Fuji 90mm f8 SW or Nikon 90mm f8 SW

[Bernice Loui]

Keep in mind wide angle lenses project the collected light rays across a larger area which will effectively reduce the light intensity on the ground glass/image recording method. Starting out with a wide angle lens that has a large aperture allows collecting more light to be projected/spread out across the ground glass/image recoding method. Trade off, the larger aperture lens will be bigger, heavier, more difficult to achieve excellent optical performance and more difficult to produce resulting in higher cost. It is all a fixed set of trade offs with no "magic miracles" regardless of who attempts to design/produce lenses like this.

f8 wide angle lenses are not that difficult to focus in bright sun or similar high brightness situations. This is balanced by the lens angle of view, per what was written above. Or, a 47mm f5.6 Schneider Super Angulon XL will be difficult to compose/focus if used in a dark interior scene compared to a 120mm f8 Super Angulon under the same conditions with the same film format size (4x5).

If the image making needs/goals are to make outdoor landscape or similar outdoor images in well lighted conditions that demands portability trading off other needs. Images like this might be best served by a light weight field folder with the smallest/lightest weight wide angle lens like a 90mm f6.8 Schneider Angulon or 4 3/8" f8 wide angle dagor instead of a modern f8 wide angle lens such as the Nikkor, Fujinon, Schneider... Trade off will be image circle (field folders tend to have limited camera movements with short focal length lenses as a given), light fall-off, distortion but NOT resolution per say.

In the case of technically difficult and challenging interior architectural images where camera movement abilities and lens capabilities are pushed to their absolute limits, any of the larger aperture f4.5 or f5.6 wide angle lenses are at a distinct advantage with their larger image circle, larger aperture aiding focus and more. Trade off, these are physically larger physically heavier and more lens which also required a non light weight field folder camera that will properly support the capabilities of these larger aperture wide angle lenses.


All back to what the image goals are, what lenses are required to support the image goals not until these basic two conditions are well defined, the camera choice can be possibly made.

Fresnel lenses that can aid in concentrating the image light collected by the normal or longer focal length lens producing a brighter ground glass image can produce a double image due to the interaction between light collected by wide angle lens to the ground glass then effectively bouncing between the ground glass and fresnel lens making focusing difficult in many ways. Using a good ground glass is often best. Tilting the focusing loupe can aid in viewing the ground glass edges and corners.


Bernice

Focussing slow wide angles can be tricky and depends on your focussing screen, usual lighting conditions, eyesight, proper use of a focussing cloth, etc. So it's easier to say it's personal than to give exact guidelines. But for me, personally, a 65/8 Super-Angulon is a pain to focus, 121/8 SA is no problem except in very dim conditions and longer lenses (210/9, 300/9) are easy. For me, 90mm is about the tipping point where focussing at f/8 turns bothersome. If I were a heavy user of the focal length, I'd probably end up with two - a small slow one for hiking and a big fast one for everything else. But I'm not, so I 'll stick with my f/5.6 SA.

[Mark Sampson]

You know, my eyesight isn't perfect, and I've never had trouble focusing the two 90/8 lenses I've owned. Outdoors- no problem. And when I was shooting interiors... there were the modeling lights from the strobes.
Add in exposures at f/16 and I've always been good. No doubt f/4.5 would be brighter on-screen, but I've never felt deprived. Coverage? Never ran out yet.

[pdmoylan]

One question I might have in deciding on lenses is whether the latest design of the xl series, for instance, has improved color/contrast characteristics. From what I have seen the SSXL seem to provide more nuanced color, perhaps leading to a false conclusion that they are closer to APO quality than their predecessors.

The 90 xL I have never tried but the results I have seen in books and calendars seems a bit more vibrant, better differentiation. I wonder if anyone can speak to this? Also, never had problems focusing a 90mmf8 in very low light.

[Bernice Loui]

"Pro tip"... if the interior area to be images IS that dark, apply battery powered flashlights as needed. This can aid greatly to focusing on the GG.


Bernice

You know, my eyesight isn't perfect, and I've never had trouble focusing the two 90/8 lenses I've owned. Outdoors- no problem. And when I was shooting interiors... there were the modeling lights from the strobes.
Add in exposures at f/16 and I've always been good. No doubt f/4.5 would be brighter on-screen, but I've never felt deprived. Coverage? Never ran out yet.

[Drew Wiley]

Certain basics: illumination falloff comes with the territory of wide angle lens design. And the Achilles heel to just deciding to ignore falloff and not invest in a center filter is that once any significant view camera movement is applied - whether rise, tilt, shift, etc - your cone of light is off axis and the falloff itself will no longer be symmetrical in the image. In other words, you might end of with one side of the image significantly darker than the opposite side, or one corner mismatched to another. And don't blame me for complicating things. Blame God or the laws of physics instead. It is just a fact of life, optically.

And in terms of color film usage, significant density shifts do not necessarily remain color neutral, but can often induce actual hue shifts or color-crossover issues. So in that case, you can't simply dodge or burn away off-axis problems. A center filter becomes even more important. I don't want to go beyond that at the moment; but there are other potential issues too.

Any modern wide angle lens from the big four is designed to handle color film competently. But none of them should be classified as "apo" in the stricter graphics sense; but in general purpose photography they're going to be plenty good enough. Don't take books or calendars as a standard of comparison. In fact, almost no mode of color presentation other than an old fashioned slide show can due justice to hue differentiations achievable with most modern lenses.

The best way to avoid needing center filters is to use regular wide lenses instead of wide-angle ones. That works down to about 120mm for 4X5 coverage, provided you don't need strong architecture-style movements. Once you enter true wide angle territory, worse falloff and that stretched toward corners look becomes inevitable. The Super Symmar 110XL might allow a little more wiggle room with only modest falloff; but they're expensive and the earlier serial number had a serious quality control issue.

[Alan Klein]

Certain basics: illumination falloff comes with the territory of wide angle lens design. And the Achilles heel to just deciding to ignore falloff and not invest in a center filter is that once any significant view camera movement is applied - whether rise, tilt, shift, etc - your cone of light is off axis and the falloff itself will no longer be symmetrical in the image. In other words, you might end of with one side of the image significantly darker than the opposite side, or one corner mismatched to another. And don't blame me for complicating things. Blame God or the laws of physics instead. It is just a fact of life, optically.

And in terms of color film usage, significant density shifts do not necessarily remain color neutral, but can often induce actual hue shifts or color-crossover issues. So in that case, you can't simply dodge or burn away off-axis problems. A center filter becomes even more important. I don't want to go beyond that at the moment; but there are other potential issues too.

Any modern wide angle lens from the big four is designed to handle color film competently. But none of them should be classified as "apo" in the stricter graphics sense; but in general purpose photography they're going to be plenty good enough. Don't take books or calendars as a standard of comparison. In fact, almost no mode of color presentation other than an old fashioned slide show can due justice to hue differentiations achievable with most modern lenses.

The best way to avoid needing center filters is to use regular wide lenses instead of wide-angle ones. That works down to about 120mm for 4X5 coverage, provided you don't need strong architecture-style movements. Once you enter true wide angle territory, worse falloff and that stretched toward corners look becomes inevitable. The Super Symmar 110XL might allow a little more wiggle room with only modest falloff; but they're expensive and the earlier serial number had a serious quality control issue.

Just so I understand, Drew: do you also get falloff with Velvia 50 or Provia 100 or BW TMAX, when using a center filter and using movements? For regular landscape shooting like I do where there may only be a minor amount of tilt or slight rise, would there be noticeable falloff? I'm thinking of my Nikkor SW 90mm f/4.5 with Schnieder IV CF.

[Dan Fromm]

Alan, PMFJI. Alan, there's always falloff. This is a property of the lens, depends on focal length and angle off axis. Film used has nothing to do with it, BUT negative film usually has more exposure latitude than reversal so with it less detail is lost off axis.

There's a consensus to the effect that a CF isn't really needed when shooting 4x5 with a 90 mm lens and minimal movements. With the lens centered, the corners will be 1.5 stops down from the center. Whether you agree with the consensus depends on your preferences and how far you move the lens. You'll have to try and see how much darkness in the corners you can tolerate. There's no fixed rule that fits every photographer's tastes and situation.

[r.e.]

Further to comments in earlier posts on monorails and the weight savings of field cameras and smaller aperture lenses...

I use a monorail and, all things being equal, go with a wide aperture version of a focal length when I have a choice. The photo below shows an Arca-Swiss Discovery F-Line camera and Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm lens. A stock Discovery is 2.3kg (5lb) and the lens is 440g (0.97lb), for a total of 2.75kg (6lb). This camera would be a bit lighter with Arca-Swiss's more recent 141mm² lens boards. I've changed out the Discovery's friction carriers for geared carriers, which adds a few ounces, but I could also reduce rail weight by changing out the 30cm rail (12") for a 15cm rail (6"). I carry the camera one-handed by the rail, with the camera upside down.

I know almost nothing about folding field cameras. How much lighter would this setup be, if at all, with a well-made field camera that could be used with this lens or similar?


Arca-Swiss F-Line 4x5 with Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm Lens & Centre Filter




Old B&H Catalogue Page on the Arca-Swiss F-Line Discovery

[Bernice Loui]

Another monorail example

Sinar Norma:

4x5 rear standard about 1000 grams.

Sinar front standard about 1000 grams.

Cut down 7" rail about 200 grams.

Bag bellows, about 170 grams

Rodenstock 75mm f4.5 as previously exampled, about 445 grams.

Aprox total, about 2815 grams or about 6.2 pounds.


Example with 47mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL. Note front rise on the Norma with the 47mm SAXL, this is possible with a field folder?
Need for this degree of camera movement is driven by image goals and lens image circle capability.


~Wista 45SP no lens, 6.3 pounds.
~Linhof Master Technika no lens, 6.5 pounds.
~Intrepid 4x5 no lens, 2.6 pounds.
~Chamonix 45f-2 no lens, 3.52 pounds.

Point being, yes there are lower weight field folders. Once the lens and all related (film holders about 170 grams per 4x5 holder and more)
are added up, focusing on reducing the weight of the camera alone is not a good idea as the other mandatory items that are a must to make LF
images add up to more than just the camera.

Lightweight camera outfit pays the price of stability. Specially outdoors when the wind blows, how to keep any lightweight camera stable/precise/accurate under these conditions. Add long shutter speeds and more, making lowest weight camera outfit into a big problem instead of a big advantage.


Bernice

[Doremus Scudder]

Just so I understand, Drew: do you also get falloff with Velvia 50 or Provia 100 or BW TMAX, when using a center filter and using movements? For regular landscape shooting like I do where there may only be a minor amount of tilt or slight rise, would there be noticeable falloff? I'm thinking of my Nikkor SW 90mm f/4.5 with Schnieder IV CF.

PMFJI2...

Alan,
If you're using a center filter, you are compensating for the light falloff in the lens design. I.e., for all practical purposes, there is NO falloff when you are using the proper center filter since you are blocking the light from the center of the image circle and then progressively less to the edges. You compensate for the even illumination by using the filter factor.

It's when you are using a wide-angle lens without a center filter that you get falloff, which can then be offset from center when you use movements, resulting in an uneven look, i.e., with one or more corners darker than the others.

Doremus