I have 150mm Schneider Apo-Symmar f/5.6 and looking for something wider. I think ~ 120mm would be a good fit for me. As I intend to use it for architecture and some environmental portraits.
I think this lens could provide enough coverage as it should have a larger than 200mm image circle(?) and is very cheap but I'm somewhat worried about its sharpness.
I would appreciate your experience with this lens.
I have the 125mm 5.6 W but I think it is a newer (80's?) version with EBC coating. Its lettering is on the outside of the lens barrel. I really like the focal length and use it next to a 210mm APO Symmar and same vintage 75mm Super Angulon . I would say the 125mm is a tiny bit less sharp than those two but easily good enough, so most likely less sharp than your 150mm. Mine was less than half the price of my other two lenses. It is a great option as a carry around lens, small enough to fold into my camera, and a similar focal length to fixed lens cameras like Rolleiflexes or film compacts, so very versatile.
Just a personal opinion here, so get out your grain of salt when reading
If you've got a 150mm lens and plan on using it still and you want to expand you lens kit in the wide direction, I'd go with a 90mm lens. A 125mm (or 135mm) lens is not that much different in view from your 150mm. If you're like me, you'll find yourself using the wider lens and leaving the 150mm in the bag/car/home. I have a kit that includes 90mm, 135mm, 150mm and 203/210mm lenses. I almost always leave the 150mm out when I'm carrying my kit on hikes. I can always crop the image from the 135mm just a tiny bit to get the same view as the 150mm, and don't need to take up the extra space with another lens.
So, my recommendation is to get a good f/8 version of one of the 90mm wide-angle lenses, like the Schneider 90mm f/8 Super Angulon or the equivalent from Nikkor, Fuji, Rodenstock (f/6.8 in this case). And this especially if you need movements in your work much (you mention architecture), since the 125mm Fujinon, even the "old-style" one, has not much coverage.
When I do architectural work, even the 135mm Plasmats don't have coverage enough; I use the 150mm there or the 135mm Wide Field Ektar, which has significantly more coverage in that focal length than the Plasmats
Hope this helps,
Doremus
I'll second Mr. Scudder's ideas. The 90mm lens is the standard f.l. for architecture, and will provide quite a different look than your 150.
90mm on 4x5 is very common for architectural images, most often used for interiors. There will be images that would benefit from wider-shorter focal length lenses for these types of images. The more significant question becomes the camera, does the current camera have enough capability to fully utilize the full capability of a large image circle 90mm wide angle lens? This often requires a bag bellows with a camera that has large movement capability for front and rear standards with both standards being able to come close together negating the need for a recessed lens board (not often with a 90mm, shorter focal lengths, possible).
For environmental portraits, 90mm could work good, depending on your image goals. Know the image effects of a wide angle lens.
Common three lens kit for 4x5 would be:
75mm to 90mm wide angle.
150mm to 210mm "normal".
240mm to 360mm Telephoto.
Or:
90mm, 150mm, 240mm to 300mm as a three lens kit.
Bernice
The above suggestions are standard but it’s not uncommon to shift depending on what you’re going to shoot.
For example many times I mostly bring and shoot 75 and 150 mm.
Other times 90, 150 (and 300mm)
Others I go 65 and 125mm only
Mostly I know what to bring because I know the locations so I kind of expect what I’ll be shooting even if the exact locations vary; except for a very short outing, in the car I’ll usually carry all the above and a 400 mm tele, for my 4x5 kit. Can always run back if I really need to.
So the point here is that sometimes it’s about pairing. Personally I wouldn’t pair a 125 with a 150 or a 90, but if I go wider like 65 I feel 150 is too much of a jump, so I’ll pair it with a 125mm.
Not saying one had to grow the collection to include all these but it seems most people do, including myself, given enough time.
And to answer your question I have the older 125 W and have no complaints about sharpness…. I think it represents great value and great performance.
The cost floor tends to drop out below 120/125mm -- and so does the coverage floor.Originally Posted by Times2
By that I mean as the focal length drops, for the image circle to stay the same, the price increases -- and often so does the maximum f-stop.
Take Fujinon as an example. They make a great 125mm f5.6 with an IC of 200mm -- and you can get it for a reasonable price. If you go wider, they have a 105mm f5.6 that barely covers 4x5. If you want to keep a 200mm IC you have to go to 90mm. They have two -- f5.6 & f8. Both are large, heavy, and much more expensive.
So if you want to go past 120/125mm and price is your deciding factor, your options are limited.
I have 150mm Schneider Apo-Symmar f/5.6 and looking for something wider. I think ~ 120mm would be a good fit for me. As I intend to use it for architecture and some environmental portraits.
I think this lens could provide enough coverage as it should have a larger than 200mm image circle(?) and is very cheap but I'm somewhat worried about its sharpness.
I would appreciate your experience with this lens.
I have copies of both the older single-coated 6/4 125mm Fujinon W and also a later 6/6 EBC multi-coated version. Both are very satisfactory on 4x5. The older 80 degree version barely covers 5x7 but is very nice on 4x5. The newer 76 degree 6/6 EBC multicoated version of the Fujinon 125 NW has a 196mm circle of coverage and thus vignettes on 5x7 but does provide generous movement on 4x5.
The 125mm focal length along the long dimension of 4x5 is approximately equivalent to a 35mm lens on 35mm film, not very wide. A 90mm lens on 4x5 has an e-25.5mm equivalent along the long edge of 4x5. w
One intermediate alternative would be a 105mm/f8 Fujinon NSW ultra wide-angle lens, particularly the later EBC model. The 100 degree angle of coverage gives a 250mm circle of coverage and provides an e-30mm angle of view along the long dimension of 4x5 and e-21mm angle of view along the long edge of 5x7, with generous movement in both instances.
The 105/8 NSW is a nice compromise in a Copal 0 shutter, although it does require 77mm filters. I have one of the later EBC multicoated models and it's excellent.
I doubt you'll be satisfied with any of the 125/5.6 W's if you need much rise for architectural subjects. They're great with just modest movements, and delightfully portable. But I've also owned and used (mainly for architectural interiors) a 120 Super Angulon, and truly benefitted from its massive surplus of coverage for this kind of application. But that was basically a huge draft horse of a lens, especially with a center filter involved. Otherwise, you've already received some good advice per 90 SW's and architectural performance. I found it nice to have both a 90SW and the petite 125 Fuji W on hand, at least until architectural interior shooting became dominated by MF digital photographers rather than view cameras and 4X5 film; so I sold the 90. I mainly compose things in longer perspective anyway; and when I don't, the little Fuji 125 generally works, and doubles as an excellent "normal" perspective with plenty of spare movement for 6X9 backs at least. ...
Gosh, last year I reprinted a 4x5 negative I had taken with a full Sinar system and that big 120 SA from a ledge over 13,000 feet in altitude, which took a ten day round trip and a hecka lot of ice axe work to get to. I was young then, not even 40 yet, and didn't even know about the smaller Fuji option, which would have done just as good in that particular application. But burning calories is good for you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks