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

[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.

[Ari]

I looked at your website a short while ago. Your lens choices really fit. Very nice work. The fact that I know several of the locations made it fun, too.

Thanks, Rory. Very kind of you to say.
Early on, I used a wide/normal for portraits, and I now stick with normal lenses for portraits.
I had a few 360mm lenses for 8x10 and honestly, I couldn't make it work for me. But now I know.

So try out a bunch of lenses.
Someone mentioned the 190 Wide Field Ektar. That'll work on both formats, as will an older Fuji 180-W.
There's also the Wollensak Wide Field Raptar 210.

[r.e.]

Update...

I've narrowed down the 4x5 wide-angle option (90mm to 120mm) to Schneider's f/5.6 110mm Super-Symmar XL.

I have Rodenstock's f/4.5 75mm Grandagon-N and have decided that a 90mm is not a priority.

That leaves the 110mm to 120mm options.

As far as I can see, the only argument against Schneider's 110mm is that it costs more than the other options. However, in my case the difference may not be very significant.

Context... I use both colour and black and white film. Neither is cheap, but colour is particularly expensive. I'm working on a project where the right approach is that I have one chance to make the photograph. In addition, I have a strong preference for getting the shot right in the camera rather than fixing it later. Everything about the XL 110mm, from maximum aperture to range of movement to the fact that I already have a centre filter for it, is conducive to making my life easier.

I use Rodenstock's E67/86 centre filter for the 75mm, but it will work also with Schneider's 110mm. In addition, I have a good range of screw-in and Lee100 filters that will work with the centre filter's 86mm front thread.

I know that some people feel that a centre filter isn't needed for lenses in this range. For the purpose of this decision, I prefer to assume that I'll find one useful. My current centre filter will not work with the other options, including the 120mm and 121mm Super-Angulons pointed to in earlier posts. An additional centre filter would cost several hundred dollars used. Depending on which centre filter I purchased, the front thread would be either 105mm or 112mm. Look at the price of a 105mm/112mm screw-in polariser, or of a square polariser, even linear, that's 125mmx125mm (5"x5") or 150mmx150mm (6"x6"). On the latter, one has to either handhold it or also purchase a mount. Plus carry around this lens-specific gear.

There's a point where the cost of Schneider's 110mm doesn't look so bad. That said, there are people offering this lens for more than it cost new. I may have a wait

Next step is to narrow down the 8x10 options.

[Michael R]

All I can say is I love the 110 xl. I use it more than I thought I would.

Update...

I've narrowed down the 4x5 wide-angle option (90mm to 120mm) to Schneider's f/5.6 110mm Super-Symmar XL.

I have Rodenstock's f/4.5 75mm Grandagon-N and have decided that a 90mm is not a priority.

That leaves the 110mm to 120mm options.

As far as I can see, the only argument against Schneider's 110mm is that it costs more than the other options. However, in my case the difference may not be very significant.

Context... I use both colour and black and white film. Neither is cheap, but colour is particularly expensive. I'm working on a project where the right approach is that I have one chance to make the photograph. In addition, I have a strong preference for getting the shot right in the camera rather than fixing it later. Everything about the XL 110mm, from maximum aperture to range of movement to the fact that I already have a centre filter for it, is conducive to making my life easier.

I use Rodenstock's E67/86 centre filter for the 75mm, but it will work also with Schneider's 110mm. Also, I have a good range of screw-in and Lee100 filters that will work with the centre filter's 86mm front thread.

I know that some people feel that a centre filter isn't needed for lenses in the range. For the purpose of this decision, I prefer to assume that I'll need one. My current centre filter will not work with the other options, including the 120mm and 121mm Super-Angulons pointed to in earlier posts. An additional centre filter would cost several hundred dollars used. Depending on which centre filter I purchased, the front thread would be either 105mm or 112mm. Look at the price of a 105mm/112mm screw-in polariser, or of a square polariser, even linear, that's 125mmx125mm (5"x5") or 150mmx150mm (6"x6"). On the latter, one has to either handhold it or also purchase a mount. Plus carry around this lens-specific gear.

There's a point where the cost of Schneider's 110mm doesn't look so bad. That said, there are people offering this lens for more than it cost new. I may have a wait

Next step is to narrow down the 8x10 options.

[angusparker]

All I can say is I love the 110 xl. I use it more than I thought I would.

It is a wonderful lens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Bernice Loui]

Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL, good lens got one of the first handful (one year paid pre-order) that was hand carried by Robert Kipling (technical guy at Schneider) back to to the US from Germany. Schneider had a devil of a time trying to produce the aspheric element for this lens. The first hand full had individually made by their proto folks from optical glass. Later production, this aspheric element was not made the same way. This was circa late 1990's.

Yes, that was me who got Kerry T to venture into "Future Classics" on his web page:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

It is a very good lens, does NOT cover 8x10 properly regardless of what folks claim (tried, corners direct on for 8x10 was poor performance), has the same if not worst light fall off as other LF wide angle lenses. Very snappy, very contrasty, more than sharp enough.. burned piles of color transparency film with this lens back in the day. Never disappointed. Yet, the 110mm f5.6 SSXL does not get used much any more. It has been replaced by a 115mm f6.8 Grandagon in the 5x7 Sinar Norma kit. Prime advantage of the 110mm SSXL, size, lower weight with good optical performance. Be careful with the front element as it sits very close to the filter once the filter is seated. Some filters might NOT clear the front element.

These days, only B&W images. No more color any sheet film.

There has been discussion of some lens element problems with a few 110mm f5.6 SSXLs in the past. Check this out.
This lens and others were designed by a gal at Schneider (name escapes me ATM).



Bernice

[r.e.]

Yet, the 110mm f5.6 SSXL does not get used much any more. It has been replaced by a 115mm f6.8 Grandagon in the 5x7 Sinar Norma kit. Prime advantage of the 110mm SSXL, size, lower weight with good optical performance. Be careful with the front element as it sits very close to the filter once the filter is seated. Some filters might NOT clear the front element.

I had the f/6.8 115mm Grandagon on my short list (Chart, post #1). The problem, if I wanted to use a centre filter with it, is that I'd have to purchase Rodenstock's E82 in addition to the E67 that I already have. Plus the E82 front thread is 112mm, and the front thread on the Heliopan and Schneider alternative centre filters is 105mm. I'm not set up for those diameters. As you know, screw-in filters for them, and square filters large enough to cover them, are expensive. Not a financially attractive proposition.

Bob Salomon says that Rodenstock's E67 centre filter should not interfere with the Schneider XL 110mm front element. I wouldn't mount 67mm filters directly to the lens. If I wasn't using the centre filter, I'd use either a step-up ring to a round filter or Lee's 67mm Wide Angle Adapter Ring to a Lee100 Filter Holder and square filter.

I read your post #21 on 8x10 wide angle lenses. Very helpful, but sobering

[Peter De Smidt]

The Schneider 110mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL is my favorite lens of all the lenses I've owned. Alas, I had to sell it at one point.

[Jody_S]

I went through a similar deliberation recently, but without your budget, and for me weight is a greater consideration than aperture. I settled on the Nikon 120 as an ultra-wide, a G-Claron 210 (Dagor-type) as a moderate wide, and I still have a Radar Anastigmat and a Wolly Ser III to complete the vintage ultra-wide experiment. I've already rejected the Protar V and the Metrogon is too heavy and unwieldy. I don't have the budget for the Super Symmars or anything in that range, even if I was prepared to carry the weight. And of course I have the Fujinon-W 210/5.6 and 250/6.7s for when I want closer to 'normal', though I'm leaving the Fujinon 210 at home in favor of the G-Claron because the latter is a much better lens for my purposes, and tiny.

But dealing with older and budget lenses, condition of the copy I happen to come across is probably more a factor in my choices than the merits of any particular lens design or manufacturer. My Fujinon 210 has never given me a good image. My first 210 G-Claron was the best 8x10 lens I ever owned, I don't know why I sold it. I understand why you want the most recent lens possible, in condition as close to new as possible. If I had a budget and a project at hand, I would do the same.

[Drew Wiley]

It's interesting how many of Kerry's "Future Classic" lenses I went for myself, prior to even knowing about his own list. But I neither need nor can afford them all.