Wide/Ultra Wide lenses

[Professional]

Hi all,

I know this question has been asked millions of times maybe, and because i am lazy to search, i would like to ask this question.

What is the widest lens or say wide angle lenses can be used for 4x5 say wider than 90mm? some may say that 90mm is wide enough or maybe 120 and so, but i really want something to be so wide for 4x5 camera, say equivalent to 24mm and wider, many times with my 35mm format i use lens 16-35mm at 16mm, but i think i will be happy with range of 20-24mm, so which lens i can use for 4x5 without issues such as image circle coverage?

Thanks

[Professional]

Ignoring 90mm [which i will get later], i am torn between the three: 65, 72, 75. Can i go wider like 55mm?

[lenser]

I use the Schneider 58mmXL in some of my architectural work, but mostly a 90mm Caltar II. When you need it, the 58 is wonderful, but the wide angle effects on perspective are fairly extreme.

[Kirk Fry]

Sure right down to 47mm (47xl Schneider). All it takes is cubic money. KFry

[rdenney]

What is the widest lens or say wide angle lenses can be used for 4x5 say wider than 90mm?

The widest lens on the market that will cover 4x5 is the Schneider Super Angulon XL 47/5.6. It is roughly equivalent to a 14mm on 35mm, being a bit less than a third the format diameter.

If you want to see what that lens can produce, go to the image threads and search for the contributions of Nana Sousa Dias. Nana sets a very high standard for the use of that lens.

Of course, the SA XL lenses in 58 and 72 will also cover, with room for movements (which the 47XL does not have to any great extent).

The 65/5.6 Super Angulon will cover 4x5 with room for some movements, as will all longer non-XL f/5.6 Super Angulons.

The older 65 f/8 Super Angulon will cover 4x5 but without room for movements.

I don't know about Rodenstock Grandagons, but I suspect they are in the same neighborhood of coverage as the non-XL SA f/5.6 design.

A 65 is something like an 18mm lens on 24x36 small format. I find that a 90 is more like a 24 in the way it behaves.

All 65-plus wide-coverage designs (all of which are variations on the biogon design), including the Super Angulon, Grandagon, Nikkor-SW, and Fujinon SWD will cover 4x5.

For older dagor designs such as the Angulon, 90 is about as wide as it gets. There were quite a few vintage 90's that would marginally cover 4x5.

Rick "who owns f/5.6 SA's in 47 (6x9 with room, 6x12 barely), 65, and 90, and f/8 SA's in 65 and 121, but no XL's" Denney

[Professional]

Interesting, so now i have to consider 47mm and 58mm, but i am worry that if i go with 47mm i will see it too much wide, and if i go with 90mm maybe i will see it not wide enough, and many times i use 18mm equivalent FL and sometimes 24mm is fine, 16 on many applications is very wide, but i think i don't like 16mm on 24x36 due to the distortion, but i forgot that i am using a LF, so i can correct with movements, i feel that 20mm equivalent will be the best of both worlds between 16mm and 24mm.

[Roger Krueger]

For really, really wide I use a 35mm APO Grandagon on 4x5. It doesn't cover but it gives you a little under 3.5 x 4.5, about 11.5mm in 35mm equiv. And unlike other ultra-wide solutions, you're not locked to a fixed aspect ratio to get maximum wideness, you can get the 120+ degree diagonal in your choice of shapes, from square to 6 x 12.

[Professional]

For really, really wide I use a 35mm APO Grandagon on 4x5. It doesn't cover but it gives you a little under 3.5 x 4.5, about 11.5mm in 35mm equiv. And unlike other ultra-wide solutions, you're not locked to a fixed aspect ratio to get maximum wideness, you can get the 120+ degree diagonal in your choice of shapes, from square to 6 x 12.

Maybe my question is confusing, so let me clarify it more, i want a wide lens that can be about or equivalent to 20-22mm on 35 format, i don't want so so wide as 14mm equiv. and not above 24mm equiv., in another word, i want something wider than 90mm on 4x5, i know that 35-47mmXL are so ultra wide, maybe i like that but i don't think i will go with that FL most of the time in landscapes, i got used to shoot landscapes at 20-28mm most of the time, so 10-18mm will be so over, and as you said that going with super wide angle may cause that un-covered image circle.

[Professional]

OK, it seems that i may think about 38mm or 47mm because i may use a roll back in the future, so will that be a good idea to go with something like 38mm or 47mm maybe? What will be 38mm and 47mm on 6x12 and 6x17 roll backs equivalent to 35mm format?

[jb7]

It is confusing, because it really sounds like you want a 90mm, although you ask us to ignore it.

You could try an 80mm Super Symmar, I suppose-
but I think you need to look at a 90 again.

It's really difficult to do a format comparison between focal lengths-
because of the different aspect ratio,
and because of the effects that camera movements will have on your compositions-
compared to working with an axially fixed lens.

I think, if you went out with a 90mm, you'd like it-