Best 75mm / 90mm lens?......totally kidding, but not really...read on pls

[Bernice Loui]

Tested and verified aka been there done this and why no Nikkor view camera lenses are in the collection.

Higher contrast rendition by an lens alone is NOT an advantage it is merely a look, nothing more, nothing less. For some this feature is of high value, for some this feature is of zero value. It depends on image goals.

The belief-idea a famed image maker prefers a specific brand of hardware does NOT mean it is best for another image maker and their specific needs.


Bernice

When John Sexton was working for Ansel Adams, he was part of conducting tests on different brands to compare contrast. Nikon lenses were generally more contrasty.

[Doremus Scudder]

You guys got me tied back in a knot!!

Now I'm thinking I should go with a 90mm and if I want a wider lens then jump to the 75mm, but if all good, then I'm done...

I think I'm going to stop posting questions!!!

Not...

Adam,

Sorry for adding to the confusion, if I did. But, you know, life is a fractal; the closer you look, the more complex it becomes

What you suggest is exactly what I would recommend: Go for the 90mm first and add the 75mm (or a 65mm) if you find you need it later. The 90mm focal length is a workhorse and a standard for a good reason.

And, you can get by more easily without a center filter with the 90mm, especially if you shoot b&w. Get one of the f/8 versions (or the Grandagon f/6.8) and you'll be able to use your 67mm filters.

And, don't stop posting questions

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

Or don't worry about because most of the times the CF isn't needed!

Doremus - I was only talking about tilt, wrt the image circle. Certainly for rise/shift you don't have as much to work with as other lenses. But I would imagine you could tilt as much as possibly needed for "max DOF" reasons with almost 200mm image circle yes?

I've debating picking up a 75mm lens of that spec. I have a 75mm Biogon for reasons as well as the 72mm XL, both of which are of course huge and heavy w/ commensurately big filters. I tend to go from 90mm straight to 58mm though.

Corran,

I suppose that you're correct here and that a 196mm image circle is enough to allow tilts/swings for many situations, especially with a shorter focal length lens and when one is just interested in repositioning the plane of sharp focus optimally and doesn't need other movements in combination. I really should have been clearer in my original post and not thrown a wrench into the works of the discussion. My opinion is highly personal and based on things I like to do with image management.

But, there are other reasons to use tilts and swings besides just repositioning the plane of sharp focus in a scene. One of the most common, for me, is using them to get things parallel in architectural and city photography. It's nice to be able to set up with the camera back parallel horizontally to whatever you're photographing, but in many instances it is simply not possible. Nor can I get the camera exactly in front of where I want the optical center of the photograph to be.

Therefore, it's set up as close to the ideal camera position as possible. Then make sure the back is plumb and use front rise/fall to frame the image vertically. Then the fun starts: using shift and swings on both front and rear standards to get the horizontal lines parallel and get the plane of focus aligned with the façade and to frame the image how I want it. This, coupled with the rise I've usually already applied, uses up a lot of image circle.

I apply similar movements when photographing in canyons, interiors or in other close-quarter situations, so even for "landscape" photography, having a fairly large image circle is pretty important for me.

Plus, I often like to offset the optical center of images, getting away from the "bullseye" look of most photography and really drawing the attention to an area not in the center of the frame. I use cropping to do this too, but doing as much as I can do in-camera is better. So, I'm using lateral shift a lot and, if I run out of that, then the point-and-swing-parallel method to add more effective shift. That uses up image circle too.

Like I mentioned earlier, I run out of image circle with my 75mm all the time, especially when using filters, so have to rethink my original visualization and compromise or abandon the shot. I rarely have that problem with my 90mm Nikkor SW f/8, but did with the Schneider SA f/8, which is why I acquired the Nikkor with the larger image circle. It's also why I carry my WF Ektar 135 more than a standard Plasmat, even though it's a bit larger.

For fun, here's a photo of my Wista SW with the WA bellows and the 135mm WF Ektar in action in close quarters in Vienna. I've got extra rise applied by using the point-up-and-tilt-parallel trick plus a fair bit of shift and swing applied as well. I'm was at the edge of the 229mm image circle this lens projects.




Best,

Doremus

[AdamD]

UPDATE:

I am very fortunate in that one of our forum members lives somewhat close to me. He's helped me out on many occasions.

He again helped me out by letting me borrow his 90mm Schneider f/8. I was then able to see first hand how it looked and probably more importantly, use it on my camera (Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171). I was concerned that 90mm would be too short for the bellows.

The great news is, it works. While it is true my movements are somewhat restricted in that I can't use gobs of rise/fall, but at least enough for "normal" composition. And I also can't combine rise/fall AND shift or swing. But, most importantly I can use rise/fall and lots of tilt (which actually relieves pressure on the bellows). So...I'm good.

I have since ordered a Rodenstock 90mm f/6.8. I'm very excited about that!!

So again, this thread has been hugely helpful to me. Thank you all.

[Bernice Loui]

Bag bellows for this Arca Swiss will likely solve the limited camera movement problem. This is often true for using WA lenses on any view camera.

Bernice

my camera (Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171). I was concerned that 90mm would be too short for the bellows.

The great news is, it works. While it is true my movements are somewhat restricted in that I can't use gobs of rise/fall, but at least enough for "normal" composition. And I also can't combine rise/fall AND shift or swing. But, most importantly I can use rise/fall and lots of tilt (which actually relieves pressure on the bellows). So...I'm good.

I have since ordered a Rodenstock 90mm f/6.8. I'm very excited about that!!

[neil poulsen]

UPDATE: . . . on my camera (Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic 171). I was concerned that 90mm would be too short for the bellows. . . .

Just a comment . . .

I used to have the 171mm front format frame on my Arca, and I liked the "wide angle" pleated, leather bellows, because they could handle wide angle optics, yet extend far enough for use with a 180mm lens. It was only for lenses 250mm and above that I needed the accordion bellows. (Mine was the long 70cm accordion bellows.) But for use with a 75mm lens (as I recall), I needed the non-pleated bag bellows. Else, it became cramped. So, three sets of bellows was I needing to carry.

I now have basically the same 171mm camera, but with the 110mm (medium format) front format frame. With the reduced front format frame, the pleated wide-angle leather bellows can accommodate all my super-wide lenses. I have a non-pleated bag bellows for this camera, but I never use it.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Not to take this thread off topic so much as to recenter it on center filters: I finally had a chance to catch up on developing the other day with E6 and noted for the first time what may be a need for CF's after skimming through this thread. In short, I first thought I must have done something wrong in handling some of my negs (not all), as they "looked" good until scanned. Scanned, there is a defect in the center where exposure seems to be too bright. At least that's what I thought. With the same lens in the same location shot, there is zero issue using FP4. After initially scratching my head, "Hmmm another thing to scan the books for answers?" I realized here on this thread that maybe this is a CF issue since mention is made that with chromes this is a more prevalent problem. YES! Okay, I'm not convinced because it was in fact a 135mm lens and not all THAT wide, but still it didn't show up with the 240mm. And it's possible the angle of the sun played a role... but not much as that was more behind my left shoulder (not far, but still behind). Still... with limited understanding.... PILOT error is my assumption. So I need to debug this problem. So I wonder, "Am I on the right track with this, need more information, or what?" Thanks for reading.

[Dan Fromm]

If you shot a 135 on 4x5 you absolutely positively shouldn't need a CF. The corners will be down 3/4 stop from the center, or the center up 3/4 stop from the corners.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Yeah. Looks about 3/4 or so overexposed in the center. So, "Uh oh." Will have to look elsewhere for what to do I guess.

[Alan Klein]

Couldn't someone actually measure this by shooting at a white wall? Then measuring the intensity of the scan by sampling different areas of the image to see the falloff in stops?