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

[Bernice Loui]

Don't get this as a negative in any way about the 110mm SSXL, this lens and the 150mm SSXL (absolute winner of a wide angle lens, same as the 110mm SSXL) and 72mm SAXL will never be sold long as I'm doing LF sheet film. All three of these Schneider lenses were purchased new. All three are excellent and fit in their speciality need.

Regardless of what folks say about the 110mm SSXL, it can and does benefit from a center filter. Oh, has mostly neutral color balance too. Tested this lots.

IMO, the 110mm SSXL makes a LOT of sense with your current lens kit. Filter step ring (67mm to 72mm) helps move the filter seating area forward to help clear the 110mm SSXL front element.


Bernice

[r.e.]

IMO, the 110mm SSXL makes a LOT of sense with your current lens kit.

I think so. It would wind up looking like this:

4x5:
75mm f/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon-N
110mm f/5.6 Schneider Super-Symmar XL
150mm f/5.6 Rodenstock APO-Sironar-N
210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic

4x5 & 8x10:
240mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor W
360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W
600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C

Specialty:
120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)
210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)
10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)


I'll sort out the 8x10 wide option in the next day or two, but it's going to be either/or, at least for the time being.

This thread is very helpful.

[neil poulsen]

A good 210 for 8x10 is indispensable, but expensive.
A decent option is the older Fuji W-210.

Exactly! This reality shapes how I approach both 4x5 and 8x10 photography . . .

My comfort level is overwhelmingly towards 4x5 photography. But, I do like having 8x10 capability, and years ago, I was even lucky enough to pick up a Zone Six Type II enlarger with 8x10 capability. So, my approach is to photograph primarily in 4x5, and to photograph in 8x10 only those compositions that are "well suited" towards that format.

I have a wide selection of optics for 4x5, so I can photograph from very wide to rather long. And, I like having this capability. But, to have a similar capability in 8x10 is cost prohibitive. Imagine the layout in $'s needed to purchase super wides in 150mm, 165mm, and 210mm focal lengths. Jeepers! And a few months ago, someone commented that he's never been able to achieve in 8x10 an image that had sharp focus at infinity and also in the foreground. (Not to mention all the other complications that are inherent in 8x10 photography. As I say, these considerations cause me to cherry-pick what I photograph in 8x10. I have a nice example of the venerable Fujinon 250mm f6.7 lens. But, that's as wide as I need to go in 8x10.

I'm also an Arca Swiss user, and over time, I put together a nice 8x10 Arca Swiss camera that had the capability of photographing from very wide to rather long. But, I recently sold that camera. Instead, I use an old Bender kit 8x10 that was practically free. It came with a lens that I later sold for a price that exceeded the purchase price of both the camera and the lens.

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...Project-Camera

After some customizations that I made to this camera, it meets all my needs. It's both capable and reasonable in cost.

[r.e.]

Turning to 8x10 wide, I've made a version of the Chart from post #1 that contains just the 8x10 options (attached below). I haven't included the Nikkor SW and Schneider XL 120mm lenses. Leaving aside the coverage issue, for my taste 120mm is too wide for 8x10 and 4x10. The lenses are:

150mm Nikon Nikkor SW f8
150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL f5.6
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f6.8
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon f8

Some of the posts above make interesting, and cost saving, suggestions for older lenses. I haven't included these because I still have some learning to do about them.

Note the Schneider Center Filter V for the 165mm Super-Angulon and the Rodenstock E105/127 Center Filter for the Grandagon-N 155mm. These centre filters appear to be unique to these lenses. The link for the Schneider centre filter is to an old B&H page.

Notes to the Chart's Column Headings:

Lens Street Price New: As noted in post #1, I've taken the street prices for lenses from this forum's lens comparison charts. I see those prices as a very rough guide. I'm aware of one instance where the price in the comparison charts is significantly higher than the actual street price.

Centre Filter Street Price New: I've added this column because there are significant price differences for the centre filters for these four lenses. These prices are also from the lens comparison charts.


Chart for 8x10 Wide Lenses:

[Ari]

I have the 150XL and can vouch for its excellence. Noticeable light falloff at the corners, but I don't care.
Some friends who shoot transparencies for reproduction, and are thus more demanding/critical than I am, prefer the Grandagon.
Not only for the improved corners, but for the higher color fidelity.
That's, like, just their opinion, man.

[Bernice Loui]

The 210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic is a classic Tessar formula lens, will be difficult to find unless one has been found. Most available as of now would be the
210mm f4.5 Fujinar like this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/40322046616...UAAOSwzMhhYibF

f4.5 Tessars were common post WW-II up to the early 70's when the LF world began to transition to the f5.6 Plasmat.
Single coated Tessar is GOOD. They were made by Kodak as Ektar, Schneider as Xenar (last production lenses are multi-coated), Fujinar/Fujinon L, Rodenstock Ysaron, Boyer Saphir and others. Prime difficulty will be shutters due to age and lack of maintenance and service. Of all the tessar formula lenses from that era, Kodak Ektar remains the absolute Fave with Schneider Xenar second. Sinar camera and Sinar shutter allows using virtually any lens in barrel and ignores problems with old shutters long as their shutter blades can be held in "T".. and older lenses in barrel have nice round iris which aids lots in out of focus rendition.

Previous discussion:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...t-work-on-8x10

The 360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W is HUGE! Big image circle, modern plasmat contrasty look, designed to good at f22, pretty much the standard 8x10 lens with the other 360mm modern plasmats. There are smaller alternatives and lenses with different rendition if desired as 360mm / 14" is a common LF lens focal length for 8x10.

600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C, now pricy and IMO over rated with very specific limitations. This with the Fujinon A series have become Internet LF lens "gotta have" lenses.

~120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)~
~210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)~

As a pair, suggest APO process lenses (APO ronar, APO artar, APO nikkor and etc) instead. Been there done this. LF "macro" specific lenses do not have any advantage over APO process lenses and in many ways, the APO process lenses offer better optical performance. LF macro lenses are typically designed for repro ratios of 3:1 or 1:3 _ish. While the APO process lens is excellent from infinity to 1:1 with insignificant reduction in optical performance. Once past the 1:1 reproduction ratio, reverse mounted enlarging lenses are a better choice then LF "macro" lenses.

~10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)~

World of Sorta Focus lenses is a universe to it's own.. topic all to it's own.


Bernice

I think so. It would wind up looking like this:

4x5:
210mm f/4.5 Docter Optic

4x5 & 8x10:
360mm f/6.5 Nikon Nikkor W
600mm f/11.5 Fujinon C

Specialty:
120mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (4x5 Macro)
210mm f/5.6 Nikon Nikkor AM ED (8x10 Macro)
10” f/6 Wollensak Portrait Veritar (4x5)


I'll sort out the 8x10 wide option in the next day or two, but it's going to be either/or, at least for the time being.

This thread is very helpful.

[Bernice Loui]

Second on the Schneider 150mm f5.6 SSXL. It IS that good. Light fall off remains an issue. Having owned both the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon and 150mm f5.6 SSXL at the same time for a brief amount of time to allow a comparison, the 150mm SSXL became the choice keeper.

150mm f5.6 SSXL compared to the 165mm f8 Super Angulon, physical size and weight difference between the two must be considered. Full aperture of f5.6 can help in focusing.

150mm f8 SW nikkor is similar to the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon with slight higher contrast and slightly dimmer to focus due to f8. Been there tried the 150mm f8 SW nikkor, stuck with the 155mm f6.8 Grandagon. This was near three decades ago.


Bernice

[r.e.]

I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses listed in post #34, but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive, and might overcome the reservations that I talk about below.

If I'm going to purchase one of these 8x10 wide angle lenses, I want to have a centre filter for it. I base that on what I see as the workflow and image requirements of my principal use for the lens. Bernice (post #2, #21 and #37) and Arri (post #35) have talked about light falloff for the 150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL and 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N. Bernice's comments suggest that it's also an issue for the 150mm Nikkor SW and 165mm Schneider Super-Angulon.

New, a centre filter for the two 150mm lenses, at about US$430, cost less than half the centre filters for the 155mm and 165mm lenses (Chart, post #34). My assumption is that that will be reflected in used prices.

Then there's the cost of regular filters. For me, I see a polariser as essential for dealing with reflections. I also use solid neutral density filters and occasionally graduated neutral density filters. I'm able to use my current filters for diameters up to 100mm. After that, I'm in for some shopping.

This shows where the shopping kicks in...

Filter requirements of the two 150mm lenses: 95mm (112mm with a centre filter)
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N: 105mm (127mm with a centre filter)
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon: 110mm (125mm with a centre filter)

To limit financial damage, I'd purchase a coated polariser and forego neutral density. New, screw-in polarisers are only available up to 112mm, about US$270 new, don't know the used price. The other option is 150mmx150mm (6"x6") square or larger, which I suspect would cost at least as much new. Square means handholding or the purchase of a mount. Lucky break would be a used linear polariser. The market appears to have decided that these are almost worthless.

Finally, depending on lens movement requirements, there's the cost of an 8x10 bag bellows to take into account.

I have not forgotten about the older lenses discussed in some of the posts above. I just haven't finished learning about them.

If it was still around, I'd be paying a visit to a New York store called Lens and Repro about now

[Bob Salomon]

I'd like to make a definitive choice between the four 8x10 wide-angle lenses listed in post #34, but I think that the decision depends a lot on what comes up on the used market. Prices for these lenses appear to be all over the map. In September, a copy of the 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N, in what appears to be excellent condition, sold on eBay for US$675. To my mind, that's attractive, and might overcome the reservations that I talk about below.

If I'm going to purchase one of these 8x10 wide angle lenses, I want to have a centre filter for it. I base that on what I see as the workflow and image requirements of my principal use for the lens. Bernice (post #2, #21 and #37) and Arri (post #35) have talked about light falloff for the 150mm Schneider Super-Symmar XL and 155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N. Bernice's comments suggest that it's also an issue for the 150mm Nikkor SW and 165mm Schneider Super-Angulon.

New, a centre filter for the two 150mm lenses, at about US$430, cost less than half the centre filters for the 155mm and 165mm lenses (Chart, post #34). My assumption is that that will be reflected in used prices.

Then there's the cost of regular filters. For me, I see a polariser as essential for dealing with reflections. I also use solid neutral density filters and occasionally graduated neutral density filters. I'm able to use my current filters for diameters up to 100mm. After that, I'm in for some shopping.

This shows where the shopping kicks in...

Filter requirements of the two 150mm lenses: 95mm (112mm with a centre filter)
155mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N: 105mm (127mm with a centre filter)
165mm Schneider Super-Angulon: 110mm (125mm with a centre filter)

To limit financial damage, I'd purchase a coated polariser and forego neutral density. New, screw-in polarisers are only available up to 112mm, about US$270 new, don't know the used price. The other option is 150mmx150mm (6"x6") square or larger, which I suspect would cost at least as much new. Square means handholding or the purchase of a mount. Lucky break would be a used linear polariser. The market appears to have decided that these are almost worthless.

I have not forgotten about the older lenses discussed in some of the posts above. I just haven't finished learning about them.

If it was still around, I'd be paying a visit to a New York store called Lens and Repro about now

Be aware, areas of the sky are naturally polarized, other areas are not. If you use a polarizer with an extreme wide angle lens and capture wide areas of sky you will end up with darker and lighter streaks in the sky.

[r.e.]

Be aware, areas of the sky are naturally polarized, other areas are not. If you use a polarizer with an extreme wide angle lens and capture wide areas of sky you will end up with darker and lighter streaks in the sky.

Thanks Bob. That's why I said that I'd be using the polariser to control reflections. Many years ago I used a 35mm camera, 24mm lens and a polariser at Wadi Rum (Valley of the Moon). Several of my photographs included a fair amount of sky. My images didn't look at all like Freddie Young's in Lawrence of Arabia. I learnt my lesson