5X7 Wide Angle Lenses

[roresteen]

Hi everyone. I was hoping I could get a few opinions on some wide angle lenses for 5X7. I have a 210 Fujinon I will be using for portraits and general shooting, but at some point, I want to shoot landscapes at the 35mm equivalent of 20-28MM. I'm not sure what that comes out to in 5X7...I appreciate any and all advice - thank you.

[Jan Pedersen]

Older lens and a little hard to find, WA Dagor 4 3/8" or 111mm not a lot of movements but small and compact. Most often found in an Ilex #3
Nikon SW120 f8 covers 8x10 with no movement but tack sharp. Mounted in a modern Copal 0
Nikon's 90mm f4.5 will also cover 5x7 with very little to no movements. Mounted in a Copal 0

[Linhof]

i always calculate from the diagonal of the film:

standard lens is almost equal to diagonal of the film. so 150mm lens to 4x5 film, 210mm lens to 5x7 film, and 300mm lens to 8x10 film.

wide angle lens is almost 0.6 or 0.5 or even wider (depends on image circle) of diagonal of the film. so 90mm or 75mm to 4x5 film, 165mm or 210mm lens to 8x10 film, 90mm or 120mm to 5x7 lens.

choices of wide angle lens include Schneider Super Angulon and Rodenstock.

[Ari]

Schneider SA 121 covers 5x7 easily, lots of movements.
Or a Grandagon 115 covers almost as much.

Both are excellent wide angles for 5x7.

Or look here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF5x7in.html

[Greg Y]

I use a 4 3/8" WA Dagor in a Rapax & a 150 g claron....both small & I like the results in 5x7

[austin granger]

I'm not sure if it'd be quite wide enough for you, but I like my 6 inch Goerz Dagor. It's sharp, small, fairly bright (6.8) and if you ever want to use a 4x5 back, it makes a nice standard lens in that format.

To get an rough idea as to the perspective, here is a picture shot with it on 5x7 film:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6765688203_5940bfa83f_z.jpg

And on 4x5 film:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7169/6728457617_a58d279255_z.jpg

Austin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/austingranger/

[John Kasaian]

My current 5x7 WA is a Wollensak 159mm WA borrowed from the 8x10 kit. Its plenty wide & has lots of coverage--plus I already owned the thing! :D

[john biskupski]

Schneider Super-Symmar 110XL is probably the reference wide angle lens for 5x7, but pricey. The others already mentioned are very good also, the Nikkor 120/8 SW, Super-Angulon 121/8, but you also have two unusual lenses which fit the bill but not so wide, the Germinar W 150/9 and the Apo-Sironar-W 150/5.6, all OK for 5x7. The old 165/6.8 Angulon also covers. The above mentioned Wollensak 159 is the smallest of these, except for the tiny Germinar.

[Lachlan 717]

Schneider 72mm SAXL.

[Gem Singer]

Since you have a Fujinon 210, look for a previously owned Fujinon f8 105 SW.

The Fujinon f4.5 90 SWD will also cover 5x7, with movements. However, it might be too wide for your purposes.

I use my Nikon/Nikkor f8 120SW for 5x7 and my f8 90SW for 4x5.

[Kevin Crisp]

Relatively cheap with lots of movement the 150 g claron. Wider than that 110 Schneider which is most certainly not cheap. I use the 159 Wolly for 4x10 but given how reasonably priced the g claron is go with that on 5x7. Modern shutter and coated. I have one with a handmade aperture scale I'll sell cheap if you're interested.

The Wolly 4 3/16th lens is a little hard to find but covers 5x7 with very little room for movement. Very very inexpensive.

Wider still the 90mm Nikkor covers 5x7.

[Ole Tjugen]

I have used (Schneider) 165mm Angulon, 121mm Super Angulon, 90m super Angulon, 72mm Super Angulon XL.

I've even tried a 90mm Angulon (not Super-), but that's stretching it a bit much. If you really need a cheap small 90mm to use for contact prints, get a pre-WWII Angulon.

It all depends on how wide you want, and how much movements you need.

[ImSoNegative]

i use my 121 SA for most of my wide angle work on 5x7, but i also have a 90 SA but its like super ultra f**kn wide.

[David Karp]

The old single coated 135mm Fujinon W will cover. Nice and small.

I sold mine here on the forum before I got a 5x7 back for my camera. I kind of wish I still had it!

[jnantz]

if you want something inexpensive ( sort of ) with little room for movement
you might set your sights on a 3 1/2 " wollensak exwa
they usually come in a tiny alphax shutter, and stopped down
they cover a 5x7 sheet ..

goodluck!
john

[roresteen]

Thank you all for your help - I certainly have more than enough to go on. I am guessing I will go with something in the 120MM range and just spend time learning the format and the feel...

I am grateful to have such a great forum to fall back on...

Regards - Rob

[Joshua Dunn]

I second the 72mm Schneider Super Angulon XL, I also use the 90mm Schneider Super Angulon XL and 120mm Super Angulon on 5x7 and 6x17. But unless you don't mind a little falloff you may want to consider using a center filter.

[jonreid]

+1 for the SA 121. Great lens on 5x7...

[Kevin Crisp]

I always cringe a bit when people seek out the "xmm equivalent of 35mm...." You may well find that when shooting LF landscapes the lens that ultimately becomes your favorite is not the equivalent focal length of what you were using. Sometimes it works that way.

But still not a bad place to start.

[roresteen]

I always cringe a bit when people seek out the "xmm equivalent of 35mm...." You may well find that when shooting LF landscapes the lens that ultimately becomes your favorite is not the equivalent focal length of what you were using. Sometimes it works that way.

But still not a bad place to start.

Well, I think its a reasonable question/statement - its just a point of reference to give me an idea what field of view it will produce.

After practice in the field, I will instinctively know what lens I will use when shooting 4x5 or 5x7. :)

[Kevin Crisp]

Well, after you put the wrong one on "a few" times and then the right one you will instinctively know which is the right one. [Or would that be learning and not instinct?] It takes some practice. Eventually you'll just see what you want in your mind's eye and know the lens most likely to get you there.

[Lachlan 717]

Well, I think its a reasonable question/statement - its just a point of reference to give me an idea what field of view it will produce.


Unfortunately, this is a fundamentally flawed question, made worse by asking about wide angle.

The flaw is the differences in height/width ratio between formats. 35mm is different to 4x5. 4x5 is different to 5x7. So, from the get go, you are not comparing the same things. If your width ratio is greater, your view will appear wider.

Added to this is the increased effect per mm as you reduce FL in WA lenses. The difference between a 90mm and a 75mm is visually significant. I find that even 75-72mm makes an obvious difference.

I'm not suggesting not to ask the question; however, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the responses. The responses are possibly a good starting point, but (in my opinion) not much more.

[Jeff Keller]

One of the main reasons I shoot LF is so that the prints can be bigger. With a bigger print I find I often prefer a wider angle of view (the little things aren't so little).

You can use simple proportions to get the equivalent 35mm focal length.

7" = 178mm, 35mm film -> 36mm on long side
24mm focal len x (178/36) = 119mm (for 5x7)

For "5x7" to have the same aspect ration as 35mm, it would be 5"x7.5". Seldom is 35mm film printed 8x12 or 10x15 so 5x7 has essentially the same aspect as 35mm film.

YMMV,
Jeff Keller



The flaw is the differences in height/width ratio between formats. 35mm is different to 4x5. 4x5 is different to 5x7. So, from the get go, you are not comparing the same things. If your width ratio is greater, your view will appear wider.

[roresteen]

All great points, for sure.

"its just a point of reference"...a place to start, not end! I have always assumed there could not be a true comparison for the reasons stated above..:)

I am thinking a 120 ish along with my 210 should be more than enough for both 4x5 and 5x7 formats...now for a 5x7 to 4x5 reducing back for a B&J Grover...;)

Thank you all again for your input - nothing like getting hundreds of years "experience" in a matter of days!

[alexn]

72mm F/5.6 Super Angulon XL would be the best wide angle for a 5x7 I would think...

[Kevin Crisp]

Best in what sense?

[evan clarke]

The 110 SS XL has about 30% more image circle than the 72 XL..

[Doug Webb]

These are possibilities that are affordable, that is maybe a thousand dollars or more less than a 110 XL
1. Wollensak will cover 5x7 with a little movement if focused at hyperforcal distance and stopped down to at least f32
2. Angulon same
3. Fujinon lot of coverage more expensive by maybe couple of hunderd
67794

67795

67796

67797

[Kevin Crisp]

No 90mm angulon I've had will cover 5X7 straight on and be sharp in the corners. It will illuminate 5X7 but not be acceptably sharp much beyond 4x5 even if stopped way down.

[Graybeard]

The old single coated 135mm Fujinon W will cover. Nice and small.

I sold mine here on the forum before I got a 5x7 back for my camera. I kind of wish I still had it!

Ditto on the Fujinon W 135: it will cover 5x7 but recognize that movements are limited. I use this lens regularly, mounted in a recessed lensboard, on a Tachihara 5x7.

[domaz]

Ditto on the Fujinon W 135: it will cover 5x7 but recognize that movements are limited. I use this lens regularly, mounted in a recessed lensboard, on a Tachihara 5x7.

I use a Fujinon W 135mm on my 5x7 Speed Graphic, and even with a press camera like this where no movements are possible (only front rise), you have to be very careful or you lose the corners.

[Doug Webb]

Just to be sure my post is clear, click on the angulon and you will see it is a 120 6.8 angulon, the wollensak is a 108 6.8 wide angle, and the fujinon is a 105 f8

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have a 90mm Sinar F8 and 121mm Sinar F8 Super Angulons, that work well on my 5x7 Norma. The Schneider Center Filters for these lenses are also helpful.

[Peter Gomena]

I use my 120 Super Angulon on my whole plate camera, and it will cover to the corners with no problem. It's really, really wide on that format, I'd guess it's about the equivalent a 24mm lens on 35mm. Or maybe a bit wider. My only problem is that my old camera's bellows is too stiff to allow any movements. I'd think it's plenty wide for most uses on 5x7.

Peter Gomena

[Renato Tonelli]

I have the 110XL and it is REALLY wide on a 5x7 (equiv. to a 24mm on 35film, like Peter mentioned). I keep going back to the 180 (Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S) as my "normal" wide.

A few weeks ago I was attempting to use it on the 5x7 but with a 4x5 reducing back and could barely focus at infinity without some effort (forget about tilts/swings). The center filter is a minor inconvenience until you want to use other filters on top -86mm-

I think I am going to mount it on a recessed board to see if I can gain some movement.

[roresteen]

Thanks Peter and Renato! Maybe 120 it is along with a 150-180ish...just have to decide on brand and bang for the buck...

[turtle]

72xl - Super wide, super expensive, super inconvenient (filter issue)
90 Nikkor SW - biggest coverage in 90mm for your $ (235mm circle). Just covers with a touch of wiggle room. Only one with bigger coverage is 90XL
110XL, 120 S Angulon, 120 Nikkor SW etc - Loads of coverage.
150 Sironar W, G claron, Germinar, Super Symmar HM - Sironar W is surely the ideal as half weight of Schneider SS HM and still f5.6 lens.
180 plasmat (most). I have a Fujinon NW, with 280mm circle - Mild wide. Be careful with older symmars and sironars as they may only have a circa 250mm circle and with 280mm circle lenses so easily found in this FL, why short change yourself on flexibility.