Will the front standard on that lightweight field camera even realistically support the weight of a huge lens without risking vibration or compromising acute focus?
I'm not kidding.
Will the front standard on that lightweight field camera even realistically support the weight of a huge lens without risking vibration or compromising acute focus?
I'm not kidding.
The 80mm is a jewel. Tiny, huge image circle, incredibly sharp. The end of the line for large format lens design. The 90 and the 72 are great, but huge. Unless you are doing extreme architecture, you will never use all the movements the 80mm allows. Plus it uses 67mm filters.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
Depends on the look you want; or in the case of a commercial architectural shot, whether falloff is even acceptable by professional repro standards. Chromes
aren't the only problem film. Some color neg films will show a color shift toward the corners due to placement lower on the dye sensitivity curve. Center filters
add cost and weight, esp if you need an 82mm version or bigger.
Here is the shot that convinced me to buy a CF for my 80XL.Originally Posted by Peter Lewin
This shot also suffers from the 80XL's fall off.
In this very case, I'm afraid the presence of the falloff in your picture is not necessarily a sign of centre filter necessity. If you did not know that in your picture the light in the landscape was uniform you could easily suppose that a simple hole in cloud cover is responsible for the light distribution in the picture. And it certainly has its appeal too.Here is the shot that convinced me to buy a CF for my 80XL.
On my wall I have a panoramic picture of vast landscape where the edges of it are visibly darkened. Once an amateur photographer sawing the picture said - you needed to use a centre filter for this picture! I told him that the difference in the light was entirely natural and made by quickly moving cloud cover. The cloud cover is clearly visible in the picture - only a predetermined mind would think that such cloud cover needs to allow for uniform illumination.
Hi Sean,
the Schneider SA XL range are all incredible lenses. I've used most of them for work although the 47mm XL and the 90mm XL remain my favourites.
Bob's point about the centre filter is really valid for critical imaging and lighting control; you may just about get away without using one for the 80mm XL, since it's possible to do without for the 90mm XL on slide film. But it's much easier with a 90mm. Filter size isn't a reason for a photographer to limit his perspective and choice for a lens for large format surely?
Here is an example on the 47mm XL shot on a Silvestri 5"x4" with IIIc corrected centre filter (minus two stops). I really do not like 5"x4" and hence the 4"x4" thumbnail:
https://flic.kr/p/McrE4p
https://flic.kr/p/McryZB
And without the centre filter:
https://flic.kr/p/M2CMky
Good luck!
Kind regards
RJ
This is my hometown Hong Kong!
About center filters - if we use a relatively low contrast film, falloff is easier to deal with, and I think for LF most of use such film.
And when starting to establish exposure with a center filter, begin with 1.5 stops of compensation and don't be surprised if you need 2.5 stops, then stop down at least two stops from wide open in order to make the filter work properly. It's physics. I loaned a w/a with center filter to a fellow who could see no improvement. He had shot it at maximum aperture, thus no significant effect.
As to which lens, well it's difficult to find a poor modern lens for LF. I have never been disappointed with Rodenstock in any way whatsoever.
With 4x5 you don't need an XL lens. I'd get the regular Schneider SA or the Rodenstock Grandagon and be done with it. It will be a whole lot cheaper and readily available, much smaller in size, you won't need a center filter and neither you nor anyone else will be able to tell the difference in an image between the two. I have 90 XL and I've not used it for some 15 years, and then only used it for architectural interiors. Never used a center filter with it. If I needed something that wide today, I'd probably use a WA Dagor, but I shoot very little 4x5 these days, mostly 8x10.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks