Nikkor 120 or 150 for 8x10

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi , I have recently posted a WTB wide angle for 8x10 , and a 150 and a 120 Nikkor have been two that i will be considering, The 120 is on the bay so anybody out there got one they don't want? because i would rather not go there. The question is this has anybody had any experience with both on 8x10 , i have used the 120 on a 5x8 camera , i don't want a discussion on optical performance , because i would think in the middle they would be the same , Just with the bigger image circle the 150 should be better on the edges . And of course the angle of view is totally different . The pluses for the 150 for me are i like the angle of view as i shot with a 24 a lot in my 35mm days , Larger image circle so more movements , The negatives are, more expensive , heavier and bulkier ,95mm filter thread ,I already own some 77mm filters (which fit on the 120) . Any help would be appreciated . Regards Gary

[Mark Sampson]

As I understand it, from many posts in many threads in this forum, the Nikkor-SW 120/8 barely covers 8x10 at infinity. The similar designs from Schneider, Rodenstock, et al. are deemed to have similar coverage. (I have used a Schneider 121/8 SA for many years, but never on 8x10.) I have, in a past life, used a Schneider 165/8 SA on 8x10. It was pretty darn wide, and with all the coverage I needed. So I'll suggest that if you want movements, get the 150SW. Size and weight? You're already using an 8x10.

[angusparker]

By all accounts a 110mm SSXL will just slightly vignette in the corners - so wider, faster, and lighter than a Nikkor 120 with about the same coverage.... something to consider anyway.

[Gary Tarbert]

By all accounts a 110mm SSXL will just slightly vignette in the corners - so wider, faster, and lighter than a Nikkor 120 with about the same coverage.... something to consider anyway.

I think the 110XL could get a little pricier than the other two correct me if i'm wrong

[Lachlan 717]

I think the 110XL could get a little pricier than the other two correct me if i'm wrong

Generally, from lowest to highest, it will go:

121mm SA
120mm SA
120mm Nikkor*
115mm Grandagon*
110SSXL

*Often interchangeable in ranking.

[Oren Grad]

I can't speak directly to the Nikkors, but I've used both the 120 Super-Angulon and the 155 Grandagon on 8x10 - the 120 SA just within this past week. The 155 Grandagon is much bigger and heavier (though still in a #1 shutter!) but allows plenty of movement, or you can get away with a pretty wide aperture and still cover. The 120 SA is smaller and lighter, just barely covers when stopped way down. Possibly it's cheating in the farthest corners an eensy bit when focused to infnity. To my taste, a center filter is mandatory with the 120, even with B&W, unless you want in-your-face vignetting as a special effect. OTOH, I've never felt a need for one with the 155 (not that I could justify the stratospheric cost for such a large CF even if I wanted it!).

As far as subjective feel in use, these are completely different animals. The 155 is very wide. The 120 is crazy, crazy, crazy wide. The 155 can be used for lots of things. The 120 is difficult to use, it's so wide. It's easy to end up with lots of sky and lots of ground and a little bit of subject in a thin strip across the middle. I think it's most useful when you're up close and using the ultrawide view to stuff a whole lot of things into all parts of the frame. Since there's no room for movement, too, all you can do is point the camera up or down to adjust composition, which stretches and tilts rectilinear objects in all sorts of vertigo-inducing ways. (Or you can keep everything strictly level and take whatever you can get.) You have to pay careful attention to everything that's going on to make it all work. Where the 155 feels like a general-purpose lens with a really wide view, the 120 feels like a special-purpose lens.

This is all subjective, of course; as always, YMMV. But I hope it at least helps illuminate the tradeoffs between the two focal lengths.

[Gary Tarbert]

Generally, from lowest to highest, it will go:

121mm SA
120mm SA
120mm Nikkor*
115mm Grandagon*
110SSXL

*Often interchangeable in ranking.

In all honesty I feel the 120 is as wide as I would want to go anyway , I would find myself cropping even a lot of the negs shot on 8x10 on a 120 , a 110 would just be harder to use , I found with my 58mm on 5x4 I much prefered the 75 or 90 , so a 110 would going down that pathway again on a 8x10 . Cheers Gary

[Gary Tarbert]

I can't speak directly to the Nikkors, but I've used both the 120 Super-Angulon and the 155 Grandagon on 8x10 - the 120 SA just within this past week. The 155 Grandagon is much bigger and heavier (though still in a #1 shutter!) but allows plenty of movement, or you can get away with a pretty wide aperture and still cover. The 120 SA is smaller and lighter, just barely covers when stopped way down. Possibly it's cheating in the farthest corners an eensy bit when focused to infnity. To my taste, a center filter is mandatory with the 120, even with B&W, unless you want in-your-face vignetting as a special effect. OTOH, I've never felt a need for one with the 155 (not that I could justify the stratospheric cost for such a large CF even if I wanted it!).

As far as subjective feel in use, these are completely different animals. The 155 is very wide. The 120 is crazy, crazy, crazy wide. The 155 can be used for lots of things. The 120 is difficult to use, it's so wide. It's easy to end up with lots of sky and lots of ground and a little bit of subject in a thin strip across the middle. I think it's most useful when you're up close and using the ultrawide view to stuff a whole lot of things into all parts of the frame. Since there's no room for movement, too, all you can do is point the camera up or down to adjust composition, which stretches and tilts rectilinear objects in all sorts of vertigo-inducing ways. (Or you can keep everything strictly level and take whatever you can get.) You have to pay careful attention to everything that's going on to make it all work. Where the 155 feels like a general-purpose lens with a really wide view, the 120 feels like a special-purpose lens.

This is all subjective, of course; as always, YMMV. But I hope it at least helps illuminate the tradeoffs between the two focal lengths.

Thanks , I think the 150 focal length looks the winner for me , I just hated using my 58mm on 5x4 ,And yet it was a lens I lusted after , Sold it after only using it twice , I feel if I go to wide on 8x10 I will have the same issues , Thanks once again for your input . Regards Gary

[Jim Becia]

Gary,

I have both the Nikkor 120 and 150. Personally, I find the 120 way too wide for my taste. It's amazingly easy to photograph your feet! And you must be sure to center the lens. I do use my 150 more often, it has great coverage and is very sharp. Only wish the 150 was the same size as the 120. It is a big piece of glass and takes 95mm filters (of which I have none). I could easily live without the 120mm for the 8x10. Good luck in your search.

[Gary Tarbert]

Thanks Jim , I am sorta leaning that way , The 120 is perfect for your 5x8 though