Schneider 150mm SSXL is a good lens. Owned since it's introduction in the late 1990's and it remains a choice when needed.
What wide angle lens with 100 degrees or more angle of view does not have light fall off? Better question would be how much light fall off can be tolerated or acceptable with a wide angle of view lens?
As for "expensive" it's relative. Consider how much a few boxes of 8x10 film, processing then print making, then framing cost?
Bernice
Originally Posted by James Morris
I do astrophotogrphy, guide etc. My 10 inch telescope has a focal length of 2500mm. These things are sensitive to focus, especially when photographing
10 boxes of D100 would pay for most lenses that can cover 8x10. Better to get it right out of the chute, than experiment a lot. Light fall off I can tolerate depending on the scene. A center spot filter can help if needed and given cost of film, it can pay for itself quickly.
The issue of light fall-off with regards to wide / ultrawide lenses is really overblown, especially with negative films. It's there, and if you are doing some kind of critical work that demands evenness of illumination, get a CF filter. For most applications in the field shooting landscapes and the like, it's part of the characteristic of wide-angles and "correcting" it has its own "look." Besides which, if you are trying to knock down the sky a bit, fall-off can help, especially in some situations (consider the use of front rise to keep trees straight, which means the fall-off is mostly in the sky with the center of the image circle on the bottom of your image).
When I bought my 58 and 47mm lenses for 4x5, I also got a Schneider CF to go with them. I used it religiously on every image. Then I thought critically about "why" and realized I was making more of a problem than solving anything. I haven't used a CF other than with slide film occasionally since.
Just my opinion.
I find that interesting. I loaned my ƒ5.6 47mm / 4x5" with CF to a friend who reported the CF did nothing. I failed to mention that the lens has to be stopped down ƒ16 or more for it to work.
But you know that. I've drifted. What issues did you find?
Best,
Jac
I'm mostly talking about the fall-off being a good thing for the sky.
Of course, we can use a CF and a GND filter, and perhaps get a bit more shadow detail in the foreground. In my personal opinion and experience, simply shooting it straight with neither, or just a 1-stop GND if it's really a tough situation, seems to be an easier and better solution (or use your darkslide to "dodge" the top of the image for half the exposure, which I've done many times). One more option - red/orange filter with a bit more exposure than one would normally use.
Not to mention a CF is just another glass surface(s) to get flare from, which has burned me in the past (I would never recommend the older Schneider CFs which don't appear to be multicoated). And, if one were to use a CF and a big GND filter...hope to God the sun is nowhere near your frame.
A 47mm is certainly the most extreme example in terms of ultrawide. It will have much more fall-off than a 150mm on 8x10 with an image circle in excess of 385mm. YMMV.
Plenty of folks burn their corners in the darkroom...
Yep.
Tell me more. How are you measuring this. Have you published this yet?
Your telescope has the same focus position for 384,000km than for light-years far stars, you cannot notice a difference.
Both are in the hyperfocal, with CoC way smaller than your resolving power.
Your statement about focusing moon/stars/infinites is ridiculous.
So I take it we're done talking about 8x10 wide angle lenses?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks