wideangle on 6x7, 6x8, 6x9

[hnaa]

Hello,
so I am getting my Sinar F1 with 90mm lens soon. I will acquire a rollfilm back, so I can practice a little bit, without spending huge amounts of money on film (those 4x5 sheets are damn expensive). I will need a lens that equals the 90mm on 4x5 on either a 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 back (haven't decided yet). I was thinking of maybe a Schneider 58mm XL? Or a Rodenstock 55mm. The 47mm XL would be too wide, or am I mistaken?

[Brian Stein]

If you download some of the spreadsheets at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/ you will get information on all the various lenses and their rough 35mm equivalents.
A 90mm on 4x5 is actually quite wide: it is around a 47mm on 6x7 or slightly longer on 6x9 or around 20mm on 35mm. Having said this, wide angles on LF seem somehow less wide than on smaller formats.
The other issue to consider is the cost of rollfilm back plus wideangle will probably buy you quite a lot of 4x5 film to practice with. Given the processing (I assume you are doing your own) is a bit different from MF, using sheet film is important to get familiar with both the whole loading holder, using holder, processing film routine. I started by buying 100 sheets of shanghai b&w film most of which was stuffed up in some way, but it got me up the learning curve for modest cost.

[rdenney]

It is reasonable to want to practice using roll film, and learn the camera before leaning a whole new way of handling film. That assumes, of course, that you are already familiar with roll film.

If you shoot 6x7, which has an aspect ratio most similar to 4x5, you'll want a 47. But you do not need a 47XL, unless you plan to explore ultra-wide-angle photography with the 4x5 film later. A 47/5.6 Super Angulon will cover up to 6x9 with ample movements (for a lens that short) and 6x12 if you won't mind the corners going dark.

You'll want the Wide Angle Bellows 2 on your Sinar. With that, you'll be able to mount a 47 on a flat board, and the handling will be pretty reasonable, despite the very tiny shutter.

The older 47/5.6 is quite affordable but not common.

At 6x9, a 65 might be wide enough for this purpose. A 65/8 will sell for cheap because it will be a fairly old lens, but even the newer 65/5.6 isn't terribly expensive. And the 5.6 will cover 4x5, too.

The smaller format and shorter lenses will sharpen your skills with movements. A 2" lens will need about half the tilt of a 4" lens (this is approximately true at the small angles allowed by the lens coverage). 4x5 with 90 and 120mm lenses will not require the same barely-off-the-center-detent angles needed by the really short lenses.

Rick "who was forced to (unhappily) use a recessed board with a 47 until discovering the WA Bellows 2" Denney

[dave_whatever]

Roughly speaking 6x7 is about the same aspect ratio as 4x5, so in theory you'd want a 51.8mm lens, which doesn't exist. So you can either go with a 47mm, a 50mm mamiya press lens, or a 55/58mm. It'll depend on exactly which 6x7 back you use since they all give slightly different frame sizes, from about 56x68 to 56x72. Personally i'd go with a 58mm or even a 65mm and just take a step backwards, as the longer extension and of these lenses will be easier to work with than a 47mm.

[Denis Pleic]

A 90mm on 4x5 is actually quite wide: it is around a 47mm on 6x7 or slightly longer on 6x9 or around 20mm on 35mm.

Might seem like nitpicking, but this got me thinking. I do have a 90mm lens, and have recently used it for several 4x5 shots - and I don't remember it giving an impression of a 20mm in 35mm film format. Now, a 20mm lens on a 35mm camera is wiiiiide :)

According to the lens focal chart here (http://www.viewcamera.com/images/focalchart.gif), 90mm lens on a 4x5 camera/negative would be more like 27mm lens on a 35mm camera - which is actually my impression. Wide, but not THAT wide :)

Approximately like 28mm on a Nikon/Canon/any other 35mm camera...

To get the wide perspective/angle of view that you get with a 20mm lens on a "mini" (35mm) camera, in 4x5 format you would use a 65mm lens.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Hello,
so I am getting my Sinar F1 with 90mm lens soon. I will acquire a rollfilm back, so I can practice a little bit, without spending huge amounts of money on film (those 4x5 sheets are damn expensive). I will need a lens that equals the 90mm on 4x5 on either a 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 back (haven't decided yet). I was thinking of maybe a Schneider 58mm XL? Or a Rodenstock 55mm. The 47mm XL would be too wide, or am I mistaken?

doesn't make sense,, why would you spend money on a roll back then a wide angle lens to practice with so you don't have to spend money on wasted 4x5 film..?

would a 47mm be to wide.. ? to wide for what

I've got a suggestion: spend the $$ that you were going to spend on the roll back on some expired 4x5 film and get the experiance you need.

[hnaa]

Well, it is not an either 4x5 or 6x7 question; I will be keeping the 90mm for shooting 4x5, but sometimes I won't need the resolution of 4x5, as a professionally scanned 6x7cm negative already has a very high resolution. I have the Sinar F1 for the movements, since I'll be shooting mostly architecture, and some landscape. So the 90mm would be wide on the 4x5 and "normal" on the 6x7. The 45/47/55/58 would be wide on 6x7 and VERY wide on 4x5. Seems to give me some versatility. About the 47mm maybe being "too wide" I was thinking that I am not going for a "superwide " look, since I dont want to much of a distorted perspective. So I am looking for a wide, dramatic lens for 6x7, that doesn't look too cliché wide. maybe I am asking too much :-)

[Steve M Hostetter]

you wanna get good with a sledgehammer you start with a sledgehammer

[Jeff Keller]

The 45/47/55/58 have very little room for movement with 4x5 film. If you want to shoot a lot of roll film, then maybe you should consider a 6x12 back, but do it with the intent of shooting roll film, not learning to shoot 4x5. Your camera won't work the same with the bellows collapsed to focus a 45mm lens. Using a 90mm and film is probably the best advice to learn and enjoy the process.

[Bob Salomon]

"so in theory you'd want a 51.8mm lens, which doesn't exist."

No, but the Rodenstock HR Digaron-W 50mm 4.0 does which covers a 90mm circle at infinity so it will work just fine on 6x7 and leave some movement. Not as much as the 55mm 4.5 Apo Grandagon does, however.

[Tony Lakin]

Hi
I have a 47mm Super Angulon XL which I use on Cambo wide camera and I have 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 rollfilm backs and with the correct centre filter 5x4 sheet all on the one camera which obviously takes care of all my wide angle requirements.

Good luck

[Jeff Keller]

Tony, I'm curious. Do you ever use the 6x7 back? The difference in the amount of film used for the 6x9 vs 6x7 is pretty small. I can't imagine carrying the 6x7.

[Tony Lakin]

Tony, I'm curious. Do you ever use the 6x7 back? The difference in the amount of film used for the 6x9 vs 6x7 is pretty small. I can't imagine carrying the 6x7.

Hi Jeff
You are correct, I have owned 6x7 and 6x9 Linhof backs for many years, the Cambo with 47xl and horseman 6x12 back are more recent additions, I generally have the 6x12 back attached and crop from that however I occasionally use the other backs especially to save film, I could easily live without the 6x7 back.

I hope this helps.

[rdenney]

You are correct, I have owned 6x7 and 6x9 Linhof backs for many years, the Cambo with 47xl and horseman 6x12 back are more recent additions, I generally have the 6x12 back attached and crop from that however I occasionally use the other backs especially to save film, I could easily live without the 6x7 back.

Same for me. If life dictates limitations enough to need 6x7, I use my Pentax. The smallest roll-film format I use on a view camera is 6x9, and then pretty rarely.

Rick "who does not, however crop down from 6x12 often, at least not in the lengthwise direction" Denney

[John Berry]

you wanna get good with a sledgehammer you start with a sledgehammer Bingo

[hnaa]

Hmmm,
you guys really got me thinking... Maybe the rollfilm fantasy was an instance of being intimidated by the huge 4x5", and particularly loading the sheets (I am used to Canon DSLR). I just saw a print made (from a scan) of a 4x5" velvia slide, and boy oh boy, that was something else. I think I'll have a go at the sledgehammer for a while, and see if I'm man enough to swing it :-). Thanks again for the honest and to the point replies.

[Steve Barber]

Hmmm,
you guys really got me thinking... Maybe the rollfilm fantasy was an instance of being intimidated by the huge 4x5", and particularly loading the sheets (I am used to Canon DSLR). I just saw a print made (from a scan) of a 4x5" velvia slide, and boy oh boy, that was something else. I think I'll have a go at the sledgehammer for a while, and see if I'm man enough to swing it :-). Thanks again for the honest and to the point replies.

If you liked the print from the slide, how much more would you have liked viewing that slide as a projection?

I take lots of pictures that a 6x7 is more than adequate for while walking around looking for that great shot that only a LF camera can do justice to.

Even more important to me, at least, is that I have a 6x7 projector and I still enjoy viewing and sharing color slides. A roll film back makes it possible to have a 6x7 camera (with movements) available with my 4x5 kit without having to carry another camera and its lenses, filters, viewfinders and stuff in addition to the 4x5 kit.

So, while I would not suggest that a 6x7 will substitute for a 4x5, I do suggest that there is plenty of use for a 6x7 roll film back.

[venchka]

Buy a Pentax 6x7 and 45mm lens. Practice. Spend the money you saved on film for the Sinar and 90mm lens. Perhaps add a 75mm lens to the Sinar later. A 100 sheet box of cold stored and just about to or slightly expired costs $50 or less. A hundred sheets should be more than enough practice.

[Jeff Keller]

A short term solution to loading film is either Fuji Quickloads or Kodak Readyloads. Both are no longer produced but for awhile film is still available. The film is slightly more expensive than plain sheet film. The Kodak film holder is aout $40 and the Fuji holder is probably a little over $50. The film can be inserted into the holder in daylight so you don't need multiple holders other than the issue that Fuji and Kodak are not interchangeable. An advantage in addition to the ease of loading is that a holder plus a box of 20 quickloads takes up a lot less room than 10 double sided film holders.

I appreciated seeing the comments about 6x7. My first camera with movements was a 2x3 Horseman. I used 6x9 roll film holders but never 6x7. It appears the motivation for 6x7 is that there were 6x7 projectors ... or as often the case the circumstances of how the photographer got started.

[dave_whatever]

The original post mentioned using 120 to avoid the cost of sheetfilm. For this reason Quickloads are a very bad choice. Not only are they already more expensive, but as availability of remaining stocks drop the prices will only go up as quickload diehards fill their freezers. This is already happening in some markets. Plus you'll have to invest in a holder which could end up being a paperweight in the not too distant future. You're much better off learning to load normal holders, which is honestly a doddle.

[venchka]

A Harrison changing tent makes loading holders virtually dust free and an anywhere, anytime activity. Buy some cold stored, recently expired film from a real user for practice. You may find that the film is equally good for "keepers".

[domaz]

Buy a Pentax 6x7 and 45mm lens. Practice. Spend the money you saved on film for the Sinar and 90mm lens. Perhaps add a 75mm lens to the Sinar later. A 100 sheet box of cold stored and just about to or slightly expired costs $50 or less. A hundred sheets should be more than enough practice.

You mine as well practice on a DSLR. You can't exactly practice movements with a P67.

[venchka]

True. But the P-6x7 & 45mm lens is AWESOME! Way cheaper than all the gizmos plus a 47mm lens for the Sinar. By all accounts above, movements with a 47mm lens and 6x7 film will be tricky at best and won't exactly translate to 4x5 later.

[Mike Anderson]

Hmmm,
you guys really got me thinking... Maybe the rollfilm fantasy was an instance of being intimidated by the huge 4x5", and particularly loading the sheets (I am used to Canon DSLR).

I'm fairly new to 4x5 too. It's not that hard loading 4x5 film - I do it in a changing bag (not a tent, although a tent would be better). I'd start off with cheap film, because there will be a few mistakes starting out.

...Mike

[rdenney]

True. But the P-6x7 & 45mm lens is AWESOME! Way cheaper than all the gizmos plus a 47mm lens for the Sinar. By all accounts above, movements with a 47mm lens and 6x7 film will be tricky at best and won't exactly translate to 4x5 later.

Not really. Yes, movements on a 47 are finer and require more care. But the coverage of the older 47/5.6 with normal roll-film formats is at least decent. It would give a real view-camera experience with the 6x7 format in ways the Pentax would not.

Rick "who has wished for movements on that Pentax 45" Denney