65mm, 75mm or 90mm for 4x5 architecture? [Archive]

hnaa

25-Aug-2010, 09:21

rguinter

25-Aug-2010, 09:31

I have Schneider Super Angulon lenses in 150-mm, 135-mm, 90-mm, and 75-mm.

On my Tachihara I reach for the 90-mm frequently when 150 is just too long. And with the 90-mm I can still get reasonably good movements on the Tachihara without using a recessed lensboard.

With the 75-mm I simply don't see enough increase in coverage to want to use it very often. I get no movements at all with a flat lensboard and the bellows is backed up just as far as it will go to get in focus.

I do plan to buy a 65-mm someday but it is not high on my priority list (due to cost) and when I do I am absolutely sure I will need a recessed board to go with it.

So in summary: I use the 90-mm a lot and the 75-mm rarely.

The two attached taken with the 90-mm and the 75-mm respectively with a sinar Panorama film back and Ektar 100 roll-film.

Cheers. Bob G

Jack Dahlgren

25-Aug-2010, 09:35

90 would be a good starting point. Alll the modern (less than 40 years old) 90mm lenses are acceptable for architectural photography. Some of the older ones are too, but sharpness may vary from lens to lens either due to age/treatment or lower quality control.

Pick one and get started. You can always sell it and buy something different.

Kirk Gittings

25-Aug-2010, 09:44

The rule of thumb is that you will do 90% of your architectural images with a 90mm lens. I think Shulman said that in a book I read when first starting (in the age of dinosaurs) and it has proven to be true for me. To be more accurate personally though, I think I do like 85% of my commercial AP with the 90 (or its equivalent in other formats). Why? First because your eye doesn't really see like a "normal" 150 lens. Your eye pans buildings and interiors and the WA mimics that in 2D. Second you oftentimes need to get close to a building to get around the crap like signs, telephone poles, fire hydrants etc. and a wide angle lets you do that. Third the exaggerated perspective of a 90 lens lends a dynamic feel to the image and that is pretty much a canon in commercial AP.

The 75 will oftentimes feel just tooooo wide, but can solve some problems. The difference between a 65 and 75 is moving forward or back a couple of feet. Both exaggerate perspective dramatically.

I own a 47, 65, 90, 120, 150, 210, 305 and 450. The order in terms of usage for AP on 4x5 would be 90, 120, 210, 65, 305, 47, 450.

Now having said all that in my b&w art AP I tend to avoid lenses as wide or wider than a 90, because I don't like the exaggeration and distortion. For my personal work I prefer a 120.

Frank Petronio

25-Aug-2010, 10:20

Ditto the 90, buy the best you can afford. Remember that with digital processing you can always stitch together two overlapping shots for the occasional "get-it-all-in" pictures, which might save you needing to buy a super wide lens.

hnaa

25-Aug-2010, 10:45

OK,
I guess I'll go for the 90mm. I will be scanning the negatives, so if I really really need something wider, I'll do some stitching. And if I keep really really needing something wider, I'll get something wider. So, and I guess this is very subjective, what are the best 90mm lenses out there?

Lars Daniel

25-Aug-2010, 11:21

This chart is very handy BTW: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

hnaa

25-Aug-2010, 12:07

thanks a bunch for that chart Lars. BTW, I am quite tempted, for practical (and aesthetic) reasons by some of the Shen Hao models. Will I need a wideangle bellows with a 90mm lens on such a camera?

Frank Petronio

25-Aug-2010, 12:36

The major choice is whether to go with the larger, faster, more coverage and more expensive 90mm f/4.5 Rodenstock/Nikkor or f/5.6 versions from Schneider/Fuji.... or the smaller, less capable, but lighter and less expensive versions with f/6.8 to f/8 designs.

The big gun, a Rodenstock 90/4.5, is a wonderful lens -- you get plenty of movements and a brighter view on the ground glass. The slower, cheaper 90/8 Schneider is just as sharp in practical use, and everything else is sorta inbetween... so decide what's important to you.

With a Shen, the smaller 90mm lenses will be better balanced.

Lachlan 717

25-Aug-2010, 13:41

I use a 90mm f5.6 on a Shen XPO (and its bigger little brother, the 72mm XL) with no balance problems whatsoever.

I also keep a bag bellow on it. This allows lens use from my 72mm up to my 240mm.

ki6mf

26-Aug-2010, 04:06

I also use a 90MM on a Shen Hao and do not have a bag billows. While it works it does get a bit tight. If I shot my 90 more or used wider lenses I would definitely get the bag bellows. The super wide lenses 65MM and wider are used if you want to create extreme foreground distortion which is a creative subject decision.

John NYC

26-Aug-2010, 05:26

The 75 will oftentimes feel just tooooo wide, but can solve some problems. The difference between a 65 and 75 is moving forward or back a couple of feet. Both exaggerate perspective dramatically.

I own a 47, 65, 90, 120, 150, 210, 305 and 450. The order in terms of usage for AP on 4x5 would be 90, 120, 210, 65, 305, 47, 450.

I'm definitely not an architectural photographer, although buildings are most often the subject of my landscapes, if that makes sense.

I often wonder what each focal length is mainly used for in architecture? I can guess at most of it, of course, but would be interesting to hear from someone who actually does it. Especially the longer lengths, are these only used for architectural details around high windows and things like that?

Thalmees

29-Aug-2010, 05:14

Hello again,
thank you all for the responses to my previous thread about an affordable shift camera. I think I have decided to find a used view camera, either a Cambo, Toyo or Sinar, they seem to go for very reasonable prices. I will be shooting architecture AND landscape architecture, so I am aiming for a wideangle lens (I already own a Scneider 150mm Symmar). Like the title states, I amconsidering 65/75/90mm lenses. The 65mm might be too wide, and I'm concerned about image circle in relation to shifts and tilts. I guess most 75mm and 90mm lenses have enough image circle for most movements, but I would like to hear from you about the various offerings in 75 and 90mm lenses. And (unfortunately) I can't afford the Scneider XL lenses.

just settle on one of the 90mm. It can cover both landscape and architecture.
This focal length is very versatile.
You may add later more lenses toward longer or shorter focal lengths.
...
But, the more the IC the better the lens for architecture photography. Here are few examples:
Schneider Super-Angulon 6.8/90mm: IC around 216mm,
Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/90mm XL: IC around 259mm.
Rodenstock Sironar-N 6.8/90mm: IC around 221mm,
Rodenstock Sironar-S 5.6/90mm: IC around 236mm,
Nikkor has also very reputable quality.
Good Luck.

ki6mf

29-Aug-2010, 07:42

A good compromise would be to look for a 90MM which does not open up to F4.5 Caltar has an F6.8 and these are often made by Rodebnstock. While you loose the wider aperture the cost does gets very reasonable. There are also 90MM F8 Fujis and Super Angulon to be had in the $225+ range.

Kirk Gittings

29-Aug-2010, 08:05

I'm definitely not an architectural photographer, although buildings are most often the subject of my landscapes, if that makes sense.

I often wonder what each focal length is mainly used for in architecture? I can guess at most of it, of course, but would be interesting to hear from someone who actually does it. Especially the longer lengths, are these only used for architectural details around high windows and things like that?

Details yes, but also context shots from across valleys or how a building sits in a cityscape. Anything longer than a 210 are not used often and I'd often instead use a Hassleblad for long shots. I use the long lenses more often for landscape than architecture.

Thalmees

30-Aug-2010, 07:21

Sorry,
Rodenstock Sironar lenses are f/6.8 and 4.5, NOT, f/6.8 and 5.6.

Kirk Gittings

30-Aug-2010, 10:38

Details yes, but also context shots from across valleys or how a building sits in a cityscape. Anything longer than a 210 are not used often and I'd often instead use a Hassleblad for long shots. I use the long lenses more often for landscape than architecture.

"Apologies one more off-topic question if you don't mind... now that you do digital, do you find that you use focal lengths in the same way? Meaning most of your shots are done with ~60mm lens or shorter?"

I'm not sure where I said that???? I said "The order in terms of usage for AP on 4x5 would be 90 [85%], 120, 210, 65, 305, 47, 450." As you can see I only occasionally used anything wider. On 6x9 my main lens was the 65 and only occasionally the 47. On FF DSLR the main lens is a 24mm T/S lens-the 24 is a bit wider than either the 90/4x5 or the 65/6x9, but in high quality T/S (the older 35 Canons, Olympus and Nikons are not well corrected for CA) it is the best lens in that FofV area. The new Canon 24 LII T/S also works very well with the 1.4 II tele-converter making a fine 35mm (approx.), better than any older Canon, Nikon or Olympus 35PC that I have tested. I carried a superb Olympus 35PC with a Canon adapter, but it is not as good as the tele-converter/24 combo. So the new 24 does double duty. There is more on this and related topics on my blog.

John NYC

31-Aug-2010, 05:22

"Apologies one more off-topic question if you don't mind... now that you do digital, do you find that you use focal lengths in the same way? Meaning most of your shots are done with ~60mm lens or shorter?"

I'm not sure where I said that???? I said "The order in terms of usage for AP on 4x5 would be 90 [85%], 120, 210, 65, 305, 47, 450." As you can see I only occasionally used anything wider. On 6x9 my main lens was the 65 and only occasionally the 47. On FF DSLR the main lens is a 24mm T/S lens-the 24 is a bit wider than either the 90/4x5 or the 65/6x9, but in high quality T/S (the older 35 Canons, Olympus and Nikons are not well corrected for CA) it is the best lens in that FofV area. The new Canon 24 LII T/S also works very well with the 1.4 II tele-converter making a fine 35mm (approx.), better than any older Canon, Nikon or Olympus 35PC that I have tested. I carried a superb Olympus 35PC with a Canon adapter, but it is not as good as the tele-converter/24 combo. So the new 24 does double duty. There is more on this and related topics on my blog.

Ah, I think my comment was misinterpreted... You said you don't use longer lengths than 210 on 4x5 very often, so I was assuming this translated to digital also, meaning you would not be often using focal length longer than the equivalent, ~60mm, on digital FF either.

Will look for the relevant posts on your blog.

Thanks!

rdenney

31-Aug-2010, 06:51

I have 47, 65, 90, 121, and longer lenses, and for buildings, the 90 is the main lens I have used. I have a multi-coated Super Angulon f/5.6, which is new enough to benefit from all the modern improvements and old enough to be affordable.

I used it quite a bit on a Cambo with standard bellows and a recessed board, but it is much easier to manage with a flat board and bag bellows. If you get the Sinar, the bag bellows will eliminate any concern about bellows binding, but you can use a flat board either way. I now use mine on a Sinar F, though I've done fewer buildings with it.

My lens choices are similar to Kirk's for similar (though far less remunerative) reasons. I have a Canon 24mm TSE (not the second version, alas), 45mm and 55mm shift lenses for 6x4.5 and 6x6 (the 55 is pretty good but not wide enough), and the 65 for 6x9 use with a roll-film back on the Sinar. I wish I had a 45mm shift lens for my Pentax 6x7. The 47 is fun with 6x9 and 6x12 but it's an interior problem-solver, not necessarily the right lens for flattering images of buildings.

Sometimes, though, a wider lens without shift will allow you to set up the camera vertically with the expectation of cropping away unneeded foreground. I also put that in the "problem-solver" category, but it is a compromise. The 45 standard wide on the Pentax 6x7 allows just a bit of that strategy.

The early Super Angulons were f/8 lenses and the first 90mm version was mounted in a Compur 00. That's probably the only Super Angulon I would explicitly avoid, just for mechanical and fat-finger reasons. But the 5.6 Super Angulons have more coverage. I feel like I can just about stand that lens on edge with 4x5. Not so with the 65/5.6 SA, which is much more limited with 4x5.

Rick "who paid less for the Sinar and three or four lenses than what the Canon 24 TSE II lens alone costs" Denney

John Rice

31-Aug-2010, 12:54

I shot Architecture almost exclusively for about 15 years and I actually ended up using a slightly longer lens than you would think. The "throw a wide on and shoot" approach leads to dull photos most of the time. On residential interiors, most shots were with 90mm or 120mm. Later on, I found myself using the 120 more and more. I also have 72mm and 58mm, but I got to the point where I seriously did NOT like the look from either one. I probably didn't touch the 58mm for 5 years. With commercial interiors, you can probably bump the lens up one notch to 120mm and 150mm.

Exteriors were often with 150mm or 210mm. I despise the "looming" look of shooting exteriors with short lenses. I have gone as high as 360mm for residential exteriors, but I am in Colorado and it's useful for bringing the mountains in close.

Lynn Jones

1-Sep-2010, 16:12

My favorites for Landscapes are the 65, the 90, and the 150. For the f 8.0 100 degree wide angle lenses be sure to "focus in" or they won't be sharp! I have other LF camera lenses but for other purposes.

Lynn

John NYC

1-Sep-2010, 17:18

For the f 8.0 100 degree wide angle lenses be sure to "focus in" or they won't be sharp!

Lynn

What does "focus in" mean?

mccormickstudio

1-Sep-2010, 19:20

John -

I've done some architectural work in NYC and my only comment would be regarding wide lenses if you are doing any interior work. I have used a 65mm older Super Angulon for interiors because of the compactness of some spaces in NYC (small apartments and lofts). I don't favor the distortion and usually end up cropping some, but the wide angle is welcome. Lenses wider than 75mm often present difficulty because you will need a bag bellows and likely a recessed lensboard. Sometimes the short distance between front & back standards interferes with my tripod head in a tight space.

That said, I agree with everything said about the usability of a 90mm. And if you look you might be able to find a decent lens for about $150 - I used to have an Ilex which was sharp, but a little dark (f8 or 9). The older 65mm super angulons (copal 00) are a pain due to tiny size, but also very affordable. I think an ideal kit for urban environments would include a wide (either 65, 72 or 75mm), a 90mm and a 135 or 150mm.

Good luck!
Craig

John Rice

1-Sep-2010, 21:01

Craig, you make a valid point. Most of the houses I shot were million or multi-million dollar jobs, and here in Colorado, that actually buys something.

John NYC

8-Nov-2010, 18:21

What does "focus in" mean?

Sorry to bring this back up, but I would really like to know what "focus in" means.

Gem Singer

8-Nov-2010, 19:03

Greg Blank

8-Nov-2010, 19:24

I can tell you this I have a 90mm CaltarII-N MC that I like better in some ways than my 65 SA. The Camera is a Gandolfi Variant which has a seperate Bag bellows, a PITA to change for one lens, The 90mm works great with the Bag belllows but can use the standard accordian bellows as well....with the 65m there is no movement and the camera is prone to jiggling free once set. Everything of the setting is squished down and the 90mm is better cause you can always move back or forward where by the 65mm requires you are at specific place to not be too far away....that said the DOF on a 65mm is awesome.... at f/45. :)

Hello again,
thank you all for the responses to my previous thread about an affordable shift camera. I think I have decided to find a used view camera, either a Cambo, Toyo or Sinar, they seem to go for very reasonable prices. I will be shooting architecture AND landscape architecture, so I am aiming for a wideangle lens (I already own a Scneider 150mm Symmar). Like the title states, I amconsidering 65/75/90mm lenses. The 65mm might be too wide, and I'm concerned about image circle in relation to shifts and tilts. I guess most 75mm and 90mm lenses have enough image circle for most movements, but I would like to hear from you about the various offerings in 75 and 90mm lenses. And (unfortunately) I can't afford the Scneider XL lenses.

John NYC

8-Nov-2010, 19:27

John,

"Focus in" means no need to focus a wide angle lens at infinity. Focus at closer objects.

Wide angle lenses are capable of covering a very wide plane of focus (depth of field).

When focused approx. 1/3 into the scene, everything will look sharp from 1/2 the focused distance to infinity (hyperfocal distance).

Wow, that has not been my practical experience using 8x10 and 150mm so far. When I focused on anything closer than what could practically be called infinity, the very distant items were out of focus comparatively on a greatly enlarged scan than when I focused on a closer (but still far away enough) point. Hyperfocal distance is a compromise in sharpness at infinity.

Gem Singer

8-Nov-2010, 19:37

John NYC

8-Nov-2010, 19:42

John, I don't understand.

I just looked at several 16x20 prints of negatives that were made with a Nikkor 150SW on my Canham 8x10.

I focused approx 1/3 into the scene and closed down to f22.

Everything looks blazing sharp from close up to infinity.

Did you close down?

Yes, f/22, which is the sharpest aperture I found for the 150mm SS XL at infinity in my tests. I'm talking scans that would become 40x50 inch prints, as that is my goal for some of these images I am working on. At 16x20 it seems OK almost any way I focus.

Greg Blank

8-Nov-2010, 19:45

What angle were you facing the camera at? That is 90 to the horizon, or say negative 45 degrees? The angular position of the lens relative to the horizon will make that a true or false statement on your part. Depending on your subject- scenery versus sky scrapers would further illustrate the difference between yours and John's experience.

John, I don't understand.

I just looked at several 16x20 prints of negatives that were made with a Nikkor 150SW on my Canham 8x10.

I focused approx 1/3 into the scene and closed down to f22.

Everything looks blazing sharp from close up to infinity.

Did you close down?

Leonard Evens

9-Nov-2010, 13:50

I have a f/6.8 90 mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N
and a f/4.5 75 mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N
which I use with my Toho FC-45X

The 90 mm suffices for most of what I do, but occasionally I need the 75 mm lens.

One problem with the 75 mm lens is that its coverage is a bit limited, so movements are limited. That means that when trying to photograph a tall building, I find I have to get back further than I would like and there is a lot of empty foreground, even if I use maximum rise. The 90 mm Grandagon-N has a larger coverage circle, so this is less of a problem with that lens. Still, there are many situations in which the 75 mm lens does what I need, which is why I got it. For example, if I want to take a picture of a building with considerable horizontal extent, and I can't get back far enough so that the 90 mm lens covers it.

The Schneider Super Angulon XL 72 mm lens would be a better choice for architecture than my Grandagon-N, since it has a much larger coverage circle. But it is also a large, heavy lens, and not every 4 x 5 cameras can take advantage of its potential rise when the bellows extension is that small.

I think all the lenses with shorter focal length than 70 mm have relatively small image circles. So they would have the same problem as my 75 mm lens or worse when using rise. Make sure you consider the image circle and the maximum rise available when using such a lens with your camera at very short focal lengths.