Wide, wide, wide angle lenses?

[welly]

Hey all,

I love really wide angle lenses on 35mm, 12-14mm is lots of fun. What options are there for large format for ultra-wide angle lenses?

Cheers!

[uhner]

There are some options that may suit your taste for 4x5 and 5x7. Take a look here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

really wide angle lenses on 35mm, 12-14mm is lots of fun. What options are there for large format ..

Welcome to the Large Format Club ;-)
Comparison between formats is easier speaking in terms of total angular coverage.
The diagonal of a 35 mm image (24x36mm) is 43 mm
Hence, a 12 mm covers about 120° (2x60°) and a 14mm cover 110° (2x55°)
There are more 110° lenses available in LF than 120° and more 100-105 than 110-120°. Bu there are some excellent modenr 120° lenses.
From Schneider you have the super angulon XL series of wide-angle lenses covering 110 to 120° ; plus the super-symmar Xl aspheric covering 105°
From Rodenstock the Apo grandagon series covers from 110 to 120°.
All 4 manufacturers : Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji and Nikon (Nikon LF lenses are discontinued but easy to find on the second-hand market) offer classical view camera wide angle lenses covering 100° to 105°
100° in 24x36 is covered by a 18mm
105° : 16.5 mm

[Leonard Evens]

There are certainly some wide very wide angle lenses available, but in my experience, you don't gain as much by using them in a view camera as you might expect from experience with smaller formats.

There may be problems focusing at infinity that close because of mechanical limitations of the camera. In addition, you often find possible movement is limited, either because of a relatively small image circle or because of limitations of the camera , with the small bellows extension. So it may not be possible to use rise/fall or shift to eliminate uninteresting subject matter, such as an empty foreground.

In addition, for some things you would use a very wide angle lens for in other formats, you can accomplish the desired end with a view camera with a longer lens and choosing the plane of focus by a tilt or swing.

[welly]

Thanks for the advice, chaps!

[Lachlan 717]

Have a look at the Schneider 72mm Super Angulon XL. It has the biggest image circle to width of any modern lens.

A classic in Architectural photography.

[percepts]

Have a look at the Schneider 72mm Super Angulon XL. It has the biggest image circle to width of any modern lens.

A classic in Architectural photography.

Covers 5x7 with a tad of shift available at infinity. Plenty shift available on 4x5.

Image circle angle of view 115 degrees so by any standards a very wide angle lens, especially on 5x7 film.

[mikec]

pinholes.

[percepts]

Basically you need to look for as short a focal length as possible which has image circle big enough to cover film format. Then it depends whether you want to be able to use movements, shift, tilt etc. Figures quoted are usually at infinity. If you are focussing closer then useable image circle gets bigger.

On 4x5 the current lenses such as Rodenstock Grandagon 55mm which has image circle angle of 110deg or Schneider Super Angulon XL 47mm which has 120deg image circle angle and just covers 4x5.

[Mike1234]

Modern options:
47 SAXL for 4x5... equal to 13mm on 135
72 SAXL for 5x7... equal to 15mm on 135
110 SSXL barely covers 8x10... equal to 15mm on 135

[Bob Salomon]

Modern options:
47 SAXL for 4x5... equal to 13mm on 135
72 SAXL for 5x7... equal to 15mm on 135
110 SSXL barely covers 8x10... equal to 15mm on 135

That is some. there are also the 75mm Grandagon-N, 65mm Grandagon-N, 55mm Apo Grandagon, and while covering most of 45, but not all, the 45mm Apo Grandagon, 35mm Apo Grandagon and if you want really wide but covering 6x9cm there are the 28mm HR Digaron S and the 23mm HR Digaron S lenses from Rodenstock.

[Mike1234]

That is some. there are also the 75mm Grandagon-N, 65mm Grandagon-N, 55mm Apo Grandagon, and while covering most of 45, but not all, the 45mm Apo Grandagon, 35mm Apo Grandagon and if you want really wide but covering 6x9cm there are the 28mm HR Digaron S and the 23mm HR Digaron S lenses from Rodenstock.

Thanks Bob... I listed the very widest options for each format from 4x5 to 8x10... didn't think to add any more. :)

I'll add the 38mm SAXL for 6x12cm... equal to 13mm on 135.

Again, those I've listed are the widest available in current designs. The 110 SSXL isn't spec'ed to cover 8x10 but it does just barely.

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, are you sure that 23 mm - 100 mm HR Digaron S lenses cover 6x9? I ask because http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf says their image circles are 70 mm, i.e., smaller than needed to cover nominal 6x6.

On another topic, I have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon that does indeed cover 6x9. It seems a little soft, pending a few more shots to make sure that I'm not the problem. If it seems soft after more trials, where should I send it to be checked?

Cheers,

Dan

[Mike1234]

Bob, are you sure that 23 mm - 100 mm HR Digaron S lenses cover 6x9? I ask because http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf says their image circles are 70 mm, i.e., smaller than needed to cover nominal 6x6.

On another topic, I have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon that does indeed cover 6x9. It seems a little soft, pending a few more shots to make sure that I'm not the problem. If it seems soft after more trials, where should I send it to be checked?

Cheers,

Dan

Dan... if you have a front-mounted fresnel it may be throwing off your focus.

[Dan Fromm]

Mike, thanks for the suggestion. I don't have the problem with, e.g., 47/5.6 SA or 38/4.5 Biogon, on the same camera and with the same focusing pane.. But on a bad day I can't focus to save my life, so have to try again before I can blame the lens.

[Mike1234]

Dan... both the 47 SA and 38 Biogon have a longer back focus than the 35 Apo. It "may" be just enought of a difference to cause a problem. Have you tried using a plain GG?

Then again... if you can't get a sharp image in the focus panel at all (not a focus "shift" problem) that's different.

[Dan Fromm]

Mike, I've had the problem before, and with all focal lengths. Its me, or how I hold the loupe, or me. Always a sharp image on the GG. I've got sharp and fuzzy shots with the 38 Biogon, same camera, same GG.

Cheers,

Dan

[Daniel_Buck]

the Hypergon's are pretty darn wide! But they seem to be diffucult to come by.

[Mike1234]

Dan... have you been following the Chamonix focus issue thread? There is a focus problem common on many focus panels with the fresnel mounted in front of the GG. Focus accuracy is affected by the FL of the fresnel, focal length and back focus of the lens, and subject focus distance. If you're getting a sharp image on the focus panel but blurry prints then maybe this is the problem. If you can't get a sharp enough image on the focus panel at all then that's another problem.

[Cymen]

Dan... have you been following the Chamonix focus issue thread? ...

The front page of the Chamonix website has a link to a PDF with the details and a solution: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/

[Mike1234]

The front page of the Chamonix website has a link to a PDF with the details and a solution: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/

Thanks but I only brought up that thread to demonstrate that there is a problem with most, if not all, focus panels with the fresnels mounted in front of the GG. It was just an example. :)

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, are you sure that 23 mm - 100 mm HR Digaron S lenses cover 6x9? I ask because http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Digital_Lenses_3-26__8236.pdf says their image circles are 70 mm, i.e., smaller than needed to cover nominal 6x6.

On another topic, I have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon that does indeed cover 6x9. It seems a little soft, pending a few more shots to make sure that I'm not the problem. If it seems soft after more trials, where should I send it to be checked?

Cheers,

Dan

The HR S lenses cover 70 and 80mm, depending on the lens. The HR Digaron W and Apo Sironar Digital lenses cover 90 to 150mm circles, depending on the format. Note: the HR Digaron-S lenses require a corrector plate screwed into the rear element when these lenses are used for film. The plate is not used for digital.

As for the 35mm lens it depends on where you purchased it. If it has our warranty card and warranty sticker on the box it would come to us. Otherwise it has to go to whomever sold it.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks but I only brought up that thread to demonstrate that there is a problem with most, if not all, focus panels with the fresnels mounted in front of the GG. It was just an example. :)

No there isn't. Old Linhofs put the fresnel in front of the GG with no problems in focus. Of course, the GG is shimmed on Linhof cameras so the position of the focusing plane is easily adjusted by the service center.

[pocketfulladoubles]

Super Angulon XL 47mm is my personal favorite. Just wish I could afford one right now.

[Mike1234]

No there isn't. Old Linhofs put the fresnel in front of the GG with no problems in focus. Of course, the GG is shimmed on Linhof cameras so the position of the focusing plane is easily adjusted by the service center.

Bob, I said "MOST, if not all, of the time". And I'm willing to bet the old Linofs suffer similar issues. You're so helpful most of the time but why must you be so derogatory and abrasive? Gee whizz, man. You're even more socially inept than I and that's no easy feat!!

[Dan Fromm]

Dan... have you been following the Chamonix focus issue thread? There is a focus problem common on many focus panels with the fresnel mounted in front of the GG. Focus accuracy is affected by the FL of the fresnel, focal length and back focus of the lens, and subject focus distance. If you're getting a sharp image on the focus panel but blurry prints then maybe this is the problem. If you can't get a sharp enough image on the focus panel at all then that's another problem.

Mike, this is only an issue with Pacemaker Graphics when a fresnel is added to a focusing panel that isn't set up for one or removed from a focusing panel that is set up for one. My little Century Graphic's focusing panel has a fresnel and is set up for it. Graphics may have been designed more carefully than the Chamonix.

As I've been telling you, my problem is inconsistent focusing. When I'm working well, I can focus well. When I'm not, I can't. The problem is me, not the hardware. I did some very careful testing after some annoying failures and eliminated hardware as the problem. I'm defective, not my cameras.

That said, only more testing will tell whether my little 35 Apo Grandy is ok; I'm not consistently off. The weather here in NJ is cold and windy. If I don't break down and use flash indoors at relatively short distances testing's going to have to wait. I've been offered the use of another one, but the weather's a problem.

Bob, I bought the lens used with no card or box and have no idea who imported it. Will the serial number answer that question?

If HP didn't import it and I confirm that it isn't as sharp as it should be -- see above, the problem could well be me -- where can it be sent for checking and, if necessary, shimming?

Cheers,

Dan

[Mike1234]

Dan, I urge you to take the time to read that lengthy thread. Make/model/"designed for" are irrelivent. I'll say no more on the matter. :)

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I said "MOST, if not all, of the time". And I'm willing to bet the old Linofs suffer similar issues. You're so helpful most of the time but why must you be so derogatory and abrasive? Gee whizz, man. You're even more socially inept than I and that's no easy feat!!

Mike,

There were no problems with the screen placement other then the gg placement had to be re-adjusted if the fresnel screen was changed. The major problem was that if you wanted to remove the fresnel you had to remove the gg to do so. Then they changed the fresnel placement to the outside of the gg using clips. That way the fresnel can be easily removed when desired.

No attempt to be derogatory. It simply was not an accurate statement on your part.

[Bob Salomon]

Mike, this is only an issue with Pacemaker Graphics when a fresnel is added to a focusing panel that isn't set up for one or removed from a focusing panel that is set up for one. My little Century Graphic's focusing panel has a fresnel and is set up for it. Graphics may have been designed more carefully than the Chamonix.

As I've been telling you, my problem is inconsistent focusing. When I'm working well, I can focus well. When I'm not, I can't. The problem is me, not the hardware. I did some very careful testing after some annoying failures and eliminated hardware as the problem. I'm defective, not my cameras.

That said, only more testing will tell whether my little 35 Apo Grandy is ok; I'm not consistently off. The weather here in NJ is cold and windy. If I don't break down and use flash indoors at relatively short distances testing's going to have to wait. I've been offered the use of another one, but the weather's a problem.

Bob, I bought the lens used with no card or box and have no idea who imported it. Will the serial number answer that question?

If HP didn't import it and I confirm that it isn't as sharp as it should be -- see above, the problem could well be me -- where can it be sent for checking and, if necessary, shimming?

Cheers,

Dan

You would bring it to us since we are also in NJ. Bring the camera with you. But call first. I am away from next Tue. to Fri. in FL and then from the following Sun. through Sun. in Sweden.

[Pete Roody]

Arca also puts the fresnel in front of the gg. I have had no focusing issues with them. I use a 135mm on 8x10 and a 75mm on 4x5.

[Mike1234]

The issue of focusing errors can be very specific to fresnel quality, focal length and placement, plus lens focal length and back focus distance, plus subject distance. Other design issues come into play such as combining the fresnel with a frosted back. But... I've decided to avoid all these problems and I'm not sharing the solution here because I don't like to argue or defend. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, enjoy your travels. When I decide what the problem is I'll let you know and we can decide, if necessary, how to proceed.

Regards,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

The issue of focusing errors can be very specific to fresnel quality, focal length and placement, plus lens focal length and back focus distance, plus subject distance. Other design issues come into play such as combining the fresnel with a frosted back. But... I've decided to avoid all these problems and I'm not sharing the solution here because I don't like to argue or defend. :)Mike, what am I missing? In particular, what does the lens have to do with whether the ground glass is in register with the film plane?

Cheers,

Dan

[jb7]

I've got to admit to never having had a problem with the fresnel on the Arca.

To get back to the original question, and I don't know how this thread has become another fresnel/focus thread, the widest lens for 4x5 that I know of is the 47mm SA XL.
It even offers a little bit of movement, more than just covering, as has been mentioned.

However, LF doesn't play by the same rules as 35mm, it's a different way of thinking.

The 72mm SA XL, as has also been mentioned, is just as wide, but offers the possibility of shooting way off axis...

[Mike1234]

Mike, what am I missing? In particular, what does the lens have to do with whether the ground glass is in register with the film plane?

Sorry if this seemed to go off-topic but I thought it to be related and (hopefully) of some help to eliminate one possible problem. :o

Dan, the front-mounted fresnel in some cameras "interacts" with the taking lens causing a focus shift with some lenses and at some distances. So, even though the image is sharp on the GG, the image is not focused. Once the film is in place (removing the fresnel from the image path) the focus shifts. Sorry, folks, I'll not mention it again here.