What lens are you missing?

[Anthony Lewis]

This is wishful thinking - dreaming. If enough of us let the three lens manufacturers know what we would like is there a chance one might just manufacture it? Schneider and Fuji do regularly bring new lenses to market. If we all talk about what lenses we would like, then maybe a manufacturer will realize there is a demand for a particular lens.

For instance I myself find there is a dearth of really long lenses on the market. I am a fan of the Fujinon compact lenses. What I would really like is for Fujinon to produce a 900mm lens in the compact range. They are relatively small, great image circle, suitable for 4x5 to ULF, great performers, and inexpensive – and I’m not a big fan of telephotos.

It would be great if others would nominate what lenses they would like to see from our manufacturers, with image circles, specifications, etc. Lenses that you would really like to have in your lens arsenal?

[Gary L. Quay]

I would like Cooke to put the PS945 and the Series XV Convertable back on the market, and then I need to win the lottery so that I can afford them.

--Gary

[Nick_3536]

A 900mm in a #3 would be around F/20. I'm guessing even a Fuji compact mounted in a #3 wouldn't be that small.

[Paul Ewins]

A 100-105mm designed for 4x5. The Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikons in this range all just miss (around 150mm IC). Fuji had a couple that allow minimal movements (160 - 170mm IC) and then the large SW with a 250mm IC which is over kill. Something around 190 - 200mm IC in a Copal 0 would be the ideal.

[Archphoto]

Paul, I have been using a 115mm Grandagon on 4x5" for years and has plenty of movement, the same with a 121mm Super Angulon.

[John Bowen]

A 100-105mm designed for 4x5. The Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikons in this range all just miss (around 150mm IC). Fuji had a couple that allow minimal movements (160 - 170mm IC) and then the large SW with a 250mm IC which is over kill. Something around 190 - 200mm IC in a Copal 0 would be the ideal.

Rather than add a 100-105, I use the 90 and move one step closer, or I use the 120 and move one step back...works fine :D

As a ULF guy, I too would like an "affordable" (what ever that is) 900-1000mm lens.

[Gem Singer]

Fuji makes a 105 SW f8 that has a 250 mm image circle. More than adequate for 4X5. Great lens. Difficult to find a previously owned one. But they do show up occasionally, in the $650-$750 price range.

[Bill_1856]

Bring back the Dagor (in various sizes).

[GPS]

A 900mm in a #3 would be around F/20. I'm guessing even a Fuji compact mounted in a #3 wouldn't be that small.

Exactly. A compact lens can be compact just to a certain focal length - after that, it won't be compact any more. What is more, after a certain focal length the non true telephoto lens doesn't give any advantage to the photographer. What you gain in "compactness" you would more than loose on the weight of the necessary support for that long lens. That's one of the reasons why true telephoto lenses came to the game.

[Neil Purling]

How about Cooke or whoever offering a range of Petzvals in Copal shutters. They still seem to be very popular lenses. I dunno if the Dallmeyer Patent variant on the Petzval would might make the lens more useful.

[evan clarke]

A 100-105mm designed for 4x5. The Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikons in this range all just miss (around 150mm IC). Fuji had a couple that allow minimal movements (160 - 170mm IC) and then the large SW with a 250mm IC which is over kill. Something around 190 - 200mm IC in a Copal 0 would be the ideal.

How about the SSXL 110? My favorite lens in this range, squeaky sharp...EC

[jnantz]

a turner reich triple convertible or another wollensak 1a
that is a cheep and beat up that would cover 8x10 or 11x14.
a shutter (broken) or barrel .. it doesn't matter.

nothing fancy and just something that covers (or barely covers) ...

[Toyon]

Something wider than 90, with a center filter.

[Nathan Potter]

The only thing I'm missing is the cash to buy some of the full range of 47 to 1200 mm lenses already available for 4X5 to 8X10. I think any missing in the current range would be for a very small market.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Doremus Scudder]

Paul,

100mm wide-field Ektar: Small, covers 4x5 w/ movements, available used.

Gauss-design lenses like the above seem to have disappeared in many useful focal lengths. An update of the wide-field Ektars in 100 and 135mm focal lengths would be a welcome addition to the current lens offerings IMO.

Best,

Doremus Scdder

[Bruce Watson]

What we need are some new designs that are only possible with modern methods and materials. I personally would absolutely love a family of short retrofocus lenses with a flange-film distance (at infinity) of 100mm or so. I'm thinking at least a 60mm lens to start, which would give you a whopping 90 degree angle-of-view with 5x4 film. This hasn't been done before because it's really complex, and because it absolutely requires modern coating technology; it would take a lot of glass (10+ elements I'm guessing). But you'd get some things you just can't get any other way.

First, you'd get freedom from bag bellows. You wouldn't have the expense, the bulk, or the time spent moving from regular bellows to bag. Second, retrofocus lenses tend to have very even illumination across the image circle, thus eliminating the need for expensive center filters. Third, you'd likely get large image circles giving you plenty of room for movements. This would make the architectural photography crowd very happy, outdoor shots and interiors both.

That's the kind of lens we need -- completely new designs. What we don't need are more reproductions of old designs. If we need Petzvals, we can get them. If we need Artars, they are available. There are a number of excellent soft focus lenses available for portraiture, etc. I'd love to see Cooke, for example, make use of their experience making complex cine lenses to make such a lens. Or Schneider putting their experience in aspherical designs to the test. I'd just like to see somebody stretch outside the box. And I'd like to be a beta tester should such an unlikely event happen! :D

[Sevo]

What we need are some new designs that are only possible with modern methods and materials. I personally would absolutely love a family of short retrofocus lenses with a flange-film distance (at infinity) of 100mm or so.

Seconded - the existing medium short LF lenses are constained by their physical dimensions more than by their optical performance. A mild wide with decidedly retrofocus design, like a 90-100mm with 150mm flange and 120mm rear element distance, would be very useful for LF reflexes and to create cameras with radically new movement possibilities.

Sevo

[GPS]

What we need are some new designs that are only possible with modern methods and materials. I personally would absolutely love a family of short retro-focus lenses with a flange-film distance (at infinity) of 100mm or so. I'm thinking at least a 60mm lens to start, which would give you a whopping 90 degree angle-of-view with 5x4 film. This hasn't been done before because it's really complex, and because it absolutely requires modern coating technology; it would take a lot of glass (10+ elements I'm guessing). But you'd get some things you just can't get any other way.

First, you'd get freedom from bag bellows. You wouldn't have the expense, the bulk, or the time spent moving from regular bellows to bag. Second, retrofocus lenses tend to have very even illumination across the image circle, thus eliminating the need for expensive center filters. Third, you'd likely get large image circles giving you plenty of room for movements. This would make the architectural photography crowd very happy, outdoor shots and interiors both.

... :D

Why on Earth would someone like to loose the superior optical quality of the true wide angle lens that we use in LF photography to imitate something that has been invented only because of the physical constraints of small format cameras?

To get "freedom from bag bellows"? The bag bellows IS the freedom from normal bellows, isn't it? There isn't any more "free" bellows than the bag bellows! No normally thinking optical constructor would go into inventing a LF retro-focus lens so that we wouldn't need to "spent time" to change to bag bellows. :rolleyes: Buy an Arca Swiss and change that bellows in a matter of seconds...
To eliminate "the expense, the bulk" of bag bellows (?) so that we would have the expense and the bulk of a much more complicated, more heavy, more bulky, more expensive lens??:rolleyes:
Retro-focus lenses don't make the illumination more even either - their positive lens element has no influence on that characteristic of the lens.
Quite the contrary - the retro-focus lens is more prone to distortion and other optical disadvantages than a true wide angle lens. What would small format photographers give to be able to use true wide angle lenses - and you would just throw it out of the window...

[Bruce Watson]

Why on Earth would someone like to loose the superior optical quality of the true wide angle lens that we use in LF photography to imitate something that has been invented only because of the physical constraints of small format cameras?

Got up on the wrong side of bed again did you? A little civility would be nice; it's not required that you insult other people or their ideas.


To get "freedom from bag bellows"? The bag bellows IS the freedom from normal bellows, isn't it?

Not for me. That's why I said it.


There isn't any more "free" bellows than the bag bellows! No normally thinking optical constructor would go into inventing a LF retro-focus lens so that we wouldn't need to "spent time" to change to bag bellows. :rolleyes: Buy an Arca Swiss and change that bellows in a matter of seconds...
To eliminate "the expense, the bulk" of bag bellows (?) so that we would have the expense and the bulk of a much more complicated, more heavy, more bulky, more expensive lens??:rolleyes:

Freedom from owning one. Freedom from carrying it around. Freedom from having the weight of the mechanism to make changing possible on the frames of the camera itself. Think before you :rolleyes:


Retro-focus lenses don't make the illumination more even either - their positive lens element has no influence on that characteristic of the lens.

You criticize an idea and you don't even understand it? Look it up. It's the first element's negative design that improves illumination across the field. This has been well known and understood since the original Angenieux still camera designs of the 1950s.


Quite the contrary - the retro-focus lens is more prone to distortion and other optical disadvantages than a true wide angle lens. What would small format photographers give to be able to use true wide angle lenses - and you would just throw it out of the window...

I think the advantages of a retrofocus design outweigh the disadvantages for some uses. And it's a fact that retrofocus designs enable some uses that can't be done with conventional designs.

I'm not saying you have to have one. But why would you prevent me from having one?

[Ole Tjugen]

... You criticize an idea and you don't even understand it? Look it up. It's the first element's negative design that improves illumination across the field. This has been well known and understood since the original Angenieux still camera designs of the 1950s. ...

But the difference between a retrofocus lens and a "normal" lens is the positive rear cell. Symmetrical wide angle lenses can have negative front elements too, which improve illumination across the field. THAT was first described by Rusinov/Roosinov in 1946. Reverse telephoto lenses (AKA retrofocus) have been around since 1929, the Angenieux Retrofocus lens was merely the first one to be widely used for photography.

Don't criticise others for not understanding if you don't understand what they are referring to.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a new series of small compact wide angle lenses with matched center filters - either Angulon or double-Gauss design.

[GPS]

Calm down Bruce. If I insulted people (you?) in my first phrase show where did I do so. If not why are you so upset?
If for you bag bellows doesn't mean freedom of movements that normal bellows cannot give for the given lens, it's fine. It means you don't need bag bellows. Yet you wanted to have freedom from it... hmm.
If you want to have "freedom from having the weight of the mechanism to make changing possible" buy the Arca Swiss. The mechanism to change bellows weighs about 1 g and is as big as a small button battery... You won't get greater freedom in this in any other camera.
Once again, if you want to have freedom from owning bag bellows and carrying it around it's fine with me. To buy this freedom by carrying a much heavier lens, less optically good - if it is fine with you, I couldn't care less. Logical it is not. Just say to an optical constructor that you need a retro-focus LF lens because that 1g button on the standard frame is too much for you to carry - notice his reaction then but don't be angry with him after his answer, for goodness sake...

When it comes to the retro-focus lens optical design notice the fact that it is the rear positive lens element that makes the front negative wide angle assembly being a retro-focus design (by extending the back focal length). Without it it would just be a true wide angle lens.

Now have a good day and forget the idea of "insulting ideas" - nobody can insult an idea, fortunately... Ideas would otherwise be pissed off and wouldn't come to us, would they?? ;-))

[GPS]

But the difference between a retrofocus lens and a "normal" lens is the positive rear cell. Symmetrical wide angle lenses can have negative front elements too, which improve illumination across the field. THAT was first described by Rusinov/Roosinov in 1946. Reverse telephoto lenses (AKA retrofocus) have been around since 1929, the Angenieux Retrofocus lens was merely the first one to be widely used for photography.

Don't criticise others for not understanding if you don't understand what they are referring to.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a new series of small compact wide angle lenses with matched center filters - either Angulon or double-Gauss design.

Thanks a lot Ole, you made my day...:)

[Bruce Watson]

But the difference between a retrofocus lens and a "normal" lens is the positive rear cell. Symmetrical wide angle lenses can have negative front elements too, which improve illumination across the field. THAT was first described by Rusinov/Roosinov in 1946. Reverse telephoto lenses (AKA retrofocus) have been around since 1929, the Angenieux Retrofocus lens was merely the first one to be widely used for photography.

Don't criticize others for not understanding if you don't understand what they are referring to.

Amazing. What is it today? Since you insist:

Rudolf Kingslake, one of the acknowledged greats of lens design, disagrees with you. According to Kingslake in A History of the Photographic Lens "The combination of a large negative lens in front of an ordinary lens constitutes a Reversed Telephoto objective." Kinglake is on my side here. Sorry.

Kingslake goes on to say "It should be remarked that the large negative element in front of a wide-angle lens of this type has the effect of increasing the illumination at the outer parts of the image." What more needs said?

The Angenieux Retrofocus lenses were the first ones widely used for still photography (as I said in an earlier post). The earliest actual retrofocus production lens I can find is a 1931 cine lens from Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson (TTH later became Cooke IIRC). But cine lenses aren't as relevant to this forum as the still camera lenses, which is why I cited the more relevant Angenieux work.

[Bruce Watson]

When it comes to the retro-focus lens optical design notice the fact that it is the rear positive lens element that makes the front negative wide angle assembly being a retro-focus design (by extending the back focal length). Without it it would just be a true wide angle lens.

Kingslake disagrees. I'll take his side.

[Arthur Nichols]

The lens that I am missing is the one that has made me a recognized and affluent artist

[Ole Tjugen]

...
Rudolf Kingslake, one of the acknowledged greats of lens design, disagrees with you. According to Kingslake in A History of the Photographic Lens "The combination of a large negative lens in front of an ordinary lens constitutes a Reversed Telephoto objective." Kinglake is on my side here. Sorry.
...

Funny - I used the same book to find my references!

But you ought to read the whole book, where you would find just about everything in my post.

A reversed telephoto lens has a negative group in front of a positive group, just the opposite of a telephoto lens which has a positive group in front of a negative group. But the large negative lens having the effect of evening out the illumination is mentioned under "III. The Biogon Type" (p. 150), see also "field flattener, p. 45. The chapter entitle "The Advantages of Symmetry", ch. 4.I, is also relevant to this discussion.

My page numbers refer to the edition printed by Academic Press.

[Gene McCluney]

I am a fan of the Fujinon compact lenses. What I would really like is for Fujinon to produce a 900mm lens in the compact range. They are relatively small, great image circle, suitable for 4x5 to ULF, great performers, and inexpensive – and I’m not a big fan of telephotos.



But the question would be: would you have enough bellows to "use" a 900mm on a field camera? Particularly a prime and not a telephoto.

[GPS]

Kingslake disagrees. I'll take his side.

By all means, do so. Just - as someone ;) very correctly said - read the whole book...:)

[Dave_B]

It may be my imagination but it seems to me that the usually congenial nature of this forum has recently been replaced with a lot of generally unpleasant behavior. When even kindly old souls like Jim Galli get attacked (on another thread), something is definitely out of whack. It must the economy.....

[GPS]

...
For instance I myself find there is a dearth of really long lenses on the market. I am a fan of the Fujinon compact lenses. What I would really like is for Fujinon to produce a 900mm lens in the compact range. They are relatively small, great image circle, suitable for 4x5 to ULF, great performers, and inexpensive – and I’m not a big fan of telephotos.

It would be great if others would nominate what lenses they would like to see from our manufacturers, with image circles, specifications, etc. Lenses that you would really like to have in your lens arsenal?

Having said that the 900mm Fujinon C would probably not be too much of compact I have to say that I agree with you. Me too I would love to have the long non true tele lenses. The super long Dagors series comes to my mind. I even know how to go around the long bellows problem but what I dislike is the lack of shutters in these lenses. I scorn Packard shutters, obviously. :) That only stops me from going after the super long lenses...

[Bruce Watson]

Funny - I used the same book to find my references!

But you ought to read the whole book, where you would find just about everything in my post.

I'm way ahead of you apparently.


A reversed telephoto lens has a negative group in front of a positive group, just the opposite of a telephoto lens which has a positive group in front of a negative group. But the large negative lens having the effect of evening out the illumination is mentioned under "III. The Biogon Type" (p. 150), see also "field flattener, p. 45.

The design of the biogon which Kingslake defines as "...a kind of double-ended reversed-telephoto objective..." has, in fact, a negative rear element as you can see in figure 10.11. It doesn't have a positive rear element which you claim it has to have to be a retrofocus lens. Even the design shown in figure 10.9 of the Roosinov lens, which you referenced, has a negative rear element.

My quote on the effect of the negative front element evening illumination over the field comes from page 144, near the front of chapter 10, but before the discussion of the Biogon design.

And all of this is beside the point -- the OP asked about "...lenses that you would really like to have in your lens arsenal?" I've answered his request. What I want is new lens designs that haven't been offered in the past, rather than updating the same old designs. In particular I would be really interested in a short focal length retrofocus lens for 5x4.

The last word is yours if you want it Ole.

[drew.saunders]

The "Cooke XVa/2", i.e.: roughly half the fl.'s of the recently discontinued XVa but for 4x5 instead of 8x10. Something like 165 (f5.6 would be nice) total with individual cells of 240-250mm and 325-360mm. If the two individual cells could be better than f11 and f16 respectively, even better. If it had to take a C1 shutter to get faster apertures that wouldn't be much of a penalty for a reasonably compact 3-in-1 for 4x5.

[aduncanson]

A 240mm WA Dagor for me, definitely.

I own a Super-W-Komura f=90mm 1:6.3 lens which offers about 130mm of back focus. (I have been cautioned here about assuming that this makes it a retrofocus lens and I have no stake in that controversy.) It is far easier to use on my 5x7 (with no bag bellows) than my 120mm Angulon.

Komura made a similar 75mm/6.3 lens that sometimes shows up as one of the Caltar brand lenses. And I think that they also made a 47, but that it covered only 6x9.

Lately I have been seeing a 90mm/5.6 Komura wide angle lens advertised as an equal to the Super Angulon, but I have no idea if it has this long back focus characteristic.

[Paul Ewins]

I have both the 75/6.3 and 90/6.3 Super-W-Komura and neither could be called a small lens. They also advertised a 33/4.5 4x5 fish-eye but I don't know whether it was ever manufactured.

An updated 100 WF Ektar sounds close to what I want, or the non-existent 105/6.8 Angulon. The Grandagon, SSXL and SWS Fuji are all too big and expensive for what I consider to be fairly modest ambitions.

[Vaughn]

A 24" RD Artar...in a shutter would be nice (for 8x10 use). I am borrowing one (barrel) at the present time and have had only one chance to use it...made a nice 4x10 in the Alabama Hills. I am off to Yosemite this week-end, so I might be able to put it to good use there.

Vaughn

[Ole Tjugen]

... An updated 100 WF Ektar sounds close to what I want, or the non-existent 105/6.8 Angulon. The Grandagon, SSXL and SWS Fuji are all too big and expensive for what I consider to be fairly modest ambitions.

I'm with you on that: Small (relatively) lightweight (relatively) wide-angle (relatively) lenses in the "intermediate" focal lengths: 75mm for 6x9cm, 105mm for 4x5", 135mm for 5x7", 185mm for 8x10", and 280mm for 11x14". Angulon-type or double-Gauss, delivered with center filters. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Ole, if you can make do with 100 mm for 4x5, post-war coated 100/6.3 Aristostigmats are around in moderate numbers. Center filters are something else entirely.

[Neil Purling]

I just got what I hope is a Petzval. It needs a good clean. It is off a magic lantern & seems to be of around 5" back-focus, dunno from what point yer actual FL is measured.
I need to get it mounted before I can find out more. Usefully it has a disc on the front of the lens to cut the light beam & also be a shutter. This should be a damn good portrait lens on 6x7 (120 roll) with a Super-Rollex film back.

[ljsegil]

For no real need, but out of pure desire, I am coveting a 30" Red Dot Artar in a shutter if such a beast exists and can live on a 6x6" board.
Fiscally irresponsibly,
LJS

[David Karp]

I think that I would like something like a modern, Copal-shuttered 120-125mm like an old Angulon or Kodak design, multi coated, and manufactured by Rodenstock or Fuji. I know that Congo is out there, but question the QC, based on comments by Thalmann, Perez, etc.

This would give the small size offered by the old Fuji NW with a larger image circle.

[Anthony Lewis]

I am surprised at the variety of replies. It seems there are those who would like to see many of the old classic lenses reintroduced. Many would like to see some intermediate focal lengths made that are not presently catered for by our manufacturers. A few like me who would like longer focal lengths.

I thought Bruce Watson's idea of retrofocus wide lenses novel and interesting. I was a little disappointed that whatever the merits of Bruce's suggestion, that some seem to come down a little hard on him. His suggestion might not be for all, but its only through new ideas that we progress, and this is only a forum after all - not to be taken too seriously.

Should I print out this thread and send a copy to each of our manufacturers? They may just realize that if they consult the Large Format fraternity then they may find new lens opportunities!