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

[Michael R]

Tilts control the plane of sharpness. Apertures control the DOF. 2 different things that work together.

It’s a good point. Leaving image shape aside to keep things simple, tilts/swings are used to more closely align the plane of sharp focus with the object space one wants to keep in focus. At the same time, DOF is often more closely aligned with the object space one wants to keep in acceptable focus (although there are some gotchas to watch out for). Therefore when discussing tilts/swings in relation to focus, people sometimes say the movements are increasing DOF. If everything happens to fit, this might be effectively true, but strictly speaking is not correct, since any “de-squaring” of the lens and film plane decreases DOF.

Said another way, tilting/swinging decreases DOF about the plane of sharp focus, but might “better” orient the plane of sharp focus and DOF in relation to the object space. The simplest case is obviously forward front tilt for a receding subject that is more or less flat. One can quickly get into trouble with DOF if that receding object space includes things with significant vertical size relatively close to the camera. This is why in practice, rarely do tilts/swings allow you to use large apertures.

[Corran]

So to put this in 35mm perspective, I shoot with a Nikon D810 and I either have the 18-35mm or the 70-300mm on it. When I use the wide angle lens, I typically zoom in just a bit from 18mm, I'd say about 20-22mm is my sweet spot OR I zoom to 35mm. So, more that 60% of the time I use 20mm and 35mm. The other 40% of the time is right about 24mm to 28mm.

This is what lead me to wanting the 75mm to start. The reason I asked this question (this thread) was to see if there were any technical issues I might consider when selecting a 75mm or 90mm.

By the sounds of it, the 75mm might present a few issues that might detract from it's glory whereas the 90mm is ready to go with little, if any issues at all.

35mm of course has a different aspect ratio. Therefore, actually both the 75mm and 90mm lenses are roughly equal to the ~22mm viewpoint, in different crops. See illustration:



In other words - 90mm is like your 22mm with the edges cropped off, or 75mm is like your 22mm with extra on the top/bottom.

[Bob Salomon]

But if I can get a DOF at f/22 with .1COC from 5 feet to infinity, why bother with tilts?

Because there is only one sharp point and depth of field increases what appears to be sharp. Depending on the amount of enlargement and the print viewing distance.
Tilts/swings extends that sharp plane so it will be sharp regardless of magnification and viewing distance.
So, over the entire image area, tilts/swings, combined with aperture let’s you extend apparent sharpness and actual sharpness over the entire image area.

Stand on a stage and focus your camera on a seat in the audience. The sharpness will extend across that row of seats but seats in front and behind that row will be apparently sharp to unsharp depending on how far away they are from that seat you focused on.
Now use a tilt and you can make every seat in a straight row sharp from the front row to the back row. But seats to each side will be apparently sharp to unsharp depending on your aperture. Now close your lens down and the amount of apparently sharp seats will be extended.

[AdamD]

Yeah there's like two different conversations going on right now...That's pretty cool because both a great!!

For lens equivalents, I found this site very interesting:
https://xw.is/wiki/Focal_length_equi...etween_formats

This hits on the crop factors of different formats. I can clearly see how my 150mm lens (LF) can be = to a 42mm on my FF camera OR a 35mm FF if I set my crop to 4x5 in-camera.

I can play around with my 18-35mm lens and figure out which focal length might be best to start with.

As for the depth of field conversation...to me, I use front tilt so I can increase my depth of field. I know this is technically incorrect, but effectively that what I'm doing. I placing my optimum plane of focus between two points that I want sharp and I stop down to achieve a compromise for everything else. But look at the end game. When a person who has no idea what kind of camera was used to take the picture sees it. They see the pretty flowers in focus and the pretty mountain in the distance in focus and they see everything else in focus too, unless they scrutinize the image.

So, what does tilt do for you and why do you use it? Forget the technical reasoning and what physics is involved; what is the end game?

Not every image is a good fit for tilt such as the Grand Canyon. You'll get the flower and the far side of the Rim in sharp focus, but everything in the middle will look soft even at f/64!! So don't tilt, you just need to stop down a lot.

Now, apply that to the 75mm that has all kinds of DOF at f/22. I STILL say I would use tilts because again, it optimizes what you want sharp. Further, I can use a wider aperture and still get my compromised middle ground in focus. So I think you'd still want to use tilt on a 75mm if the scene lent itself to it. At the Grand Canyon, I'd stop down to f/45 and be satisfied.

I appreciate the technical aspects of the movments and what they actually do. But it's also helpful to understand the practical application of the movements and how and when to use them.

Am I wrong?

[Alan Gales]

Home made chocolate chip cookies are the best. They beat store bought hands down!

As for lenses, I'd be more concerned with max aperture or focal length over brand name.

Faster lenses are easier to see in low light. Slower lenses are less weight for back packing.

To me a 90mm is more useful. The 75 would be nice for the occasion when you want wider.

That's my 2 chocolate chips worth of advice.

[AdamD]

YES!! My wife makes insanely good chocolate chip cookies and the best apple pie ever!! In fact, I keep her mostly for that!!

I'm starting to move back to the 90mm "camp". According to that website I linked above (which seems accurate), my 18mm FF focal length when in-camera crop to 5x4 is set will give me a 75mm view. Further, when I zoom that lens to 22mm I'd get a 90mm view. I kinda think I like the 90mm view a bit more. Fact is, they are both really nice. When I zoom to 35mm, I can see it matches up perfectly with my 150mm lens.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the fast aperture 90's.

But don't hold your breath....I might change my mind in a minute!!

[Bernice Loui]

Why always f22? There are times when using full aperture is a must and a means to achieve an image goal. Taking aperture is just another tool in the view camera tool kit.

IMO, that calculated COF is not as relevant and some believe as these are calculated values and does not always apply to what is expressive or good visually in the finished image. This is where artistic vision, skill of technique, experience and knowing precisely what is desired makes these charts essentially useless.

As for camera movements with extreme wide angle lenses, do this ALL the time. It is why the bag bellows is always used with any wide angle lens (120mm to 72mm on 5x7 and why I've given up on field folders as they can never offer the camera movement ability a GOOD monorail VC can with a bag bellows can). It might not be apparent of obvious initially, but camera movement with a wide angle lens is essential for exploiting all the capabilities of what these modern wide angle lenses are capable of offering in their excellent image making abilities. A GOOD fine grit ground glass (NO fresnel lens), a GOOD focusing loupe, a GOOD dark cloth and knowing how best to apply these basic tools makes ALL the difference.


Bernice

But if I can get a DOF at f/22 with .1COC from 5 feet to infinity, why bother with tilts?

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, start with a 90mm wide angle with 4x5 as this has been proven to be the most useful and commonly used 4x5 wide angle focal length for a long list of very good reasons.

Once enough film has been burned and images viewed, digested and considered that would be the time to consider adding a wider focal length.


Bernice

Right now, I'm leaning towards the fast aperture 90's.

But don't hold your breath....I might change my mind in a minute!!

[AdamD]

Why always f22? There are times when using full aperture is a must and a means to achieve an image goal. Taking aperture is just another tool in the view camera tool kit.

IMO, that calculated COF is not as relevant and some believe as these are calculated values and does not always apply to what is expressive or good visually in the finished image. This is where artistic vision, skill of technique, experience and knowing precisely what is desired makes these charts essentially useless.

As for camera movements with extreme wide angle lenses, do this ALL the time. It is why the bag bellows is always used with any wide angle lens (120mm to 72mm on 5x7 and why I've given up on field folders as they can never offer the camera movement ability a GOOD monorail VC can with a bag bellows can). It might not be apparent of obvious initially, but camera movement with a wide angle lens is essential for exploiting all the capabilities of what these modern wide angle lenses are capable of offering in their excellent image making abilities. A GOOD fine grit ground glass (NO fresnel lens), a GOOD focusing loupe, a GOOD dark cloth and knowing how best to apply these basic tools makes ALL the difference.


Bernice

YES!! I totally agree Bernice!!

You connect a LOT of dots for my line of thinking in this single thread!!

If I'm going to shoot LF, you have to bet I want/need to fully exploit the ability to move my lens around. Further, and you might have read that thread "Chamonix F2 vs. Xxxxxx". In there I was looking for an alternative to the field camera because of the many "complaints" I've read about field cameras being fiddly especially when using wide angle lenses. I gravitate towards the wide side, so I was in a conundrum with the F2. I love how monorail cameras afford you a ton of flexibility at the wide end and long end.

The trick is finding the right balance in a monorail camera that can effectively be used in the field. Again considering the sacrifices that need to be made...

I have settled on the Arca-Swiss F-Line and now you guys have me convinced to start with the 90mm (add that to my 150mm).

So you got me all straightened out now!!

Just need to spend the $$ now. Gulp!!!!

[neil poulsen]

. . . The question actually applies to the 75mm and 90mm lens choices. This is what I'm looking for:

1. I shoot mostly landscape. Color transparencies, print film and B&W. I will occasionally shoot architecture and portrait.

2. I prefer the more modern look. I have a Fuji 150mm. I'd consider that a mordern look, but I'm not married to that look and feel.

3. I would like something that is more contrasty than the Fuji 150mm. I notice I always need/want to add contrast to my images and feel like the 150mm could use a bit more pop. But it's not a problem.

4. I'd love to stick with 67mm threads if possible.

5. I really don't want a bohemith lens, but I'm not counting ounces either. Just a modest size and weight would be just fine.

6. 4x5 image circle is all that is needed, but It would be very nice to not run into limited movements due to an overly small image circle. I don't see a reason to limit myself with this lens unless the image quality was over the top amazing.

7. I've read a thread about lens personality, and I get it, but like I mentioned earlier, the modern look is what I'd prefer, but I'm open to see what other manufacturers can do. I'm not married to an all Fuji kit or all-German kit. I don't care if I sample them all, but I do value a high quality images from an excellent lens. Yet I'm not quite ready to drop $1500 on a stupid lens!! The $600 or less range is palitable and the $400 range is very reasonable, I think...

Ok....now, with that all said, got suggestions on the "best" 75mm and 90mm lenses??? 😁

Many thanks!!!

Adam

For the 90mm focal length, there's a pretty clear response . . . A 90mm Nikon f8 lens would be excellent. I have one of these. I photograph both landscape and exterior architecture, and this lens works really well for me.

It's the smaller f8, yet it has the same image circle as other f5.6 lenses. (235mm at f22.) So, it would be excellent for landscape, and while it may be a little more difficult to focus for interior architecture, it's got the movements that you would need.

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.

The Nikon f8 90mm has a 67mm filter ring.

As for 75mm, you might consider staying with a Nikon f4.5 for the contrast advantage. Plus, it has an edge on maximum aperture compared to other lenses . . . f4.5 versus f5.6. As for image circle, it's specs are 200mm at f16, where others quote similar image circles at f22. You do not want the f8 version of these lenses. Very little image circle.