Printable View
hi jacQuote:
Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net
do you mean fall off with or without the star-fan ?
http://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm
the manufacturer suggests with the fan @ f31 5x7 "plate covered sharp"
( whatever that means ) ...
someone here had one and posted images from it years ago
wish i could find the post+links ...
This page has a sample, and if you scroll down he has a lot of good info on the Hypergon 90mm lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnanian
http://www.glennview.com/note1.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net
thanks, i forgot about glennview's page and sample ..
his assessment of his 90mm + dramatic fall off was on his 8x10, not 4x5
so it seems that smaller formats wouldn't have had much trouble ?
thanks again for the link, i always forget to go to his site ..
So, in summary, ignoring fisheye lenses:
The widest lens for 6x7 is probably the 28mm Super Digitar XL, which I did not know about. It's good to know I can achieve an angle-of-view on 6x7 almost (but not quite as) wide as the 47mm on 4x5, if I could only afford such a lens as the 28mm Digitar.
The widest rectilinear lens PERIOD is probably NOT the 47mm XL on 4x5, but the 90mm Hypergon, which I did not know about, on 8x10.
Looking at the Schneider data sheets. The 28mm Super Digitar XL has an 115 degree angle of view, same as the 72mm Super Angulon XL which covers 5x7. Big difference here is there will be more actual resolution/information put on film or imager with the 72mm SAXL due to the image circle produced.
If the 72mm SAXL is diffraction limited at f22 which results in about 70 LPM, the 28mm SDXL would need to resolve more than twice that or 140+ LPM to equal the 72mm SAXL.
Some years ago, on an impulsive whim, went shopping for the wides possible rectilinear optic for film format 5x7 - 8x10. Turns out, the newly introduced 72mm SAXL specified a 115 degree angle of view and covered 5x7. It was the only thing like it at the time. Turns out, since owning this lens (still sitting in the pile today), it has been used only a few times due to the extreme fore-ground to back-ground perspective distortion. If you're after this "look" or rendition, this lens would do it. The light fall off is enough that a center filter is a must to even out the illumination from corner to corner.. if this matters to you.
If one wants to "push lens coverage, put the 72mm SAXL on a 8x10 film camera and crop out the image as desired. Larger film formats produce HUGE amounts of information with high performance optics.
There is so much discussion about lens coverage and apparent "sharpness", yet light fall off is not often considered much if at all.
The 90mm Gorez Hypergon is a historic optic designed and built a long time ago. It covers 8x10 and has a novel way of correcting light fall off. There is a squeeze bulb to squirt air at the fan in from of the lens, this action behaves like a graduated center filter to compensate for the light fall off during exposure. They are kinda rare and a speciality lens. When these do appear on the market, they often do not have the fan in front of the lens or the air squeeze bulb. They are often sought after by collectors for it's novelty.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
It seems that even the 75 mm Hypergon covers 8x10 - so that would be the widest then.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ers-8x10/page2
When comparing two formats, I prefer to compare horizontal angle-of-view, since I don't use dutch angles. My Omega D2 negative carriers for 6x7 and 4x5 are respectively 67mm and 118mm wide, which gives 134.5 degree AOV for the 28mm vs 136.5 degree AOV for the 47mm. Close, but the 47mm is still wider (when comparing using this method). And, by your numbers, the 47mm covers a wider angle, making it wider if you compare them without considering film format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
As Dan has pointed out, all the Hypergons should have the same 'covered angle-of-view' since they are all the same design. Film format aside, they could all be considered equally wide. If the 75mm really covers 8x10, then it may be the widest in convenient practice.Quote:
It seems that even the 75 mm Hypergon covers 8x10 - so that would be the widest then.
The Hypergons with the fan are far from convenient to use.Quote:
As Dan has pointed out, all the Hypergons should have the same 'covered angle-of-view' since they are all the same design. Film format aside, they could all be considered equally wide. If the 75mm really covers 8x10, then it may be the widest in convenient practice.
No kidding? Who would say that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net
The fan may not be convenient but is actually really neat. This thread is the first I've heard of it. I've tried manually dodging the center of my pinhole exposures, but with very mixed results due to hand-eye coordination. Now I'm thinking of how to adapt the fan concept to my superwide pinhole cameras.
You might find greater success using a printing mask.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
No kidding? You are into nanotechnology, no doubt about it!Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Oops, used the wrong angles. More like 103 degrees, not 136.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
No kidding? Are you sure it won't change tomorrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
I would put forth that the widest rectilinear view one can achieve in a single frame would be a 35mm camera with Nikon's 13mm f/5.6 prime. There are next to none in general circulation, and they were incredibly rare even when they were released. Last one I saw for sale was sold for a whopping $25,000 AUD...
I think format has a lot to do with how wide an image FEELS. I feel 65mm on 4x5 is ridiculously wide, where as on 35mm I regularly shoot with lenses with a wider angle of view and yearn for wider... on 6x17 I wouldn't go wider than a 90mm as I feel the image starts to get a little weird...
I have not shot a 47 or 58 on 4x5 but given how a 65mm feels to me - I dare say I wouldn't get a lot of use from it....
This thread is confusing to me, but I am easily confused. Moving on regardless. I have, and will be auctioning, two cameras that use the same 47mm Super-Angulon F/5.6.
Both use the same 47mm Super Angulon F/5.6 lens.
One is a late Brooks Veriwide camera. The other is my own handmade 4x5 camera that uses the same lens. The photographer can use either.
It's not a bad idea to read a thread before chiming in... for example many rectilinear lenses wider than a 13mm on the 35mm have been mentioned here.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexn
And no... the Nikon 13 is far from it. The money people pay for lenses has very little to do with what the lenses are capable of doing... best examples are Leicas and antique Nikons.
Methinks the term "rectilinear" is itself being stretched quite a bit here.
Would be interesting to hear your reasons, Drew. Always nice to learn something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
It was 65mm. The camera aperture was 52.48 by 23.01 mm. Projected aperture is slightly smaller, maybe a millimeter smaller in each dimension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net