Moderate wide angle lens for 7x17"

[wiggywag]

Hi!

What is considered being a moderate wide angle lens for a 7x17" camera (like a 90mm on a 4x5)? I'm wondering if a G-Claron 355" will do well as a general wide angle lens.

Thanks again!

[Lachlan 717]

Maybe a 305mm G Claron?

I use a 240/355/450mm split for mine.

[Louis Pacilla]

My moderate wide for 7x17 is a nice little Protar IV #6 10 1/4" f12.5. covers well stopped down with tiny bit left for movement but not tons but enough.

My wide is a Protar V #5 8 1/2" f18. A tiny little thing with about the same amount real estate left over for movements as the series IV #6

Another option would be a Steineil Orthostigmat Series E #4 7 7/8" f12.5 ( 17 1/2" IC w/ small stops) or #5 10 1/4" f12.5 with loads left over as it shows to have (21" IC w/ small stops.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use a 10" Wide Field Ektar.

[William Whitaker]

One person's moderately wide is another person's extreme wide. And it's not terribly realistic to compare 7x17 to 4x5 because the shapes are so different. I find that when I'm trying to relate a semi-panoramic format to a more conventional shape, it helps if, instead of the panoramic format, that I use a format that it fits within. For example, if I want to visualize a focal length for 12x20, I might instead think in terms of 16x20 especially since the shape is the same as 8x10, with which I'm familiar. And 12x20 is essentially a cropped 16x20.

To visualize 7x17, I might think in terms of 14x17. 14x17 is actually a little bit squarer than 4x5, but it's still easier than comparing 7x17 directly. So, a 90mm on 4x5 is roughly equivalent to a 310mm lens on 14x17 which makes the 305 G-Claron mentioned above a good candidate. When I was shooting 7x17 I used a 10 3/4" Dagor or a 10" Wide-Field Ektar. I found that a 14" lens (e.g., the 355 you mentioned) a little long for my taste. But really depends on how you see. 7x17 has a way of looking "wide" even when using a longer focal length lens.

Don't know if you followed any of that, but that's my take on it. YMMV.

[Oren Grad]

I tend to key on the vertical dimension for 7x17. So I think of the 305 G-Claron as a normal, the 355 as somewhat long. For a semiwide I'd look for something in the 240-270 range (270 G-Claron or Computar, 10 3/4" Dagor, 250 Wide Field Ektar, 240 Computar).

[DrTang]

I think I used to use a 10 3/4" Dagor

[John Powers]

It has been a while since the last post, but if the topic is still alive I use a 250 Wide Field Ektar as my widest for 7x17. My most used lens is a 10” Dagor. I switched to this from a 305 G Clarion because I ran out of image circle too often. I also preferred the Dagor look. Probably my closest to a normal (diagonal dimension) is a 450 Nikon M9. My longest before I run out of bellows is a 600 Fuji. The camera is RH Phillips.

John

[John Powers]

I tend to key on the vertical dimension for 7x17. So I think of the 305 G-Claron as a normal, the 355 as somewhat long. For a semiwide I'd look for something in the 240-270 range (270 G-Claron or Computar, 10 3/4" Dagor, 250 Wide Field Ektar, 240 Computar).

Oren,

How do you use 7x17 in vertical format? I find turning the Phillips on a Ries a once a year adventure. Did you built a right angle frame such as Lotus offers on their site. If so I would be grateful to know how it is designed or built. If you simply turn the bellows as one does with a Ritter, I can't go there.

John

[Oren Grad]

How do you use 7x17 in vertical format?

I don't. My wimpitude is too intense for me even to contemplate it.

What I meant by "keying on the vertical dimension" is simply that I think of focal lengths for 7x17 in terms of their field of view relative to the narrow dimension of the format rather than the long dimension. On extremely elongated formats, FL's that are normal according to the conventional definition (diagonal of the format) render space in a way that feels very compressed to me. I prefer something that opens up the space a bit more.