Stupid Question - Wide Angle Lens

[DanK]

A stupid question, I'm sure...but...

I have a 'Sterling Improved Wide Angle 11x14'....

It looks to be around 10 inch focal length...

Here's the stupid question....

Would it still be considered 'wide angle' on a smaller format, say 4x5, or 5x7...?

I'm curious because 10 inch seems to be a severe wide angle for 11x14....

If based on focal length alone it would be long for 4x5, slightly long for 5x7...but is there something that would alter that being so wide for 11x14?

Hope that makes sense to someone....lol

Thanks in advance,
Dan King

[Vaughn]

No -- "wide" and "normal" and "long" for any particular focal length is in relation to a particular format size.

The 159mm (6.25") I use on the 8x10 is very wide, but used on my 5x7 it is only slightly wide -- and if I used it on my 4x5 it would be normal.

[DanK]

No -- "wide" and "normal" and "long" for any particular focal length is in relation to a particular format size.

The 159mm (6.25") I use on the 8x10 is very wide, but used on my 5x7 it is only slightly wide -- and if I used it on my 4x5 it would be normal.

Thanks for the response....

From what I understand it is based on the diagonal of the film size....so this 10 inch is long for both 4x5 and 5x7....correct?

Wouldn't this lens be considered extremely wide for 11x14.....10 inch seems awful short for that format...

Thanks,
Dan

[Nathan Potter]

With the diagonal of 11X14 at about 18 inches, a 10 inch FL lens would provide a coverage angle of close to 90 degrees - quite wide but not extremely wide. Of course the lens would need to be designed to be sharp over the 18 inch circle of coverage (450+ mm.).

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes, 10" would be short for 11x14.

If you accept for a moment that a 50mm lens on 35mm film is "normal" then that leads to the following:
35mm = 50mm
645 = 84mm
6x6 = 92mm
6x7 = 105mm
4x5 = 192mm (7-1/2")
8x10 = 384mm (15")
11x14 = 533mm (21")

But really, "normal" is what is usually used, not what is "perfect."

[Jan Pedersen]

Brian, I don't know how you came up with these numbers but 150mm is generally considered "normal" on 4x5
300mm is considered "normal" on 8x10

[Brian C. Miller]

Yeah, like I prefaced the numbers, "if you consider 50mm to be normal on 35mm", and ended with ""normal" is what is usually used." ;)

I first computed the diagonal of 35mm film, 24mm x 35mm, and then computed the ratio of a 50mm lens to that (1.178). Then I applied it to the various formats via a spread sheet. For instance, Pentax 6x7 "normal" is 105mm, but normal for 645 is 75mm, and 6x6 is 80mm.

[DanK]

Thanks all for the responses....

I guess what it boils down to is... does the angle of coverage affect the final image in any way beyond simply focal length....ie. because this lens is designed to cover 11x14, yet only 10 inch focal length, does it affect the image on smaller formats? Would there be an obvious difference in the scene between this 10 inch and a 10 inch lens designed to cover only 5x7....??

Thanks again,
Dan

[Jan Pedersen]

I guess what it boils down to is... does the angle of coverage affect the final image in any way beyond simply focal length....ie. because this lens is designed to cover 11x14, yet only 10 inch focal length, does it affect the image on smaller formats? Would there be an obvious difference in the scene between this 10 inch and a 10 inch lens designed to cover only 5x7....??



Most likely yes.
The lens in question is fairly old and would not in anyway be comparable to a more modern 250mm for a 5x7

Another problem is the large image circle, imagine you have this huge image behind the lens but nowhere to put it except the inside of your bellows, only a small part of the image will hit the film.
All this extra light inside the bellows will reduce contrast and possibly also introduce glare on the film.

[DanK]

Thanks Jan, sure appreciate the response.
Dan

[Brian C. Miller]

Well, here's thing: 10 inches is 10 inches. The magnification (10 inches) is always the same, no matter the format. How much of the image starts "looking" wide happens to be the question.

The biggest difference between a 10" for 11x14 and a 10" for 5x7 is the image circle. This is the amount of film that is reasonably covered by the lens. The 10" 5x7 on the 11x14 might only produce a circle, and not get anywhere near the corners. I have a 360mm telephoto for my 4x5, which also covers 5x7. The lens produces a circle of light on an 8x10. However, the 10" for the 11x14 would look absolutely the same on the 5x7, it's just that you'd be seeing less of the scene on the 5x7.

I have a 75mm lens for my 4x5. If I use 4x5 film with the lens, it looks wide. However, if I use a 645 back on the camera, then the cropped image will look "normal."

So to reiterate, let's say you have a 5x7 and an 11x14 beside each other, and they use the same lensboard. The 5x7 will only show half of the scene that the 11x14 shows. Everything will look the same size. The perspective will be different, because the 11x14 will be showing a much larger picture area, and will "look" wide.

[DanK]

Thanks Brian, appreciate it....

I guess the benefit of this lens will be plenty of movements on 4x5 and 5x7 :)

This lens has been on my shelf for awhile, and needs use....wasn't sure what to expect.....I Sure don't see myself with an 11x14 anywhere in the near future...

Thanks again all, for the responses...

Dan

[Joe Forks]

One other benefit, is that by using the center of the image circle only, if there is any "softness" on the corners you won't come close to seeing it.

Although, others may see that as a liability :)

[Jim Galli]

Most likely yes.
The lens in question is fairly old and would not in anyway be comparable to a more modern 250mm for a 5x7

Another problem is the large image circle, imagine you have this huge image behind the lens but nowhere to put it except the inside of your bellows, only a small part of the image will hit the film.
All this extra light inside the bellows will reduce contrast and possibly also introduce glare on the film.

Other than inherent differences between modern and antique, which would be contrast and flare, and perhaps noticeable sharpness, the answer is no. A brand new 250mm multi coated lens will project the same image on 4X5 or 5X7 as the antique one. The antique one may be prized by someone who has 11X14 or 7X17 to actually use it on. It's no prize on a 4X5. Sell it and get something you want.

[DanK]

The antique one may be prized by someone who has 11X14 or 7X17 to actually use it on. It's no prize on a 4X5. Sell it and get something you want.

Thanks Jim...

I was leaning in that direction after this thread...

Anyone have a ballpark idea, as far as price....

Sterling Improved Wide Angle Lens 11x14 - approx 10 inch f16 to 64

Sure appreciate it,
Thanks Dan

[rdenney]

The definition of "normal" as being approximately equal to the film diagonal is a convention, not a law of physics. In small formats, people use the terms "wide angle" and "telephoto" to mean anything shorter or longer than normal, respectively. Large-format photographers have need of finer distinctions. In the large-format world, lenses are divided by their designs more than by their focal lengths. Thus, a lens termed "wide-angle" in large-format applications generally means a lens with a wider than normal image circle, with respect to its focal length. Thus, that lens would cover the format adequately even in focal lengths shorter than normal.

I see these terms being used back in the days when a normal lens was often a tessar, with fairly limited coverage. The plasmats (e.g., Symmar, Sironar) we use as normals today would have been wide-angle lenses back in the early days, and indeed the "Optar Wide Angle" 90mm lens on my Speed Graphic is a double-gauss design more like a modern normal than like a modern wide-angle lens. A modern wide-angle lens would be typified by a Super Angulon. The classic wide-angle design of old is a Dagor--a double anastigmat.

In the very old days, a 10" lens for 11x14 would be pretty impressive indeed, in terms of providing the coverage required to cover that format with a lens of focal length only a little more than half the film diagonal. But don't expect much in terms of performance. 10" lenses of less coverage (still suitable for 5x7, of course) and much greater performance are easy pickings.

And just to close the loop, in the large-format world, "telephoto" also applies to the design rather than to the focal length. It's a lens that is designed such that the glass sits behind the rear nodal point, so that it requires less bellows draw for its focal length than a normal lens. But telephoto designs pay a price in terms of performance and coverage. The 270mm telephoto might fit on a Speed Graphic that would only accommodate a 210mm normal, but it would not cover 5x7 as any 270mm normal design would.

I often use a 121mm Super Angulon with the 6x12 format. It's a wide-angle design, which on that format has a focal length about equal to the film diagonal. I could also use something close to it, say, a 127mm Graflex Optar (which I use for my Speed Graphic). The image each makes would be about the same on 6x12, but the Super Angulon, with it's far greater coverage, would allow far more extreme movements. Even when used on that smaller format, it's still a wide-angle design.

If this were an easy point to get, the endless arguments about the "crop factor" between various digital camera formats that plague their forums would never have materialized. It is not a stupid question. The understanding came for me was when, as a teen, I thought I would be able to use a lower enlarger height (and therefore a bigger print with that enlarger) by putting a 50mm enlarging lens on it. I was surprised to discover that when I focused it, it only projected a circular middle portion of the 6x6 negative I was trying to enlarge. The image inside the circle was the same as would have been produced by any other 50mm lens, but without the wide-angle design the coverage wasn't sufficient. That's when I realized the difference between focal length and coverage. People coming to large-format from smaller formats using fixed-body cameras, who have never worked in a darkroom or with a view camera, have never had an opportunity to gain that experience.

Rick "wide coverage" Denney

[William Whitaker]

And similarly retrofocus doesn't refer to a stylishly out-of-date way of focusing, but instead to a lens design having the rear nodal point behind the rear element of the lens providing a lens-to-film distance greater than the focal length. This is what allows hand cameras using interchangeable lenses to be able to use "wide-angle" lenses.

But the term "wide-angle" is confusing in its usage. Informally "wide-angle" refers to the field of view, but technically it refers to the angle of coverage of the lens. Your Sterling has an angle of coverage of 84º or better (if I did my arithmetic correctly) to be able to cover 11x14. Compared to typical lenses of its vintage that would be considered "wide-angle". By using a 10" lens on an 11x14 camera, the view is wide-angle. Most 10" lenses wouldn't cover 11x14, but a wide angle one like yours does. Confused yet?

[domaz]

And similarly retrofocus doesn't refer to a stylishly out-of-date way of focusing, but instead to a lens design having the rear nodal point behind the rear element of the lens providing a lens-to-film distance greater than the focal length. This is what allows hand cameras using interchangeable lenses to be able to use "wide-angle" lenses.


Retrofocus is an interesting topic to me I haven't heard much discussion about. Does anyone know, in a modern lens, how much does retrofocus design degrades wide angle lenses? I have seen non-retrofocus wide angle that get much praise like the Mamiya 7 lenses but haven't really researched how they compare to SLR wide angles.

[Ernest Purdum]

We need excess coverage in order to use movements. Your lens probably would not allow using rise on 11" X 14", but would on 8" X 10".

[Jim Galli]

We need excess coverage in order to use movements. Your lens probably would not allow using rise on 11" X 14", but would on 8" X 10".

No reason to speculate that. Many wide angle designs of that period were 110 degrees which would make it usable on 12X15 and perhaps 14X17. A lot of these were zeiss Series V copies. Most of the lens companies of that period were fairly conservative on their claims so if it says it's for 11X14 it probably covers the next standard size plate stopped down.

Sadly, it probably isn't worth much relatively speaking. On ebay I'd guess it at $85 low $165 high depending it seems more on presentation and clever gobbly-d-gook in the wordy ad than what it can really do or what it is.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Retrofocus is an interesting topic to me I haven't heard much discussion about. Does anyone know, in a modern lens, how much does retrofocus design degrades wide angle lenses? I have seen non-retrofocus wide angle that get much praise like the Mamiya 7 lenses but haven't really researched how they compare to SLR wide angles.

If SLR designs are any indication, retrofocus improves wide angle lenses rather than degrading them. Modern wide angles use increasing amounts of retrofocus and are generally regarded as better than earlier wides. They wouldn't use retrofocus unless it was better.

[Mark Sawyer]

No reason to speculate that. Many wide angle designs of that period were 110 degrees which would make it usable on 12X15 and perhaps 14X17. A lot of these were zeiss Series V copies...

Not a Wide Angle Rectilinear? That would be my best guess...

If it is a WAR, and you'd like to sell or trade, let me know; I probably have something appropriate, and we can let the experts here chime in on what's fair!

[James E Galvin]

Retrofocus lenses are used on small cameras to leave enough room in back of the lens for the mirror. These are the opposite of a telephoto, and can have more space behind the lens than the focal length. They are not better, but required for an SLR.
Very wide large format lenses are "double retrofocus", a design that keeps distortion to a minimum. Examples are Super Angulon, Grandagon, and SWD.
Very wide is hard to design, there are some compromises made, so a very wide used on a smaller format than it covers will be less sharp than a more modest lens, such as a plasmat. But probably only noticed at very large prints.
Using a wider lens with a bigger image circle on a smaller format gives you more room for movements. But if you don't need the larger image circle, the drawback is the lens is bigger, heavier, and more expensive than required.

[DanK]

Not a Wide Angle Rectilinear? That would be my best guess...



I believe it is rectilinear - front and rear elements appear identical - convex outer, concave inner - three reflections visible with each, 2 strong one faint.



But if you don't need the larger image circle, the drawback is the lens is bigger, heavier, and more expensive than required.

This lens is actually quite small - only 1 1/2 inches overall - lens surface approx an inch in diameter - little over an inch in depth total...

Thanks,
Dan

[rdenney]

If SLR designs are any indication, retrofocus improves wide angle lenses rather than degrading them. Modern wide angles use increasing amounts of retrofocus and are generally regarded as better than earlier wides. They wouldn't use retrofocus unless it was better.

No, not really. They use retrofocus designs because that's the only way they can put the lens in front of a reflex mirror box.

For example, is the 47mm f/5.6 Super Angulon better or worse than the Pentax 67 45mm f/4? I have both, and while the Pentax lens is superb, it is still not as good as the Super Angulon. And the Super Angulon provides much more coverage. But fitting it to a Pentax 67 would require a mirrorectomy.

Newer lenses intended for use in digital cameras have gone to a more retrofocus design to decrease the angle at which the light strikes the sensor. This helps avoid problems with the sensor designs blocking off-axis light.

Increasingly retrofocus designs also made it possible for shorter and shorter lenses to be used on reflex cameras.

These designs, and improvements in retrofocus lenses in general, have been made possible by computer-aided designs, aspherical elements, low-dispersion glass, and improved coatings. A retrofocus lens is just a reversed telephoto, with a normal lens that has negative-element magnifiers in front of it rather than behind it as in the case of a telephoto. Better coatings make it possible to stack more of those elements in front of the lens and still maintain usable color and contrast. Of course, these general improvements can be applied the opposed-retrofocus designs such as the Super Angulon, and doing so made the Super Angulon XL possible.

Rick "who has some pretty short lenses" Denney

[Jim Galli]

Got a picture Dan?

[DanK]

Got a picture Dan?

I do...not mint, but glass is clean

Thanks,
Dan

[Jim Galli]

I do...not mint, but glass is clean

Thanks,
Dan

I don't think it's a WAR. It looks anastigmatty in it's black dress. Most lenses went black instead of brass about the time the Model T did also. It was the trend of the 'teens. Also the word 'improved' is a tip. Improved from what? Anastigmat vss RR? Nice old thing. I have such a weakness for old lenses. Pitiful.

[Sevo]

Retrofocus is an interesting topic to me I haven't heard much discussion about. Does anyone know, in a modern lens, how much does retrofocus design degrades wide angle lenses? I have seen non-retrofocus wide angle that get much praise like the Mamiya 7 lenses but haven't really researched how they compare to SLR wide angles.

With the telecentric requirements many digital sensors put on the lenses, recent high end SLR wides are more retrofocal than ever, while their performance has improved visibly in all parameters in the same period. Technically, retrofocal designs obviously are no performance impeding restriction any more. Unfortunately we will never get any nonetheless. The main large format systems ever since retrofocus was invented by Angenieux in the late forties have been cameras with movements - where retrofocus is a handicap. If SLRs or Press cameras had still accounted for a significant part of the high price lens sales at some time between then and now, we might now have LF retrofocus lenses...

[Dan Fromm]

Sevo, I don't know who invented the inverted telephoto lens but it certainly wasn't Angenieux. In the 1930s TTH made inverted telephotos for Technicolor cameras. Retrofocus is an Angenieux trade name, that's all.

Press camera's don't need retrofocus lenses.

[Mark Sawyer]

I don't think it's a WAR...

I agree. I have a few 8x10 WAR's and this is something else...

Nothing in the Vade Mecum.

[rdenney]

Sevo, I don't know who invented the inverted telephoto lens but it certainly wasn't Angenieux. In the 1930s TTH made inverted telephotos for Technicolor cameras. Retrofocus is an Angenieux trade name, that's all.

Didn't Angenieux first popularize the reversed telephoto for amateur cine and small-format cameras? The "Retrofocus" model came out in 1949 as I recall, and was followed within a couple of years by the Zeiss Distagon, the (other) Zeiss Flektogon, and the Schneider Curtagon. That's going on dimmish memory but I think that's about right. I've looked up the first Flektogon in the Zeiss production catalog, and I think the first Curtagon was made for the Retina Reflex and the Wirgen Edixa. Very little had not already been invented by that time, the double-retrofocus (or double-biogon) of the Super Angulon being one of them, but even that was derivative.

You're right that the official term for that design is "reversed telephoto", as Kingslake used it.

A press camera wouldn't have needed one, but a Graflex SLR surely would have.

Rick "noting that this design wasn't really needed until reflex cameras became popular" Denney

[Sevo]

Sevo, I don't know who invented the inverted telephoto lens but it certainly wasn't Angenieux. In the 1930s TTH made inverted telephotos for Technicolor cameras. Retrofocus is an Angenieux trade name, that's all.

Press camera's don't need retrofocus lenses.

The principle has been used in eyepieces for even longer - if we look for rhe inventor we'll probably have to look beyond photography. But the first mass marketed inverted telephoto lens used for general photography seems to have been the Angenieux 35mm Retrofocus.

I never said that press cameras benefit from retrofocus lenses - but they don't suffer either. If LF SLRs had still been popular and the market besides them had consisted of more retrofocus neutral (press) cameras, we might have seen LF retrofocus lenses get developed. A modest percentage of press cameras was good enough to carry some LF telephoto lenses through.