120mm with a bit of character?

[Former Member 8144]

Hi,

After a brief flirtation with the idea of 8x10 I have for various reasons, mainly various practicalities, decided to return to 4x5 for my upcoming projects.

I'm going to be shooting in the main with a 120mm or thereabouts lens.

I've used a 110mm xl in the past, as well as various 90mm and sironar 135's and they all had their strengths, such as sharpness to the edges and good image circle etc, etc

Well this time I'd like to try something with a bit of character.
Still around that focal length (100 to 120mm) but with it's own less sterile look.
It want it to give me some moderate movement on 4x5 but nothing huge, that is for another lens, if it goes a touch softer at the edges than a modern lens at wider apertures, that is not the end of the world either.

I'll be shooting on portra colour neg, so looking for that 'painterly feel' as opposed to super sharpness. I know of course that will come in the main with the light etc but I think a lens can help add a certain something also.

Possibilities I can see are the angulon 120mm 6.8, kodak wide field ektar 100mm, wollensak 108mm...any others to be on the look out for?
Does the schneider 121 have a look or does it lean towards modern sharpness?
Any dagor or variations of at that focal length?

Thanks,

Marc

[Toyon]

Try a 120 6.8 Berlin Dagor. It is sharp and contrasty, but with smoother bokeh than modern lens and more veiling - which equal an opening up of shadows.

[Steve Hamley]

I'll second the Dagor; I have a 5" Series III Double Anastigmat in Volute I like.

Occasionally you'll see short petzvals show up that might work for you.

Cheers, Steve

[Mark Sampson]

A 121/8 SA is a 'modern' lens. It doesn't have the ultra-contrast of lenses from the 1990s onwards but is certainly very sharp. A 100/6.3 WF Ektar has excellent sharpness and color rendition, again not as much as a new multicoated optic. It doesn't have much coverage on 4x5, though; perhaps that will be an advantage for what you plan to shoot.

[BarryS]

How about a Rapid Rectilinear? They have a different look than modern lenses, but not too wild like Petzvals. The corners soften up a bit and the contrast is lower than a modern lens. Best of all, a 5" RR in a working (maybe a little funky, but working) shutter costs pocket change.

[Toyon]

How about a Rapid Rectilinear? They have a different look than modern lenses, but not too wild like Petzvals. The corners soften up a bit and the contrast is lower than a modern lens. Best of all, a 5" RR in a working (maybe a little funky, but working) shutter costs pocket change.

I am pretty sure a 5" RR would not cover 4x5. However, a wide-angle RR would. Those are a terrific design (not to be confused with wide angle anastigmats) the only drawback is that they are usually f16. You can usually find one with some kind of diaphragm.

[rdenney]

Does the schneider 121 have a look or does it lean towards modern sharpness?

The Schneider 121 is the conventional modern Super Angulon f/8 design, and it is sharp and contrasty right to the edges. It does seem to have a smooth transition from focused to unfocused, though in my use of this lens that has to be evaluated at very large magnification because I have always attempted to make everything sharp with this one. It's not very fast, so if you want selective focus, it may not be the best choice, unless you are working close.

Rick "who finds the out-of-focus rendering to be pretty smooth" Denney

[venchka]

A pre-War Tessar? You may not find one short enough that will cover 4x5. I'm no expert, but it seems that 135mm-150mm is about the minimum in a Tessar for even minimum 4x5 coverage. That said, to my eyes, they produce most beautiful images.

[Bill_1856]

All round, i's hard to beat a Dagor. My 12cm Berlin Series III is coated which makes it even better.

[Former Member 8144]

These 120mm dagor berlins are looking very popular...I'm assuming they come with a hefty price tag?

Marc

[Steve Hamley]

Not really, I think I paid about $75 for mine, and the Volute was nearly mint, beautiful in itself, and working perfectly.

Mine is a not Berlin though; it's an early American lens.

Cheers, Steve

[BarryS]

I am pretty sure a 5" RR would not cover 4x5. However, a wide-angle RR would. Those are a terrific design (not to be confused with wide angle anastigmats) the only drawback is that they are usually f16. You can usually find one with some kind of diaphragm.

I have a 5" RR in a Unicum shutter that easily covers 4" x 5". I think I paid maybe $20 tops.

[Former Member 8144]

What is the real world coverage on 4x5 on these 120mm dagors like.
This lens is not for architectural work but I do need moderate movements.

Thanks.

[Steve Hamley]

Depends on how picky you are about corners/how large you plan to print. I wouldn't count on a lot of movement while retaining sharp corners for any vintage 5"/120mm lens unless it is a real wide angle design - especially not a RR. That doesn't mean that they aren't out there.

I haven't done any testing, but I think the Dagor would give use-ably sharp coverage equal to a 120mm Apo Symmar series. Of course, the Dagor is likely not as sharp off center to begin with, especially at wider apertures. The cameraeccentric site's 1915 Goerz catalog doesn't list a 5" lens, but from the data listed, it would imply sharp coverage of 5x7 at f/32. I'd take that with a grain of salt, but likely you'd still have moderate movements on 4x5.

I'll try to pop mine on a 8x10 when I get home and let you know the results.

Cheers, Steve

[Toyon]

What is the real world coverage on 4x5 on these 120mm dagors like.
This lens is not for architectural work but I do need moderate movements.

Thanks.

My 120 dagor covers infinity with about 2cm movements in each direction.

[Bill_1856]

Coverage ain't much, but sharp enough for a little tilt or rise, a little dance, a little seltzer down the pants....(RIP Chuckles the Clown).

[Armin Seeholzer]

I am pretty sure a 5" RR would not cover 4x5. However, a wide-angle RR would. Those are a terrific design (not to be confused with wide angle anastigmats) the only drawback is that they are usually f16. You can usually find one with some kind of diaphragm.

I have a 12" or better 300mm RR wich gives me on 8x10 2 inches shift fully open at f8 and even a bit more closed down!

Thats why they are calles RR for Rolls Roys!!!;--)))

Cheers Armin

[Steve Hamley]

O.K., on 8x10 at f/11 focused at infinity, my 1902 Series III clips the corners by about 2", which would give it roughly 200mm of illumination. So yes, 4x5 with a bit of movement at small stops. But sharp coverage can be irrelevant when you talk "character". If it's sharp and has low distortion to the edge of the circle of illumination, you probably don't have "character".

Also, early Double Anastigmats and Dagors varied widely in coverage, so YMMV. A forum member recently sold a 6-1/2" Double Anastigmat in a silver Volute that did not cover 8x10 according to him, although my 1903 version in a gold Volute does nicely.

Cheers, Steve

[Former Member 8144]

I don't mind too much if the corners are going a touch soft when movements are bought into play...but do not the ability to move (mainly rise) and still contain the image without vignetting....a 121mm angulon with extra character is what I need!

[rdenney]

I don't mind too much if the corners are going a touch soft when movements are bought into play...but do not the ability to move (mainly rise) and still contain the image without vignetting....a 121mm angulon with extra character is what I need!

There is no 121mm angulon, as far as I know. There is a 121mm Super Angulon, which is a very different design. It's one of the older f/8 SA's, probably from the late 50's or early 60's.

I have one and use it a lot. But I have no idea what you mean by character. To me, character means that it is sharp when I want it to be, and not ugly when it isn't.

Here's an image made on 6x12 with the 121/8 SA at f/16--pretty wide open for this lens. The lens was tilted significantly, but nowhere close to its limits. If you look in the lower left, you'll see some out-of-focus highlights that will give you an indication of the character of this lens.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/japns_maple_scan0015_lr.jpg

Here's the same lens at f/45, with a very strong right swing and front rise combination that is much closer to the edge of the coverage, on 4x5.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/ConcepcionSTwr032793-9_lores.jpg

Rick "not really seeing an old-fashioned lens look here" Denney

[Jim Galli]

Can you define "character"? To me a Dagor is so interchangeable with every other modern lens that it isn't something that comes to mind when I think character or identifiable personality. You may be dis-appointed. A 120 is a wide field lens for 4X5 and most or all 4X5 lenses that have any real character are more in the longer lengths for the format. This is because lenses with personality are usually from an era where coverage was limited to 40 degrees. You and I might very well be talking about 2 entirely different things though. A 120mm lens with character is probably an achromatic meniscus from one of the earliest Kodak folders circa 1908. Open it up and throw away the aperture, and you'll have a lens with some personality dis-orders.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I have a really cool 121mm Weitwinkel Anastigmat that I'm betting has all the "character" one could handle. Not sure. Haven't used it yet. It does cover 4X5 right fine, though. If you're looking for "character" I doubt a RR would be to your liking. Most of those things are just too sharp to qualify. Never shot one wide open, though. It might be scary. :D