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.
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...
Stone, I have the 150 SS XL and ot covers my 8x10 really well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...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.
I figured, but the better weight and good coverage are really appealing.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 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.
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.
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.
The flange focal distance [of the Super-Symmar XL] is slightly longer than its focal length.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?