stated earlier the 300mm Nikkor M is a 4 element - 3 group tessar type optimized for distant subjects. The angle of coverage is 57 degrees at f22 (pretty standard for a tessar). It is intended for general purpose photography and not designed specifically for close-up work. It is multicoated.

The G Claron is a 6 element 4 group process plasmat. Schneider rates the coverage at 64 degrees at f22 (but others claim it covers a lot more, up to as much as 80 degrees at small stops). It is single coated.

The APO Ronar is a 4 element 4 group dialyte that is very similar in design and performance to the classic Goerz APO "Red Dot" Artar. Like the Artar, it has a narrow field of coverage (48 degrees at f22). So, it will not cover 8x10 at infinity in the 300mm focal length. It's been around a long time. Older samples are single coated, more recent ones are multicoated.

Perhaps you are confusing the Nikkor M series with the older APO Nikkor. The APO Nikkors were 4 element - 4 group process lenses similar in design to the APO Ronars and Artars. I believe the coverage was also similar. They were single coated and mostly sold in barrel mount. Totally different design, with a different intended application, than the Nikkor M.

Now, that said, a lot of people use these so called "process lenses" for general purpose landscape work and are ver pleased wih the results. Personally, I have a few process lenses that I use for landscape work on 4x5 and they are some of the sharpest lenses I own. For example, I have a 240mm f9 Fujinon A that is a 6 element - 4 group process plasmat similar (but not identical) to the G Claron. The Fuji also happens to be multicoated and one of the sharpest lenses I own - even for distant subjects (compares favorably to my 210 APO Symmar at f16 and beats it at f22 - in terms of resolution at 20:1). Often, what you give up with the slower "process" lenses is not sharpness, but speed and in some cases coverage. What you gain is lower cost, less weight and smaller filter sizes. I'm personally a fan of small, lightweight lenses (as long as they are excellent performers), but then that's based on my own personal needs. Plus, I'm not shooting anything bigger than 5x7 these days - so that is also a consideration when reading my comments. I'm sure Dan (and you and everybody else) has his own set of priorities. I don't find focusing a longer than normal lens difficult at f9, but for wide angles it can be a problem. I also don't need the coverage of a 300mm APO Sironar-S (if I did, that's what I'd use). I do love the APO Sironar-S in the shorter focal lengths, but for MY needs I greatly prefer the 300mm Nikkor M, due to it's small size and weight. YMMV. It might not be the best choice for you, or Dan, but it works for me.

Kerry

Jeff Buckels
9-Jul-2001, 18:14
Dan: The Wollensak triple convertible Brian Ellis mentions is probably the Series Ia (right Brian?). It's a super lens -- 13", 20", 25". Having said that, you can EASILY tell the difference between the resolution of this lens and that of the best of the best lenses mentioned in the other responses: Enlarge to about 24x30 and stick a 20X loupe in your eye. Otherwise, forget it. -jb

Larry Huppert
9-Jul-2001, 19:02
About a year ago I tested several 300mm lenses for 4x5 use. Since I shoot architecture, the quality of the image at the extreme of the image circle mattered to me. I tried the Fujinon 300C, and was very disappointed beyond around 250ish mm of image circle. If I was contact printing, I would probably have felt the results were OK, but not good, great or stunning. Maybe I had a bad sample? If I were shooting 4x5 landscapes, I would have been very happy with the lens as the image quality in the center is great!

Edward Chung
11-Jul-2001, 06:28
You can try the Voigtlander Collinear. I had one use for many years on my Deardorff 8x10 and it provides a lot of movement. From the information I have the lens will cover 11x14 at F22.

Edward Chung
11-Jul-2001, 06:31
Sorry, I forgot to mention the lens should be a Voigtlander Collinear 310mm F6.3.

Jim Galli
11-Jul-2001, 12:10
Surprised myself a few weeks ago. For whatever reason (forgotten now) I made identical afternoon exposures on Velvia in the desert southwest at high altitude (7500' ghost town of Belmont NV.) within 5 minutes of each other, one with my 305 G-Claron, and one with my 240 Fuji f9a, same setup, same subject, just swapped lenses. The Claron is NOT as sharp, as expected, but in that situation where there is a 3+ stop difference between sunlit areas and shadows, the Claron produced beautifully illuminated shadow detail that was down in Zone 2 with the Fuji, while sunlit areas of the chromes were equal. Sometimes single coating ain't so bad. Even though the 240 is sharper looking through a 40X microscope, either would print nicely at 20X24 from 4X5, so what's the big deal.

Don Hall
11-Jul-2001, 20:11
Kerry, I have been considering the Fuji 240A and was intrigued by your comment that at F22 it beat the 210 Schneider. How does it compare (the Fuji 240) at infinity to your Nikon 300M as far as resolution and contrast ?

Kerry L. Thalmann
13-Jul-2001, 13:40
Don,

Compared to the 210mm APO Symmar, my 240mm Fujinon A is ever so slightly sharper at f22 (probably not enough to even notice in actual use - I'm referring to shots of a test target). At f16, the APO Symmar is shrper in the corners, but the Fuji is sharper in the center. Again, these differences are very small and unless you're shooting a test chart, probably not noticeable. Also, please note, my experience with these lenses is primariily on 4x5 and a little 5x7. I believe Don is asking about these lenses for 4x5 use (not 8x10, as Dan was in his original question).

Compared to the 300mm Nikkor M - it's a tough call. I REALLY like both lenses. See:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

and

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/300-450.htm

for more info on these two lenses.

I terms of resolution, the Fuji 240 is slightly better, but I think the Nikkor has slightly better contrast (probably due to a simpler design with fewer air:glass interfaces). In both cases the differences are very small and the net sum is that both lenses are outstanding. In real world use, I think you'd be quite pleased with either lens.

The Fuji does have one advantage. It's also an outstanding lens for close-up shooting. And, if you have about 480mm of bellows draw, you can shoot with it at 1:1. Of course, for more distant subjects, the Nikkor has the advantage of longer focal length. Guess that's why I have both, and use them both often. I think if I had to choose one or the other, it would simply come down to how they fit in with my other lenses (in terms of focal length) and not have anything to do with image quality (they are both outstanding).

Kerry

sergiofigliolia
8-Jun-2017, 01:54
OK so we know Nikkor has conservative coverage specs but how different is coverage between Fujinon C 300m f/8.5 and Nikkor M 300 f/9?
I mean in the field not in the figures I can read in the specs.
I need this info for 8x10. I know that for 4x5 it doesn't matter as they both have ample coverage

xkaes
8-Jun-2017, 05:28
Fuji made 300mm lenses from f5.6 to f9 that might meet your needs. Check them out at:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

John Kasaian
8-Jun-2017, 05:58
I wonder which 300mm lens the OP finally bought 16 years ago?

Pfsor
8-Jun-2017, 06:17
OK so we know Nikkor has conservative coverage specs but how different is coverage between Fujinon C 300m f/8.5 and Nikkor M 300 f/9?
I mean in the field not in the figures I can read in the specs.
I need this info for 8x10. I know that for 4x5 it doesn't matter as they both have ample coverage

The difference in the coverage is exactly the same in the field as it is in the specs. It doesn't change. Go wonder.

Chauncey Walden
8-Jun-2017, 09:11
The specs for a Schneider 240mm Xenar say the coverage is 62 degrees which would be a circle of 228mm at infinity. In the field, one will cover 8x10 sharp corner to corner which is, what, 312mm? Wonder indeed.

Luis-F-S
8-Jun-2017, 09:26
I wonder which 300mm lens the OP finally bought 16 years ago?

Or if he learned anything about lenses! He's probably out with back problems from toting those big suckers!

George Losse
8-Jun-2017, 11:20
The OP has spoken of the 300mm Nikkor M but remember there was more than one Nikkor 300 mm lens.

There is also the 300mm Nikkor W.
I bought mine new back in 1990 and it has been a great lens for me with the 8x10 with plenty of coverage.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html
It's listed here with a 420mm image circle @ f22, whereas the Nikkor M has 325mm image circle @f22.
An 8x10 image needs an image circle of 312mm, the M just covers that.

Pfsor
8-Jun-2017, 12:57
The specs for a Schneider 240mm Xenar say the coverage is 62 degrees which would be a circle of 228mm at infinity. In the field, one will cover 8x10 sharp corner to corner which is, what, 312mm? Wonder indeed.

You've got it wrong.
The data sheet for Schneider Xenar 240mm f4.5 says: Angle of view at f 16 - 62. Image Circle Diameter at f/16 - 282mm
Also you don't say at what f stop you can cover sharp corner to corner 8x10 format. Surely not at f 4.5.
It pays to learn how to read specs. Go wonder.

Chauncey Walden
8-Jun-2017, 14:43
And geometry says that the base of an isosceles triangle with an apex angle of 62 degrees and a height of 240mm is 228mm. But, sorry Professor, my German is rusty. f/22 by the way. I wonder how many photographers shoot 8x10 at only f/16 in the field? Wollensak used to give specs that also included what the lens would cover stopped down. Now those would be useful specs.

Pfsor
8-Jun-2017, 15:08
And geometry says that the base of an isosceles triangle with an apex angle of 62 degrees and a height of 240mm is 228mm. But, sorry Professor, my German is rusty. f/22 by the way. I wonder how many photographers shoot 8x10 at only f/16 in the field? Wollensak used to give specs that also included what the lens would cover stopped down. Now those would be useful specs.

Maybe you should first learn the difference between an angle of view and an angle of coverage before you start to debate topics like lens coverage specs. The angle of coverage doesn't change when the angle of view does.
At f/22 the coverage is bigger than that of f/16 - does it ring bells? Go wonder.

sergiofigliolia
8-Jun-2017, 15:46
Thanks Pfsor for your answer. I meant to ask: "since Nikon has conservative specs about coverage and Fuji hasn't. Is there somebody who tried both lenses and can tell me how actually coverage differs from each other?" 😊

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Pfsor
8-Jun-2017, 16:11
Thanks Pfsor for your answer. I meant to ask: "since Nikon has conservative specs about coverage and Fuji hasn't. Is there somebody who tried both lenses and can tell me how actually coverage differs from each other?" ��

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Now you say it clearly. I still think that your question is unfortunately a venomous one. You will get answers that show not the difference in the coverage but the difference in personal tastes of anybody who uses the lenses according to their tolerance of image degradation. There you can see that I'm not a friend of so called conservative or not coverage specs declarations. No manufacturer would like to indicate a smaller useful coverage than the lens can give just to be conservative. It would be kicking yourself in your backside. Those who declare the urban myth about conservative or not coverage are just declaring their own tolerance of a degraded image seen as "good enough". The coverage specs are not indicated with this kind of personal taste in mind. They are declared on the actual optical performance guaranteed by the manufacturer. Anything else would be just confusing and compromising the lens objective characteristics. But urban myths have many followers. Enough said, Sergio figliuolo.

sergiofigliolia
8-Jun-2017, 16:45
Coolio mr. pfsuorio

Corran
8-Jun-2017, 20:59
See here for previous discussion of Fuji vs. Nikkor 300mm lenses:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?9617-Lens-choice-Fuji-300mm-f8-5-C-vs-Nikkor-f9-M

Similar lenses - they're both tessars right? Despite this Fuji claims a large difference in coverage. It seems to me that each manufacturer will approve a lens to a certain coverage based on their own criteria, which likely will be more rigorous or not depending on that criteria and how they test. That's generally what "conservative specs" mean. Luckily most of us don't only photograph test charts and enlarge the corners up 10x. As far as I'm concerned my Nikkor-M 300mm has always been more than adequate even with a lot of rise on 8x10, clearly more than Nikon "approves."

David Karp
8-Jun-2017, 21:09
The 300mm Fujinon C is not a Tessar type. It has four elements in four groups. The Nikkor M is four elements in three groups. The two in the rear are cemented together. If you look at the drawing, the rear elements are actually spaced pretty far apart in the Fujinon. The front elements look pretty similar to those in the Tessar design. You can see the Fuji design here: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/c.htm You can see the Nikkor M implementation of the Tessar design here: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

What that means practically from a lens design perspective, I have no qualifications to state. However, the designs are different.

Corran
8-Jun-2017, 21:45
Well there you go. I knew they were both 4 element but didn't know about those slight differences. I still think the difference in official coverage specs are due to differences in measurement criteria, not just the slight difference in design, considering my experience with the Nikkor.

Chauncey Walden
8-Jun-2017, 22:05
Pfsor, you wrote "The angle of coverage doesn't change when the angle of view does." Reading the Schneider specs they show for the 210mm Symmar an angle of view of 70 degrees at f/16 with a 297mm circle of coverage and for the 210mm Super Angulon an angle of view at f/16 of 100 degrees and a circle of coverage of 500mm. Could you please explain how your statement fits with these specs? I believe that some lenses are physically restrained by their construction from increasing their coverage by stopping down beyond a certain point. Could you comment on that please? I'm sorry that Jac pulled out of the discussion as he is able to explain these things clearly.

Pere Casals
8-Jun-2017, 23:55
Pfsor, you wrote "The angle of coverage doesn't change when the angle of view does." Reading the Schneider specs they show for the 210mm Symmar an angle of view of 70 degrees at f/16 with a 297mm circle of coverage and for the 210mm Super Angulon an angle of view at f/16 of 100 degrees and a circle of coverage of 500mm. Could you please explain how your statement fits with these specs? I believe that some lenses are physically restrained by their construction from increasing their coverage by stopping down beyond a certain point. Could you comment on that please? I'm sorry that Jac pulled out of the discussion as he is able to explain these things clearly.

This is about plain trigonometry.

Imagine 2 geometric cones with same angle, but one is taller, so it also has a larger circular base, this would be the image circle, the height of the cone would be the focal.


The angle of coverage is the angle of the illumination cone a particular lens has. But the angle of view depends on the focal and on the format ... and bellows! . A requisite is that there is not vigneting on the film, so enough coverage.

As LF uses "unit focus" (focus by bellows extension, and not lens internal focus), angle of view also depends on bellows extension, so on distance from the rear principal point (vertex of the illumination cone) to the film plane, just after focusing like we want.


So an LF lens has a fixed angle of coverage, depending on design. If stopping a bit the diafragm then the acceptable angle increases a bit.

The angle of view (vertical, hor, diagonal) that a particular lens delivers (to a photograph) also depends on the film format and bellows extension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

"The Camera" , (Ansel Adams) explains that perfectly, also says about some confusion because some literature cites angle of view as it was the lens coverage. At the end we can say that "coverage" is the "by design fixed" angle of view of the lens before it was in a camera, and the "angle of view of the photograph" depends on the focal, the film format and the bellows extension: So it is variable for the same lens, depending on the particular shot.


When you read "angle of view", normally you have to understand that's the angle of view of the field seen in a photograph. ... with given focal, format, and bellows extension. Often an angle of view of a particular camera+lens system is referred when focused at infinite, and that do not vary, as you fix focal, format and bellows extension.


(Note that fisheyes (in smaller formats) do not follow plain trigonometry, as projection is not rectilinear at all.)

Pfsor
9-Jun-2017, 02:30
This is about plain trigonometry.

Imagine 2 geometric cones with same angle, but one is taller, so it also has a larger circular base, this would be the image circle, the height of the cone would be the focal.


The angle of coverage is the angle of the illumination cone a particular lens has. But the angle of view depends on the focal and on the format ... and bellows! . A requisite is that there is not vigneting on the film, so enough coverage.

As LF uses "unit focus" (focus by bellows extension, and not lens internal focus), angle of view also depends on bellows extension, so on distance from the rear principal point (vertex of the illumination cone) to the film plane, just after focusing like we want.


So an LF lens has a fixed angle of coverage, depending on design. If stopping a bit the diafragm then the acceptable angle increases a bit.

The angle of view (vertical, hor, diagonal) that a particular lens delivers (to a photograph) also depends on the film format and bellows extension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

"The Camera" , (Ansel Adams) explains that perfectly, also says about some confusion because some literature cites angle of view as it was the lens coverage. At the end we can say that "coverage" is the "by design fixed" angle of view of the lens before it was in a camera, and the "angle of view of the photograph" depends on the focal, the film format and the bellows extension: So it is variable for the same lens, depending on the particular shot.


When you read "angle of view", normally you have to understand that's the angle of view of the field seen in a photograph. ... with given focal, format, and bellows extension. Often an angle of view of a particular camera+lens system is referred when focused at infinite, and that do not vary, as you fix focal, format and bellows extension.


(Note that fisheyes (in smaller formats) do not follow plain trigonometry, as projection is not rectilinear at all.)

Just before you engage in your verbal deluge don't forget that the angle of view stated for a lens in manufacturers specs is specified for a lens focal length and the film format in use with lens set at infinity focus - unless we are considering macro set up, but then the discussion is that of a special case. No manufacturer states the angle of view while giving the value of the macro magnification as comparisons would then be entirely dependent on the different magnification values and made useless for practical purpose of a LF photographer.

I'm glad our readers will once again show all the common ignorance by not making a difference between a lens angle of view, lens coverage, the size of illumination circle and the size of circle of good illumination and once again let us know how their preferred lens can cover more than the conservative estimates of their manufacturers state. The urban myths are the scope of the internet and the right of us all. Out and in the woods, yours sincerely.

Pfsor
9-Jun-2017, 02:43
Pfsor, you wrote "The angle of coverage doesn't change when the angle of view does." Reading the Schneider specs they show for the 210mm Symmar an angle of view of 70 degrees at f/16 with a 297mm circle of coverage and for the 210mm Super Angulon an angle of view at f/16 of 100 degrees and a circle of coverage of 500mm. Could you please explain how your statement fits with these specs? I believe that some lenses are physically restrained by their construction from increasing their coverage by stopping down beyond a certain point. Could you comment on that please? I'm sorry that Jac pulled out of the discussion as he is able to explain these things clearly.

For your mental health - don't take the confusing angle of view from Schneider data sheet as the base of your optical theory. The angle of view is not dependent on the f stop. What Schneider states is indeed confusing. Better to calculate trigonometrically your angle of view (using lens focal length, film format) and then check the coverage specs to see what the lens can do. Forget conservative or not tendencies in manufacturers specs as that will liberate you from acceptable or not so acceptable resolution considerations. Live well and take pics.

Pere Casals
9-Jun-2017, 06:58
Just before you engage in your verbal deluge don't forget that the angle of view stated for a lens in manufacturers specs is specified for a lens focal length and the film format in use with lens set at infinity focus - unless we are considering macro set up, but then the discussion is that of a special case. No manufacturer states the angle of view while giving the value of the macro magnification as comparisons would then be entirely dependent on the different magnification values and made useless for practical purpose of a LF photographer.

I'm glad our readers will once again show all the common ignorance by not making a difference between a lens angle of view, lens coverage, the size of illumination circle and the size of circle of good illumination and once again let us know how their preferred lens can cover more than the conservative estimates of their manufacturers state. The urban myths are the scope of the internet and the right of us all. Out and in the woods, yours sincerely.


The post you are quoting says: "Often an angle of view of a particular camera+lens system is referred when focused at infinite, and that do not vary, as you fix focal, format and bellows extension."

Pfsor, it is a good practice to read well other's posts before going to personal atacks, anyway for me there is no problem.


Well, without entering in the macro field, you may know that a 300mm has a very different angle of view when used focused to infinite for a landscape than when focused at 2m for a portrait.

I was explaining that, exact angles of view, for 300mm focal and 2m vs infinite focus distance has an straight calculation I guess you are also able to perform, so I don't post it.

If you want further discussion on this off topic, by PM... please


Regards

Greg
14-Jun-2017, 16:33
12 inch f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat with variable "soft focus" settings for front element (Betax). In 1972, this one lens an a B&J wooden flatbed camera was the camera and lens that I cut my teeth on. Using a home made dark slide with an attenuator (per G E DeWolfe), calibrated the ZONE system with Super-XX and various developers. Hiked up many a gorge south of Rochester NY in the winter with camera, film holders, lens, etc. Never used the lens with any of the front element "soft focus" adjustment. Lens was prone for flare when used wide open but shot everything at f/64. I remember twice repairing the shutter in the field... shutter was so simple that was able to do this with what minimal knowledge of shutter mechanisms I had at the time. Don't remember use why I sold the lens....

12 3/4 (18 7/8 27) f/7.7 BL Protar V11 (Ilex Universal} OK, it's not exactly a 12 inch lens but close enough for me. Used it on an Improved Empire State view camera. Camera was quite a bit more compact and lighter than the B&J and thus I was able to do a lot more backpacking with it. Lens allowed a ton of movement but since the front standard only rose, wasn't able to completely exploit the excellent coverage of this lens. Image was very much like a 12" Dagor that I borrowed when the Protar was sent in for shutter repair. Presently use it on my 11x14.

305mm f/9 G-Claron (Copal}. Used on an 8x10 Sinar Norma back when. Also used it on my Chamonix 8x10. Recently have essentially replaced it with an 8x10 lens outfit consisting of a 250mm Fuji, 355mm G-Claron, and a 508mm Caltar. Still have the lens but use it rarely on my 8x10. Now the lens is relegated to my 4x5 outfit.

Schneider SYMMAR (-S?, can't remember) 300mm f/5.6 on a Sinar DB board. With a Sinar P and Sinar shutter shot Chromes with it. Results were magnificent, when I used a Sinar bellows sunshade and my exposure were dead on. But the cost of the Chrome film caused me to sell the whole outfit. Also the camera wasn't exactly portable. Plus Cibachrome paper was discontinued so making darkroom archival contact prints essentially ceased to exist.

12 inch f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat (Betax) again. Oh I greatly did miss my first 8x10 12 inch Velostigmat lens so purchased another copy of the optic about a year ago. Still love this optic's Bokeh, but probably used more for reasons of reminiscence of my first 8x10 lens. Flare that I had experienced in the 70s, proved out to be more from internal light reflecting of the inside of the bellows. Now I use a Sinar bellows mask 2 in front of the lens to absolutely minimize internal bellows lens flare (the inside of the Chamonix's bellows very much less prone to reflecting light when compared to the inside of the circa 1960s bellows on my B&J view camera).

So present day the 12" lens on my 8x10 is a 12 inch f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat. I just have always loved the image this vintage optic produces. Since I contact print, the limitations of this vintage optic verses a modern optic are minimal.

One has to recognize that in the end the lens matters little over the photographer's eye in capturing images.

Luis-F-S
14-Jun-2017, 18:41
One has to recognize that in the end the lens matters little over the photographer's eye in capturing images.

+1 !!!!!

Armin Seeholzer
15-Jun-2017, 06:40
Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
One has to recognize that in the end the lens matters little over the photographer's eye in capturing images.
+1 !!!!!

Amateurs speak about cameras, lenses etc. masters speak about light!!!

Alan Gales
15-Jun-2017, 09:56
Amateurs speak about cameras, lenses etc. masters speak about light!!!

Well put.

The thing is though that this is mostly a gear forum. There are a lot of amateurs here and a lot of professionals here but very few masters.

neil poulsen
16-Jun-2017, 00:50
Amateurs speak about cameras, lenses etc. masters speak about light!!!

I speak about both.:)

Armin Seeholzer
16-Jun-2017, 02:22
I speak about both.:o:cool:

Thats a good one!