tiny, sharp lenses for 2x3

[BetterSense]

For a while I thought 2x3 was the answer to my wishes. Then I realized that the vintage speed graphic-type lenses which suit the format from a form-factor perspective are not overly blessed with sharpness or contrast, or coverage, and if I am to haul around 4x5 lenses, I ought to just shoot 4x5. Yes I know they make nice newer lenses targeted at medium format digital cameras, but those are well out of the budget. Are there any lenses I am overlooking which are small, cheap, and sharp? I can often do without a shutter, so I am contemplating testing some 80mm-class enlarger lenses.

[neil poulsen]

There are many choices available for medium format, without going for some of the dated optics that were available for the vintage graphic cameras. Like, the 100 & 120mm Apo Symmar lenses. The 150mm Apo Symmar lens can be reasonably priced. The 47mm Super Angulon f5.6 is a good choice, as is the 58mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL. If this is too expensive, look for an older 58mm Grandagon for a more reasonable price. (These Grandagon's should be checked for lens separation.)

[Oren Grad]

All of the modern plasmat lines from the major manufacturers have had a 100 or 105 intended as a normal for 6x9cm. They are small and lightweight. I happen to like the Rodenstock "flavor", so I have the 100mm Apo-Sironar-N for when I work with 6x9. It has a tiny, featherweight optical cell mounted in a Copal 0. To my taste it's a jewel, just a lovely lens all around. But if you like Schneider, Nikon or Fuji, they too made lenses for you.

Also, I wouldn't write off all of the classic press-camera lenses. Some of those are very respectable performers too.

[Atul Mohidekar]

Schneider APO Digitar 120mm f/5.6. I will not call it tiny, but it is small. It is the sharpest lens I have owned - proven by my non-scientific testing, the MTF charts and confirmed by the Schneider engineer I communicated with via email (he compared with it Super-Symmar 110mm XL which is a very sharp lens by itself). Digitar's main drawback is the limited coverage. But it covers 2x3 and even 4x5 but with little room for movements.

[Bill_1856]

You're not going to get any sharper lens than the Kodak Ektar 105mm.

[George Hart]

I have had a lot of fun with a 90/3.5 Commercial Congo lens on 6x9. These are small, light, Copal 0 shutter, tessar design, wide open sharp in the centre but soft at the edges, still available and for not much more than the price of the shutter.

[Dan Fromm]

You're not going to get any sharper lens than the Kodak Ektar 105mm.

Interesting. Why do you think so?

I ask because my informal and formal tests of original issue normal lenses for 2x3 Graphics gave this result: 103/4.5 Graflar better (sharper centrally and in the corners) than 101/4.5 Ektar better than 105/3.7 Ektar. The 105 doesn't quite cover the format. When I mentioned this result on www.graflex.org's help board several members chimed in to say that their lenses performed like mine.

Bettersense, if you're willing to shoot at f/16 or smaller without movements the humble 101/4.5 Ektar is nearly (see above) the gold standard for normal lenses for 2x3. Modern plasmats' big advantage is better coverage. If you need movements you need a modern lens, end of that discussion.

I've never had a 100 mm +/- Planar or Xenotar so can't comment on them. I have a 4"/2.0 TTH and a 100/2.5 Uran-27. The TTH lens is no better than a 101/4.5 Ektar from f/4.5 down and is much heavier.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Are there any lenses I am overlooking which are small, cheap, and sharp?...

If you want the ultimate and can deal with 90mm rather than 80mm, a bit larger and more expensive, go for a Nikon SW 90mm f/8 and shoot it at f/11. I've a 13" x 15.5" print on my wall made from a 6x7 transparency shot with that lens on my Horseman VH. It's incredibly sharp. See the test results here

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

for exactly how sharp. That's resolution in Mamiya 7 80mm lens territory.

...I have the 100mm Apo-Sironar-N for when I work with 6x9...

I have one of those too. It's very sharp, but exhibits resolution just shy of the Nikon SW 90mm f/8 in my subjective assessment. However, it's a full stop faster and closes in my Horseman, so the tradeoff is frequently worthwhile.

[Corran]

I've been shooting a bit of 6x12 lately and I pack a 38mm XL, 58mm XL, Nikkor 90mm f/8, and a 150mm of some sort. They are all very sharp, and yes they cover 4x5 (except the 38mm, barely). It's a nice kit. Roll film is different and certainly more convenient in some ways than 4x5. Depends on what I'm doing. They are all relatively small lenses, especially compared to, say, my Pentax 67 lenses, so there's that.

I actually have some ideas I'm considering for a custom view camera that can be variable 6x6 up to 6x12 shooting. Still chewing on ideas and concepts and thinking about contacting Chamonix for a custom job.

[Bill_1856]

Interesting. Why do you think so?

Just my personal experience. The negatives may not look all that sharp, but the prints look like they were engraved with a diamond. I don't exactly understand the dynamics of this dichotomy.