Lens in wide-mid range

[Professional]

Hi again,

I am still new into large format, i have only 2 lenses now and i am planning to add more, both lenses i have are not the range i look for really, so i planned to have 3 main top priority in my list, but before i go to those lenses i want to get another lens out of those 3 main lenses options, don't ask me why or what is the reason, there is no reason or it will be very funny reason that may lead to long debating and i will not have any answers, so i just stay with this thread question and leave my main lenses topic for another thread.

I was looking around and i had my eye on 5 or 6 lenses and not sure which one i should go with, so i will put them here and you tell me which one will get your vote more:

Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 100mm f5.6
Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 135mm f5.6
Nikkor-SW 120mm f8
Fujunon CM-W 105mm f5.6
Fujunon CM-W 125mm f5.6
Fujunon CM-W 135mm f5.6

Also which ones of above can be used on Shen Hao 4x5 and Graphic [Speed/Crown] cameras together?

[Gem Singer]

Nikkor CM-W????

Fuji makes the CM-W lens series.

A 125 f5.6 Nikkor does not exist. However, the Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW is a fine lens.

[vinny]

135 sironar-s. sharpest/most coverage for it's size/weight. there, now you know.

[Mark Stahlke]

The 100mm f/5.6 and 105mm f/5.6 lenses will have very little excess coverage for 4x5, if they cover at all.

I have both the APO Sironar-S 135mm and the Fuji CMW 125mm. Both are excellent. I prefer the 125mm over the 135mm just for its shorter focal length.

The Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 is also an excellent lens. I use it as an ultra wide angle for 8x10. It's substantially larger than the other lenses in your list.

Another lens you might consider is the Schneider Super Symmar XL 110mm.

What are the focal lengths of your existing lenses?

[Professional]

Nikkor CM-W????

Fuji makes the CM-W lens series.

A 125 f5.6 Nikkor does not exist. However, the Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW is a fine lens.

Oh my GOD!!!

Thanks for pointing the mistake, i was so hurry or sleepy i think.

Well, i refer to Fuji CM-W, not Nikon, apologize for the mistake.

[Professional]

135 sironar-s. sharpest/most coverage for it's size/weight. there, now you know.

Good, i will give that as pros for this lens and considering it, but i will wait for more posts to finalize my decision so early.

[Professional]

The 100mm f/5.6 and 105mm f/5.6 lenses will have very little excess coverage for 4x5, if they cover at all.

I have both the APO Sironar-S 135mm and the Fuji CMW 125mm. Both are excellent. I prefer the 125mm over the 135mm just for its shorter focal length.

The Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 is also an excellent lens. I use it as an ultra wide angle for 8x10. It's substantially larger than the other lenses in your list.

Another lens you might consider is the Schneider Super Symmar XL 110mm.

What are the focal lengths of your existing lenses?

Ah ok, so this means i should ignore 100 and 105? In fact i was going to get 90mm as one of the main lenses [and wider as another main option], so how come this 100 and 105 will not cover over the 90mm? or Does those 100 and 105 not designed for better coverage over another lenses such as 90mm?

The current lenses i have are two: Optar 162mm Wollensack and Rodenstock APO Sironar-N 150mm.

[Dan Fromm]

The 100 and 105 were made for 6x9. Not all lenses that look like LF lenses are for LF, some are for MF.

Focal length has little to do with coverage.

[Professional]

The 100 and 105 were made for 6x9. Not all lenses that look like LF lenses are for LF, some are for MF.

Focal length has little to do with coverage.

I thought so, then i will take those 2 out, i also want to take Nikkor out because it is f8, even it is an excellent lens but maybe that f8 will be a bit darker for focusing in many situations, but i am not in rush.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Your didn't mention anything about size, weight or budget.

If budget is not an obstacle, I highly recommend the 110mm f5.6 Schneider Super Symmar XL. It's one of my all-time favorite lenses. It's available new for about $2300, or used for considerably less.

You also didn't mention your intended application. Based on the cameras you mentioned, I'm going to guess general purpose landscape photography, but I could be wrong.

If you want something really light and compact, for hiking and backpacking, the 120mm f5.6 APO Symmar is a great little lens with limited coverage. I shied away from this lens for years because I thought the speced image circle of 179mm would be too restrictive. Well, Schneider is conservative in their coverage specs and when I finally bought one of these lenses, it ended up being one of my most used lenses for backpacking.

There is a newer version of this lens, the 120mm f5.6 APO Symmar-L with a speced image circle of 189mm, but it's larger, heavier and more expensive than the prior generation 120mm APO Symmar.

Kerry

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Professional, what films do you tend to use? I ask because you mentioned a Nikon lens. My Nikkor SW 90mm f/8 is so contrasty that's of limited use with the also-contrasty and unforgiving Fujichrome Velvia 50.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Another great lens in the 120mm focal length is the 120mm f5.6 Super Symmar HM. It has an image circle of 211mm, comes in a Copal 0 shutter, takes 67mm filters and is amazingly sharp.

The best part is used 120mm Super Symmar HMs sell for about half the price of used 110mm Super Symmar XLs. If you don't need the huge coverage of the XL, the HM is a great alternative.

Kerry

[Professional]

OK, some other people on another chatroom told me to ignore those 100 and 105, so i am taking out 2 lenses, also i think Nikkor f8 will not be my choice or taking my vote, i included due to price but then i changed my mind.

In fact i was hopping to keep the budget of one of those lenses under $1500, because i want to save for the main lenses later, and i didn't want to say it but i always go with new lenses, in all cases i am not planning to buy many many lenses for large format anyway, 3 main lenses and one more of those as additional and that's all.

[Professional]

Professional, what films do you tend to use? I ask because you mentioned a Nikon lens. My Nikkor SW 90mm f/8 is so contrasty that's of limited use with the also-contrasty and unforgiving Fujichrome Velvia 50.

I really don't know if the film choice will make the decision of a lens.

For B&W: Acros, HP5, FP4, Tri-X, TMAX, Arista [and soon i will add ADOX CHS films]
For Color neg: Ektar, maybe new Portra [160/400]
Slide: Velvia 50/100/100F, maybe Provia or Astia but i don't think so

[Professional]

I don't care about weight, i got used for huge lenses anyway, so this will not be a big issue with large format as well, when i shoot sports i carry 2 big lenses each on different heavy bodies, so if i go to shoot landscape it will not be any problem to have ore lbs or kgs added to the body, i use tripod all the time for film cameras mostly.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Now you have a 162 mm & a 150mm lens so a 135 doesn't make sence here for me to close on the 150mm you should now buy a 90 and a 210mm and sell they not so good one of the two which you already have. I spacing of 12mm from one to the next lens is not the game and makes no sence at all!

Cheers Armin

[Steve Hamley]

If you're not concerned about the weight, the 110mm Schneider is a good choice - it's in a class by itself in many respects. I like it's flare resistance for shooting near-far sunsets and sunrises, and it has immense coverage if you need it.

For a longer choice, ether the 125mm Fujinon CM-W or the 135mm Apo-Sironar-S would be excellent choices. The 125mm Fujinon has the same stated image circle as the Rodenstock 135mm, so if you want a little more stated coverage than the 120 Symmar series it's a good choice, and it's very sharp and contrasty. If you search the forum on the 125mm Fujinon CM-W, you'll find that it's very well respected.

Cheers, Steve

[Professional]

Now you have a 162 mm & a 150mm lens so a 135 doesn't make sence here for me to close on the 150mm you should now buy a 90 and a 210mm and sell they not so good one of the two which you already have. I spacing of 12mm from one to the next lens is not the game and makes no sence at all!

Cheers Armin

In fact i am buying 90mm as a main lens, and another lens longer than 150mm, not sure if 210 or 240 or 250mm as another main lens, but those lenses i am trying to get only new are expensive over $2000, so if i get one then i can't buy another lens for long time of another main, so i was thinking one of those above i posted before so then i can afford more expensive one then i have 2 lenses to use, i don't want to spend over $4000 for now for New lenses, also i am looking to buy wider than 90mm lens no doubt as my another main of the three, so 3 main lenses are: Wide in 50-75mm range, 90mm, and longer in 200-300mm range, but i know i may want to have some lenses in the gaps like between 70 and 90 or between 90mm and 150mm or between 150 and 240mm for example.

[Professional]

If you're not concerned about the weight, the 110mm Schneider is a good choice - it's in a class by itself in many respects. I like it's flare resistance for shooting near-far sunsets and sunrises, and it has immense coverage if you need it.

For a longer choice, ether the 125mm Fujinon CM-W or the 135mm Apo-Sironar-S would be excellent choices. The 125mm Fujinon has the same stated image circle as the Rodenstock 135mm, so if you want a little more stated coverage than the 120 Symmar series it's a good choice, and it's very sharp and contrasty. If you search the forum on the 125mm Fujinon CM-W, you'll find that it's very well respected.

Cheers, Steve

From the price of that 110 i think either i get this or 90mm, i put 90mm as main and 110 as secondary, if i get 110 then i will ignore 90mm as both are expensive over $2000, i can buy one not both at the moment or soon.

[rdenney]

Without being clear about your application, this is an impossible question to answer. If you need the coverage of the Nikkor 120SW, then none of the others will suit your purpose. I made this photograph with a Super Angulon 121/8, and was at the limits of its considerable image circle to get the window frame and the tower both in the focus plane. I don't think any plasmat would have been able to make this image in this way. The Schneider Super Symmar HM is a great lens, but it has an image circle 60mm smaller than the 121/8 Super Angulon.


http://www.rickdenney.com/images/ConcepcionSTwr032793-9_lores.jpg
Mission Concepción South Tower, 1993
Ilford FP4, 121mm/8 Schneider Super Angulon, 1 second at f/45 with rather extreme camera movements.

Rick "in systems engineering rant mode tonight" Denney

[Professional]

Without being clear about your application, this is an impossible question to answer. If you need the coverage of the Nikkor 120SW, then none of the others will suit your purpose. I made this photograph with a Super Angulon 121/8, and was at the limits of its considerable image circle to get the window frame and the tower both in the focus plane. I don't think any plasmat would have been able to make this image in this way. The Schneider Super Symmar HM is a great lens, but it has an image circle 60mm smaller than the 121/8 Super Angulon.


http://www.rickdenney.com/images/ConcepcionSTwr032793-9_lores.jpg
Mission Concepción South Tower, 1993
Ilford FP4, 121mm/8 Schneider Super Angulon, 1 second at f/45 with rather extreme camera movements.

Rick "in systems engineering rant mode tonight" Denney

Ok, the applications will be: Urban, cityscape, street, landscape[not so wide views], architecture indoors or outdoors.

I know i will use 90 and wider lenses on those, but i can't have many lenses for all FLs, and even with two lenses sometimes i want to have a lens to be in gap between two main lenses in some cases, if i go with 90mm and say 58mm then i am sure there are times i want to have 70mm or 75mm FL, and also between 90mm and 150mm which i have already there is a gap that i know i may need something to cover, i saw many here with more than 6 lenses, why go with many lenses for some if 3 lenses can do all applications in LF for example? the 150 i have is not wide and doesn't have great coverage, and when i will have that 90mm for example with great coverage then what i will do in applications where i want something wider than 150 but not so wide as 90mm? crop is not my tool always i want to use, i was in a place where i couldn't go back to put a view in frame[the wall was behind me and i can't go back more and 90mm of a friend was so wide and didn't want to go closer], but i really don't know, maybe i have to test many lenses if i can before i buy one, but i don't have any friends who have many Lf lenses, only one and he doesn't have many lenses as well.

[rdenney]

Personally, my needs point to many lenses that are good enough rather than fewer of quality beyond what I need.

But that 121/8 Super Angulon is mighty hard to beat, even in terms of quality. And it's affordable. I use mine more often than the 90, which I might not have predicted before gaining experience with them. I have some really short lenses, but I still find that wide-angle seems more extreme with a camera that has movements that can already exaggerate rectilinear distortion by rendering verticals vertical. Where I might happily use a 24 on 24x36 format, I might be happier with the 121 much of the time when using 4x5, even though the 24 is theoretically more like the 90.

The question is: How much coverage do you need? You'll have to experiment a bit, probably, which suggests buying something used that has already reached its depreciated value, and then gaining some experience with it before making a final decision. If you need the coverage, then a smaller and lighter lens with insufficient coverage is not likely to be satisfactory in practice.

Rick "who would put the Nikkor-SW in the same category as the Schneider" Denney

[Professional]

Personally, my needs point to many lenses that are good enough rather than fewer of quality beyond what I need.

But that 121/8 Super Angulon is mighty hard to beat, even in terms of quality. And it's affordable. I use mine more often than the 90, which I might not have predicted before gaining experience with them. I have some really short lenses, but I still find that wide-angle seems more extreme with a camera that has movements that can already exaggerate rectilinear distortion by rendering verticals vertical. Where I might happily use a 24 on 24x36 format, I might be happier with the 121 much of the time when using 4x5, even though the 24 is theoretically more like the 90.

The question is: How much coverage do you need? You'll have to experiment a bit, probably, which suggests buying something used that has already reached its depreciated value, and then gaining some experience with it before making a final decision. If you need the coverage, then a smaller and lighter lens with insufficient coverage is not likely to be satisfactory in practice.

Rick "who would put the Nikkor-SW in the same category as the Schneider" Denney

What do you mean by coverage?

Also, if that 121 F8 SA is no brainer then why not getting it, i will trust you about it and get it if it is affordable as you said, but where i can find it to buy it?

[rdenney]

What do you mean by coverage?

Also, if that 121 F8 SA is no brainer then why not getting it, i will trust you about it and get it if it is affordable as you said, but where i can find it to buy it?

The 121/8 SA is an old lens, replaced some time ago by the 120/8 SA. Both are good, but some like the older one better for reasons I do not now recall. Mine's a gem. You have to wait for them to pop up on the used market, but I don't think they are particularly less common on the market than the Nikkor. If you have access to a Nikkor right now, that might be the better choice just because of availability, if the price is acceptable.

Coverage is the size of the image circle. The image circle for a Super Symmar is 211mm, which means that's the size of the circle it illuminates (at f/22). Whatever picture you make has to fit within that circle. The diagonal of the 4x5 format is 150mm or so, so 211 still provides for a good amount of tilts, swings, and shifts. But the 121/8 SA has an image circle of 288mm, which means you can tilt, swing, or shift it that much more before the image frame pushes outside the illuminated circle. For the image I showed, the Super Symmar would not have had enough coverage, and the image would have been clipped in two corners on the right side of the picture.

So, for lenses in this focal length, the coverage is one of the most important considerations. You have to know what degree of lens movements you'll need for your work. If you don't know that yet, then just get something decent and inexpensive and learn it. If you find it limiting, sell it and get something with more coverage. Most of the lenses you mentioned are plasmats like the Symmar, and most have less coverage than the Super Symmar. They are very sharp but they are not designed for wide coverage. The Super Angulon and Nikkor-SW are biogon-derived designs that are designed for wide coverage, and thus have large image circles. If you need more extreme movements, then you'll need that additional image circle.

If you only make images of distant scenes, it won't matter much. But if you include a lot of close foreground, then you often need quite a lot of tilt to get the foreground and background both in focus. That's where coverage becomes an issue.

Rick "noting that the window frame in the picture is only a couple of feet from the camera" Denney

[Professional]

The 121/8 SA is an old lens, replaced some time ago by the 120/8 SA. Both are good, but some like the older one better for reasons I do not now recall. Mine's a gem. You have to wait for them to pop up on the used market, but I don't think they are particularly less common on the market than the Nikkor. If you have access to a Nikkor right now, that might be the better choice just because of availability, if the price is acceptable.

Coverage is the size of the image circle. The image circle for a Super Symmar is 211mm, which means that's the size of the circle it illuminates (at f/22). Whatever picture you make has to fit within that circle. The diagonal of the 4x5 format is 150mm or so, so 211 still provides for a good amount of tilts, swings, and shifts. But the 121/8 SA has an image circle of 288mm, which means you can tilt, swing, or shift it that much more before the image frame pushes outside the illuminated circle. For the image I showed, the Super Symmar would not have had enough coverage, and the image would have been clipped in two corners on the right side of the picture.

So, for lenses in this focal length, the coverage is one of the most important considerations. You have to know what degree of lens movements you'll need for your work. If you don't know that yet, then just get something decent and inexpensive and learn it. If you find it limiting, sell it and get something with more coverage. Most of the lenses you mentioned are plasmats like the Symmar, and most have less coverage than the Super Symmar. They are very sharp but they are not designed for wide coverage. The Super Angulon and Nikkor-SW are biogon-derived designs that are designed for wide coverage, and thus have large image circles. If you need more extreme movements, then you'll need that additional image circle.

If you only make images of distant scenes, it won't matter much. But if you include a lot of close foreground, then you often need quite a lot of tilt to get the foreground and background both in focus. That's where coverage becomes an issue.

Rick "noting that the window frame in the picture is only a couple of feet from the camera" Denney

Thank you very much!

I have that diagram sheet from Schneider showing the image circles for different lenses and different formats, so i know about coverage, but i wasn't sure what were you meaning about it before, now it is clear, and yes, i try to check the image circles for the lenses i posted, but now i remember one thing that i forgot very much, which lens of them i can use for my Speed/Crown Graphic? You know those are most limited LF cameras comparing to field/view cameras, so i was trying to be sure one of those lenses can be used on my Shen Hao [and sure for any another 4x5] and my both Graphic bodies, not sure if different bodies[at same format size] will have different coverage, so i may have a lens that is flawless on one body and it is so so on another one.

From your explanation, should i get any lens that have minimum around 200mm image circle?

And yes, i will have those kind of shots where i will have subjects or elements in foreground in the environment/BG will be there, so i will have those kind of tilting, also with architectures i will need those kind of movements.

[Professional]

Forgot to ask, is the image circle more important than the angle of coverage?

[Professional]

The lens chart showing that 150mm/5.6 S-S-A XL has a greater image circle than 110mm and can be used on 8x10 as well, 110 is not up to 8x10, is that mean that this 150mm can give me wider range for movements over 110? and the FL will be longer with 150 over 110 even if it is larger image circle?

It is really so weird when i wide angle lens has a bit shorter enough coverage when we need it more than a longer FL lens with greater coverage and i want wider with its great coverage.

Now from the tables and specifications and charts it seems i just keep plan on the main 2 lenses and ignore those lenses, 90mm SA XL and 72mm SA XL, not sure which one i should get first for wide shots with movements needed most of the time.

[Dan Fromm]

I have that diagram sheet from Schneider showing the image circles for different lenses and different formats, so i know about coverage, but i wasn't sure what were you meaning about it before, now it is clear, and yes, i try to check the image circles for the lenses i posted, but now i remember one thing that i forgot very much, which lens of them i can use for my Speed/Crown Graphic? You know those are most limited LF cameras comparing to field/view cameras, so i was trying to be sure one of those lenses can be used on my Shen Hao [and sure for any another 4x5] and my both Graphic bodies, not sure if different bodies[at same format size] will have different coverage, so i may have a lens that is flawless on one body and it is so so on another one.

Coverage is a property of the lens, not of the body. All 4x5 cameras shoot 4x5. 4x5 is 4x5 is 4x5. Some cameras allow larger movements (decentering -- shift, rise/fall -- and tilt/swing) than others. More coverage is needed to use large movements than to use small.


Forgot to ask, is the image circle more important than the angle of coverage?

They are equivalent. In Excel, the formula for circle covered is =focal length *2*TAN(RADIANS(angle/2)) . Equivalently, angle covered =2*DEGREES(ATAN((circle covered/2)/focal length))

Your posts in this thread give the impression that you don't know enough to ask good questions. There are books on LF photography that explain what you want to know. You'd be better off buying one of them and studying it than asking poor questions that get answers you don't know enough to understand.

Several books are often recommended here. Ansel Adams' The Camera. Steve Simmons' Using the View Camera. Leslie Strobel's View Camera Technique.

[Professional]

Coverage is a property of the lens, not of the body. All 4x5 cameras shoot 4x5. 4x5 is 4x5 is 4x5. Some cameras allow larger movements (decentering -- shift, rise/fall -- and tilt/swing) than others. More coverage is needed to use large movements than to use small.



They are equivalent. In Excel, the formula for circle covered is =focal length *2*TAN(RADIANS(angle/2)) . Equivalently, angle covered =2*DEGREES(ATAN((circle covered/2)/focal length))

Your posts in this thread give the impression that you don't know enough to ask good questions. There are books on LF photography that explain what you want to know. You'd be better off buying one of them and studying it than asking poor questions that get answers you don't know enough to understand.

Several books are often recommended here. Ansel Adams' The Camera. Steve Simmons' Using the View Camera. Leslie Strobel's View Camera Technique.

Buying books has an issue with me [shipping], so i depend on posts here and there.

I ask a lot even if i understand the answers to be almost done, if i ask a question and get 2 or 3 answers and i understand about 10-30% of those answers it is like i didn't get the answer, so i ask more and more on parts i don't understand, i am new in large format and sure i have to ask many questions, until that time i can get any book without issues i will take the time to ask here and there, if people don't want to answer because they think the questions are poor and the member should go read somewhere else then i don't need places like this here.

[Dan Fromm]

This Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=%22steve+simmons%22+%22using+the+view+camera%22&hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs= will find many offers to see Steve Simmons' book.

Mailing it to Ajman will cost around $30. See this http://ircalc.usps.gov/MailServices.aspx?country=10441&m=2&p=1&o=8

At this this stage of your development education is worth much more than another lens.

[rdenney]

From your explanation, should i get any lens that have minimum around 200mm image circle?

4x5 with no movements needs an image circle of 160mm (nominally--a little less will work). Figuring how much bigger an image circle you need is a matter of trigonometry.

For example, a Schneider Symmar-S 120mm lens has an image circle of 173mm (which is 70 degrees), and allows 14mm of rise (the main movement provided on a Graphic). That lens would be a reasonable match for the Graphic, which does not provide much movement. But it would be quite limiting on a field or monorail camera that provides extensive movements.

By contrast, the 121/8 Super Angulon provides a 288mm image circle (100 degrees) and provide 84mm of rise.

A lens with 220mm image circle will provide 39mm of rise. 200mm coverage will provide about 24mm of rise.

Front tilt consumes more coverage than rise and shift do, but that math is more trouble than I'm going to right now.

The manufacturers provide this information. Here's Schneider's information for their previous lens lines:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm

How much image circle you need depends on what kind of movements you need, and that depends on the sorts of pictures you end up making. You may not yet know that. So, the sensible thing is to just choose one that is a good value, and learn it. If it proves unsatisfactory, trade it for something else. At some point, you have to stop asking and start doing.

Rick "who learned by doing, same as everyone else" Denney

[Professional]

4x5 with no movements needs an image circle of 160mm (nominally--a little less will work). Figuring how much bigger an image circle you need is a matter of trigonometry.

For example, a Schneider Symmar-S 120mm lens has an image circle of 173mm (which is 70 degrees), and allows 14mm of rise (the main movement provided on a Graphic). That lens would be a reasonable match for the Graphic, which does not provide much movement. But it would be quite limiting on a field or monorail camera that provides extensive movements.

By contrast, the 121/8 Super Angulon provides a 288mm image circle (100 degrees) and provide 84mm of rise.

A lens with 220mm image circle will provide 39mm of rise. 200mm coverage will provide about 24mm of rise.

Front tilt consumes more coverage than rise and shift do, but that math is more trouble than I'm going to right now.

The manufacturers provide this information. Here's Schneider's information for their previous lens lines:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm

How much image circle you need depends on what kind of movements you need, and that depends on the sorts of pictures you end up making. You may not yet know that. So, the sensible thing is to just choose one that is a good value, and learn it. If it proves unsatisfactory, trade it for something else. At some point, you have to stop asking and start doing.

Rick "who learned by doing, same as everyone else" Denney

Thank you very much!

I think it is better i go with main lenses then, later if i see i need something else then i will have background/experience of lenses on LF.

The problem is that for one application the lens will do the job perfectly, when do another application with same lens the issue appear as another application need more movements, i am not in a place to buy a lens then sell it, i buy once and keep it, i will start to do for sure once i get the lens but i ask a lot before getting any lens yet, but the answers is in front of me and clear now, thanks for your explanation that definitely help and i recognize them no doubt.

Last question, what i will do if a lens is perfect on 4x5 then later if i upgrade to 5x7 or 8x10 and it is limiting a bit, should i keep it and buy another lens for larger format or just trade or sell the lens -even i really don't want to sell anything- and get another one? Hope you don't feel annoyed or bothered with my many questions :D :cool: :p

[rdenney]

Last question, what i will do if a lens is perfect on 4x5 then later if i upgrade to 5x7 or 8x10 and it is limiting a bit, should i keep it and buy another lens for larger format or just trade or sell the lens -even i really don't want to sell anything- and get another one? Hope you don't feel annoyed or bothered with my many questions :D :cool: :p

With camera systems that use the same lens boards for different formats, such as Sinar, it's not difficult to use lenses that way. But the coverage is again an issue. 5x7's diagonal is nominally 210mm or so, so a lens with 200 or less won't cover at all. A lens with 288mm of image circle, like the 121/8 Super Angulon, or like other similar biogon-derived wide-field lenses like the Nikkor-SW, will provide plenty of coverage on 5x7.

I just checked, and the Nikkor-SW 120/8 provides more coverage than the old Super Angulon by a bit, and that bit is a critical bit for 8x10 coverage. It's published image circle at f/22 is 312mm rather than 288, with a 105-degree field of view that is more like the f/5.6 Super Angulon designs (which was never made in 120mm as far as I can recall). 8x10 needs a minimum of 300mm or so. Realize that 120mm is extremely wide on the 8x10 format--something equivalent to 18mm on 24x36 format. The Super Angulon may actually cover 8x10 marginally at smaller apertures than f/22--Schneider's specifications were pretty conservative.

Unless I was installing it on a press-style camera that would not allow the rear cell to fit through the opening, I would probably get that type of lens in that focal length. You don't have to use the coverage if you don't need it. The downside to these lenses is size and weight, but if that isn't an issue, then they offer more flexibility.

Rick "who doesn't backpack with these lenses" Denney

[Professional]

With camera systems that use the same lens boards for different formats, such as Sinar, it's not difficult to use lenses that way. But the coverage is again an issue. 5x7's diagonal is nominally 210mm or so, so a lens with 200 or less won't cover at all. A lens with 288mm of image circle, like the 121/8 Super Angulon, or like other similar biogon-derived wide-field lenses like the Nikkor-SW, will provide plenty of coverage on 5x7.

I just checked, and the Nikkor-SW 120/8 provides more coverage than the old Super Angulon by a bit, and that bit is a critical bit for 8x10 coverage. It's published image circle at f/22 is 312mm rather than 288, with a 105-degree field of view that is more like the f/5.6 Super Angulon designs (which was never made in 120mm as far as I can recall). 8x10 needs a minimum of 300mm or so. Realize that 120mm is extremely wide on the 8x10 format--something equivalent to 18mm on 24x36 format. The Super Angulon may actually cover 8x10 marginally at smaller apertures than f/22--Schneider's specifications were pretty conservative.

Unless I was installing it on a press-style camera that would not allow the rear cell to fit through the opening, I would probably get that type of lens in that focal length. You don't have to use the coverage if you don't need it. The downside to these lenses is size and weight, but if that isn't an issue, then they offer more flexibility.

Rick "who doesn't backpack with these lenses" Denney

Yes, i saw that Nikkor lens and shocked of its coverage, i downloaded the table from Schneider site that showing their lenses with specifications including the coverage and the displacements for each format and from the table i can tell which lens can be used for which or up to which format and how much movements i can use, this table is very helpful, but i want same table for another brands like Rodenstock or Nikkor or Fujinon as well.

Now i am in confusion situation with that Nikkor, because it is in that range where it can be fine on 4x5 but it will be a bit wide on 5x7 but ultra wide on 8x10, and i am planning to get 8x10 after 1 or 2 years, so i feel i better get a lens that cover up to that format now and using it fine with 4x5 for a while, in all cases i am going to buy a wide lens for 4x5 [72 or 75], 150 was fine for some architectures i did but another architecture work it was long and i want a wider lens, i don't care about it because it is limited coverage, that is from the first time of use.

[rdenney]

Now i am in confusion situation with that Nikkor, because it is in that range where it can be fine on 4x5 but it will be a bit wide on 5x7 but ultra wide on 8x10, and i am planning to get 8x10 after 1 or 2 years, so i feel i better get a lens that cover up to that format now and using it fine with 4x5 for a while, in all cases i am going to buy a wide lens for 4x5 [72 or 75], 150 was fine for some architectures i did but another architecture work it was long and i want a wider lens, i don't care about it because it is limited coverage, that is from the first time of use.

Now you know why the 165mm Super Angulon sells for a high price--they are not that common and that much coverage isn't easy to come by in a short lens for 8x10.

But most people who do architecture work on film use 4x5 cameras, and the short lenses with mountains of coverage were designed for that format. The longest Super Angulon XL, for example, is 90mm.

If you buy a short lens in the 72-75 range, that will be a 4x5-only lens. 120 is about as short as it gets for 8x10. Wasn't the Nikkor one of your choices, or am I confusing this thread with another thread?

But I think you are overthinking this. Define your needs by what you know you will do, perhaps also accommodating what you are pretty sure you will do. You can drive yourself nuts pondering what you might do, when you don't yet have much experience to base it on.

Rick "at some point you'll have to decide, or give up on the enterprise" Denney

[Noah A]

You have two main options for semi-wides on 4x5. One is a plasmat in the 120-135mm range. These lenses (the Apo-Symmars, Apo Sironar S, etc.) are somewhat limited in their coverage, though if you do go in this direction the Apo Sironar S 135mm has good coverage for its focal length and it's incredibly sharp. I have one and I love it. It's among the sharpest lenses I own and has enough coverage for me most of the time. (And if I run out of image circle, I can usually change my composition to use either my 90/4.5 Grandagon N or my 210 Apo Sironar S, both of which have tons of extra coverage.)

You could also go with a wideangle design lens in the 110-120mm range. The Nikkor 120 SW is said to be wonderful, and I personally use the 115 Grandagon-N, which I've found to be a very sharp lens with great color and a huge image circle. These wides have plenty of coverage but they're large and heavy. Still, if you're shooting urban landscape and architecture, the coverage can come in handy since it allows lots of front rise.

I use my 135mm mostly with my Technika (folding field camera) and my 115mm mostly with my Technikardan (folding monorail-type camera). I use the former outfit when I need to travel light, the latter when I need lots of camera movements.

None of these semi-wides are great for 8x10. Some like the Nikkor 120SW may cover, but barely and with not much room for movements. They'll also be ultra-wide on 8x10 so really more like special-use lenses.

If you plan to go 5x7 that's different, since most of the wideangle designs like the 120SW and 115 Grandagon will cover 5x7 well. I have no doubt that 5x7 is a great format, but film may be harder to come by, which is something to consider.

If you shoot different formats you'll probably want different wides. For 8x10 these are HUGE and HEAVY lenses and you won't want to carry them with 4x5.

Where you can use lenses across different formats is with longer lenses. The 240 Apo Sironar S, for example, is a wonderful slightly wide lens on 8x10 and a great slightly long lens on 4x5. And many lenses of 300mm and longer will cover both formats.

But for the wides, you'll do better to choose the best lens for the particular format you're using right now.

I'd also recommend buying used lenses at this point. That way, you can resell them for the price you paid if you decide that the lens isn't right for you. And you can probably buy two lenses (say, a semiwide and a good 210mm) for the price of one new lens.

[Professional]

I will see what i will end up with sooner or later, wish if i have friends around who have lenses to test :(

Thank you very much!

[Noah A]

I will see what i will end up with sooner or later, wish if i have friends around who have lenses to test :(

Thank you very much!

I'd love to visit and photograph your part of the world so l'll give you a free private lesson and demo of a variety of high-end lenses for the cost of airfare and a few nights lodging. :D :D :D

If you buy used, though, you can demo the lenses yourself and see what you like best without too much risk. I strongly recommend one dedicated 4x5 semiwide lens, don't worry about if it will fit a future format you may never even use. You can buy a nice used 115 Grandagon (or Caltar equivalent) for $500-1000 depending on age, condition, etc. A nice 135 Apo Sironar S would be maybe $500-800 used.

Really only you can decide if you want lots of image circle and a big lens, or a very compact lens and less image circle. You're right though, trying them out would be the best option if you can figure out a way to do it. Otherwise you could buy both for under your $1500 budget then sell the one you don't like.

Since there's a good chance this will become your main lens, it's a good idea to decide on it first. For example, if you go with a 135, then later you may want to add a 90 and 210/240. If you decide on the 115, you may add a 75 and a 210.

[Professional]

I'd love to visit and photograph your part of the world so l'll give you a free private lesson and demo of a variety of high-end lenses for the cost of airfare and a few nights lodging. :D :D :D

If you buy used, though, you can demo the lenses yourself and see what you like best without too much risk. I strongly recommend one dedicated 4x5 semiwide lens, don't worry about if it will fit a future format you may never even use. You can buy a nice used 115 Grandagon (or Caltar equivalent) for $500-1000 depending on age, condition, etc. A nice 135 Apo Sironar S would be maybe $500-800 used.

Really only you can decide if you want lots of image circle and a big lens, or a very compact lens and less image circle. You're right though, trying them out would be the best option if you can figure out a way to do it. Otherwise you could buy both for under your $1500 budget then sell the one you don't like.

Since there's a good chance this will become your main lens, it's a good idea to decide on it first. For example, if you go with a 135, then later you may want to add a 90 and 210/240. If you decide on the 115, you may add a 75 and a 210.

Ok, i will be honest, i am planning to add 3 lenses no doubt that i am 1000% sure about, but those are so expensive so i let them to the end, that is why i ask for another lens not on those 3 lenses range with less expense so if it will serve me well fine i will keep, if not then as you said i can sell, for me if i buy a lens with budget $1000 and i didn't like it it will be not a big problem, but i don't want to buy a lens of $2000 or more and then sell it if i don't like it, 90mm and 72mm i am sure about, the last will be either 210 or 240, those 3 i wrote in my list to be my main most used lenses on LF, if i buy 135 or 120 or even 110 those will be least used even they are great, for now i can afford 120 or 135 of those with budget about $1500 or less, but i was thinking why not just buy one of those main lenses and later i can see if i really need another lens such as 110/135,..etc, i can stretch my budget up to about $2000 which is a price of 72mm, 75 Grandagon is cheaper but 72 is wider and more image circle, wish if that 90mm XL cheaper a bit than that then i will get it first, but it seems i will go out to shoot landscapes soon by October and later on so 72 will serve me better then.