Stupid Question - Wide Angle Lens

[Brian C. Miller]

Well, here's thing: 10 inches is 10 inches. The magnification (10 inches) is always the same, no matter the format. How much of the image starts "looking" wide happens to be the question.

The biggest difference between a 10" for 11x14 and a 10" for 5x7 is the image circle. This is the amount of film that is reasonably covered by the lens. The 10" 5x7 on the 11x14 might only produce a circle, and not get anywhere near the corners. I have a 360mm telephoto for my 4x5, which also covers 5x7. The lens produces a circle of light on an 8x10. However, the 10" for the 11x14 would look absolutely the same on the 5x7, it's just that you'd be seeing less of the scene on the 5x7.

I have a 75mm lens for my 4x5. If I use 4x5 film with the lens, it looks wide. However, if I use a 645 back on the camera, then the cropped image will look "normal."

So to reiterate, let's say you have a 5x7 and an 11x14 beside each other, and they use the same lensboard. The 5x7 will only show half of the scene that the 11x14 shows. Everything will look the same size. The perspective will be different, because the 11x14 will be showing a much larger picture area, and will "look" wide.

[DanK]

Thanks Brian, appreciate it....

I guess the benefit of this lens will be plenty of movements on 4x5 and 5x7

This lens has been on my shelf for awhile, and needs use....wasn't sure what to expect.....I Sure don't see myself with an 11x14 anywhere in the near future...

Thanks again all, for the responses...

Dan

[Joe Forks]

One other benefit, is that by using the center of the image circle only, if there is any "softness" on the corners you won't come close to seeing it.

Although, others may see that as a liability

[Jim Galli]

Most likely yes.
The lens in question is fairly old and would not in anyway be comparable to a more modern 250mm for a 5x7

Another problem is the large image circle, imagine you have this huge image behind the lens but nowhere to put it except the inside of your bellows, only a small part of the image will hit the film.
All this extra light inside the bellows will reduce contrast and possibly also introduce glare on the film.

Other than inherent differences between modern and antique, which would be contrast and flare, and perhaps noticeable sharpness, the answer is no. A brand new 250mm multi coated lens will project the same image on 4X5 or 5X7 as the antique one. The antique one may be prized by someone who has 11X14 or 7X17 to actually use it on. It's no prize on a 4X5. Sell it and get something you want.

[DanK]

The antique one may be prized by someone who has 11X14 or 7X17 to actually use it on. It's no prize on a 4X5. Sell it and get something you want.

Thanks Jim...

I was leaning in that direction after this thread...

Anyone have a ballpark idea, as far as price....

Sterling Improved Wide Angle Lens 11x14 - approx 10 inch f16 to 64

Sure appreciate it,
Thanks Dan

[rdenney]

The definition of "normal" as being approximately equal to the film diagonal is a convention, not a law of physics. In small formats, people use the terms "wide angle" and "telephoto" to mean anything shorter or longer than normal, respectively. Large-format photographers have need of finer distinctions. In the large-format world, lenses are divided by their designs more than by their focal lengths. Thus, a lens termed "wide-angle" in large-format applications generally means a lens with a wider than normal image circle, with respect to its focal length. Thus, that lens would cover the format adequately even in focal lengths shorter than normal.

I see these terms being used back in the days when a normal lens was often a tessar, with fairly limited coverage. The plasmats (e.g., Symmar, Sironar) we use as normals today would have been wide-angle lenses back in the early days, and indeed the "Optar Wide Angle" 90mm lens on my Speed Graphic is a double-gauss design more like a modern normal than like a modern wide-angle lens. A modern wide-angle lens would be typified by a Super Angulon. The classic wide-angle design of old is a Dagor--a double anastigmat.

In the very old days, a 10" lens for 11x14 would be pretty impressive indeed, in terms of providing the coverage required to cover that format with a lens of focal length only a little more than half the film diagonal. But don't expect much in terms of performance. 10" lenses of less coverage (still suitable for 5x7, of course) and much greater performance are easy pickings.

And just to close the loop, in the large-format world, "telephoto" also applies to the design rather than to the focal length. It's a lens that is designed such that the glass sits behind the rear nodal point, so that it requires less bellows draw for its focal length than a normal lens. But telephoto designs pay a price in terms of performance and coverage. The 270mm telephoto might fit on a Speed Graphic that would only accommodate a 210mm normal, but it would not cover 5x7 as any 270mm normal design would.

I often use a 121mm Super Angulon with the 6x12 format. It's a wide-angle design, which on that format has a focal length about equal to the film diagonal. I could also use something close to it, say, a 127mm Graflex Optar (which I use for my Speed Graphic). The image each makes would be about the same on 6x12, but the Super Angulon, with it's far greater coverage, would allow far more extreme movements. Even when used on that smaller format, it's still a wide-angle design.

If this were an easy point to get, the endless arguments about the "crop factor" between various digital camera formats that plague their forums would never have materialized. It is not a stupid question. The understanding came for me was when, as a teen, I thought I would be able to use a lower enlarger height (and therefore a bigger print with that enlarger) by putting a 50mm enlarging lens on it. I was surprised to discover that when I focused it, it only projected a circular middle portion of the 6x6 negative I was trying to enlarge. The image inside the circle was the same as would have been produced by any other 50mm lens, but without the wide-angle design the coverage wasn't sufficient. That's when I realized the difference between focal length and coverage. People coming to large-format from smaller formats using fixed-body cameras, who have never worked in a darkroom or with a view camera, have never had an opportunity to gain that experience.

Rick "wide coverage" Denney

[William Whitaker]

And similarly retrofocus doesn't refer to a stylishly out-of-date way of focusing, but instead to a lens design having the rear nodal point behind the rear element of the lens providing a lens-to-film distance greater than the focal length. This is what allows hand cameras using interchangeable lenses to be able to use "wide-angle" lenses.

But the term "wide-angle" is confusing in its usage. Informally "wide-angle" refers to the field of view, but technically it refers to the angle of coverage of the lens. Your Sterling has an angle of coverage of 84º or better (if I did my arithmetic correctly) to be able to cover 11x14. Compared to typical lenses of its vintage that would be considered "wide-angle". By using a 10" lens on an 11x14 camera, the view is wide-angle. Most 10" lenses wouldn't cover 11x14, but a wide angle one like yours does. Confused yet?

[domaz]

And similarly retrofocus doesn't refer to a stylishly out-of-date way of focusing, but instead to a lens design having the rear nodal point behind the rear element of the lens providing a lens-to-film distance greater than the focal length. This is what allows hand cameras using interchangeable lenses to be able to use "wide-angle" lenses.

Retrofocus is an interesting topic to me I haven't heard much discussion about. Does anyone know, in a modern lens, how much does retrofocus design degrades wide angle lenses? I have seen non-retrofocus wide angle that get much praise like the Mamiya 7 lenses but haven't really researched how they compare to SLR wide angles.

[Ernest Purdum]

We need excess coverage in order to use movements. Your lens probably would not allow using rise on 11" X 14", but would on 8" X 10".

[Jim Galli]

We need excess coverage in order to use movements. Your lens probably would not allow using rise on 11" X 14", but would on 8" X 10".

No reason to speculate that. Many wide angle designs of that period were 110 degrees which would make it usable on 12X15 and perhaps 14X17. A lot of these were zeiss Series V copies. Most of the lens companies of that period were fairly conservative on their claims so if it says it's for 11X14 it probably covers the next standard size plate stopped down.

Sadly, it probably isn't worth much relatively speaking. On ebay I'd guess it at $85 low $165 high depending it seems more on presentation and clever gobbly-d-gook in the wordy ad than what it can really do or what it is.