-
1 Attachment(s)
Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
I use 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and I'm considering the purchase of a lens in the range of 90mm to 165mm. This thread is mostly a vehicle to post the attached chart, which shows some of the characteristics of the lenses on my shortlist. Some people, now or later, may find the chart, and the explanation below, useful. Except on one issue, I'm not really looking for advice.
I would, however, appreciate comments on the following question. My shortlist only includes modern lenses by Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider (Fujinon didn't make the cut). The cost of some of the options, particularly of the 150mm to 165mm lenses for 8x10, may well be more than I'm prepared to pay. I know little about other brands. I wonder whether there are lenses by, for example, Kodak or Wollensak, that are solid alternatives but less expensive.
I'd love to get two lenses, one for 4x5 and one for 8x10, but that is not an option financially.
So, there are two basic considerations behind my shortlist and the resulting chart.
- I use an Arca-Swiss F-Line monorail for 4x5 and 8x10, with 171mm lens boards, standard bellows capacity up to 700mm and a leather bag bellows for 4x5. I have a 5x7 camera (a Linhof Kardan Bi), but it's doubtful that I'll use it going forward. Consequently, 5x7 format is not a major consideration for me. I am considering 4x10 for some purposes, which means either masking an 8x10 sheet of film or composing with the intention of cropping.
- For the foreseeable future, my focus is on urban landscape, environmental portraiture and occasional macrophotography. I need to be able to get closer to subjects than a "standard" lens will allow; for example, photographing a storefront without trying to do it from the middle of the street. Hence the interest in wide lenses.
I've also taken into account my current lenses that cover 4x5:
Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm f/4.5 (note to self: do I really need a 90mm lens?)
Nikon Nikkor AM ED 120mm f/5.6 (only for macrophotography)
Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N 150mm f/5.6
Docter Optic 210mm f/4.5
Wollensak Portrait Veritar 10"/254mm f/6
And my current lenses that cover both 4x5 and 8x10:
Nikon Nikkor AM ED 210mm f/5.6 (only for macrophotography)
Nikon Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6
Nikon Nikkor W 360mm f/6.5
Fujinon C 600mm f/11.5 (think photographing Manhattan from the Brooklyn/Queens side of the Hudson River)
The cost of an additional centre filter is a consideration. Currently, I have Rodenstock's E67/86, which fits lenses that take 67mm filters.
So is the cost of standard filters. I don't have screw-in filters larger than 95mm or rectangular filters larger than 100mm˛.
Notes to the Chart's Column Headings
Street Price New: I've taken the street prices from this forum's lens comparison charts. I see those prices as a very rough guide. For example, there's a thread in this forum that says that Badger Graphic, at least, was offering Schneider's Super-Symmar XL 110mm for significantly less than $1,670.
Centre Filter: The ✓ means that my Rodenstock E67/86 will work with the lens.
Coverage in 35mm Equivalent: Also from the forum's lens comparison charts. As I'm sure everyone knows, different methods yield different numbers. I use "~8x10" in two cases to signify that the lens barely covers 8x10, or doesn't quite, at least without stopping down beyond f22. I'm not keen to go as wide as 110mm to 120mm for 8x10 or 4x10 anyway (EDIT: See post #20).
Weight: I place this column last because it's a secondary consideration for me. Some may place it first :)
I should also note that the chart does not contain information on lens design. That's a potentially significant consideration when I get the list narrowed further.
Perhaps some people will find the foregoing discussion, and the chart, useful in making their own decisions about lens choice.
Attachment 220585
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Keep in mind the baked in light fall off of any LF wide angle lens as exampled by this 8x10 Agfachrom 100 image made using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22.
Could be ok, could be not ok.
Attachment 220513
Bernice
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".
You miss out on the 190mm wide field ektar, but I suppose it's as expensive as a modern lens.
The 159mm wollensak is good for 8x10", but only rivals a 165mm S-A in the corners at f32 to f45 ;)
But the weight difference makes a 165mm stay at home anyway...
Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oslolens
I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".
I just wanted to suggest the Super Angulon 121mm. I love that lens: A moderate wide angle on 4x5", a strong wide angle on 5x7", an extreme wide angle on 8x10" (which it barely covers). Very versatile and not very expensive.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
A good 210 for 8x10 is indispensable, but expensive.
A decent option is the older Fuji W-210.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
I think I remember you talking about using the Artist’s Viewfinder App, and I understand you’re not really looking for focal length advice. I’ve used it as a visual to weigh a lens’ position in my lineup before, so thought it worth noting here.
Attachment 220514
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ari
A good 210 for 8x10 is indispensable, but expensive.
A decent option is the older Fuji W-210.
Hi Ari. There's a Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6 in my post under "current lenses that cover both 4x5 and 8x10". In 8x10, I don't think that there's enough difference between 240mm and 210mm for me to get a 210.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alan_b
I think I remember you talking about using the Artist’s Viewfinder App, and I understand you’re not really looking for focal length advice. I’ve used it as a visual to weigh a lens’ position in my lineup before, so thought it worth noting here.
Yes, I use Artist's Viewfinder and talked about it in a thread called What Scouting/Planning Apps Are You Using in 2021?
That app helped me decide to get the Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm f/4.5 mentioned in the first post in this thread.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
Keep in mind the baked in light fall off of any LF wide angle lens as exampled by this 8x10 Agfachrom 100 image made using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22.
Could be ok, could be not ok.
Attachment 220513
On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?
I included Rodenstock's E105/127 Centre Filter for this lens in the Chart attached to post #1. Haven't checked yet to see what it costs, assuming that I can even find one. According to the forum's lens comparison chart, street price was US$1,040.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?
Falloff is a property of the lens, not of the film. However, negative films have broader exposure latitude than reversal films so with them falloff can somewhat be dealt with when printing. On the whole, it is better to use a CF with color film.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
It's risky to go with generalizations. Not all CN films are the same in terms of contrast. For example, Ektar gives one about one stop more latitude either way versus most chrome films, but not anywhere near the latitude of Portra "portrait" films. But as I have already hinted, that's not the real problem because density shifts at the extremes of the usable contrast range are not neutral like with black and white film, but often exhibit dye curve crossover issues. Then there's the additional problem of potential unsymmetrical falloff due to camera movements. Mere density changes might be fixable, but unequal crossover could be a real bear to fix. It's just so much easier to instantly correct the shot, if needed, with a CF right from the start. I'm not implying they're always needed. It all depends. But having one on hand is certainly wise if one can realistically afford it.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dan Fromm
Falloff is a property of the lens, not of the film. However, negative films have broader exposure latitude than reversal films so with them falloff can somewhat be dealt with when printing. On the whole, it is better to use a CF with color film.
You know perfectly well from earlier discussions that I know how this works. I get it Dan. You wrote an article about centre filters several years ago and you can't resist an opportunity to interject whenever the subject comes up, including explaining that 1+1=2. Now, if you don't mind, I'm more interested in Bernice's response to my questions. I'm thinking that maybe I should discuss this with her offline so that the thread can stay on topic rather than get derailed and turned into yet another discussion about centre filters.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oslolens
I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".
You miss out on the 190mm wide field ektar, but I suppose it's as expensive as a modern lens.
The 159mm wollensak is good for 8x10", but only rivals a 165mm S-A in the corners at f32 to f45 ;)
But the weight difference makes a 165mm stay at home anyway...
Thanks very much. I'll do some research on the Ektar and Wollensak, and also have a second look at the 120mm Super-Angulon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Michael E
I just wanted to suggest the Super Angulon 121mm. I love that lens: A moderate wide angle on 4x5", a strong wide angle on 5x7", an extreme wide angle on 8x10" (which it barely covers). Very versatile and not very expensive.
Thanks to you as well. I'll revisit the 121mm as well as the 120mm.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
Hi Ari. There's a Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6 in my post under "current lenses that cover both 4x5 and 8x10". In 8x10, I don't think that there's enough difference between 240mm and 210mm for me to get a 210.
Hi Rory,
I saw that, and as I have both the 210 and a 250, I thought it somewhat relevant to mention.
You mentioned urban landscape and environmental portraiture, so my mind went naturally to a 210.
One man's wide angle is another man's normal lens. In my case, my 210 is my normal lens.
I have a 210 which is quite compact, it folds into the camera's clamshell and covers 8x10 well enough for me to do most of what I need with it.
When some extra "presence" is needed, out comes the 250. 210 and 250 are not nearly as close as the FLs will have you believe.
They're brothers from different mothers.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ari
Hi Rory,
I saw that, and as I have both the 210 and a 250, I thought it somewhat relevant to mention.
You mentioned urban landscape and environmental portraiture, so my mind went naturally to a 210.
One man's wide angle is another man's normal lens. In my case, my 210 is my normal lens.
I have a 210 which is quite compact, it folds into the camera's clamshell and covers 8x10 well enough for me to do most of what I need with it.
When some extra "presence" is needed, out comes the 250. 210 and 250 are not nearly as close as the FLs will have you believe.
They're brothers from different mothers.
Which 210mm do you have? What do you use as normal in 35mm? 28mm?
I've never used a Leica Q with its fixed 28mm lens, but a lot of people apparently love it.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
It's very much a matter of one's preference. On FF digital, I like 24mm lenses. When I had a Contax G, the 21mm was my go-to.
My 210 is a Rodenstock Ysarex. Sharp and contrasty enough, and allows for some movement on 8x10.
Essentially, a slightly smaller version of the Fujinon-W 210 in a Compound shutter.
This is with about 1.5 inches of front rise:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...022c1595_c.jpg
I should have moved in a bit closer, but it was the first shot of spring, a relatively new lens, and I was pretty excited.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ari
It's very much a matter of one's preference. On FF digital, I like 24mm lenses. When I had a Contax G, the 21mm was my go-to.
My 210 is a Rodenstock Ysarex. Sharp and contrasty enough, and allows for some movement on 8x10.
I looked at your website a short while ago. Your lens choices really fit. Very nice work. The fact that I know several of the locations made it fun, too.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
As I understand it, Schneider re-designated their 121/8 Super-Angulon as a 120/8 when that lens became multi-coated in the 1970s. Of course I may have read that on this forum, or another, and I can't back up the assertion.
For your purposes, though, one millimeter more or less shouldn't make any difference.
I will admit that I've owned and used a 1957 121/8 SA since the mid-'90s, and it's a fine lens on 4x5. When I had an 8x10 camera, I never thought of a picture that required such a wide view, so never tried the 121 on 8x10.
However, on the job we had a 165/8 SA, and I used it a few times on an 8x10 camera when an assignment called for it. Also a very good lens, if very large and heavy. However, that wasn't really an issue for the industrial and studio work we did.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Sampson
As I understand it, Schneider re-designated their 121/8 Super-Angulon as a 120/8 when that lens became multi-coated in the 1970s. Of course I may have read that on this forum, or another, and I can't back up the assertion.
For your purposes, though, one millimeter more or less shouldn't make any difference.
I will admit that I've owned and used a 1957 121/8 SA since the mid-'90s, and it's a fine lens on 4x5. When I had an 8x10 camera, I never thought of a picture that required such a wide view, so never tried the 121 on 8x10.
However, on the job we had a 165/8 SA, and I used it a few times on an 8x10 camera when an assignment called for it. Also a very good lens, if very large and heavy. However, that wasn't really an issue for the industrial and studio work we did.
Thanks. The Super-Angulon f/8 165mm is on the chart in post #1. It's the heaviest of the lot, but I'm not particularly concerned about that. The idea of using a lens of about 120mm on 8x10 doesn't appeal to me either. I'd use one as a 4x5 lens.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
The idea of using a lens of about 120mm on 8x10 doesn't appeal to me either. I'd use one as a 4x5 lens.
In post #1, I said that I may also want to use the 4x10 format. Unsurprisingly, Kerry Thalmann says in a 2004 thread called Which Lenses Would You Have for 4x10 and Why? that a 110mm/120mm lens has the same look in 4x10 as in 8x10. Looking at threads on 4x10, it appears that even owners of those focal lengths use them for 4x10 very sparingly, if at all.
For me, what this comes down to is that I don't regard coverage of 8x10 or 4x10 as a consideration when it comes to choosing a lens in the 110mm to 120mm range, including the following lenses on my shortlist chart in post #1:
110mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL f5.6
115mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f6.8
120mm Schneider Super-Symmar HM f5.6
120mm Nikon Nikkor SW f8
There are a lot of posts on the forum that point out that three of those lenses cover, or sort of cover, 8x10. Some, with different taste than than me, may see it differently, but my reaction is So what? It just isn't a reason for me to choose one of those lenses over another. I'm more interested in price, maximum aperture, range of movement for 4x5, filter size, centre filter requirement and, although secondary for me, weight.
Thalmann was responding to another post. See the second last paragraph:
As everybody knows 4x10 needs at least 273.56 mm.
The actual image diagonal is a little bit less. It will vary slightly depending on which holders you're using, but should be somewhere in the 266 - 267mm range.
I have my eye for Nikkor 120 SW lens. It is 105 Deg, filter size 77mm, circle coverage 310 mm - little movement possible. No center filter needed. Price is very acceptable.
The 120mm Nikkor SW is a great lens and offers the most coverage of the modern wide angles in this focal length range. But, why don't you think a center filter will be necessary? I think the Nikkor SW series are some of the truly great wide angles ever made, but they have to obey the same laws of physics as lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock and Fuji. The fall-off will be comparable to other brands of similar focal length and design. For most standard (non wide angle) large format lenses, illumination closely follows the theoretical ideal cos^4 function. Most modern wide angles (Nikkor SW, Grandagon-N, Super Angulon, Fujinon SW) use a tilting entrance pupil design that results in less iluumination fall-off. In this case, the fall-off of these lenses closely follows the cos^3 function. I've seen illumnation curves for Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, and the illumination does indeed come fairly close to the theoretical ideals (cos^4 for standard designs and cos^3 for tilting entrance designs). I haven't seen any illumination curves for Nikon or Fujinon lenses, but based on my experience with the 90mm f8 Nikkor SW and the 75mm f4.5 Nikkor SW, I'd say they have not been granted an excemption from following the same laws of physics as everybody else.
I'm not saying you will definitely NEED a center filter with the Nikkor SW. It will depend on several variables (your own personal sensitivity to fall-off, your materials and printing methods, etc.). However, you are no less likely to need a center filter with the 120mm f8 Nikkor SW than comparable lenses from Schneider, Fujinon or Rodenstock. Of course, the Nikkor does have other advantages (coverage, size/weight, cost) over most of the competitors.
You also seem to be confusing the terms angle of view and angle of coverage. 120m will be very wide on 4x10. In fact, it's a focal length I like a lot on 6x12cm and 6x17cm (but then, I'm not a huge ultra wide angle user). On 4x5, something in the 150mm - 165mm range is usually considered "normal". Since you're familiar with the 35mm format... a 150mm lens on 4x10 will have the same angle of view in the vertical direction as a 37mm lens in the 35mm format and the same angle of view in the horizontal direction as a 21mm lens on 35mm. So, you can see even the "normal", for 4x5, 150mm lens becomes quite wide on 4x10. For a 120mm lens, the 35mm equivalents become 30mm vertical and 17mm horizontal - extremely wide.
You also mention you need fast lenses for your work. I'm curous why this is a requirement? Do you plan to shoot handheld? Do you want minimal depth of field? Is it a focusing issue? Also, keep in mind that lens coverage specs are usually given at infinity. If you're shooting substantially closer than infinity, the coverage will be larger, possibly significantly, than the published specs.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Direct scan from the 8x10 sheet of Agfachrome 100. This image was made about 1991 using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22, E6 process at The New Lab in SF.
This image was re-posted to note the light falloff of the 155mm Grandagon at f22. This is typical of ANY wide angle lens of this variety. Blue sky was used to illustrate how light fall off renders on the combo of view camera wide angle lens on color transparency film. Larger angle of view or shorter lens focal length increases the light fall off. Light fall off is visually a bit more tolerable using color negative or B&W film. It does depend on the scene and how much lens image circle is used.
Will this degree of light fall off in the film image be ok, that depends on the image maker's goal and needs.
While the center filter for the 155mm Grandagon and similar are not common and pricy, far more rare and pricy is the 200mm Grandagon and the matching center filter. Other lenses of this group would be the 165mm f8 Super Angulon, 210mm f8 Super Angulon (think the 165mm SA is big, this 210mm SA is HUGE), 150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL (it is that GOOD, still has light fall off), 210mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL. All these mammoth size view camera lenses demand a camera that can not only support their physical size-weight, a bag bellows is a mostly must to utilize their image circle capability.
One can revert back to vintage 8x10 wide angle lenses such as 6 1/2" f8 wide angle Dagor small produces about 100 degree angle of view at f32 and smaller, Fact is, these vintage wide angle lenses do NOT have the optical performance of modern wide angle lenses... As a group they ALL still have the light fall off problem. There is no escape from this way of Nature. Only way is to accept this way of Nature then apply workable solutions to help (ie: center filter or spinning disc or _).
Given all these facts and more realities of 8x10.. are many of a long list of reasons why 8x10 became history over two decades ago. Replaced by 5x7 _ 13x18cm, far easier to deal with far more choices for wide angle lenses and many more advantages over 8x10.
The 120mm f8 SW Nikkor is near identical to the 120mm f8 Super Angulon (121mm SA is SO similar). This become a pick your fave brand or $ to purchase choice as they are so identical in nearly every way. Image circle wise Nikkor over states their IC, Schneider is more conservative with their IC specs. Regardless they both ~just~ cover 8x10 direct on center @f22 and smaller aperture. Think light fall off is not ok with the 155mm Grandagon on 8x10, both these 120mm f8 wide angles will produce MORE light fall off.
Keep in mind, image circle increases once away from infinity focus. Typically a wide angle lens will be used close_ish to the fore-ground subject which increases the effective image circle. This often helps lots to gain effective IC.
As for how "wide" much a matter of object size balance within the image:
http://annawu.com/blog/2011/09/focal-length-comparison/
This Foto basic is one basic visual so many Fotographers do not fully understand and apply to their image compositions effectively.
These are the optical realities of lenses for 8x10. The lens focal length that fits good for 8x10, about 200mm to about 500mm. More or less becomes problematic in unpleasant ways. Again, it all goes back to image goals.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?
I included Rodenstock's E105/127 Centre Filter for this lens in the Chart attached to post #1. Haven't checked yet to see what it costs, assuming that I can even find one. According to the forum's lens comparison chart, street price was US$1,040.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
I looked at your website a short while ago. Your lens choices really fit. Very nice work. The fact that I know several of the locations made it fun, too.
Thanks, Rory. Very kind of you to say.
Early on, I used a wide/normal for portraits, and I now stick with normal lenses for portraits.
I had a few 360mm lenses for 8x10 and honestly, I couldn't make it work for me. But now I know.
So try out a bunch of lenses.
Someone mentioned the 190 Wide Field Ektar. That'll work on both formats, as will an older Fuji 180-W.
There's also the Wollensak Wide Field Raptar 210.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Update...
I've narrowed down the 4x5 wide-angle option (90mm to 120mm) to Schneider's f/5.6 110mm Super-Symmar XL.
I have Rodenstock's f/4.5 75mm Grandagon-N and have decided that a 90mm is not a priority.
That leaves the 110mm to 120mm options.
As far as I can see, the only argument against Schneider's 110mm is that it costs more than the other options. However, in my case the difference may not be very significant.
Context... I use both colour and black and white film. Neither is cheap, but colour is particularly expensive. I'm working on a project where the right approach is that I have one chance to make the photograph. In addition, I have a strong preference for getting the shot right in the camera rather than fixing it later. Everything about the XL 110mm, from maximum aperture to range of movement to the fact that I already have a centre filter for it, is conducive to making my life easier.
I use Rodenstock's E67/86 centre filter for the 75mm, but it will work also with Schneider's 110mm. In addition, I have a good range of screw-in and Lee100 filters that will work with the centre filter's 86mm front thread.
I know that some people feel that a centre filter isn't needed for lenses in this range. For the purpose of this decision, I prefer to assume that I'll find one useful. My current centre filter will not work with the other options, including the 120mm and 121mm Super-Angulons pointed to in earlier posts. An additional centre filter would cost several hundred dollars used. Depending on which centre filter I purchased, the front thread would be either 105mm or 112mm. Look at the price of a 105mm/112mm screw-in polariser, or of a square polariser, even linear, that's 125mmx125mm (5"x5") or 150mmx150mm (6"x6"). On the latter, one has to either handhold it or also purchase a mount. Plus carry around this lens-specific gear.
There's a point where the cost of Schneider's 110mm doesn't look so bad. That said, there are people offering this lens for more than it cost new. I may have a wait :)
Next step is to narrow down the 8x10 options.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
All I can say is I love the 110 xl. I use it more than I thought I would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
Update...
I've narrowed down the 4x5 wide-angle option (90mm to 120mm) to Schneider's f/5.6 110mm Super-Symmar XL.
I have Rodenstock's f/4.5 75mm Grandagon-N and have decided that a 90mm is not a priority.
That leaves the 110mm to 120mm options.
As far as I can see, the only argument against Schneider's 110mm is that it costs more than the other options. However, in my case the difference may not be very significant.
Context... I use both colour and black and white film. Neither is cheap, but colour is particularly expensive. I'm working on a project where the right approach is that I have one chance to make the photograph. In addition, I have a strong preference for getting the shot right in the camera rather than fixing it later. Everything about the XL 110mm, from maximum aperture to range of movement to the fact that I already have a centre filter for it, is conducive to making my life easier.
I use Rodenstock's E67/86 centre filter for the 75mm, but it will work also with Schneider's 110mm. Also, I have a good range of screw-in and Lee100 filters that will work with the centre filter's 86mm front thread.
I know that some people feel that a centre filter isn't needed for lenses in the range. For the purpose of this decision, I prefer to assume that I'll need one. My current centre filter will not work with the other options, including the 120mm and 121mm Super-Angulons pointed to in earlier posts. An additional centre filter would cost several hundred dollars used. Depending on which centre filter I purchased, the front thread would be either 105mm or 112mm. Look at the price of a 105mm/112mm screw-in polariser, or of a square polariser, even linear, that's 125mmx125mm (5"x5") or 150mmx150mm (6"x6"). On the latter, one has to either handhold it or also purchase a mount. Plus carry around this lens-specific gear.
There's a point where the cost of Schneider's 110mm doesn't look so bad. That said, there are people offering this lens for more than it cost new. I may have a wait :)
Next step is to narrow down the 8x10 options.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Michael R
All I can say is I love the 110 xl. I use it more than I thought I would.
It is a wonderful lens.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, good lens got one of the first handful (one year paid pre-order) that was hand carried by Robert Kipling (technical guy at Schneider) back to to the US from Germany. Schneider had a devil of a time trying to produce the aspheric element for this lens. The first hand full had individually made by their proto folks from optical glass. Later production, this aspheric element was not made the same way. This was circa late 1990's.
Yes, that was me who got Kerry T to venture into "Future Classics" on his web page:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm
It is a very good lens, does NOT cover 8x10 properly regardless of what folks claim (tried, corners direct on for 8x10 was poor performance), has the same if not worst light fall off as other LF wide angle lenses. Very snappy, very contrasty, more than sharp enough.. burned piles of color transparency film with this lens back in the day. Never disappointed. Yet, the 110mm f5.6 SSXL does not get used much any more. It has been replaced by a 115mm f6.8 Grandagon in the 5x7 Sinar Norma kit. Prime advantage of the 110mm SSXL, size, lower weight with good optical performance. Be careful with the front element as it sits very close to the filter once the filter is seated. Some filters might NOT clear the front element.
These days, only B&W images. No more color any sheet film.
There has been discussion of some lens element problems with a few 110mm f5.6 SSXLs in the past. Check this out.
This lens and others were designed by a gal at Schneider (name escapes me ATM).
Bernice
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
Yet, the 110mm f5.6 SSXL does not get used much any more. It has been replaced by a 115mm f6.8 Grandagon in the 5x7 Sinar Norma kit. Prime advantage of the 110mm SSXL, size, lower weight with good optical performance. Be careful with the front element as it sits very close to the filter once the filter is seated. Some filters might NOT clear the front element.
I had the f/6.8 115mm Grandagon on my short list (Chart, post #1). The problem, if I wanted to use a centre filter with it, is that I'd have to purchase Rodenstock's E82 in addition to the E67 that I already have. Plus the E82 front thread is 112mm, and the front thread on the Heliopan and Schneider alternative centre filters is 105mm. I'm not set up for those diameters. As you know, screw-in filters for them, and square filters large enough to cover them, are expensive. Not a financially attractive proposition.
Bob Salomon says that Rodenstock's E67 centre filter should not interfere with the Schneider XL 110mm front element. I wouldn't mount 67mm filters directly to the lens. If I wasn't using the centre filter, I'd use either a step-up ring to a round filter or Lee's 67mm Wide Angle Adapter Ring to a Lee100 Filter Holder and square filter.
I read your post #21 on 8x10 wide angle lenses. Very helpful, but sobering :)
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
The Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL is my favorite lens of all the lenses I've owned. Alas, I had to sell it at one point.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
I went through a similar deliberation recently, but without your budget, and for me weight is a greater consideration than aperture. I settled on the Nikon 120 as an ultra-wide, a G-Claron 210 (Dagor-type) as a moderate wide, and I still have a Radar Anastigmat and a Wolly Ser III to complete the vintage ultra-wide experiment. I've already rejected the Protar V and the Metrogon is too heavy and unwieldy. I don't have the budget for the Super Symmars or anything in that range, even if I was prepared to carry the weight. And of course I have the Fujinon-W 210/5.6 and 250/6.7s for when I want closer to 'normal', though I'm leaving the Fujinon 210 at home in favor of the G-Claron because the latter is a much better lens for my purposes, and tiny.
But dealing with older and budget lenses, condition of the copy I happen to come across is probably more a factor in my choices than the merits of any particular lens design or manufacturer. My Fujinon 210 has never given me a good image. My first 210 G-Claron was the best 8x10 lens I ever owned, I don't know why I sold it. I understand why you want the most recent lens possible, in condition as close to new as possible. If I had a budget and a project at hand, I would do the same.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
It's interesting how many of Kerry's "Future Classic" lenses I went for myself, prior to even knowing about his own list. But I neither need nor can afford them all.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Don't get this as a negative in any way about the 110mm SSXL, this lens and the 150mm SSXL (absolute winner of a wide angle lens, same as the 110mm SSXL) and 72mm SAXL will never be sold long as I'm doing LF sheet film. All three of these Schneider lenses were purchased new. All three are excellent and fit in their speciality need.
Regardless of what folks say about the 110mm SSXL, it can and does benefit from a center filter. Oh, has mostly neutral color balance too. Tested this lots.
IMO, the 110mm SSXL makes a LOT of sense with your current lens kit. Filter step ring (67mm to 72mm) helps move the filter seating area forward to help clear the 110mm SSXL front element.
Bernice
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
IMO, the 110mm SSXL makes a LOT of sense with your current lens kit.
I think so. It would wind up looking like this:
4x5:
75mm f/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon-N
110mm f/5.6 Schneider Super-Symmar XL
150mm f/5.6 Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N
210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic
4x5 & 8x10:
240mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor W
360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W
600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C
Specialty:
120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)
210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)
10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)
I'll sort out the 8x10 wide option in the next day or two, but it's going to be either/or, at least for the time being.
This thread is very helpful.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ari
A good 210 for 8x10 is indispensable, but expensive.
A decent option is the older Fuji W-210.
Exactly! This reality shapes how I approach both 4x5 and 8x10 photography . . .
My comfort level is overwhelmingly towards 4x5 photography. But, I do like having 8x10 capability, and years ago, I was even lucky enough to pick up a Zone Six Type II enlarger with 8x10 capability. So, my approach is to photograph primarily in 4x5, and to photograph in 8x10 only those compositions that are "well suited" towards that format.
I have a wide selection of optics for 4x5, so I can photograph from very wide to rather long. And, I like having this capability. But, to have a similar capability in 8x10 is cost prohibitive. Imagine the layout in $'s needed to purchase super wides in 150mm, 165mm, and 210mm focal lengths. Jeepers! And a few months ago, someone commented that he's never been able to achieve in 8x10 an image that had sharp focus at infinity and also in the foreground. (Not to mention all the other complications that are inherent in 8x10 photography. As I say, these considerations cause me to cherry-pick what I photograph in 8x10. I have a nice example of the venerable Fujinon 250mm f6.7 lens. But, that's as wide as I need to go in 8x10.
I'm also an Arca Swiss user, and over time, I put together a nice 8x10 Arca Swiss camera that had the capability of photographing from very wide to rather long. But, I recently sold that camera. Instead, I use an old Bender kit 8x10 that was practically free. It came with a lens that I later sold for a price that exceeded the purchase price of both the camera and the lens.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...Project-Camera
After some customizations that I made to this camera, it meets all my needs. It's both capable and reasonable in cost.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Turning to 8x10 wide, I've made a version of the Chart from post #1 that contains just the 8x10 options (attached below). I haven't included the Nikkor SW and Schneider XL 120mm lenses. Leaving aside the coverage issue, for my taste 120mm is too wide for 8x10 and 4x10. The lenses are:
150mm Nikon Nikkor SW f8
150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL f5.6
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f6.8
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon f8
Some of the posts above make interesting, and cost saving, suggestions for older lenses. I haven't included these because I still have some learning to do about them.
Note the Schneider Center Filter V for the 165mm Super-Angulon and the Rodenstock E105/127 Center Filter for the Grandagon-N 155mm. These centre filters appear to be unique to these lenses. The link for the Schneider centre filter is to an old B&H page.
Notes to the Chart's Column Headings:
Lens Street Price New: As noted in post #1, I've taken the street prices for lenses from this forum's lens comparison charts. I see those prices as a very rough guide. I'm aware of one instance where the price in the comparison charts is significantly higher than the actual street price.
Centre Filter Street Price New: I've added this column because there are significant price differences for the centre filters for these four lenses. These prices are also from the lens comparison charts.
Chart for 8x10 Wide Lenses:
Attachment 220542
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
I have the 150XL and can vouch for its excellence. Noticeable light falloff at the corners, but I don't care.
Some friends who shoot transparencies for reproduction, and are thus more demanding/critical than I am, prefer the Grandagon.
Not only for the improved corners, but for the higher color fidelity.
That's, like, just their opinion, man.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic is a classic Tessar formula lens, will be difficult to find unless one has been found. Most available as of now would be the
210mm f4.5 Fujinar like this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/40322046616...UAAOSwzMhhYibF
f4.5 Tessars were common post WW-II up to the early 70's when the LF world began to transition to the f5.6 Plasmat.
Single coated Tessar is GOOD. They were made by Kodak as Ektar, Schneider as Xenar (last production lenses are multi-coated), Fujinar/Fujinon L, Rodenstock Ysaron, Boyer Saphir and others. Prime difficulty will be shutters due to age and lack of maintenance and service. Of all the tessar formula lenses from that era, Kodak Ektar remains the absolute Fave with Schneider Xenar second. Sinar camera and Sinar shutter allows using virtually any lens in barrel and ignores problems with old shutters long as their shutter blades can be held in "T".. and older lenses in barrel have nice round iris which aids lots in out of focus rendition.
Previous discussion:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...t-work-on-8x10
The 360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W is HUGE! Big image circle, modern plasmat contrasty look, designed to good at f22, pretty much the standard 8x10 lens with the other 360mm modern plasmats. There are smaller alternatives and lenses with different rendition if desired as 360mm / 14" is a common LF lens focal length for 8x10.
600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C, now pricy and IMO over rated with very specific limitations. This with the Fujinon A series have become Internet LF lens "gotta have" lenses.
~120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)~
~210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)~
As a pair, suggest APO process lenses (APO ronar, APO artar, APO nikkor and etc) instead. Been there done this. LF "macro" specific lenses do not have any advantage over APO process lenses and in many ways, the APO process lenses offer better optical performance. LF macro lenses are typically designed for repro ratios of 3:1 or 1:3 _ish. While the APO process lens is excellent from infinity to 1:1 with insignificant reduction in optical performance. Once past the 1:1 reproduction ratio, reverse mounted enlarging lenses are a better choice then LF "macro" lenses.
~10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)~
World of Sorta Focus lenses is a universe to it's own.. topic all to it's own.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
I think so. It would wind up looking like this:
4x5:
210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic
4x5 & 8x10:
360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W
600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C
Specialty:
120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)
210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)
10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)
I'll sort out the 8x10 wide option in the next day or two, but it's going to be either/or, at least for the time being.
This thread is very helpful.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Second on the Schneider 150mm f5.6 SSXL. It IS that good. Light fall off remains an issue. Having owned both the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon and 150mm f5.6 SSXL at the same time for a brief amount of time to allow a comparison, the 150mm SSXL became the choice keeper.
150mm f5.6 SSXL compared to the 165mm f8 Super Angulon, physical size and weight difference between the two must be considered. Full aperture of f5.6 can help in focusing.
150mm f8 SW nikkor is similar to the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon with slight higher contrast and slightly dimmer to focus due to f8. Been there tried the 150mm f8 SW nikkor, stuck with the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon. This was near three decades ago.
Bernice
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses listed in post #34, but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive, and might overcome the reservations that I talk about below.
If I'm going to purchase one of these 8x10 wide angle lenses, I want to have a centre filter for it. I base that on what I see as the workflow and image requirements of my principal use for the lens. Bernice (post #2, #21 and #37) and Arri (post #35) have talked about light falloff for the 150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL and 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N. Bernice's comments suggest that it's also an issue for the 150mm Nikkor SW and 165mm Schneider Super-Angulon.
New, a centre filter for the two 150mm lenses, at about US$430, cost less than half the centre filters for the 155mm and 165mm lenses (Chart, post #34). My assumption is that that will be reflected in used prices.
Then there's the cost of regular filters. For me, I see a polariser as essential for dealing with reflections. I also use solid neutral density filters and occasionally graduated neutral density filters. I'm able to use my current filters for diameters up to 100mm. After that, I'm in for some shopping.
This shows where the shopping kicks in...
Filter requirements of the two 150mm lenses: 95mm (112mm with a centre filter)
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N: 105mm (127mm with a centre filter)
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon: 110mm (125mm with a centre filter)
To limit financial damage, I'd purchase a coated polariser and forego neutral density. New, screw-in polarisers are only available up to 112mm, about US$270 new, don't know the used price. The other option is 150mmx150mm (6"x6") square or larger, which I suspect would cost at least as much new. Square means handholding or the purchase of a mount. Lucky break would be a used linear polariser. The market appears to have decided that these are almost worthless.
Finally, depending on lens movement requirements, there's the cost of an 8x10 bag bellows to take into account.
I have not forgotten about the older lenses discussed in some of the posts above. I just haven't finished learning about them.
If it was still around, I'd be paying a visit to a New York store called Lens and Repro about now :)
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses listed in post #34, but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive, and might overcome the reservations that I talk about below.
If I'm going to purchase one of these 8x10 wide angle lenses, I want to have a centre filter for it. I base that on what I see as the workflow and image requirements of my principal use for the lens. Bernice (post #2, #21 and #37) and Arri (post #35) have talked about light falloff for the 150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL and 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N. Bernice's comments suggest that it's also an issue for the 150mm Nikkor SW and 165mm Schneider Super-Angulon.
New, a centre filter for the two 150mm lenses, at about US$430, cost less than half the centre filters for the 155mm and 165mm lenses (Chart, post #34). My assumption is that that will be reflected in used prices.
Then there's the cost of regular filters. For me, I see a polariser as essential for dealing with reflections. I also use solid neutral density filters and occasionally graduated neutral density filters. I'm able to use my current filters for diameters up to 100mm. After that, I'm in for some shopping.
This shows where the shopping kicks in...
Filter requirements of the two 150mm lenses: 95mm (112mm with a centre filter)
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N: 105mm (127mm with a centre filter)
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon: 110mm (125mm with a centre filter)
To limit financial damage, I'd purchase a coated polariser and forego neutral density. New, screw-in polarisers are only available up to 112mm, about US$270 new, don't know the used price. The other option is 150mmx150mm (6"x6") square or larger, which I suspect would cost at least as much new. Square means handholding or the purchase of a mount. Lucky break would be a used linear polariser. The market appears to have decided that these are almost worthless.
I have not forgotten about the older lenses discussed in some of the posts above. I just haven't finished learning about them.
If it was still around, I'd be paying a visit to a New York store called Lens and Repro about now :)
Be aware, areas of the sky are naturally polarized, other areas are not. If you use a polarizer with an extreme wide angle lens and capture wide areas of sky you will end up with darker and lighter streaks in the sky.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
Be aware, areas of the sky are naturally polarized, other areas are not. If you use a polarizer with an extreme wide angle lens and capture wide areas of sky you will end up with darker and lighter streaks in the sky.
Thanks Bob. That's why I said that I'd be using the polariser to control reflections. Many years ago I used a 35mm camera, 24mm lens and a polariser at Wadi Rum (Valley of the Moon). Several of my photographs included a fair amount of sky. My images didn't look at all like Freddie Young's in Lawrence of Arabia. I learnt my lesson :)
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic is a classic Tessar formula lens, will be difficult to find unless one has been found...
Hi Bernice,
Thanks for your comments on some of my current lenses (post #32 and #36).
The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic isn't a 1970s or older Tessar. It was made in the 1990s and is in a Copal shutter. @Arne Croell wrote an excellent article about Docter Optic lenses called Large Format Lenses from Docter Optic 1991-1996. I got the lens from Kerry Thalmann, who was selling a number of new old stock Docter lenses.
I purchased the Nikkor macro lenses from B&H when Nikon was exiting the large format lens market. As you know, macro lenses versus standard and process lenses has been debated in many threads. The Nikons meet my needs.
The Fujinon C 600mm is just the ticket if you're in Brooklyn or Queens and want to photograph Manhattan across the East River.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
I've now had a look at older lenses in the range of 150mm to 180mm that will cover 8x10. These lenses fall into two categories.
First, there are lenses that cost more than a used modern lens would cost. I assume that the market is collectors and photographers who want a specific look. I don't see myself as a buyer of one of these lenses.
Secondly, there are lenses that cost less, perhaps quite a bit less, than a used modern lens. However, this is not the whole story on cost. These were workhorse lenses, and my working assumption is that I'll have to hire someone to clean, lubricate and adjust the lens and shutter and, if necessary, replace parts. I'm reluctant to purchase one of these lenses sight unseen, but in New York a vendor like Lens and Repro no longer exists. There may be a significant investment of time to identify a lens that I'm prepared to buy. The lens is likely to just cover 8x10 with little room, if any, for movements. I'd have to use the lens for one-off photographs because the "look" of the image will be different from my modern lenses. That doesn't work for my current project.
I've decided that I won't be adding one of these lenses to the 8x10 shortlist and chart in post #34.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
I've now had a look at older lenses in the range of 150mm to 180mm that will cover 8x10. These lenses fall into two categories.
First, there are lenses that cost more than a used modern lens would cost. I assume that the market is collectors and photographers who want a specific look. I don't see myself as a buyer of one of these lenses.
Secondly, there are lenses that cost less, perhaps quite a bit less, than a used modern lens. However, this is not the whole story on cost. These were workhorse lenses, and my working assumption is that I'll have to hire someone to clean, lubricate and adjust the lens and shutter and, if necessary, replace parts. I'm reluctant to purchase one of these lenses sight unseen, but in New York a vendor like Lens and Repro no longer exists. There may be a significant investment of time to identify a lens that I'm prepared to buy. The lens is likely to just cover 8x10 with little room, if any, for movements. I'd have to use the lens for one-off photographs because the "look" of the image will be different from my modern lenses. That doesn't work for my current project.
I've decided that I won't be adding one of these lenses to the 8x10 shortlist and chart in post #34.
Have you tried Foto Care?
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
Have you tried Foto Care?
Hi Bob. Thanks for the suggestion. Having just spoken with Foto Care, I'll be visiting them early next week.
Almost everybody here will know B&H and Adorama. Much less well-known is Foto Care. It's a New York camera store and rental house that's been in business for over 50 years and has a first-rate reputation. Think of a well-known New York photographer, and the odds are that they're a Foto Care customer.
I'd already been looking at Foto Care's rental inventory with a view to trying out one or more of the lenses on my shortlist. They offer the Schneider Super-Symmar XL 110mm, but not the 8x10 wide-angles.
Prompted by Bob's post, I phoned and asked whether they're still selling used large format lenses. I doubted it. Large format lenses, except in the rental side of the business, aren't even mentioned on Foto Care's website. I was wrong. They have two of the 8x10 lenses on hand. Odds are, they can get the Schneider 110mm in a reasonable time.
As a Foto Care customer over the years, including for a couple of used Leica lenses, I'm not expecting low prices. They may want more than I want to pay, but price isn't everything.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
The widest lens I have for 4x5 is 90mm. For 8x10, I use Nikkor SW 120, W210, W240. I tend to use more wide lenses with 8x10, than I do with 4x5.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
Got this, thanks for sharing.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
Hi Bernice,
Thanks for your comments on some of my current lenses (post #32 and #36).
The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic isn't a 1970s or older Tessar. It was made in the 1990s and is in a Copal shutter. @Arne Croell wrote an excellent article about Docter Optic lenses called
Large Format Lenses from Docter Optic 1991-1996. I got the lens from Kerry Thalmann, who was selling a number of new old stock Docter lenses.
I purchased the Nikkor macro lenses from B&H when Nikon was exiting the large format lens market. As you know, macro lenses versus standard and process lenses has been debated in many threads. The Nikons meet my needs.
The Fujinon C 600mm is just the ticket if you're in Brooklyn or Queens and want to photograph Manhattan across the East River.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
IMO, very short list for ~150mm lens for 8x10 would be the 150mm f5.6 SSXL. They have now become pricy and in demand likely due to the current fashion of 8x10 sheet film.
Notable, back when Schneider first announced the pre-order for the Super Symmar XL series, $ difference between the 110mm -vs- 150mm was about $300. Add to this Schneider had a trade in your "old" lens for a 20% discount of a new lens. This was also applied when the 72mm SAXL, 110mm SSXL and 150mm SSXL was purchased. No regrets for that purchase to this day as all three has served far better than ever expected.
Do use a 165mm f6.8 Angulon in barrel as an easy to carry around moderate wide for the 5x7 Norma. Optical performance is tolerable and ok enough. IMO, give the option of a single wide angle, pick the 150mm f5.6 SSXL if possible.. It is THAT good.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
I've now had a look at older lenses in the range of 150mm to 180mm that will cover 8x10. These lenses fall into two categories.
First, there are lenses that cost more than a used modern lens would cost. I assume that the market is collectors and photographers who want a specific look. I don't see myself as a buyer of one of these lenses.
Secondly, there are lenses that cost less, perhaps quite a bit less, than a used modern lens. However, this is not the whole story on cost. These were workhorse lenses, and my working assumption is that I'll have to hire someone to clean, lubricate and adjust the lens and shutter and, if necessary, replace parts. I'm reluctant to purchase one of these lenses sight unseen, but in New York a vendor like Lens and Repro no longer exists. There may be a significant investment of time to identify a lens that I'm prepared to buy. The lens is likely to just cover 8x10 with little room, if any, for movements. I'd have to use the lens for one-off photographs because the "look" of the image will be different from my modern lenses. That doesn't work for my current project.
I've decided that I won't be adding one of these lenses to the 8x10 shortlist and chart in post #34.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
This is my final shortlist. As noted earlier, this is either 4x5 or 8x10, not both, at least for now.
4x5
Schneider Super-Symmar XL f/5.6 110mm
8x10/4x10
For 8x10, I'm listing the lenses in order of preference rather than eliminating lenses from consideration. The preferences take into account the factors discussed in post #38. To quote from that post: "I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses ..., but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive..."
150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL f/5.6
150mm Nikon Nikkor SW f/8
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/6.8
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon f/8
Thanks for all the comments. They helped a lot with sorting through the options.
EDIT: I've attached a new version of my Chart, limited to these lenses, in post #52 below.
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm
-
Re: Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm