Wide angle lenses for 2x3/6x9?

[Jeff Bannow]

I'm considering getting a 2x3/6x9 view camera to supplement my 4x5 camera. Can anyone recommend inexpensive wide angle lenses?

Ideally I'd like something around 35-40mm, but I don't want to go broke doing so. Is anything wider than that possible?

[Dan Fromm]

Cheap 35 - 40 mm lenses that cover 2x3? Dream on, or take up armed robbery.

35 mm? 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon is it. Price one, also the center filter, at B&H. This is the widest lens that covers 2x3.

38 mm? Price 38 Schneider SA-XL at B&H. 38/4.5 Biogon doesn't cover.

The least expensive short lens that covers 2x3 is probably the 47/8 SA. Search for one. After that, the 47/5.6 SA. After that, 50/6.3 Mamiya for Mamiya Press. After that the 58/5.6 Grandagon/Technikon. After that, with unknown coverage, the 58/5.6 and 60/5.6 for the Koni- and Rapid-Omega. After that, 65/6.8 Raptar and Angulon, 65/8 SA and Ilex, 65/5.6 SA.

[GPS]

With your requirements the best lenses for you are very damaged Rodenstock digital lenses...;)

[Bob Salomon]

Cheap 35 - 40 mm lenses that cover 2x3? Dream on, or take up armed robbery.

35 mm? 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon is it. Price one, also the center filter, at B&H. This is the widest lens that covers 2x3.

38 mm? Price 38 Schneider SA-XL at B&H. 38/4.5 Biogon doesn't cover.

The least expensive short lens that covers 2x3 is probably the 47/8 SA. Search for one. After that, the 47/5.6 SA. After that, 50/6.3 Mamiya for Mamiya Press. After that the 58/5.6 Grandagon/Technikon. After that, with unknown coverage, the 58/5.6 and 60/5.6 for the Koni- and Rapid-Omega. After that, 65/6.8 Raptar and Angulon, 65/8 SA and Ilex, 65/5.6 SA.

The 35mm 4.5 Apo Sironar Digital/HR Digaron W also cover 23. The first name is the current name and the HR Digaron W is the newer name that it will have.

[Jeff Bannow]

Any ideas on used prices? I don't have the budget for a $2000 lens at the moment.

[rdenney]

Any ideas on used prices? I don't have the budget for a $2000 lens at the moment.

The lenses shorter than 47mm don't come up used often enough to get a sense. But even the 47XL fetches over a grand on the used market, particularly with its center filter, and I'll bet the shorter lenses get that much and more. The shorter lenses than that are being used by commercial photographers with digital backs, and don't trade very often.

A 47mm lens is pretty short for 6x9, though. It's a little less than half the diagonal of the frame, which is about equivalent to a 21 or so on 24x36 format. That is pretty wide. It's even usefully wide on 6x7 and 6x6--I almost never wish for a wider lens than the 45 on my Pentax 6x7.

The 47mm f/5.6 Super Angulon in the slightly older single-coated configuration with a Compur 00 shutter regularly sells in the $300 range. Often less, occasionally more. They also don't come up that often, but one does see them. The later multicoated version in a Copal 0 shutter is the same lens except for the coatings, and costs only a little more. The image circle of the 47/5.6 is 120mm or so--abundant for 6x9 for such a short lens. I can very nearly cover 6x12 with mine. These are optically excellent, even in single-coated versions.

You'll pay more for the center filter. Hint: The old center filter for the 65/8 Super Angulon will work on the 47/5.6, and when it comes up for sale is often cheaper. It does limit coverage slightly, which isn't much of an issue for 6x9.

Rick "who loves short lenses but is also on a budget" Denney

[Steve Goldstein]

Jeff, why are you selling all the 120 tanks and reels if you're thinking of getting into 2x3? That seems a natural format for rollfilm holders, a lot easier than dealing with tiny sheets. None of my business, obviously...

[Jeff Bannow]

Good question! I'm still keeping a bunch of tanks and reels so I'm good there.

I have a 4x5 right now, and was considering something smaller and lighter for backpacking. I'm finding sheet film to be troubling to deal with on some of the longer trips I'm taking, so roll film is nice. And this would allow for movements as needed.

I currently carry around a Hasselblad SWC, and I was thinking this might be able to replace it.

[Steve Goldstein]

I just bought a 6x7 Calumet/Cambo C2N holder (thanks Walter!) and am impressed. It's got me to thinking about maybe downsizing in focal length and carrying the 4x5, a couple of C2Ns (color and B&W), and a bunch of rollfilm. Even though the 4x5 camera alone is heavier than a 2x3 would be, and movements with short lenses might be troublesome, the savings in film-holder weight makes the thought attractive, and I've already got most of what I would need for the experiment.

[Per Madsen]

The 35mm 4.5 Apo Sironar Digital/HR Digaron W also cover 23. The first name is the current name and the HR Digaron W is the newer name that it will have.

I can also recommend the Nikkor SW 65 mm 4.0 for 6 * 9.

Equalient to a 90 mm for 4" * 5".

[ic-racer]

Do you really need to go wider than 65mm. Even with 65mm, the front standard alignment to the back needs to be set with micro precision with the zero detends. Remember this is a medium format camera. Imaging trying to freehand align a lens on a Hasselblad with construction putty and duct tape. That is what it would be like if you view camera has no zero detents.

Horseman 6x9 cameras and lenses are pretty inexpensive. The wide lenses in the system are 90mm, 75mm and 65mm. I got the following for about $1500:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/Horsemansystem800.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

Do you really need to go wider than 65mm.

Its a matter of taste and situation.

My real short lenses for my 2x3 Graphics include 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, 38/4.5 Biogon (doesn't cover 2x3), 1.75"/2.8 Elcan (doesn't cover), 47/5.6 SA, 58/5.6 Grandagon, 60/5.6 Konica Hexanon (ex-Koni-Omega, covers), and, if its shutter ever comes back from the shop, 60/14 Perigraphe VIa. More about them here: http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html

I use 35, 47, and 60 to good effect in the NJ Pine Barrens, wouldn't use any of 'em for grand scenics in wide open spaces 'cos in that situation one gets mainly uninteresting foreground and is very vulnerable to hazy air. Proof of the propositions is a shot I took with the Biogon of the Mono Lake basin from an overlook on 395.

Oh. Why 60 instead of 58? The 60 Hexanon is good enough and is much easier to mount on the camera than the 58 Grandy. And the Grandy is a #00, needs a locking cable release for focusing. The Hexanon is in a #0 with press focus, so is easier to use. Ease of use is important.

Re the need for precise alignment. Yeah, sure, we all say that. My Graphics don't always deliver it. I still get good results.