Schieneder 38mm XL

[briand]

does anyone have info on the 38mm XL, would it be usable on a 4x5 Home built Wide camera????:eek:
thanks Brian

[Lachlan 717]

Image circle of 139mm...

[John Brady]

The 47xl would be a better choice.

I think you would get some crazy wide images with the 38 bu you would need to crop the final image.

www.timeandlight.com

[Eric Woodbury]

Brian, I've always wondered about this. The image circle is a little small so either the corners are clipped or you crop down a bit and take what you want. Probably have to use a CF. That will eat a couple of stops and for a point and shoot, that could be a problem.

[Bob Salomon]

Covers up to 6x12 with 7mm of rise and 4mm of shift at infinity and at f22.

[Lachlan 717]

Wouldn't cropping, in essence, simply change the image to represent the view of a less wide lens?

Assuming this is the case, why not just buy the 47XL and use the whole image?

47XL is still ultra wide on 4x5...

[briand]

Thanks All for the input,
I think even the 47mm needs a center filter, although the camera is a wide I still shoot on tripod, the 47mm seems like the way to go for 4x5, I do have 6x7 & 6x9 Horseman Roll film backs but I really want the 4x5 neg all my 4x5 is B/W. 47mm on 4x5 is I think close to 13mm in 35mm, what would a 38mm on 6x7 be?
cheers All
Brian

[Professional]

I was asking about wide or ultra wide lenses, and i was thinking to go with something like 65mm or 75mm maybe, but as people love to go with ultra WA then i may think about it, i was loving 16mm in 35mm format [still love it], but almost a year or so i got used to go with something 20mm-24mm as widest, on FF DSLR that 24mm is really wide, so if i get something around 20mm i will be so happy, i don't have that landscapes here to shoot at widest, also with architecture shots i tend not to use ultra wide most of the time, today i shoot LF for first time with the only new lens i have 150mm and it was standard for the shot i did, so if i go a bit wider then i will be more than happy, 90mm will be wide, but 65mm is so so wide, so i can't imagine how wide is 38-47mm, in fact with my 35mm DSLRs i try not to go below 16mm at all, and you know that Canon has 14mm lens, it is unbelievable wide.
Is there a good lens that can be in between 47mm and 65/75mm and cover 4x5?

[Bob Salomon]

I was asking about wide or ultra wide lenses, and i was thinking to go with something like 65mm or 75mm maybe, but as people love to go with ultra WA then i may think about it, i was loving 16mm in 35mm format [still love it], but almost a year or so i got used to go with something 20mm-24mm as widest, on FF DSLR that 24mm is really wide, so if i get something around 20mm i will be so happy, i don't have that landscapes here to shoot at widest, also with architecture shots i tend not to use ultra wide most of the time, today i shoot LF for first time with the only new lens i have 150mm and it was standard for the shot i did, so if i go a bit wider then i will be more than happy, 90mm will be wide, but 65mm is so so wide, so i can't imagine how wide is 38-47mm, in fact with my 35mm DSLRs i try not to go below 16mm at all, and you know that Canon has 14mm lens, it is unbelievable wide.
Is there a good lens that can be in between 47mm and 65/75mm and cover 4x5?

55mm Apo Grandagon 4.5

[Professional]

55mm Apo Grandagon 4.5

Question is: Will that 55mm cover 4x5? and what it is equivalent [35mm format] to 6x17 back?

[Adam Kavalunas]

The 55mm will cover 4x5. I use it all the time and absolutely love it. I'm not sure if it will cover 6x17, but I suspect stopped down it might.

[engl]

Question is: Will that 55mm cover 4x5? and what it is equivalent [35mm format] to 6x17 back?

Well, you asked for a lens between 47mm and 65mm that covers 4x5, and that question was answered with the 55mm APO-Grandagon. You can easily search for the lens specs to find the coverage, you can also see it here on this page:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

As for 35mm equivalence, there is no natural equivalence since the aspect ratio is very different (3:1 vs 3:2). If you concider only the horizontal field of view (in landscape orientation), the you can find the ratio by dividing the widths. 36/168=0.21, so a 55mm lens is like a 55*0.21=12mm lens in 135-format.

However, there are no 55mm lenses that cover 6x17. You need a 177mm image circle. You can find such lenses in this list, any lens with negative "excessive coverage" does not cover the format (all lenses under 72mm).
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF6x17cm.html

[Lachlan 717]

Question is: Will that 55mm cover 4x5? and what it is equivalent [35mm format] to 6x17 back?

My understanding is that a) the Schneider 72 SAXL is the widest lens for 6x17cm and b) no 4x5 with 6x17 back will work with this lens due to vignetting.

[Bob Salomon]

Question is: Will that 55mm cover 4x5? and what it is equivalent [35mm format] to 6x17 back?

Download factory specs here:

http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdf

[Professional]

WOW, many thanks to you all.
I need time to read those data sheets and check about different lenses on formats, my main big concern are 4x5 and 6x17, so i will give it more read and see.
I have a question, is that 6x17 larger from one side than 4x5? because i can't remember where i see that even 6x17 is still smaller than 4x5, and if the area of 4x5 is still bigger than 6x17 format then how come that a lens can cover a bigger area and not a smaller area format? If it is another math that i don't understand then i have to read more.

[Steve Hamley]

Yes, the 55mm Apo Grandagon will cover 4x5 with a few mm to spare (but not much). Probably the best wide lens for 6x17 would be the 72mm Schneider SA XL. Both are about 1/3 the normal focal length for 4x5 and 5x7/617. The 80mm Schneeide SS XL might be an alternative to the 72mm.

Cheers, Steve

[Steve Hamley]

6x17 cm is half a 5x7 sheet (roughly), so you need lenses that cover 5x7. You might be able to get by with a little less in some given instances, but it's a good rule of thumb.

It isn't the film area; you need lenses that will at least cover the diagonal of the format.

Cheers, Steve

[Professional]

6x17 cm is half a 5x7 sheet (roughly), so you need lenses that cover 5x7. You might be able to get by with a little less in some given instances, but it's a good rule of thumb.

It isn't the film area; you need lenses that will at least cover the diagonal of the format.

Cheers, Steve

Yes, looking at Schneider lens chart[PDF] it seems not just the area, but the diagonal, some formats can be smaller as area but diagonally it may extend out of that bigger area, so as you said i should look at even much bigger format that can cover that 6x17 or even 6x24 diagonal, and if that 5x7 cover the diagonal of that 6x17 then the widest lens on 5x7 will be the best choice for 6x17 and 4x5 as well, so let me ask this, what is the widest lens that can cover the diagonal 6x17 and 4x5 formats?

[Steve Hamley]

The 72mm SA XL would be a good choice.

Cheers, Steve

[Professional]

The 72mm SA XL would be a good choice.

Cheers, Steve

Great, thanks!

[Lachlan 717]

The 72mm SA XL would be a good choice.

Cheers, Steve

I know of no 4x5 to 6x17cm roll film back that will allow the use of a 72mm lens.

If you are thinking about using this lens on a 617 back, IT WILL VIGNETTE SIGNIFICANTLY.

[Professional]

I know of no 4x5 to 6x17cm roll film back that will allow the use of a 72mm lens.

If you are thinking about using this lens on a 617 back, IT WILL VIGNETTE SIGNIFICANTLY.

so it will cover 5x7 and not covering 4x5 or 6x17?
It is really a puzzle math.

I hope this 38mm thread will have a use on a format rather than 4x5 then.

[Lachlan 717]

so it will cover 5x7 and not covering 4x5 or 6x17?
It is really a puzzle math.

I hope this 38mm thread will have a use on a format rather than 4x5 then.

I don't really understand your question, so let me summarise:

*The 38mm won't cover 4x5;
*The widest (current) lens for 6x17 is the Schneider 72mm SAXL;
*When looking for lenses to cover 6x17cm, the general rule is if it covers 5x7" format, it'll cover 6x17cm;
*You need to use diagonal distance to work out minimum image circle;
*Film area has no direct bearing on lens coverage; indirectly, the bigger the format area, the greater the image circle;
*6x17cm roll film backs, by their design, limit both wide angle and long focal length lenses.

Hope this helps.

[Professional]

I don't really understand your question, so let me summarise:

*The 38mm won't cover 4x5;
*The widest (current) lens for 6x17 is the Schneider 72mm SAXL;
*When looking for lenses to cover 6x17cm, the general rule is if it covers 5x7" format, it'll cover 6x17cm;
*You need to use diagonal distance to work out minimum image circle;
*Film area has no direct bearing on lens coverage; indirectly, the bigger the format area, the greater the image circle;
*6x17cm roll film backs, by their design, limit both wide angle and long focal length lenses.

Hope this helps.

Thanks!

[vizion]

Question is: Will that 55mm cover 4x5? and what it is equivalent [35mm format] to 6x17 back?

55mm Rodenstock is equiv to 14mm on 35mm
Has an image circle of @f22 of 163mm. 4x5 has 153.7 mm diagonal so you only have 5.71% excess coverage.

In this region I prefer my 5.6 58mm schneider with an image circle of 166mm and a 7.41 excess coverage 35mm equiv is 15mm

David

[Professional]

55mm Rodenstock is equiv to 14mm on 35mm
Has an image circle of @f22 of 163mm. 4x5 has 153.7 mm diagonal so you only have 5.71% excess coverage.

In this region I prefer my 5.6 58mm schneider with an image circle of 166mm and a 7.41 excess coverage 35mm equiv is 15mm

David

It is really a hard decision, 55, or 58, or 72, 75,....

I will buy 90mm as my next lens, later will see which wider lens i may think about.

Thanks