Printable View
I've been doing some medium format with 6x7 and 50mm lens. It's nice and wide but could be wider. There is a 45mm available on the Pentax 67 but even that is barely shorter than the 47mm XL which covers 4x5 film! This leads me to conclude that the 47mm lenses on 4x5 are wider than anything else available. A 15mm lens on 35mm would be similar I believe but there are no such lenses made. I would really like a 35mm or less lens that covers 6x7 or 6x9 medium format but I have never come across one.
Their is a Russian 30mm for Pentacon 6 mount http://www.pentaconsix.com/30mmpt2.htm
I believe there is a 35mm lens for the Pentax 67, and when I was working at a camera shop years ago, I remember playing with some 14mm lenses for 35mm. I'm sure other people will be chiming in momentarily with other super-wides.
The 67 35mm is a fisheye whereas the 47mm Schneider lenses are relatively distortion free if I am correctly informed.
Are we talking all formats here? Voigtlander makes a rectilinear 12mm for 35mm format in Leica RF mount. That's the widest lens I'm familiar with. They also make a 15mm, which I have and is a lot of fun. Vivitar makes a 14mm which appears to be optically identical to the Bower/Rokinon/many-other-names 15mm, for 35mm SLRs, and I believe Nikon made or makes a 13mm.
I love wide wides, and you are not a friend of my bank account to have pointed out that the 47mm XL covers 4x5--something I wasn't aware of, previously.
Yes the 47 mm XL by Schneider covers 4 X 5 without vignetting and is what one would call rectilinear (no fisheye effect) but it is far from distortion free. In order to achieve sharp focus at the image corners the lens design distorts, for example, a circle into an oblong in a serious way.
For the 35 mm format certainly the recently designed 14 to 24 mm zoom Nikkor is an ultra wide tour de force with almost unmatched performance for that format.
For 6X7 format I'm aware of two rectilinear ultra wide lenses. The Mamiya 43 mm for the Mamiya II and the older Pentax 45 mm for the Pentax 67.
Also the Hasselblad CFE4/40 for 6X6 format has a 90 degree field of view but of course vignettes on 6X7.
Look for the angle of view for a particular ultra wide on 6X7 and go for that. It may be that the 120 degree field of view with the Schneider 47 XL will still yield the widest angle of view on 6X7 format but the image quality from the 43mm Mamiya will surpass the Schneider by a measurable bit.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
My widest is a 10.5 Nikkor with the built-in shade removed...
--Darin
You could buy a Schneider 38mm XL to use in a 6x9 tecnical camera. Or a 4x5 camera with a 6x7 or 6x9 film back.
It even covers 6x12.
For up to the nominal 6x12 cm there is also the 35mm Rodenstock Grandagon.
Bronica had a fisheye lens for the 6X6 system (SQ) though i am sure it covers at least up to 6X8.
I use a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-Digital 35/4.5 on a Fotoman 69. Extremely sharp, and only just covers the 6x9 format without movements. Would not cover 6x12. For a similar ultrawide perspective on the 5x7 format there is the Schneider Super-Angulon XL 72/5.6 which again covers the format, but with little room to spare.
Thanks; I was not aware of the 35mm Grandagon.
There are some options in formats 35 mm, medium format and large format.
It's the old series of Zeiss Biogon 38mm, 45 mm, 53 mm, 75 mm and all f: 4.5.
Zeiss manufactured the model 38 for Hasselblad SWC series (and ALPA series) and then fabricate large format to the other 3.
I've used 4 and are truly wonderful, just that 75 is too heavy (like a dead cow) and is too big. But they all give superb quality even after many years. A I think they're better than most current wide angle lenses for large format ... but everything is a matter of weight, so use modern Super Angulon.
For 35mm there are also several Zeiss Biogon (for Contax G and Leica M mount). They are very good, but they've only tasted the Contax G. The others do not know.
http://www.ebay.es/itm/Hasselblad-90...76b352f&_uhb=1
http://www.ebay.es/itm/Very-rare-Lin...ff80479&_uhb=1
http://www.ebay.es/itm/Carl-Zeiss-f-...1734369&_uhb=1
http://www.ebay.es/itm/Linhof-Select...246971f&_uhb=1
The deformation or curvature lines on a Biogon is almost negligible , I once read that if photographs , a lamppost straight on the edge of an image of the Hasselblad SWC ( Biogon 38 ) and then the large image, the 1x1 meter ... distortion is less than 1 mm at the side . I later found that this is true.
That makes me wonder if my Horseman 6x12 is really 12cm wide. I'll have to get it from storage to measure it.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Hart
I would not be surprised if it is not. For example, the two kinds of 6x9 Veriwides have different widths.
jac, for most makers of cameras and roll holders nominal 6x12 is 56 x 112. Linhof is the big exception, they make a roll holder with gate 56 x 120.
Francisco, the 38/4.5 Biogon -- I use one on a 2x3 Graphic -- covers only 84 mm. Total darkness outside of 86 mm. Lens for 6x6 and no larger format, but of course an 84 mm circle gives interesting cropping opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Now, I know that ... and so my Biogon 38 is my SWC. The other Biogon 45, 53 and 75 are in my large format cameras.
I remember now. It is a 1:2 ratio. Thank you for the nudge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
The widest modern rectilinear lens is 131 degrees:
http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com...ngle-lens.html
There is also the Goerz Hypergon.
A good chart here.
Fall-off to the edges is profound.
Not quite as wide as others mentioned, but giving excellent performance, is a Mamiya Press with a 6x9 back and the 50mm Biogon design Mamiya lens. The Mamiya backs provide good film flatness.
I can only agree with you. It is an excellent lens, very easy to take pictures with. Easy to use at a hyperfocal distance too. With its detachable viewfinder you can check the pictures even before you take the camera out of a box. Not a LF, of course.
Fine lens, by all accounts, not a Biogon type. I don't know why people repeat the myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil poulsen
Perhaps it is time to once again define the Biogon(s) including cross-sections. Dan, you are the expert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I have to admit that I'm probably repeating what people repeat. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Jac, here's a link to an f/4.5 Biogon cross section: http://books.google.com/books?id=OJr...patent&f=false
Here's a link to a link to a 50/6.3 Mamiya cross-section: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/mamiya/...s_super_23.htm Once there, click for the third section of the manual. The cross-section is on p. 19.
I've had this discussion before, have been told that a lens with two large meniscii at one end and one large meniscus at the other is the same as a lens with one large meniscus at each end. I didn't buy that, still don't.
The point of view of HAL9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey was shot with a Fairchild-Curtiss 6mm f2.8. It covers the full still 35mm frame to show 160 degrees. That's like a 22mm lens on 4x5.
Leaving the rectilinear world and 35mm world and enter the 16mm - 8mm and CCD imager world there are fish eye lenses like this Fujinon:
1.4mm, f1.4-f1.6 that will produce a 185 degree field of view. Developed for security camera and have found their way into sky camera and other applications that require a large angle of view and large aperture.
https://www.fujifilmusa.com/products...fe185c046ha-1/
Another classic is the Knioptik 9.8mm f1.8 Tegea (35mm film format) made famous by Stanley Kubrick in the film Clock Work Orange. This same lens has been used by NASA for space imaging work.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Wow! Great information.Quote:
Originally Posted by C. D. Keth
Was 2001 shot on 65mm film? (diagonal nominal 55mm) or were the HAL views on cine 35?
I had to use for years ultra wide angle lens, but do not like me, was all work and not enjoyed them. I do not like even today. prefer a panoramic photo of 2X factor (or 3X) before a super wide angle.
I keep many of my era of wide angle architectural photography, but I do not like. I just felt comfortable with Biogon and Super Angulon ... but not with other lenses.
even in 35mm format I prefer a Hass Xpan before an ultra wide angle.
I'm getting old.
As are a couple of other lenses mentioned along the way here, the Fairchild Curtis is a fisheye. If we expand the discussion there, there are lots of possiblities.
Well, if you want absurdities there's the mythical 23/5 Tropel that covers 120 degrees wide open. If that, illumination wide open goes to 0 at 60 degrees off-axis. There's also the semi-mythical 44/5.6 Super Aviogon that covers 120 degrees wide open and that's a bit more than two stops down at 60 degrees off-axis.
I've never seen the Tropel, did once get to dandle a 44 Super Aviogon lens on my knee.
Just remmebered - it is nor bronica - but Mamiya who made a 37mm super wide for the RZ67 system - this lens easily covers 9X9cm.
Have you checked coverage yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by koh303
I think the idea that lenses for Mamiya RBs have to cover 9x9 is another Internet myth. To cover 6x7, a lens has to cover a 90 mm circle. A nominal 6x7 rectangle (actual size 2.25" x 2.75", around 56 mm x 70 mm) will fit in a 90 mm circle in any orientation. A 90 mm square isn't needed.
Maybe this ? http://www.largeformatphotography.in...s/LF6x7cm.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Well, i shot lots of 6X9 with rb and rz lenses, so i can safely say it covers at least 9X9. Perhaps more, but that would take testing in some self made camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Arithmetic error. Nominal 6x9's diagonal is 100 mm. 9x9's diagonal is 127 mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by koh303
Or perhaps a conceptual error. The rectangle is inscribed in a circle, the circle isn't inscribed in a square.
A logical error.Quote:
Originally Posted by koh303
I think the logic problem is yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffner
The RB and RZ shoot both vertical and horizontal, on the same axis - making the square area the film covers 9X9cm.
While a single orientatiol rectangle of 6X9 might be covered with a smaller image circle, but in order to cover both orientations the image circle needs to cover a square area - and it does.
You are very much mistaken.
A circle of a 100 mm diameter can cover both horizontally and vertically inserted 6x9 film area. It does not follow logically that the same circle can cover a 9x9 mm film area. Draw such a circle and see for yourself.
Logic error. Draw a picture. A rectangle with a 100 mm diagonal will fit in a 100 mm circle in any orientation. Horizontal, vertical, in between, it will fit.
Yes - that is correct, i stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffner
A real pleasure to see your honesty! Cheers!
They don't sound all that absurd, Dan. Lenses that do 122 wide open aren't uncommon in smaller formats. Some even as bright as f/4.5 and none of that 0 relative illumination stuff either. I gave a link in an earlier post in this thread to a lens that does 131 degrees but I've only used it at f/16. It definitely does 125.5 degrees wide open at f/4 without a severe fall-off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Couldn't resist throwing these cameras into the mix since they are on the verge of LF. If you want wide these negatives are wide. You have to be careful to keep your fingers out of the picture!
The Noblex 150UX swing lens camera provides a 146° panoramic view using a 50mm f4.5 lens to create a 50x120mm (or 6x12cm) image.
The Noblex 175UX swing lens camera provides a 138° panoramic view using a 75mm f6.5 lens to create a 50x175mm (or 6x17cm) image.
I shoot d..d........d......digital (there, I said it, the "swear word") 135 format as well, and I have a very nice all manual Samyang 14mm f/2.8 that I particularly like for night sky landscape. Cheap - $300.00 new. Samyang has a circular fisheye for 135 for the same price (it is is sold primarily for APS-C format)
On the other end of the price range is the Hasselblad fisheye 30mm lens, 180 degrees coverage, ~ $5,000.00 used at BH, and some digital equivalent for digital Hasselblads.
And then there is the "priceless" category of 135 format ultra-wide-angle lens, the famous and ridiculous Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 fisheye that has 220 degrees coverage, ie, it sees behind itself.
And the Hypergon: http://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_...gon/00_pag.htm
http://www.phsc.ca/hypergon.html
The smallest Hypergon covered 5 x 7
I think it's fair to say that the OP is asking about wide lenses, not wide image acquisition techniques. If you're getting in to the realm of stitching then 360x180 degrees has been done ages ago and some people do it on a regular basis. There are lots of tools available for that sort of thing too.Quote:
Originally Posted by angusparker
I wasn't interested in fisheye lenses either, but that didn't stop anyone from discussing them over and over.
Maybe because you did not stop them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
Schneider's Super-Digitar XL 28/5.6 ("apo") is rated as having a 90mm image circle, capable of fitting a full-width 6x7 (56x70) frame. It will have more coverage but you'll need to get your hands on one to see how much.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
In addition to the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-Digital 35/4.5 mentioned in post #12, the Schneider's 35/5.6 Apo-Digitar XL should also be able to cover 6x7 because it is rated as having a 90mm image circle.