wide angle suggestions

[Chuck P.]

I shoot 4x5 and currently only have a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar-N---this is the only lens I have experienced with 4x5. I'm needing a wide angle lens and am looking for suggestions. I don't want a wide angle lens that shows any typical wide angle distortion-----perhaps a lens that stops just short of that. What are some suggestions (I realize a bag bellows is going to be needed)?

Thanks
Chuck

[ic-racer]

90 is probably the most popular. But that is a big jump from 210. A 135 would be less of a jump (and still be far enough from 90). So, I'd say get both 90 and 135. If you go f8 on the 90 they can be pretty cheap. Nearly all LF lenses are corrected well for barrel and pincushion distortion.

[IanG]

The 90mm f5.6 & f8 Supre Angulons and also the f6.8 Grandagons all sell for very reasonable prices second hand.

LF lenses don't suffer the distortion issues typical of many 35mm & 120 SLR camera wide angle lenses, which are retro-telephoto designs. LF wide angles are purer designs, as are rangefinder camera wide angle for smaller formats.

Ian

[Richard Wasserman]

Chuck, I'm a huge fan of the 110mm Super Symmar XL. Massive coverage on 4x5, relatively lightweight and compact, and I find the angle of view very pleasing. Not too wide, and not too long, just right...

[Steve Barber]

Setting your camera up as it would be with a 90mm focused at infinity will tell you how much movement (generally, rise) you can get and if you will need a bag bellows or not. This will, also, give you an idea of how much coverage the lens will need to have to take advantage of the movements your camera can provide. The other issue is how large, bulky, a lens your camera can accept and still give full movements without interference, especially with the rear element. The 90mm Grandagon-N lenses, f4.5 or f6.8, would make a good match to your 210 and would avoid the problems you can have with a 90mm Super-Angulon XL with its larger rear element. The Super-Angulon XL, with its larger image circle, would have more coverage allowing more movement and, therefore, more control over distortion.

I think the 90mm would be as wide as you would want to go. It and a 210 are the lenses I use most; adding a 45cm pretty much covers everything for me except architectural interiors.

[Noah A]

I'm also a big fan of the 110xl. It's extremely sharp and has a ton of coverage, more than my Wista VX can handle in fact. It's quite small too.

Most importantly, it gives a wide view but the photographs don't have too much of a wideangle look.

I started with a 150 but I also just added a 210. While the spacing may seem far, I think a 110/210 combo could work very well. I assumed I'd use my 150 most of the time and switch to the 110 or 210 when I needed something wider or longer. In practice so far I've been using the 110 as my main lens and going to the 210 for occasional photographs. Perhaps it's just a case of wanting to use my newest lens. But I'm finding the 110xl to be just about perfect for getting a lot in the frame in the tight urban settings where I often work.

It's not a cheap lens, but I found a decent deal at KEH. Also consider that if you get a 90mm, you'll probably also eventually want a 135mm or 150mm. Depending on your working style, it's possible that the 110 can take the place of two other lenses.

Personally, I like to keep things simple. I'd love to just carry one lens but that won't quite work for the subjects I shoot. I'll have to give it more time before I decide, but I think a 110/210 kit might be just about perfect.

I also looked at the 115 Grandagon, but it's a large lens.

[Gem Singer]

For several years, Fred Picker recommended a 120SA and a 210W as the ideal two lens combination for the 4x5 format.

After trying various focal lengths for 4x5, I tend to agree with Fred.

Those two focal lengths covered 95% of the photographs made with a 4x5 camera.

The Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW is my favorite lens for both 4x5 and 5x7. It will even cover 8x10 with minimal movements.

[Bob McCarthy]

Being an old Picker trained guy, I wholeheartedly support the 120/210 pairing. I currently use the 90/135/200 set, but I have to agree the 120 Nikon is a sweetie. I sold mine and have regretted it ever since.

Bob

[banjo]

will I have a 90mm Angulons and a 90mm super Angulons a 100mm WF Ektar
have not been all that happy SO I just got a 135mm WF Ektar BUT have not yet
given it a good test but like Fred Picker recommended a 120SA and a 210W
I thank that the Ektar 135mm WF is a nice size to use
banjo

[Ed Richards]

The 120mm Nikon SW is a great lens, and reasonably priced. The 110mm is also great, but at least 2x as expensive, and has more issues with vignetting with filters. 120mm is as wide as you can go without looking wide, and it has essentially infinite movements on 4x5. You should not need a bag bellows. You can then add a 90mm later if you want to go even wider.

[Peter Gomena]

I'm a former Fred Picker student as well and bought a 120 and 210 as my first 4x5 lenses. I found the 120 to be fairly useless but held on to it for 30 years because the thing was so darned expensive. Now I find it breathtaking for wide angle use on 5x7 and whole plate sizes. A 90mm is smaller, lighter and cheaper and gives a good wide angle look on 4x5. 90-150-210 is a good spread of focal lengths in my opinion, but it's just my opinion.

Peter Gomena

[Chuck P.]

Thanks all for the comments------I used to have a chart that described what the focal length equivalents for 4x5 were to 35mm----what is the 35mm focal lenth equivalent to the 120mm Nikkor for 4x5, if anyone knows?

Thanks

[Mark Stahlke]

According to the lens comparison charts (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/) a 120mm lens in 4x5 format is equivalent to a 30mm lens in 135 format.

[Gem Singer]

Chuck,

120mm on a 4x5 camera is equal to a 36mm on a 35mm camera.

Peter,

I agree that a 90,150, and 210 are the classic lenses for a three lens system for 4x5.

However, a 120 and a 210 are ideal for a 4x5 two lens system.

[Chuck P.]

For several years, Fred Picker recommended a 120SA and a 210W as the ideal two lens combination for the 4x5 format.

After trying various focal lengths for 4x5, I tend to agree with Fred.

Those two focal lengths covered 95% of the photographs made with a 4x5 camera.

The Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW is my favorite lens for both 4x5 and 5x7. It will even cover 8x10 with minimal movements.

I'm really liking the Nikkor 120 idea so far---reasonably priced at brand new at B&H ($729), although B&H has one used for $599 (don't see one on ebay yet). I'm actually going back and forth between a 90 or the 120.

For the 120, however, will a bag bellows be needed?

- In general, I have to get another copal 0 lensboard---is there a retaining ring of some sort that is needed to securely mount the lens to the board?---I've not had any experience in mounting a lens to the lens board.

[Gem Singer]

Chuck,

Check the prices for previously owned LF lenses at www.keh.com.

You will need the proper lens board for your camera. KEH has them (34-35mm opening =Copal 0).

A retaining ring is usually included with the shutter. Simple procedure to mount it on a lens board. Ask here when you are ready to attempt it.

You will not need a bag bellows or a recessed lens board for a 120 on a 4x5 camera.

[Chuck P.]

Chuck,

Check the prices for previously owned LF lenses at www.keh.com.

You will need the proper lens board for your camera. KEH has them (34-35mm opening =Copal 0).

A retaining ring is usually included with the shutter. Simple procedure to mount it on a lens board. Ask here when you are ready to attempt it.

You will not need a bag bellows or a recessed lens board for a 120 on a 4x5 camera.

I have a 4x5 Horseman LE that takes Sinar lensboards. To make sure that I understand----I know the 120 Nikkor requires a Copal 0 board, and you are saying that "all" Copal 0 boards are either 34mm or 35mm openings. So the lens does not require one or the other size opening----it will fit either of the two. I'm just making sure as there seems to be a multitude of choices.

Thanks

[Gem Singer]

Chuck,

KEH has several Horseman/Sinar lens boards listed on their website with a 34mm, or 35mm opening. Either size opening will accept a Copal 0 shutter.

Not to worry, KEH measurements are not precise, and the retaining ring on the shutter allows for a slight amount of leeway.

[Chuck P.]

I've come across this on ebay also:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380303973574&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

[Gem Singer]

Chuck,

The lens you referred too on Ebay is a 90SW.

If you are going to purchase a 90SW, plan on purchasing a 135, or a 150 in the near future.

You will soon realize that 90-210 is a very wide spread of a focal lengths for 4x5.

As I stated, 90SW, 150, 210 is the classical three lens combination for 4x5.

BTW, KEH has a Nikkor 120SW in Ex condition listed for $546.

[Noah A]

I got my 110xl at KEH for around $1200 in Ex+ condition, but it was really mint and looked brand new. Not a bad deal, but obviously more than the Nikkor. You may also want to check out the Super-Symmar 120 HM. I had also been looking for one of those, but I couldn't find one for much better of a price than the 110xl.

I agree with the others, a 90/15/210 is a good three-lens setup and a 120(or 110)/210 is good for two lenses. And for me two lenses is better than three.

I might like the 120 even better, I've never tried one. But to me the 110 doesn't feel like an obviously wide lens. I haven't felt the need for a center filter and I haven't had any problems with filter vignetting. My used lens didn't come with caps, so instead of buying a flimsy slip-on job that could flex and touch the front element, I got a B+W 67-72 step-up ring and a Nikon lenscap that fits the step-up ring. Now the 110 matches the 72mm filter of my 210 Apo-Symmar. Perhaps the step-up ring has eliminated any vignetting, though I haven't heard of this problem on the 110xl.

On my Wista VX there is no need for a bag bellows with the 110 so a 120 wouldn't need one either. A 90 would probably be ok without a bag bellows too but may be more limited in terms of movements due to the bellows.

The Nikkor 120 is quite a bit bigger than the 110xl and has a huge rear element, but the price is enticing, even new.

In my opinion a 90mm does start to look like a wideangle lens, though it won't have as much distortion or perspective problems as a 35mm-equivalent lens, since you can at least use movements to prevent converging verticals, etc. If you're in doubt maybe you could borrow/rent a 90 and a 120 for a weekend to help you decide.

You can't really go wrong with most modern 90-120mm lenses, so it comes down to your preference for focal length, lens size and cost.

[Chuck P.]

BTW, KEH has a Nikkor 120SW in Ex condition listed for $546.

Yes, I have checked that out already too. I'm leaning very much toward the 120 as it seems to make more sense given my 210 that I have now. Given that all the particulars are answered, now comes the hard part..............the wife!
She already feels I have some sort of disease or something.

Thanks for all the info.

[rdenney]

A 120 feels to me like a 28, and the 90 feels to me like a 24 or a bit wider, when comparing to the 35mm format. The official conversions don't always consider the difference in the shape of the format, the intended shape of the prints, and, most importantly of all, the difference in the way we use large-format cameras versus small-format cameras.

Wide-angle distortion as we see it in a hand-held SLR can point us the wrong direction. What causes that distortion is that a short lens allows us to get closer to the foreground subjects, making them large in comparison to the background. When those subjects are in the corners, the closer parts of them are magnified by a greater extent than the further parts, and the parts closer to the edge are magnified more than the parts closer to the center. Both of these effects lead to round objects being pulled into oblong shapes. This is the distortion most people think of, but it's relatively easy to avoid by not composing pictures with round objects in the corners.

When I learned to find the best spot for the camera to show the foreground/background relationships I wanted, and then choose the lens that covers the quantity of the scene I wished to capture, I moved past the "distortion" concept. That is a different approach than we usually take with a hand-held camera. I have made images using lenses with extremely short focal lengths, in relation to the format, that didn't show the typical wide-angle look despite rather extreme perspective relationships.

My first large-format lens that was shorter than normal was paired with an 8-1/2" Ilex Paragon (very close to that 210 you have). A 90 was too short. I ended up with a Super Angulon 121/8, which has been simply outstanding. That lens came to me at a high price--I bought it a long time ago. In 4x5 use, I have tilted that lens nearly on edge, and I really like not running out of coverage with it. I end up using quite a lot of tilts at that focal length to get those emphasized foreground elements in focus without losing the background. Coverage is therefore important for me, even more than for a 90mm lens.

I do not find the 121/8 Super Angulon particularly difficult to focus despite the f/8 maximum aperture, especially when compared with the much shorter lenses I now also use. And the f/8 design performs really, really well, especially considering the price. Mine is an older single-coated version, and there is a slight increase in veiling flare compared to newer multicoated designs. That bothers me not at all.

If the Sironar-N is an example of a lens that meets your needs, you probably do not need to spend as much as a Symmar XL or Super Angulon XL to provide satisfying performance. An f/5.6 Super Angulon (non-XL) will provide monstrous coverage at the 120mm focal length (even more than the generous coverage provided by the 121/8). If you decide to go to the shorter 90, the f/5.6 version will be cheaper than the XL and will still provide abundant coverage. These lenses are excellent, even for exacting purposes, and were the state of the art just a few years ago, when plenty of exacting work was done well.

If I had to carry two lenses, I would carry my 121 SA and my Sinaron 210 (which is an APO-Sironar-N), and I came to that conclusion before I'd even heard of Fred Picker. A third lens would be a 90, and a fourth something shorter still. I usually carry five lenses and stay close to the car, and the fifth is something longer than 210, usually a 12".

Rick "whose only hesitation about the 121/8 now would be the older models that came in the special Compur 0 with the oversized cell mounting threads--check carefully" Denney

[Bob McCarthy]

Yes, I have checked that out already too. I'm leaning very much toward the 120 as it seems to make more sense given my 210 that I have now. Given that all the particulars are answered, now comes the hard part..............the wife!
She already feels I have some sort of disease or something.

Thanks for all the info.


Disease, you do.


The beginning of recovery is recognition


The cure is a lens closet with a substancial number of lenses, one of each possible FL.

after that the number doesn't grow, but the age of the average lens gets larger

then you start speaking in a foreign language, saying things like artar, biogon, petzel

things the average photographer doesnt have a clue about.

then your temporarily in remission

eventually you die and pass on the accumulated wealth back to the photo community at a fraction of what you paid for them, primarily because your wife didnt have a clue what they were worth (or what you spent).

some guy who takes fuzzy pictures will buy them all.......

true saga <G>.

bob

[msk2193]

And if anyone wants Bob's wife's contact information I will gladly share it after his best buddies had their chance at the lens closet! Oh, wait a minute he just posted; we'll have to wait a bit longer. (hopefully much longer!)

[Bob McCarthy]

I know a few photographers with significantly more valuable closets than mine.

Hmmm, just thinking about it, no wife....

maybe I can get in the will!!

bob

[engl]

A cheaper and smaller option might be a Fujinon 125/5.6. Depending on version it has 204-211mm image circle (78-80 degrees, more than most plasmats), which will give you a fair bit of movement. It is extremely sharp, small, my NW-125/5.6 weighs 226 grams. You can find them used for 150-250$.

The Super Symmar XL 110mm has much more coverage, but it is double the weight and costs 2000$.

The other option for more coverage is Biogon-derivatives like the Nikon 120SW and Super Angulons. These are much bigger, three times the weight, one stop slower and costs two-three times what the Fujinon 125/5.6 costs.

The Nikon 120SW will give you 96mm of rise in landscape orientation (which your camera might never reach, and probably needs a bag bellows if it does). With a vertical back, the horizon is outside the frame already at 50mm rise, carrying around that weight and bulk is overkill for 4x5.

[Leigh]

... with a 34mm, or 35mm opening. Either size opening will accept a Copal 0 shutter.
Shutter opening sizes can be expressed in several ways, because the retaining ring has a lip that goes into the lensboard hole.

For a Copal #0 shutter the three relevant dimensions are:
32.5mm - outside diameter of the male thread on the back of the shutter (thread is M32.5x0.5)
34.6mm - outside diameter of the retaining ring lip
34.8mm - correct diameter of the hole in the lensboard

So you'll see the hole called 32mm, 33mm, 34mm, or 35mm, depending on individual peference and whether they round or truncate the fractional part.

If you give a board to a machine shop to get the hole bored, you should give them the dimension 34.8mm ±0.05mm.
BTW, if you use a machine shop, insist that the hole be bored on a mill or a lathe, not drilled, since drilling does not produce a smooth circle.

For the sake of completeness, the dimensions of other shutter sizes are:
Copal #1: 39.0mm (M39.0x0.75), 41.6mm, 41.8mm. Hole spec is 41.8mm ±0.05mm
Copal #3: 61.0mm (M61.0x0.75), 64.0mm, 64.2mm. Hole spec is 64.2mm ±0.05mm

Of course, other/older shutters used different dimensions.


- Leigh

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know about you but I don't think of 120mm or 135mm as a wide angle lens for 4x5. 135mm is a short normal lens for 4x5 and 120 is a little shorter but still closer to a short normal lens than a wide angle. If you're thinking along the same lines then 90mm is probably the most popular choice. I used a 90mm f5.6 Schneider Super Angulon and it was a great lens though a little on the big and heavy size. There's an f8 version that's less expensive and is a little smaller and lighter but not by all that much. The 80mm Schneider Super Symmar XL is a little wider, also smaller and lighter, and that would be a great choice. I don't recall any significant distortion with mine. Then of course there are 75mm lenses but I've never used that focal length so I can't suggest any specific makes.

In addition to the focal length you need to consider whether your camera will allow movements with whatever lens you choose (i.e. can you put a bag bellows on your camera and if not is the bellows sufficiently flexible and is the design of the camera such that you can use movements, especially front rise). And of course there's the size and weight of the lens if you hike and if you're buying used, the make and condition of the shutter.

In my opinion the 80mm Super Symmar XL is the best choice because it's small, light, and is wide enough that you know you're using a wide angle lens but not so ultra- wide that the photograph screams "Wide angle lens!" But they're fairly expensive, I bought mine new and I think it cost around $1,500.

[Leigh]

I don't think of 120mm or 135mm as a wide angle lens for 4x5.
The angle of view of a 120mm lens on a 5x4 camera is 47° on the 5" dimension and 44° on the 4" side.

For comparison, the approximate AoV for several focal lengths:
63°/57° - 65mm
59°/54° - 75mm
55°/48° - 90mm
47°/44° - 120mm
43°/37° - 135mm
40°/34° - 150mm
38°/32° - 160mm (this would be the "normal" lens based on the 5x4 film diagonal dimension, but I don't think anybody makes it)
31°/26° - 210mm

- Leigh

[engl]

I don't know about you but I don't think of 120mm or 135mm as a wide angle lens for 4x5. 135mm is a short normal lens for 4x5 and 120 is a little shorter but still closer to a short normal lens than a wide angle.

There is no universal definition of "wide angle", but in 135-format terms, 35mm and lower seems to be the accepted standard of "wide angle lens" (with no definition of when it turns "ultra wide"). This is only slightly lower than the diagonal of that format, which is 43mm.

The aspect ratio of 4x5 is of course a bit different so comparisons are not easily done. A 35mm lens on 135-format has the following fields of view in portrait orientation:
Diagonal: 63
Horizontal: 54
Vertical: 38

To have the same field of view as a 35mm on 135 using the 4x5 format, you need the following lens focal lengths:
By diagonal FOV: 132mm
By horizontal FOV: 124mm
By vertical FOV: 148mm

Personally, on 4x5, I'd call lenses 80-125 "wide", anything under that "ultra wide".

[Gem Singer]

Leigh,

FYI, From the Nikon catalogue: The Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW has covering power (AV) of 105 degrees at f22 and an image circle (IC) of 312mm at f22.

It is not a standard 120W. It is a Biogon wide angle design similar to the Nikkor f8 90SW and the Nikkor f8 150SW.

Chuck has already purchased a brand new Nikkor 120SW from B&H. I helped him mount it on his Copal 0 lens board, and he is very pleased with his purchase.

KEH does not classify their previously owned lens boards as Copal 0, 1, or 3.

They list them as having 35mm, 42mm, or 65mm openings. those are approximate measurements. Not always accurate.

[Leigh]

A 35mm lens on 135-format has the following fields of view in portrait orientation:
Horizontal: 54
Vertical: 38
I believe you meant "landscape" orientation, or you exchanged your H and V entries.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

FYI, From the Nikon catalogue: The Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW has covering power (AV) of 105 degrees at f22 and an image circle (IC) of 312mm at f22.
Gem,

The actual angle of view of a particular combination of lens and film has nothing to do with the lens covering power or the image circle, provided both are sufficient to cover the entire film area.

The angle of view is determined by the sides of a triangle based on the lens and film parameters. The distance on the lens axis from its second principle plane to the film, which by definition is the focal length, defines the "adjacent" side of the triangle. The "opposite" side is the distance from centerline of the film to the edge of interest.

The tangent of the angle of the hypotenuse is therefore opposite/adjacent, by basic trigonometry. The angle of view is twice that value. This calculation holds true for any lens and any film.


KEH does not classify their previously owned lens boards as Copal 0, 1, or 3.
They list them as having 35mm, 45mm, or 65mm openings.
I'm well aware of that.

That's precisely why I gave the equivalent information above. It holds true for other modern shutters, but not all, as I mentioned.

The question being addressed was why the same shutter hole may be described by different numbers. I believe I answered that question.

- Leigh

[engl]

I believe you meant "landscape" orientation, or you exchanged your H and V entries.

- Leigh

Yes you are right, I meant "landscape" :)

[Chuck P.]

Chuck has already purchased a brand new Nikkor 120SW from B&H. I helped him mount it on his Copal 0 lens board, and he is very pleased with his purchase.

Very pleased indeed.