90mm lens on 8x10

[Tim Meisburger]

An Optar will not cover due to mechanical vignetting. I think later Angulons were mechanically choked but earlier ones were not, or not so much.

[Ari]

It's an interesting question whether it needs to be a wide wide? Inspired by your question, I put my 90/5.6 Super Angulon on today and was surprised that it just about fully covers 8x10, but for the corners, so that's out. I have several of the American 90s, but I think those are all going to throw sharp edges like an Angulon, being not that much different. Louis' idea to use a more normal lens was good, and I have a Paragon (f4.5 Tessar type) around 165mm or so that I can put on Monday and see how it looks. 165 would still be pretty wide on 8x10, and I think he's right that they just fade out at the edges. I guess the question would be whether the image is gone before 8" width is reached, right?

Michael,
I too tried first with a borrowed 90SA (f8) and shot a couple of sheets, they'll be ready tomorrow. It does look like it covers, but I'm sure the film will reveal dark corners.
But will it show a defined circle?
I took Louis suggestion and looked for a longer lens, but realized quickly part of the appeal is the extreme wide angle look, as well as the soft, dark edges.
I've since found a Tessar 105mm that could provide the soft edges I'm looking for, and hopefully it will also give as dramatic a look as a 90mm.
You're right, I would like the image to disappear before 8" is reached. Thanks!

An Optar will not cover due to mechanical vignetting. I think later Angulons were mechanically choked but earlier ones were not, or not so much.

Tim,
I'd prefer that it not cover 8x10, what I have in mind is darkened corners caused by vignetting, but without the hard-edged circle.
Looking for a lens with such a characteristic.

[Tim Meisburger]

Right Ari. The hard edge circle is caused by mechanical vignetting. Essentially the manufacturer is limiting the coverage of the lens to the sharp area of coverage, and cutting off the soft, unusable area. If I remember correctly, the older Angulons were supposed to cover more not because of a difference in lens, but a difference in barrel extension. The claimed coverage was deemed unrealistic because the lens became so soft in the corners.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I think you are more likely to achieve your objective with an older version.

[Ari]

Thank you very much, Tim; that makes sense. I expect to go through a few lenses looking for the right one, and when a reasonably priced Angulon comes up, I'll try that as well.

[Doug Webb]

You might try shooting with just the front or rear element of a 90 angulon in convertible fashion, shooting a 90 angulon wide open or slightly stopped down, using a 65 angulon in any of those configurations, or using a lens you already have with just front or rear element. Image circle and light fall off can change a lot if you use only the front or rear elements. The edges of an image with the 90 angulon seem to change a lot as it is stopped down in terms of image detail and maybe light fall off. Light fall off and reduced detail produce something that to me is like fading. Older lenses seem to be more prone to fading on edges.

[Ari]

Thanks for that, Doug; it certainly gives more options and sounds like a fun thing to play around with as well.

[VictoriaPerelet]

Ari, it depends on subject to lens distance. No 90mm lens that I have(or had) can cover 8x10 on infinity.

Here's 90mm SA XL pretty close to subject, paper negative:



Sent from my iPad

[Ari]

Thank you, Victoria, but I am actually not trying to cover 8x10 with the 90mm, just find out if any 90mm fades softly to black in the corners.

[N Dhananjay]

Older Angulons might be a good place to try. So would older Dagors - the Angulon is a reversed Dagor design if memory is serving me correctly. DJ

[Ari]

Thanks, DJ; I have my sights set on a tiny Tessar and an older Angulon right now. We'll see if they bear any fruit.