Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm

[r.e.]

I use 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and I'm considering the purchase of a lens in the range of 90mm to 165mm. This thread is mostly a vehicle to post the attached chart, which shows some of the characteristics of the lenses on my shortlist. Some people, now or later, may find the chart, and the explanation below, useful. Except on one issue, I'm not really looking for advice.

I would, however, appreciate comments on the following question. My shortlist only includes modern lenses by Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider (Fujinon didn't make the cut). The cost of some of the options, particularly of the 150mm to 165mm lenses for 8x10, may well be more than I'm prepared to pay. I know little about other brands. I wonder whether there are lenses by, for example, Kodak or Wollensak, that are solid alternatives but less expensive.

I'd love to get two lenses, one for 4x5 and one for 8x10, but that is not an option financially.

So, there are two basic considerations behind my shortlist and the resulting chart.

1. I use an Arca-Swiss F-Line monorail for 4x5 and 8x10, with 171mm lens boards, standard bellows capacity up to 700mm and a leather bag bellows for 4x5. I have a 5x7 camera (a Linhof Kardan Bi), but it's doubtful that I'll use it going forward. Consequently, 5x7 format is not a major consideration for me. I am considering 4x10 for some purposes, which means either masking an 8x10 sheet of film or composing with the intention of cropping.
   
   
2. For the foreseeable future, my focus is on urban landscape, environmental portraiture and occasional macrophotography. I need to be able to get closer to subjects than a "standard" lens will allow; for example, photographing a storefront without trying to do it from the middle of the street. Hence the interest in wide lenses.

I've also taken into account my current lenses that cover 4x5:

Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm f/4.5 (note to self: do I really need a 90mm lens?)
Nikon Nikkor AM ED 120mm f/5.6 (only for macrophotography)
Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N 150mm f/5.6
Docter Optic 210mm f/4.5
Wollensak Portrait Veritar 10"/254mm f/6

And my current lenses that cover both 4x5 and 8x10:

Nikon Nikkor AM ED 210mm f/5.6 (only for macrophotography)
Nikon Nikkor W 240mm f/5.6
Nikon Nikkor W 360mm f/6.5
Fujinon C 600mm f/11.5 (think photographing Manhattan from the Brooklyn/Queens side of the Hudson River)

The cost of an additional centre filter is a consideration. Currently, I have Rodenstock's E67/86, which fits lenses that take 67mm filters.

So is the cost of standard filters. I don't have screw-in filters larger than 95mm or rectangular filters larger than 100mm².

Notes to the Chart's Column Headings

Street Price New: I've taken the street prices from this forum's lens comparison charts. I see those prices as a very rough guide. For example, there's a thread in this forum that says that Badger Graphic, at least, was offering Schneider's Super-Symmar XL 110mm for significantly less than $1,670.

Centre Filter: The ✓ means that my Rodenstock E67/86 will work with the lens.

Coverage in 35mm Equivalent: Also from the forum's lens comparison charts. As I'm sure everyone knows, different methods yield different numbers. I use "~8x10" in two cases to signify that the lens barely covers 8x10, or doesn't quite, at least without stopping down beyond f22. I'm not keen to go as wide as 110mm to 120mm for 8x10 or 4x10 anyway (EDIT: See post #20).

Weight: I place this column last because it's a secondary consideration for me. Some may place it first


I should also note that the chart does not contain information on lens design. That's a potentially significant consideration when I get the list narrowed further.

Perhaps some people will find the foregoing discussion, and the chart, useful in making their own decisions about lens choice.

[Bernice Loui]

Keep in mind the baked in light fall off of any LF wide angle lens as exampled by this 8x10 Agfachrom 100 image made using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22.
Could be ok, could be not ok.



Bernice

[r.e.]

Keep in mind the baked in light fall off of any LF wide angle lens as exampled by this 8x10 Agfachrom 100 image made using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22.
Could be ok, could be not ok.

On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?

I included Rodenstock's E105/127 Centre Filter for this lens in the Chart attached to post #1. Haven't checked yet to see what it costs, assuming that I can even find one. According to the forum's lens comparison chart, street price was US$1,040.

[Dan Fromm]

On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?

Falloff is a property of the lens, not of the film. However, negative films have broader exposure latitude than reversal films so with them falloff can somewhat be dealt with when printing. On the whole, it is better to use a CF with color film.

[r.e.]

Falloff is a property of the lens, not of the film. However, negative films have broader exposure latitude than reversal films so with them falloff can somewhat be dealt with when printing. On the whole, it is better to use a CF with color film.

You know perfectly well from earlier discussions that I know how this works. I get it Dan. You wrote an article about centre filters several years ago and you can't resist an opportunity to interject whenever the subject comes up, including explaining that 1+1=2. Now, if you don't mind, I'm more interested in Bernice's response to my questions. I'm thinking that maybe I should discuss this with her offline so that the thread can stay on topic rather than get derailed and turned into yet another discussion about centre filters.

[Bernice Loui]

Direct scan from the 8x10 sheet of Agfachrome 100. This image was made about 1991 using a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon at f22, E6 process at The New Lab in SF.

This image was re-posted to note the light falloff of the 155mm Grandagon at f22. This is typical of ANY wide angle lens of this variety. Blue sky was used to illustrate how light fall off renders on the combo of view camera wide angle lens on color transparency film. Larger angle of view or shorter lens focal length increases the light fall off. Light fall off is visually a bit more tolerable using color negative or B&W film. It does depend on the scene and how much lens image circle is used.

Will this degree of light fall off in the film image be ok, that depends on the image maker's goal and needs.

While the center filter for the 155mm Grandagon and similar are not common and pricy, far more rare and pricy is the 200mm Grandagon and the matching center filter. Other lenses of this group would be the 165mm f8 Super Angulon, 210mm f8 Super Angulon (think the 165mm SA is big, this 210mm SA is HUGE), 150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL (it is that GOOD, still has light fall off), 210mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL. All these mammoth size view camera lenses demand a camera that can not only support their physical size-weight, a bag bellows is a mostly must to utilize their image circle capability.

One can revert back to vintage 8x10 wide angle lenses such as 6 1/2" f8 wide angle Dagor small produces about 100 degree angle of view at f32 and smaller, Fact is, these vintage wide angle lenses do NOT have the optical performance of modern wide angle lenses... As a group they ALL still have the light fall off problem. There is no escape from this way of Nature. Only way is to accept this way of Nature then apply workable solutions to help (ie: center filter or spinning disc or _).

Given all these facts and more realities of 8x10.. are many of a long list of reasons why 8x10 became history over two decades ago. Replaced by 5x7 _ 13x18cm, far easier to deal with far more choices for wide angle lenses and many more advantages over 8x10.


The 120mm f8 SW Nikkor is near identical to the 120mm f8 Super Angulon (121mm SA is SO similar). This become a pick your fave brand or $ to purchase choice as they are so identical in nearly every way. Image circle wise Nikkor over states their IC, Schneider is more conservative with their IC specs. Regardless they both ~just~ cover 8x10 direct on center @f22 and smaller aperture. Think light fall off is not ok with the 155mm Grandagon on 8x10, both these 120mm f8 wide angles will produce MORE light fall off.

Keep in mind, image circle increases once away from infinity focus. Typically a wide angle lens will be used close_ish to the fore-ground subject which increases the effective image circle. This often helps lots to gain effective IC.

As for how "wide" much a matter of object size balance within the image:
http://annawu.com/blog/2011/09/focal-length-comparison/

This Foto basic is one basic visual so many Fotographers do not fully understand and apply to their image compositions effectively.

These are the optical realities of lenses for 8x10. The lens focal length that fits good for 8x10, about 200mm to about 500mm. More or less becomes problematic in unpleasant ways. Again, it all goes back to image goals.



Bernice

On my screen, the falloff is quite pronounced in the top third of the image, but not obvious in the bottom third. Is that true of the original? If so, the reason? Does this lens also result in noticeable falloff with negative colour and black and white film?

I included Rodenstock's E105/127 Centre Filter for this lens in the Chart attached to post #1. Haven't checked yet to see what it costs, assuming that I can even find one. According to the forum's lens comparison chart, street price was US$1,040.

[Tin Can]

Agree with all

Most want something, that others may not

I am constantly intentionally vignetting to add Dark Shadows

[Oslolens]

I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".
You miss out on the 190mm wide field ektar, but I suppose it's as expensive as a modern lens.
The 159mm wollensak is good for 8x10", but only rivals a 165mm S-A in the corners at f32 to f45
But the weight difference makes a 165mm stay at home anyway...


Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Michael E]

I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".

I just wanted to suggest the Super Angulon 121mm. I love that lens: A moderate wide angle on 4x5", a strong wide angle on 5x7", an extreme wide angle on 8x10" (which it barely covers). Very versatile and not very expensive.

[r.e.]

I picked up a 120mm Super-Angulon this weekend and it covers the 8x10".
You miss out on the 190mm wide field ektar, but I suppose it's as expensive as a modern lens.
The 159mm wollensak is good for 8x10", but only rivals a 165mm S-A in the corners at f32 to f45
But the weight difference makes a 165mm stay at home anyway...

Thanks very much. I'll do some research on the Ektar and Wollensak, and also have a second look at the 120mm Super-Angulon.

I just wanted to suggest the Super Angulon 121mm. I love that lens: A moderate wide angle on 4x5", a strong wide angle on 5x7", an extreme wide angle on 8x10" (which it barely covers). Very versatile and not very expensive.

Thanks to you as well. I'll revisit the 121mm as well as the 120mm.