Odd focal lengths for your format

[StrangleMeRandy]

I appreciate you folks chiming in!

The original single-coated writing-on-front Fujinon W series has the most coverage of plasmat lenses from almost all other makers. If you cannot find one with enough movement then you'll need to go to a wide-angle design like the Nikkor SW 150mm (it easily covers 8x10) but be prepared for cost, size and weight.

...

IME a good combined 4x5 and 5x7 kit is a 90mm, 150mm, 210mm and 300mm. The Fujinon T 400mm covers 5x7 with about 20mm rise and is more useful for cameras with short bellows. Add a 65mm for 4x5 ultra-wide or a 75mm for both 4x5 and 5x7.

Rittreck View 5x7 with Fujinon SWD 75mm f5.6, 5x7 Shanghai GP3 100.

Attachment 237818

Good to know that the Fuji has the most coverage in its class! Nice too see a Rittreck being put to use, those are nice cameras I'm looking forward to have more experience with different focal lengths on LF. I currently have a Kodak 203/7.7, Fujinar 250/4.7, and a Grandagon 115/6.8 (which I still need to print a recessed board for), and in addition to the W 150 I'm pretty much set on the Tele Arton 360/5.5.

The obvious example is 180mm for 8x10, given that 90mm is probably the most popular general-purpose wide angle focal length for 4x5. So far as I know there are no modern 180's that cover 8x10. I think a 7-inch Dagor should cover when stopped way down; our classic lens experts here might be able to think of others.

Not quite so scarce is 270mm for 8x10, given the popularity of 135mm as a semi-wide for 4x5. At least in this case there's the 270mm G-Claron, as well as other process lenses like the 270mm Computar, 270mm Graphic Kowa and 270 Apo-Gerogon. Unfortunately, the Computar is scarce and expensive, while I can' t recall seeing either the Kowa or Gerogon in 270 focal length offered in shutter, and my recollection is that in their typical barrel mountings they can be difficult to adapt.

I know wide angles are a tough spot from a design standpoint, but I'm surprised that 8x10 doesn't have much in the way of 90mm (4x5) equivalents given their popularity in that format.

These advisors are all field photogs

Get inside a studio and shoot 120mm on 8X10

Lemme borrow yours

I also have some issues with certain focal lengths on specific formats. For 4x5, I find (as Vaughn does), a progression of 90/150/210/305 to be about right. Sometimes if wanting to travel as light as possible with 4x5 I'll just take a 135 - but lately this FL is being supplanted with the 150 for this (single lens) use...as the 135 somehow seems a bit boring to me lately on 4x5.

As for 5x7...while I now go with a 110/150/210/305, with very occasional use of the 90, it is the 110 and 150 which I as of yet have not quite warmed up to completely for this format.

When I'd recently acquired the (optically wonderful) 110XL with the intention of using this to basically "replace" my 120mm F/8 Super Angulon, thinking that they'd be "close enough" in FL, I often find myself missing the very slightly longer 120. This preference might change over time and I may yet thoroughly embrace the 110, but for now, I'm hanging to that 120!

The other "jury is still out" FL for 5x7 is the 150. Often I think I'd be happier with something like a 165, but the modern options here are so few...with the 165 SA being a bit large and heavy, and the quality of the older WA Dagors being quite variable - also keeping in mind my tendency to print quite large (to 40x60 inches). At any rate, were I more in love with the 150 for use with 5x7, I'd possibly be wanting to sell my current 150 Apo Symmar L and looking for an Apo Sironar-W...mostly for its extra bit of coverage. Too bad that lens is getting really hard to find, and almost always really pricy.

...

If you're torn between 110 and 120 why not grab a 115 Grandagon 150 and 165 are close enough that I'm ever so slightly surprised that you would strongly gravitate one way or the other. Can you think of any practical examples where the 150 was just too short for you?

I'd love an APO Sironar W, but they are awfully expensive for what they are. Still, given that 150 is a rather field friendly focal length, I'd probably prefer the Fuji W anyway, unless I forget to get a hood and find myself wanting better coatings.

I note that the s/h prices of the Apo Sironar-W and the Super Symmar HM 150 are about equal on EBay, in which case I'd definitely recommend the Super Symmar, the correction and the light-falloff will be better. It's a hybrid sort of design but has more of the DNA of the Super-Angulons, compared to a stretched plasmat in the case of the Sironar-W.

I'll look into the Super Symmar, it hasn't been on my radar!

The unsung hero of my 5x7 kit is the very tiny 108mm/6.8 Wollensak Extreme WA. Maybe not up to modern specs around the edges, but a friendly lens nevertheless.


Hot Day in Alpena
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr

I have the early 150/5.6 Fujinon and that's a great and compact lens as well. Those are probably the two I use the most when I'm not doing soft focus.

I do like seeing those neat old Wollensaks put to use! I like the idea of doing more pictorial things with nice-but-imperfect lenses, especially if I get into lith printing.

I like your portraits of musicians!! Let me know if you have any specific examples where you find your Fuji 150 shines.

Well, if you're a masochist, there's the Metrogon....

I'm not a masochist, but I'm used to hefty loads, and I do like interesting bargains!

[StrangleMeRandy]

I note that the s/h prices of the Apo Sironar-W and the Super Symmar HM 150 are about equal on EBay, in which case I'd definitely recommend the Super Symmar, the correction and the light-falloff will be better. It's a hybrid sort of design but has more of the DNA of the Super-Angulons, compared to a stretched plasmat in the case of the Sironar-W.

Ah, actually, I just noticed that there seem to be at least two different versions of the Super Symmar HM which significantly different coverage - would you happen to know how to distinguish them?

[Oren Grad]

Ah, actually, I just noticed that there seem to be at least two different versions of the Super Symmar HM which significantly different coverage - would you happen to know how to distinguish them?

Where are you seeing that?

BTW, one reason to favor the 150 Apo-Sironar(-W) over the SS-HM for field work is that it's *much* smaller and lighter. I have the Rodenstock as part of my 5x7 kit.

[Mark J]

The original Super Symmar ( HM ) was an 80° lens which wasn't around for a long time. It came in 120, 150 and 210mm focal lengths.
After a few years the Super Symmar XL series with 105° coverage and an asphere came along, and I think the SS-HM were stopped at that point.
The XL types are relatively small for their focal length and coverage , and have been pretty popular, but as I designer I can see lateral colour in the performance graphs pulling the 'T' field down at higher field angles, which niggles me. In practice and with filters it would probably be unnoticeable.
I really like the earlier SS-HM design though, I think it was one of the best ever. I have used the 150 on 5x7 and it is bang-sharp from f/11 across the format. The 210 is a bit of a beast though.

[StrangleMeRandy]

Where are you seeing that?

BTW, one reason to favor the 150 Apo-Sironar(-W) over the SS-HM for field work is that it's *much* smaller and lighter. I have the Rodenstock as part of my 5x7 kit.

This site lists five versions, with coverage of either 211mm or 254mm. Mark has chimed in below, though I'm still not sure that I could identify the variations... At any rate, I'm part pack mule, so size and weight are not huge priorities for me.

The original Super Symmar ( HM ) was an 80° lens which wasn't around for a long time. It came in 120, 150 and 210mm focal lengths.
After a few years the Super Symmar XL series with 105° coverage and an asphere came along, and I think the SS-HM were stopped at that point.
The XL types are relatively small for their focal length and coverage , and have been pretty popular, but as I designer I can see lateral colour in the performance graphs pulling the 'T' field down at higher field angles, which niggles me. In practice and with filters it would probably be unnoticeable.
I really like the earlier SS-HM design though, I think it was one of the best ever. I have used the 150 on 5x7 and it is bang-sharp from f/11 across the format. The 210 is a bit of a beast though.

Best ever, eh? Maybe I ought to rank it higher on my wishlist... I am curious about your other picks for best ever!

[Oren Grad]

This site lists five versions, with coverage of either 211mm or 254mm.

Transcription errors on that page. For example, there's a block of nine listings for the three SS-HM focal lengths (120/150/210) in each of three different shutters - but it lists the image circle of the 120 for all of them.

I have the Schneider LF lens product literature from that era. There was only one version of the 150 SS-HM, with coverage specified as 80 degrees at f/22, corresponding to an image circle of 254mm.

[Mark J]

Correct, yes.

Best ever, eh? Maybe I ought to rank it higher on my wishlist... I am curious about your other picks for best ever!

I might have to disappoint you here, because I can't think of another obvious one that stands out !
It's hard to pick any winners from the Symmar-S/Sironar-N/Nikkor-W/Fuji lenses, they are all faultless across at least 80% of their quoted coverage as far as I can see, though I have only used a small number of them myself.
I like it that Fuji decided to stand out from the crowd and do some alternative focal lengths than the Germans ; also some smaller-apertures lenses with an eye to the practicalities of hauling this gear around. I am tempted to buy a Fuji 105/8 NW at some point soon for 5x7".

[Joseph Kashi]

Hi, Mark

I believe that you may be referring to the 105/8 Fujinon NSW late-model super-wide angle lens. I have two of the 105/8 NSW lenses - they are excellent and not unduly bulky and heavy, given the 77mm filter size but small shutter.

Fujinon lens designation nomenclature in the English-speaking world has frequently causes a great deal of unnecessary confusion and requires some care when purchasing. I am posting this so that any purchasing decisions do not get tangled due to the Fujinon series designation confusion.

The original lens series were W for the original 80 degree moderately wide-angle Plasmats and SW for the 100 degree Super-Angulon formula lenses. These had single-coating and inside writing on the lens cover plate.

The later multicoated and improved Fujinon 105/8 lens with 100 degree coverage is designated the NSW series. The later NW Plasmat series covers about 76 degrees IIRC. Both the NSW and the NW/CM-W series have writing on the outside of the lens barrel and are multicoated among other changes.

[Mark J]

Yes you're dead right, I was writing in a hurry. It is very easy to get confused !
I like it that the f/8 S-Wide Fujis have 8 elements instead of 6, in contrast to the Schneider/Rodenstock f/8-6.8 wides.

[Joseph Kashi]

Yes you're dead right, I was writing in a hurry. It is very easy to get confused !
I like it that the f/8 S-Wide Fujis have 8 elements instead of 6, in contrast to the Schneider/Rodenstock f/8-6.8 wides.

It's easy to get confused with Fujinon lenses as marketed in the US.

All of the information that I have seen over the years states that the NSW lenses, including the Fujinon 105/8 NSW lenses in all versions, are 100 degree, six element- four group (6/4) lenses in Copal 0 shutters of similar design to the f/8 Super-Angulons.

Fujinon did make a series of f/5.6 SWD lenses with 105 degree coverage and eight element- six group (8/6) design similar to the f/5.6 SA. However, I am not aware of the SWD series including any models longer than 90mm.5.6. I have one of those 90/5.6 SWD lenses and it is significantly bulkier and heavier than the 105/8. The additional coverage would not make any real difference on 4x5. It would help marginally on 5x7, but the 90/5.6 SWD still would not have quite as much 5x7 coverage as the 105/8 NSW.