Widest Lens on Sinar F2?

[Mark_Se]

Does anyone know whats the widest lens that works with a sinar f2?

[Jim Noel]

With a bag bellows, a 58mm should do fine. If you wish to go to a recessed board, more movement will be available with a standard bellows.

[Sevo]

Any LF lens I am aware of! The standards can literally touch at the closest position of the focus drive - that leaves you with a few mm of depth for each standard plus less than 20mm for the bag bellows, a small enough space even for sub 50mm lenses, as long as you shoot 4x5. The 65mm SA will even work with a sinar shutter inserted.

You will be very limited in tilt/swing movements with 50mm and less lenses on smaller formats (6x9 film backs or digital), as they tend to spread the camera out of focusable spacing. For architectural work with digital or medium format, a 4x5 camera can be too limiting - hence the new breed of smaller size cameras...

[Mark_Se]

hmm, the widest lens i use with my f2 is a 65mm, but with roll film its still not wide enough...

[Sevo]

In my experience 47mm works as long as you restrict yourself to shifting - but as the standards do swing out at the far end more than needed, due to the relatively oversized standard, even a minute degree of tilt will already translate to more than the few available millimetres of compensating focus range at the far frame edge in 6x9 or, even worse, 36x48mm.

[Mark Sampson]

It's probable that when the Sinar F was designed (1970s?) there was no lens wider than 65mm, available new, that would cover 4x5. People would use a 58mm Rodenstock lens from a Graflex XL that covered, sort of. So if you can make a 47mm lens work at all it's a bonus.

[Drew Wiley]

With the bag bellows and a recessed board you should be able to use just about
anything capable of covering 4x5 film. Most of those very short lenses won't accept much movement anyway.

[Ron Marshall]

I use a 55mm on my F1 on a flat lensboard with the bag bellows.

You may need a recessed board for the 47XL but it would could definately be used, as could shorter focal lengths, but they would not cover 4x5.

[rdenney]

I can focus a 47 on a flat board using the standard bag bellows, but I have to make sure the bellows don't get folded wrong between the standards. Also the regular bag bellows are stiff and resist shift using that lens. For lenses that short, I recommend the Wide Angle Bellows 2, which is folded in a way that allows full movement without such fiddling. I can get up to 8 or 10 degrees of tilt, and unlimited shift with those bellows. I do not have to move the standards to one side of the tripod mount, or any such foolishness, but I do have to use the geared focus to close the gap, and that may require some rise to keep the rise columns fron interfering with the adapter in some situations.

Sinar certainly had smaller formats in mind at the time. They made rollfilm holders, and my 47/5.6 SA dates from the early 70's. It covers 6x9 abundantly, and 6x12 in a pinch.

Rick "who uses the WA2 bellows for everything at 180 and shorter" Denney

[Captain_joe6]

Now, while Sinar doesn't design their cameras to do this, you can put both standards on one side of the rail clamp, and with a bag bellows, you could actually make the standards touch. You'd be fine with any lens on a flat board, and stability would be unaffected. Really, honestly, truly, at that point the only limitation would be whether or not the lens in question covers 4x5. If it does, its game.

[Struan Gray]

I know Mark_se asked about the F2, but the thread is becoming Sinar-general, so I thought I'd throw in my latest experiences with my Norma.

A 90 mm can be focussed head-on with the normal bellows, but no movements. With the bag bellows I feel unrestricted with both a 90 mm and a 65 mm. With a 47 (I have a plain SA, which *just* does square 4x4 images) the flared sections at the base of the standard risers prevent you focussing to infinity with a flat lensboard. You can fudge it by tilting the rail and applying rise to one standard, but focussing is then a royal pain, as you re-frame the shot each time you move a standard.

Recessed Linhof and Sinar compatible boards are available on eBay at very reasonable prices now. Were I doing a lot of work with the 47 I would get one.

[Joshua Dunn]

I've used my 38mm on a recessed board (never tried it on a flat board) and haven't had any problems using the lens other than it's restrictions on coverage.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have a modified 58mm Graflex XL lens, mounted on a custom made deeply recessed Sinar lensboard. It does sort-of cover the 4x5 format, I have found. Very useful for me.

Recently I purchased a 47mm F8 Super Angulon in Compur 00, which I mounted onto an original Norma recessed board. Very, very sharp in the center, so far. Covers about 4x4 inches roughly, as previously mentioned.

Fun lenses to use on Sinar.

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

No problem at all using a 58mm Super Angulon XL on a flat lens board and standard wide angle bellows. Very good with a Horseman 6x12 roll film holder. Enough movements to allow architectural photography capability (limitations by lens coverage, not camera movements).
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY (http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/)

[Armin Seeholzer]

Now, while Sinar doesn't design their cameras to do this, you can put both standards on one side of the rail clamp, and with a bag bellows, you could actually make the standards touch.

In the old Sinar Norma brochure was a picture of booth standards on one side for very wide lenses like the old 47 Schneider and RFH at the time!
But the never glamps are not so fat anymore!

Cheers Armin

[stomatophoto]

Hey all, sorry for resurrecting old thread (found off Google search); this thread is awesome and thanks to everyone who gave input. I'm still wondering, though, what the final answer is for the widest one can go (special bellows and lens boards and otherwise), while still covering the full 4x5 area of the film plane? Or rather, whatever is the clearest consensus or personal account of full coverage at what focal length?

[Peter De Smidt]

I've used a Schneider 47mm f5.6 super angulon xl on a Sinar 4x5. I don't know of a wider lens that covers 4x5.

[stomatophoto]

I've used a Schneider 47mm f5.6 super angulon xl on a Sinar 4x5. I don't know of a wider lens that covers 4x5.

Thanks for that, much appreciated! I'm a complete nooblet to LF, been shooting 120 for a while now but looking to move into LF and this is a major consideration for me. I guess my only follow up is, have you've noticed any vignetting or distortion at such a shallow focal length? Please excuse my ignorance once again on that, but I'm also looking for the most distortion-free wide angle configuration for the 4x5 format. Thanks again for getting back to me.

[Peter De Smidt]

Any lens that wide will have falloff near the edges. Schneider makes a center filter to correct that, if needed. Distortion? None that I noticed.
It's a very good, and very wide!, lens.

[Deval]

Thanks for that, much appreciated! I'm a complete nooblet to LF, been shooting 120 for a while now but looking to move into LF and this is a major consideration for me. I guess my only follow up is, have you've noticed any vignetting or distortion at such a shallow focal length? Please excuse my ignorance once again on that, but I'm also looking for the most distortion-free wide angle configuration for the 4x5 format. Thanks again for getting back to me.
If transitioning to lf, I don't think you will need to go as wide as you can go. If you look at all the landscape images on this forum, most of the widest on 4x5 are shot at 72/75mm-90mm.The movements of most cameras when the the standards are set at a minimum are very limited. Even then I use longer lenses for a lot of landscape. I guess if you do extreme architectural stuff, but even then the 72 handles that very well.

[Drew Wiley]

Sinar actually made two different bag bellows, with one of them intended for extremely wide lenses. The only thing separating the two standards when they are
completely set together is the width of the tripod mounting block. But you've got enough focus gearing on both front and back standards to pull them completely
together. But distortion simply comes with the territory with extreme wide-angle lenses themselves, just like illumination falloff.

[Daniel Unkefer]

134657
I'm still wondering, though, what the final answer is for the widest one can go (special bellows and lens boards and otherwise), while still covering the full 4x5 area of the film plane?

I have a 65mm F8 Super Angulon that I use on my Sinar Norma. It is on a Norma recessed board and it covers 4x5.
I also have a 58mm Rodenstock Grandagon (Graflex XL) lens on a deeply recessed (custom made) board.
Forward focusing the lens, it -just covers- 4x5. But it's pushing it.... I have a 47mm F8 Siper Angulon on a Norma recessed board, that dosen't cover (not even close), but I use it anyway. Looks kewl in some instances. The 47mmXL is prolly better.

This is fairly standard fare and beyond what I have you are getting into the exotic and -expensive-. If you need slight camera movements, I would suggest the 75mm.

Here is one of my 4x5 Sinar Normas, with 75mm F8 Super Angulon, and Schneider 75mm Center filter. Highly usuable and productive ultrawide.

[VictoriaPerelet]

I use Sinar F2 with Schneider 47mm SA XL plus center filter pretty often. Flat lelsboard, Sinar extra wide bellows, non metering back - planty of freedom for movements:):

http://victoriasphoto.com/models/Fenne/big/t55-1.jpg
http://victoriasphoto.com/models/Fenne/big/t55-6.jpg

Sent from my iPad

[Tin Can]

End of story. :)

[rdenney]

Super Angulons, with their (mostly) symmetrical opposing retrofocus cells, completely correct for geometric distortion and curvature of field. The two cells' errors cancel each other out.

Newer XL versions aren't quite symmetrical, but they are still as well corrected for geometric distortion and field curvature.

But their downside is bulk and the requirement to nearly kiss the film, so they can only be used on non-reflex view cameras.

Rick "who has never seen a curved straight line made with a Super Angulon" Denney

[stomatophoto]

Woof, that is an awesome way to end this story, why hello. Thanks for the demo though, seriously, and awesome work! Rick Denney, best signature in the mod business. Thanks everyone for the awesome info, this place is an awesome group! I have my eyes now set on something between 65 and 47!

[Jac@stafford.net]

The widest is clearly the 47mm SA XL, and I do well enough with an earlier 47mm SA F5.6 (http://www.digoliardi.net/super-wide-4x5-1.jpg)with no movements, of course. (lens is mounted on focusing helix)

For information, perhaps argument, only, IMHO the late Biogon design has the least distortion, and the Pacific Optical (PO) 3" version (in shutter) (http://www.digoliardi.net/super-biogon-3-inch.jpg)covers better than 4x5" but is physically too large to move inside a 4x5 camera, thus no movements. Here is the PO on its first test stand (http://www.digoliardi.net/standw.jpg). Later it was mounted freestanding on the Sinar Alpina using improvised lensboard clamps.

[Drew Wiley]

Probably good to distinguish what is meant by distortion. Super-Angulons certainly aren't rectilinear like Biogons intended for aerial mapping, for example, or as used on a Hassie Widebody (which are otherwise very limited in terms of view camera practicality). The edges of the field are visually "stretched" even if there isn't barrel or pincushion distortion.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Probably good to distinguish what is meant by distortion. Super-Angulons certainly aren't rectilinear like Biogons intended for aerial mapping, for example, or as used on a Hassie Widebody (which are otherwise very limited in terms of view camera practicality). The edges of the field are visually "stretched" even if there isn't barrel or pincushion distortion.

Here is a pretty good example of the stretching (http://www.digoliardi.net/lib.jpg). 38mm Biogon on 6x6cm. (My former workplace.) ... sorry about the bad scan, but I suck at digital ...

[leonidas0101]

Any lens that wide will have falloff near the edges. (http://www.beyazapple.com/2015/03/veronika-black.html) Schneider makes a center filter to correct that, if needed. (http://www.beyazapple.com/2015/02/charlotte-mckinney.html) Distortion? None that I noticed. (http://www.beyazapple.com/2015/05/tomorrowland-nedir.html)
It's a very good, (http://www.beyazapple.com/2015/05/hannah-stocking.html) and very wide!, lens.