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

[Alan Gales]

I've got the 121mm Super Angulon. It is single coated and is said to cover 8x10 straight on with no movements. I bought it for 4x5 and have not tried it for 8x10. I like wide angle lenses but it's super wide on 8x10. Anyway, it has no problem covering 4x5 with plenty of movements. I paid about $180 for mine and have since seen a few go for even less if you are looking for a bargain. Some lenses have been going up in price on Ebay lately due to less availability, so you need to check.

The 121mm feels like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera to me but as Steve said in post #3 there is debate about that. The problem is 4x5 is a squarer format than 35mm so it depends upon how you compare them. A 90mm feels like my 25mm Zeiss lens on the old Contax to me but some feel that it's not quite that wide to them.

[neil poulsen]

I've got the 121mm Super Angulon. . .

I have this lens, and I quite like it for 4x5. For me, it's about focal length, not coverage. 120mm is a nice intermediate focal length between 90mm and 150mm, and I would prefer it to the 115mm lens. (For my own reasons.)

I have a friend who has the 115mm lens and likes it. But, he mentioned that it can have a tendency towards flare. So, he's careful about how he uses it.

To take a step further . . .

I like a moderate wide-angle lens, and for landscape, a 90mm lens a little too wide. (It's excellent for architecture.) For something a little wider than 121mm, I carry a 105mm Fujinon SW that I also like.

[xkaes]

Whether 115mm or 120mm, I don't understand getting a lens that covers 8x10 for use on a 4x5. Like the other lenses mentioned, the Fujinon 120mm lenses cover almost 300mm. I use the Fujinon NW 125mm with an image circle of 200mm. That's way more than I need for 4x5. Plus the lens is much smaller, lighter, is a whole f-stop faster, and has a newer, air-spaced design and better multi-coating. For me, that's a win-win-win-win.

[Dan Fromm]

Joe, never underestimate the power of IWANNA.

[David Karp]

A 120 or similar was a standard for shooting architecture in the days when architecture was routinely shot with a view camera.

[Alan Gales]

I have this lens, and I quite like it for 4x5. For me, it's about focal length, not coverage. 120mm is a nice intermediate focal length between 90mm and 150mm, and I would prefer it to the 115mm lens. (For my own reasons.)

I have a friend who has the 115mm lens and likes it. But, he mentioned that it can have a tendency towards flare. So, he's careful about how he uses it.

To take a step further . . .

I like a moderate wide-angle lens, and for landscape, a 90mm lens a little too wide. (It's excellent for architecture.) For something a little wider than 121mm, I carry a 105mm Fujinon SW that I also like.

Neil, like you, I bought my 121mm lens for the focal length. I have a 250mm Fujinon that I really like for 8x10 and on 4x5 the 121 feels the same. It was cheap too. I just mentioned that it covers 8x10 straight on to show that it easily covers 4x5 with all the movements anyone would want.

Who knows though, one day I may find a subject to use it on 8x10. After I bought mine I read somewhere that Clyde Butcher had one in his kit.

[Alan Gales]

Joe, never underestimate the power of IWANNA.

I think we probably have all been caught up in IWANNA at one time or another!

[consummate_fritterer]

My IWANNA is bigger than your IWANNA.

[neil poulsen]

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.

Seems to me that the original question was clear. The OP was interested in a comparison between the 120mm Nikon SW and the 115mm Rodenstock SW. He specifically indicated that, " . . . I would like the flexibility of a large image circle."

What's difficult to understand about this question? If there are posts that are taking this thread astray, it's those that put forward, and appear to insist on, lenses that do not meet the OP's original criteria.

[xkaes]

Seems to me that the original question was clear. The OP was interested in a comparison between the 120mm Nikon SW and the 115mm Rodenstock SW. He specifically indicated that, " . . . I would like the flexibility of a large image circle."

What's difficult to understand about this question? If there are posts that are taking this thread astray, it's those that put forward, and appear to insist on, lenses that do not meet the OP's original criteria.

If it were clear, we would not be here. The difficulty is that he didn't say WHY. He is using 4x5. Does he want flexibility for a future larger format, for extreme range of movements, or some other reason. You are guessing what he wants as much as any of us. The only reason we have "gone astray" -- as often happens here -- is because the original post was not specific enough and we have to guess what his situation is and what he wants and intends to mean.

So, yes, it IS difficult to understand. Why not let CWHILL tell us what he means?