Confusion over 150mm lenses for 8x10

[StoneNYC]

Hi guys,

So I now shoot 8x10, but I only have 1 lens that has coverage for it. I really like the 90mm for a wide angle lens on 4x5, the translating focal length is 190mm or so for 8x10... well it doesn't seem like there's really a GOOD one, I don't want 210, it's too long for my tastes, and 200, there isn't one, 180 seems KIND OF like there are a few, but nothing with coverage and room for movements... I THINK I can deal with 150mm much better, and there are a few choices, 2 real good choices and I'm trying to understand them.

What it ultimately comes down to for me is WEIGHT and COVERAGE and MODERN COPAL SHUTTER.

So ... not buying one yet but want to educate myself... there's ...

Nikon 150mm SW

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikko...=100011&prg=10200&rk=2&rkt=10&sd=221489385730

and then there's the Schneider Super Symmar 150mm XL (I THINK that's the name... not sure if there is a non-super symmar 150 XL?) as seen on this listing.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Large-forma...549?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c7491aae5

and then I also found this with an older prontor shutter which I've never seen one before, seems odd looking, is this the SAME lens? it says ASPH (I assume aspherical? but is the other one the same?)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Linhof-Schn...182?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a8ddcf0c6

And I can't seem to figure out even though I've looked them up, what the weight of the schnedier is because there seem to be so many iterations of the same or similar name, that I'm unsure if I'm looking at the right thing.

So essentially, can anyone confirm which is the widest schneider 150mm that's also the lightest one that will cover 8x10?

I'm open to hearing about other modern lenses in the same focal length (and also open to hearing about some mystery 200mm) but lets not get too off track here, I know everyone has an opinion about what's better, but I'm just really looking for info on the shredder lens. Thanks!

 

[ic-racer]

I occasionally use 90mm on 4x5 so I use a Fujinon 180mm on 8x10. Good coverage at 305mm and it is surprisingly small, It is frequently found in a Seiko or Copal #1. Having said that, my 210mm gets way more use on 8x10 than the 180mm. One problem with very wide lenses on very large format cameras is the foreground. As you scale your format upward, the tripod needs to get higher, otherwise the effect is that of taking pictures with a 35mm camera on your knees.

 

[Dr Croubie]

From what I've pieced together from reading old sugar packets, you're right.
There's the 106-degree Nikkor SW (ie a Super Angulon / Grandagon style, but they weren't made in 150mm), and there's the 105-degree Super Symmar XL (not sure of its heritage but it's not a SA-style biogon, afaik it grew out of the regular Symmars), it's a lot smaller than the SW150 (front element looks just smaller but the rear is half the size), no idea on weight but I'd guess 3/4 of what the Nikkor weighs.
I've also been watching them here and here (this was listed on the classifieds (there was a url link here which no longer exists) before it went to fleabay).
Being almost the widest you can get on 8x10 (besides the Nikkor SW120) neither are cheap and $1k is a bargain.
Just on the Super Symmars, there was also the Super Symmar HM series, which were only 80 degrees (same as Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar-W series). The Super Symmar XL is also marked Aspheric (on all the ones I've seen), just noone seems to mention it.

If you can put up with a bit narrower, there's a 155mm Grandagon-N / Sinaron W which I've never seen for sale (yet) and 165mm Super Angulon which also goes for $1k+ (for that price I'd rather the newer Nikkor or SSXL, after that there's no modern 180s that fully cover 8x10, next is a 200mm Grandagon-N which I've also never seen for sale.
ic-racer, according to specs the Fujinon-W 180 doesn't quite cover 8x10, what's the vignetting like and how far do you have to stop down?

Or there's always yester-year's lenses like Wide-Field Ektars and such (there's a 190mm that just covers 8x10 with no movements), which might have antique value but are still probably cheaper than the aforementioneds, someone else will have to chime in about these...

 

[Dan Fromm]

Stone, this http://sdrv.ms/1i4czGa is a link to a list of links to many lens catalogs. You'd be better off spending time looking in them than browsing eBay or collecting random comments here.

APUGgers stand out for the desire to help but there aren't that many who know LF gear well. If you must get advice from strangers, ask y'r question on the LF forum. If you ask it on the French LF forum (www.galerie-photo.info) and are lucky, Henri Gaud, now posting as Nestor Burma, will reply with one of his exhaustive lists of nearly all of the lenses ever made that might do what you want.

 

[Alan Gales]

There is always the 159mm Wollensak. It comes in f/9 or f12.5 versions. Both versions cover 8x10 with some room for movements and they are lightweight. The early ones were not coated and the later ones single coated. They are not as sharp and contrasty as modern lenses but a lot of people seem to like them. Oh, one more thing, they are inexpensive.

 

[StoneNYC]

I occasionally use 90mm on 4x5 so I use a Fujinon 180mm on 8x10. Good coverage at 305mm and it is surprisingly small, It is frequently found in a Seiko or Copal #1. Having said that, my 210mm gets way more use on 8x10 than the 180mm. One problem with very wide lenses on very large format cameras is the foreground. As you scale your format upward, the tripod needs to get higher, otherwise the effect is that of taking pictures with a 35mm camera on your knees.

Thanks for the info, I think the reason I like the Nikor 150mm is that it has a 400mm IC so it could also be used on 11x14, so it's nice to have that option. The Schneider is barely covering 11x14 (391mm IC needed technically even though none of the lenses admit to covering 11x14 only 10x12, I think they would cover it) at 386mm (but I'm told Schneider underestimates their IC's) but it seems the Nikkor lens doesn't really need a center filter, where many indicate that the Schneider needs a center filter.

But since I don't have a bunch of friends who own all this stuff to visit and let me play... I need more clarification.

Thanks.

 

[eclarke]

Stone, I have the 150 SS XL and ot covers my 8x10 really well.

 

[StoneNYC]

From what I've pieced together from reading old sugar packets, you're right.
There's the 106-degree Nikkor SW (ie a Super Angulon / Grandagon style, but they weren't made in 150mm), and there's the 105-degree Super Symmar XL (not sure of its heritage but it's not a SA-style biogon, afaik it grew out of the regular Symmars), it's a lot smaller than the SW150 (front element looks just smaller but the rear is half the size), no idea on weight but I'd guess 3/4 of what the Nikkor weighs.
I've also been watching them here and here (this was listed on the classifieds (there was a url link here which no longer exists) before it went to fleabay).
Being almost the widest you can get on 8x10 (besides the Nikkor SW120) neither are cheap and $1k is a bargain.
Just on the Super Symmars, there was also the Super Symmar HM series, which were only 80 degrees (same as Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar-W series). The Super Symmar XL is also marked Aspheric (on all the ones I've seen), just noone seems to mention it.

If you can put up with a bit narrower, there's a 155mm Grandagon-N / Sinaron W which I've never seen for sale (yet) and 165mm Super Angulon which also goes for $1k+ (for that price I'd rather the newer Nikkor or SSXL, after that there's no modern 180s that fully cover 8x10, next is a 200mm Grandagon-N which I've also never seen for sale.
ic-racer, according to specs the Fujinon-W 180 doesn't quite cover 8x10, what's the vignetting like and how far do you have to stop down?

Or there's always yester-year's lenses like Wide-Field Ektars and such (there's a 190mm that just covers 8x10 with no movements), which might have antique value but are still probably cheaper than the aforementioneds, someone else will have to chime in about these...

THIS was the post I never thought I would get, and VERY glad to have gotten, exactly the kind of info I was asking, THANK YOU!

Do you know if the 200mm Grandagon N... Wow 495 IC!! But then that's GOT to be heavy...? They never list weight ... B&H does but they only have some LF lenses listed, so I can't find the Nikkor Lens' weight, only the shneiders weight. So know the weight of the Nikon or the 200 grandagon?

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I have the 150 SS XL and ot covers my 8x10 really well.

Going to PM and harass you haha

 

[Dr Croubie]

Do you know if the 200mm Grandagon N... Wow 495 IC!! But then that's GOT to be heavy...? They never list weight ... B&H does but they only have some LF lenses listed, so I can't find the Nikkor Lens' weight, only the shneiders weight. So know the weight of the Nikon or the 200 grandagon?

No idea, but Grandagons are (roughly) the same as Super Angulons, Fujnon SWD, Nikkor SW, they're all of the same biogon-esque heritage. 135mm filter size? Yeah, it's gonna be heeeaaavvy.
Actually, bam, found it. 2600g. And the 155mm grandagon is 1460g.
Also, the SAXL 165mm is 1605g. Still nothing on the Nikkor SW, but I'd guess around the 1.5kg mark, the SSXL might come in at under 1-1.2kg (the SSHM 150 is only 740g, it'll be at least that much)

But then, my Cambo 8x10 is 9.3kg with only the GG, no lens, lensboard, shades (I weighed it this morning in preparation for finding a new tripod&head). What's an extra 1.5kg on that?
If you've got your Chamonix, that'll be lighter though. Still, if weight means that much, the SSXL is the way to go.

 

[removed account4]

some of the 150 computar symmetrigon are said to "cover" an 8x10 negative.
i have one and the guy who sold it to to the shop that sold it to me had it on a 8x10 sinar
and i was told by the store owner that it covered ... i use it on a 5x7 and it has huge coverage,
but have never used it on my 8x10 to check on the coverage. when i spoke with jim at mpex years ago
he said there were some of the symmetrigons that had better coverage than others ...

needless to say, they are sleepers.

 

[StoneNYC]

No idea, but Grandagons are (roughly) the same as Super Angulons, Fujnon SWD, Nikkor SW, they're all of the same biogon-esque heritage. 135mm filter size? Yeah, it's gonna be heeeaaavvy.
Actually, bam, found it. 2600g. And the 155mm grandagon is 1460g.
Also, the SAXL 165mm is 1605g. Still nothing on the Nikkor SW, but I'd guess around the 1.5kg mark, the SSXL might come in at under 1-1.2kg (the SSHM 150 is only 740g, it'll be at least that much)

But then, my Cambo 8x10 is 9.3kg with only the GG, no lens, lensboard, shades (I weighed it this morning in preparation for finding a new tripod&head). What's an extra 1.5kg on that?
If you've got your Chamonix, that'll be lighter though. Still, if weight means that much, the SSXL is the way to go.

The SSXL is listed at 740g also, on the B&H website.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...r_01_1036505_150mm_f_5_6_Super_Symmar_XL.html

Just found a thread that says 2.3 lbs for the Nikon and also mentioned that the REAR element on the SSXL takes 62mm thread filters, I think that sealed the deal... As the 95mm filter thread on the front is inhibiting...

I do like the generous coverage of the Nikon but the Schneider makes more sense for my purposes.

Thanks for leading me there...

Found that last info here for reference...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008a62

 

[jamespierce]

I've owned nearly all the lenses being discussed here.

The Nikkor 150 SW F8 is probably the nicest to shoot with - no major fall off. Symmetrical design - the killer for me though is that it can't be used on a technika board.

The 150mm SS XL is beautiful, the lightest modern wide with good coverage. Compared to the Nikon it really needs the centre filter though which makes it bigger (The fall off is much greater due to the design I believe).

The 210s are hard for 8x10 ... few are small anyway. I have a 210mm W Rodenstock which works well, covers well and is quite big and heavy, but compared to many others it's just not.

For what it's worth 210mm on 8x10 feels more like 90mm on 4x5 than a 150mm ... 150mm is REALLY wide on 8x10 - quite hard to see the whole image etc. I own and carry both 150 and 210mm, the 210mm sees much more service.

 

[StoneNYC]

I've owned nearly all the lenses being discussed here.

The Nikkor 150 SW F8 is probably the nicest to shoot with - no major fall off. Symmetrical design - the killer for me though is that it can't be used on a technika board.

The 150mm SS XL is beautiful, the lightest modern wide with good coverage. Compared to the Nikon it really needs the centre filter though which makes it bigger (The fall off is much greater due to the design I believe).

The 210s are hard for 8x10 ... few are small anyway. I have a 210mm W Rodenstock which works well, covers well and is quite big and heavy, but compared to many others it's just not.

For what it's worth 210mm on 8x10 feels more like 90mm on 4x5 than a 150mm ... 150mm is REALLY wide on 8x10 - quite hard to see the whole image etc. I own and carry both 150 and 210mm, the 210mm sees much more service.

Thanks for the info, I'm aware the 210 is closer to 90mm, as 200mm is pretty much exact but as you mentioned, it doesn't seem like there are many with good coverage and light weight. I would accept a 180mm but again not generous coverage.

I don't mind some light falloff as it gives a certain quality. But I also don't want it to be excessive, and for chromes I plan to use, it probably would be.

Now I remember why I originally wanted the Nikon instead... But the weight issue means I need to make some compromise, and you said you can't use technika boards...hm well that changes everything...

Guess it's the Schneider......

So somehow I have to find a way to afford...

Fujinon 600 C
Schneider 150 SSXL
Fujinon 450 C

Hmmm.... In that order I think...

This shall be a great challenge!

 

[Ian Grant]

I occasionally use 90mm on 4x5 so I use a Fujinon 180mm on 8x10. Good coverage at 305mm and it is surprisingly small, It is frequently found in a Seiko or Copal #1. Having said that, my 210mm gets way more use on 8x10 than the 180mm. One problem with very wide lenses on very large format cameras is the foreground. As you scale your format upward, the tripod needs to get higher, otherwise the effect is that of taking pictures with a 35mm camera on your knees.

I don't comprehend the logic in your statement, a 180mm lens is only a medium wide (on a 10x8 camera), aside from taking into account the slight difference in the scale of the cameras, 35mm compared to a 10x8 the height on the tripod won't have the effect you describe.

However if you add front or rear tilt that will change the scenario, that would be similar with any format LF camera or a MF camera with tilt, or a 35mm camera WA tilt lens.

Ian

 

[AgX]

about Symmar lenses:

Symmar

Symmar-S

Super-Symmar HM

Apo-Symmar (similar to Symmar-S)

Super-Symmar XL (one aspheric surface)


HM and XL very much deviate from the symmetric design.

 

[eclarke]

I have and use the xl's..58, 72, 80, 110 and 150. Falloff has never been an issue. The 150 on 8x10 is excellent and on 4x5 gives unlimited movements in all directions.

 

[AgX]

Just to add to what jamespierce and AgX said above regarding the design of the Schneider SS XLs and falloff, there is something about the design (which is asymmetric and includes an aspheric surface) which evidently prevents them from using the "pupil distortion" trick - this reduces the normal falloff a little on lenses like Super Angulons etc.

What is that "pupil distortion" trick ?

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, I'm not an optical engineer but I'll try ... (I originally got this from Rodenstock's Grandagon N literature but my understanding is many lenses including the Super Angulons (though not the Super Symmars) Nikkor SWs, etc.) are designed this way.

The "natural" falloff of lenses should follow a Cos^4 theta progression. The aperture viewed off axis becomes an elipse of decreasing effective area. The "pupil distortion" (probably more accurately called "tilting pupil") design, as I understand it, causes the entrance or exit pupil to "tilt" as it is viewed off-axis, retaining its circular shape and effectively reducing the falloff to Cos^3 theta. This seems to be correct if you look at the falloff graphs in Schneider's literature for the Super Angulons , vs the Super Symmars which appear to have a Cos^4 theta falloff progression.

That's the laymen's explanation, at least.

Apologies for temporarily hijacking StoneNYC's thread.

No apologies, this is VERY useful info and I value it greatly. Sadly I'm almost positive the 150 SA would be heavier than the SS and have less coverage...

Agree, the 110 is probably my favourite lens on 4x5. I find myself using the 90 SA XL less and less ever since I got the 110.

Just wanted to point out (in case it matters) the SS XLs have more falloff than the SA XLs.

I figured, but the better weight and good coverage are really appealing.

I have and use the xl's..58, 72, 80, 110 and 150. Falloff has never been an issue. The 150 on 8x10 is excellent and on 4x5 gives unlimited movements in all directions.

Wow! Lucky you! I think I may have to get the 150 SS XL officially... My poor poor pockets...

about Symmar lenses:

Symmar

Symmar-S

Super-Symmar HM

Apo-Symmar (similar to Symmar-S)

Super-Symmar XL (one aspheric surface)


HM and XL very much deviate from the symmetric design.

I don't really understand design info, but it's very helpful to see them all listed.

I assume the SS XL is also APO even if it's not in the name?

Thanks.

 

[jamespierce]

I believe so, they are certainly the latest and most modern of the schneiders too. The 80 and 110 are amazingly small with great coverage on 4x5 too. Good luck finding 600mm C fuji... Consider the Cooke VXa - available new, gives you 311, 476 and 650 in one lens / shutter combo. Probably about the same price as buying the two fujis too.

 

[AgX]

I don't really understand design info, but it's very helpful to see them all listed.

A design could tell the photographer something about the usefullnees at varying scales, about chances to use a split lens and how etc.

A deviation from the original design is interesting in this case, as the lens name just hints at that design feature.
Well, maybe more interesting than useful.

 

[eclarke]

Agree, the 110 is probably my favourite lens on 4x5. I find myself using the 90 SA XL less and less ever since I got the 110.

Just wanted to point out (in case it matters) the SS XLs have more falloff than the SA XLs.

I just never see any issue with falloff. I use my 110 on my 8x10 and stop down. The thing is so sharp that a small aperture doesn't hurt.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I just spent the weekend developing and scanning my work of a few weekends ago, mostly Fujinon 90mm SWD on 4x5 and 6x17. On RVP100F I could easily see darkened corners on the 617s without scanning, but even on Ektar 617 I can see the corners darkened once they're huge on screen, and a slight amount on RVP50 4x5s where I've shifted a lot. All of these were f/16-22, maybe one or two on f/32.
I'm definitely going to think about a centre filter for the next time, especially on the 617s. So for 150mm on 8x10, which is even wider, I'd definitely want one, at least for chromes, maybe you can do without it for B+Ws depending on personal taste.

Just a word on the lens designs. As I've said before, SA, Fuji SWD, Nikkor SW, Grandagons, they're all roughly the same biogon-heritage, symmetrical and huge, for wide coverage.

The regular convertible Symmars were dagor/plasmat styles, still near enough to symmetrical (and I presume Symmar-S and APO-Symmar are incremental derivatives, they're all 6-element symmetrical).

The SSHM has a rather long and skinny rear cell with at least 8 elements that I can make out in the diagram here, 3 in the front and 5 on the rear, so no idea what its heritage is. 8+ elements aren't really 'classic' designs anyway, so whatever it is it's a mishmash of one or more.

The SSXL I can't find a diagram, so I'm only guessing, but with such a huge front and tiny rear, it makes it look like a retrofocus (ie SLR wide-angle). Can anyone who has the pleasure of owning one measure the film-to-flange at infinity? If it is a slight retrofocus style, it should have longer film-to-flange than its focal length, and more barrel-distortion, but then it'd have one less cos-theta term from being more telecentric. If it vignettes more than its equivalent biogon-esque competitors then it's probably mechanical vignetting from being more compact (ie the 'pupil trick' termed above).

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

There's current'y a 210 Graphic-Kowa on eBay that has the correct number of reflections to confirm it's the same as a Computar. It's a very small/lightweight lens that covers 8x10 with movements. It's sharp too.

 

[AgX]

The flange focal distance [of the Super-Symmar XL] is slightly longer than its focal length.

Whereas for the classic design, represented by the Apo-Symmar, it is slighty shorter.