101mm lenses for 4x5 wide angle?

[athanasius80]

Does anyone have experience using 101mm Ektar and tessar-type lenses for 4x5 wide angle? Would there be enough image circle, and if so would corner definition be decent?
Thanks,
Chris

 

[Ole]

Tessar-types in general won't have enough coverage. It takes 135mm to give sufficient coverage - and most of those are intended to cover 9x12cm, not 4x5".

 

[Peter Schrager]

101mm

I have the little 101mm Ektar and find that on my Wista 4x5 the coverage is sufficient. Have not made extebsive use of the lens but it does cover 4x5.
Best, Peter

 

[Ole]

Some Ektars are Tessar-type, some are not. If the 101mm covers 4x5, I'll assume that it's a different design

 

[Dan Fromm]

Some Ektars are Tessar-type, some are not. If the 101mm covers 4x5, I'll assume that it's a different design

Ole, the 101/4.5 Ektar is a tessar type. I have two, have counted reflections.

Don't forget that what people mean by "covers" is pretty elastic. Every individual seems to have his own definition, not always applied consistently.

For example, I have a 3"/4.5 Velostigmat Ser. II. I've shot it on 2x3 to see what it would do. At f/22 the image it produces is as about sharp in the corners as in the center, i.e., not at all sharp. Some might say covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, but I don't use it.

I also have a 1.75"/2 Elcan. The Vade Mecum says correctly that it doesn't cover 6x9 -- there's mechanical vignetting -- and incorrectly that it covers 6x7. Yes, it illuminates a 90 mm circle. But at f/8 and f/11 the outer couple or three mm the image is quite soft. I rate it as not quite covering 6x7. Usable, if one can accept fuzzy corners, but I stick with my 47/5.6 SA even though the Elcan is a little wider.

There were recently discussions of 180/6.8 Dagors, lousiness of, and 150/9 GRIIs, utility of, on Q. T. Luong's LF forum. In both, users exposed, um, optimistic coverage claims made by an eBay seller. What's interesting about the Dagor thread is that the person who initiated it by reporting that his lens didn't, after all, cover 8x10, had recently sold one and had asserted in the listing that it covered 8x10 with room for movements.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Ole]

Yes, I remember that discussion - quite entertaining at times!

When it comes to old lenses (and old constructions), I have found my old 1910 German photography book to be an excellent guide to coverage. He is very clear on the difference between coverage and illumination, and quite contemptuous of some manufacturer's claims.

 

[gma]

Even if your 101mm would cover the 4x5 I think you would not have much of a wide angle effect. I recommend 90mm or less to really have a wide angle result. 80-90mm on 4x5 is about the same coverage as 24-28mm on a 35mm camera when cropped to 8x10 proportions.

 

[Fotoguy20d]

Even if your 101mm would cover the 4x5 I think you would not have much of a wide angle effect. I recommend 90mm or less to really have a wide angle result. 80-90mm on 4x5 is about the same coverage as 24-28mm on a 35mm camera when cropped to 8x10 proportions.

I know this is an old thread but it gives the prevailing wisdom of the question whether a 101mm Ektar will cover 4x5. Having a lens board lying around with the right drill for the Ektar, and being bored, I tried it this morning on my Pacemaker Speed. The lens mostly illuminates the GG, with some degree of rolloff of light towards the edges, and no movements at all possible, although, with the lensboard completely recessed into the body when focusing at infinity I don't know that it would matter much.

I'm sure there would be softness at the corners and edges to go with the light rolloff, but I also see applications where I could live with that. But, in response to the last post, I'll also take exception to the issue of it not providing a "wide angle" effect. Based on a 150mm lens equating to 50mm in 35mm format, a 101 is around equivalent to a 34mm lens. By the same calculation, a 90mm lens is equivalent to a 30mm lens and 80mm yields equivalent to 28mm. In any event, there was a time when a 35mm lens was considered wide angle, and, I can think of instances where it'll make the difference between getting the shot and not getting it.

I'd be curious whether anyone has ever shot some film with the 101 Ektar on their 4x5 and has some thoughts as to whether its workable or not.

Dan

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I have a 101 Ektar for my 2.25 X 3.25 Crown. I use it as a normal lens.

I've never tried it on my 4X5.

My 4x5 WA lenses are a 90mm Nikkor, 65mm Schneider SA and 55mm Rodenstock Apo Grandagon

 

[keithwms]

How close are you focusing?

My suggestion is to check your circle on 5x7 or 8x10 ground glass at the focusing distance you need.

 

[buze]

On a side note the 100 wide field Ektar easily covers 4x5, with room to spare. Great lens!

And I know it's just me, but I do prefer the 100mm to the 90mm of the world, just for the reason mentioned before : no traces of stretched proportions in the corners...