Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    1,128

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    At least two here have said these lenses would be overkill. Let me make that at least three. But somehow, for some reason, LF makes some people go overboard. Many confuse a large image circle with a large angle of view.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Collinsville, CT USA
    Posts
    1,358

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    Another one to consider is a 105mm FUJINON SW f/8 with letters on the outside of the barrel. Stopped down it barely, and I mean barely just covers whole plate.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,332

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    Quote Originally Posted by xkaes View Post
    At least two here have said these lenses would be overkill. Let me make that at least three.
    I also think it, the nikon SW 120 covers just 8x10, so that coverage is an overkill.

    With a not needed coverage we can have some drawbacks:

    > More stray light bouncing from bellows to film, in the SW120 case 3/4 of the light go to the belows (most illuminating the folds of the bellows), this can erode the Multicoating absence of flare.

    > Less chance of high 4x5 performance because design has to be optimized also for more distant corners.

    > More weight and cost.

    > Chance of lower max aperture with same weight.

    But Nikon SW 120 still may be a good option if one plans to move to 5x7 or even 8x10, still for 8x10 the SW 150 may be a better choice, because it allows movements even when focused at infinite.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    1,128

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    Once again, we will need to hear back from CWHILL as to what he wants to do -- after giving us an inadequately phrased question. We can come up with every option under the sun, as we often do -- or why this or that would be the better approach -- until waiting to hear back from the person with the original question.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    12,719

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    I also think it, the nikon SW 120 covers just 8x10, so that coverage is an overkill.

    With a not needed coverage we can have some drawbacks:

    > More stray light bouncing from bellows to film, in the SW120 case 3/4 of the light go to the belows (most illuminating the folds of the bellows), this can erode the Multicoating absence of flare.

    > Less chance of high 4x5 performance because design has to be optimized also for more distant corners.

    > More weight and cost.

    > Chance of lower max aperture with same weight.

    But Nikon SW 120 still may be a good option if one plans to move to 5x7 or even 8x10, still for 8x10 the SW 150 may be a better choice, because it allows movements even when focused at infinite.
    The Rodenstock optimally covers more then 57. In fact, so does the 90mm 4.5 Grandagon-N MC!

  6. #16
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    7,236

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    For those saying the 120mm Nikkor or other similar lenses are overkill, consider that it could be a multi-use optic for both 4x5 and 8x10, if one foresees going that way.

    That's why I bought mine, when I found one at an excellent price (consider that the Nikkor sells for under $500, sometimes under $400!). For 8x10, this is a STEAL for an ultrawide lens. On 4x5, it's an excellent lens for architecture if you don't want as wide as a 90mm and normal lenses are too long.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  7. #17
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,291

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    I have the 115 Grandagon. For me it's a very-wide for 5x7 and whole plate. IMO it's overkill for general 4x5 field work - way too much bulk and weight to lug in a 4x5 field kit unless one has a very specific need for extreme movements.

    35mm is my favorite focal length for 35mm. There's no strict equivalent for 4x5 because of the different aspect ratio, but my favorite focal length for 4x5 is 135mm. There are many excellent, affordable, very compact 135mm lenses that would serve very nicely in a 4x5 field kit. I would start there and go to the big Grandagon or Nikkor-SW only if you find from experience that you really need the extra coverage.

    Also a general point about using extensive movements: if the idea is to use lots of front rise on architectural subjects, keep in mind that beyond a certain fairly modest amount, the artifice calls attention to itself and the pictures pretty much scream "look how much front rise I used!" If that's what you want it's fine, but to my admittedly jaundiced eye that works only occasionally as an in-your-face special effect; usually it's just annoying. A portfolio full of such pictures certainly wouldn't reflect a "consistent aesthetic" with 35-format pictures taken without a shift lens.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,559

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    Have used both on 5x7 for decades. The image circle is large enough to allow significant camera movements on 5x7. Both are not small, not light weight. On 4x5 the larger than needed image circle could be excessive for what is needed.

    What about a modern 135mm f5.6 Plasmat (Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider, Nikor) in place of the 115mm or 120mm?

    Better light weight combo could be a 135mm f5.6 and a 90mm f8.


    Might also consider a 120mm Angulon, 4 3/8" Wide Angle Dagor or similar, it is much smaller is does fine at f16 and smaller apertures.


    Bernice

  9. #19
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,410

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    What about a modern 135mm f5.6 Plasmat (Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider, Nikor) [...]
    May I save the OP from the Planar 135mm ƒ3.5? It is one of the lenses I got with my Super Technika. Sure, I like it a lot. Fast, easy to use on the ground glass, but with so limited coverage that movements are almost futile. I wonder how it established a good reputation. Legend?
    .

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,559

    Re: Nikkor SW 120mm f/8 vs Rodenstock Grandagon N 115mm f/6.8 for Chanomix 45N-2

    Zeiss... branding.

    They have good performance at-near full aperture, once stopped down this advantage is discounted. Been there done this, pass. IMO, a good Tessar is a much better value giving up about one f-stop of full aperture.

    It seems there is a modern market run on large aperture LF lenses for some reason.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    May I save the OP from the Planar 135mm ƒ3.5? It is one of the lenses I got with my Super Technika. Sure, I like it a lot. Fast, easy to use on the ground glass, but with so limited coverage that movements are almost futile. I wonder how it established a good reputation. Legend?
    .

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •