View Full Version : 110mm focal length

25-Jan-2012, 23:10
Still pretty new/inexperienced with the whole large format thing. However, I've decided I really like the 110mm focal length - more than 90mm or 120/127/135mm as a general wide angle for 4x5. Are there any lenses out there besides the 110 super symmar? I can't find any others. I simply cannot afford a super symmar :( and it seems like it would be overkill. Looking for something more around the $250-400 used mark. Thanks.

Oren Grad
25-Jan-2012, 23:29
If you don't mind something a bit larger, you might look for a 115 Grandagon or a 105 Fujinon SW.

John NYC
26-Jan-2012, 00:31
I would recommend the Nikkor 120 f/8. Up until recently, you could still get them new at B&H for $700, and they sell for only a few dollars less used when you see them. Gobs of room for movements. It is just slightly longer than you want, but it is evidently a fantastic lens. I use a 450mm now on 8x10 (about the same as the 120 on 4x5) and it is a great focal length. Kirk, one of our moderators, swears by this lens.

Dan Fromm
26-Jan-2012, 07:25
They're like the proverbial hens' teeth, but Boyer cataloged a 110/6.8 Beryl (Dagor clone) that, if you believe their claims, covers 200 mm. They may even have made and sold a few. The cells should (but you can't count on it) fit a #0.

cameraceccentric.com has a 1951 Goerz cataloghttp://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html that lists a 105/6.8 Dagor. A hen's tooth; the catalog says it covers 4x5 at f/45. Have you considered a pinhole?

Noah A
26-Jan-2012, 07:36
You may find an older 115/6.8 Grandagon or Caltar close to your price range.

I use a newer 115 Grandagon-N and it's a wonderful lens and a great focal length. I switched from the 110XL since I didn't like the XL's falloff characteristics.

I doubt you can see much difference in the extra 5mm of focal length.

It's a large lens, but for me it's my favorite and most-used lens, so it's worth the space in my bag. It has more coverage than you could ever want for 4x5 and it's very sharp. I agree with you that 110/115 is a nice focal length, it can fit a lot in the frame but doesn't look like a wide lens.

26-Jan-2012, 07:42
Thanks guys! I'll check those out.

Kerry L. Thalmann
26-Jan-2012, 09:34
You may also want to look for a 4 3/8" f8 WA Dagor. You may be able to find one in your price range depending on age, condition and what shutter it's in. Wollensak also made an Extreme WA in this focal length range, I think it was 108mm. If you can find one, the price will probably below your price range.

The 115 f6.8 Grandagon-N was also sold by Calumet as the 115mm f6.8 Caltar-IIN. So, watch for one of those two. Even though they are identical, except for the name on the lens, the Caltars often sell for a little less than the Rodenstock labeled lenses.


Steve Goldstein
26-Jan-2012, 09:44
Kerry's right, the Wollensak was 108mm and was offered in Rapax shutters. The 1950 Wollensak catalog on the cameraeccentric web site shows f/6.8 and f/12.5 versions, both with 88 degrees angle of view (5x7).

Doremus Scudder
26-Jan-2012, 10:29
The 100mm Wide Field Ektar is small, covers 4x5 with room for some movements and may be close enough to the focal length you are looking for. I'm not parting with mine, however :)



26-Jan-2012, 11:57
Closest I have is a 120mm 6.8 Dagor (superb, not that expensive). None of my vintage 100-105mm lenses cover 4x5.

Peter York
26-Jan-2012, 12:44
+1 for the 100mm Ektar, though its image circle is no where near that of a 110 Xl or 115 Grandagon.

26-Jan-2012, 13:43
Closest I have is a 120mm 6.8 Dagor (superb, not that expensive). None of my vintage 100-105mm lenses cover 4x5.

I also have one of these. It's so small. Weight of this lens is nowhere close to that of the SSXL or Grandagon (but then neither is the coverage).

Here's a 120/6.8 Dagor next to a 121/8 Super Angulon (non-XL).