Angulon 90/6.8 for 6x17?

[cesarb]

I've found a nice and cheap lens but I couldn't get any info about it's coverage. I supposed it might be enough to cover 6x17, even with moderate or heavy fall-off, but I guess someone problably knows the right numbers.

Thank you all.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have the lens and the 6x17 back, but they're about 6000 miles away at the moment. I'm fairly sure you'll get very soft edges with that combination. Angulons have a much larger circle of illumination than the circle of good definition. A 90mm/8.0 Super-Angulon will cover 6x17, though.

 

[cesarb]

Thanks, David.

I was afraid of that, as I had one of those Super-Angulon and traded it for a similar Nikkor, mainly for the benefit of some spare centimeters of coverage. But since this lens doesn't fit the Art-panorama camera, I'm searching for a physically smaller companion wich could be useful for me.
But I'm not sure if I want to deal with soft corners...

Gracias.

 

[Ole]

Check out these: Dead Link Removed

They were shot with two different 90mm Angulons on 5x7" film. I apologise for the bad flare - I set everything up, then moved the camera 5cm forward to avoid getting the porch rail in the picture. Of course that let the sun shine directly on the lens...

Anyway, they do show the kind of sharpness you'll get at the edges of 6x17 at two different apertures with Angulons of different vintage.

 

[cesarb]

Thanks for the link Ole!
It seems those little lenses can actually perform decently at fixed cameras like mine, but I confess to be somewhat concerned about flare, as part of my work deals with shooting interiors and expositions for art catalogs. For sure a modern and fully coated lens might be the better way to go, so I still have to wait for some to come around.

 

[Bob F.]

Schneider's data: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-90mm.html

 

[df cardwell]

A multi-coated super-wide from Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, or Nikon will do what you need easily. So, why make your work extra difficult ?

6x12 would be easy for the Angulon: 6x17 is out of the question.

 

[Ole]

Stated coverage should cover 6x14. Why not try it on 6x17 before you decide it won't work? The middle of the short sides on my 13x18 looked pretty good, and that's even further out of stated coverage!

 

[cesarb]

Hi, df.

Sure those big new glasses would do wonders, except by the fact that my camera won't accept most of them. My Nikon 90/8 SW, for instance, doesn't fit inside the camera body just for a couple of millimeters, so I have to look for lenses with smaller back element and, most important, find one wich fits my budget.
Where I live those things doesn't come so easy and I just can't order from abroad without paying huge aduana taxes. So... I have to be patient!

 

[uraniumnitrate]

Cesar!
Watch out because this lens is recommended to 9x12 but it’s not cover the size 4x5 with out any blur/distortion!
The lens is 81 degree with a 154mm diagonal on f16 and on a 9x12 that leaves you some 10 mm on each side and some 8 mm for rise you have a 180 mm diagonal on 6x17 cm. The diagonal increases with further f stop but very shitty on the corners. I wouldn’t recommend it.