In Need of a Sharp 4x5 90mm

[Xander Fischer]

So, other that perhaps Linhof/zeiss lenses (which are a way out of my price range) What's a SHARP 90mm for 4x5 with enough covering power for good movement? I know the Schneider 90mm XL is great, but I really don't want to pay $600+ for a center filter... Also looking for a 150mm of similar qualities.


Suggestions?

 

[250swb]

How about a 90mm Super Angulon and a 150mm Symmar? Both are easy to find in good condition and not very expensive.

Steve

 

[Trond]

I have a Fujinon-SW 90 f/8.0 which is very sharp. They are not very expensive either. Similar lenses are/were made by Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock, etc. and probably perform on a similar level.

Trond

 

[Ian Grant]

i have a 90mm f6.8 Grandagon and also a 90mm f5.6 Siper angulon, bot are extremely sharp lenses, and you don't need a centre filter for 5x4 with a 90mm. I paid about £150 ($230) for teh Super Angulon which is in excellent condition.

Ian

 

[EdSawyer]

The Nikon 90/8 is THE 90mm to beat. Check the tests by Perez, et al, and the lens optical diagram. Simply the best 90 out there, IMNSHO. For 150s, the Apo-sironar S is considered about as good as it gets, though the Apo Symmar 150 and Fuji NW-S 150 are also top shelf.

-Ed

 

[Jesper]

I would say that any modern 90 is sharp. It is more about the stability of your tripod and camera setup.

 

[darinwc]

I dont understand why you think some lenses are sharp and others not.
Schneider super angulon
rodenstock grandagon
nikon nikkor sw
fujinon sw

All these lenses are top-notch and super sharp. I dare you try to tell the difference.
It is probably more important to find one in mint condition.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I dont understand why you think some lenses are sharp and others not.
Schneider super angulon
rodenstock grandagon
nikon nikkor sw
fujinon sw

All these lenses are top-notch and super sharp. I dare you try to tell the difference.
It is probably more important to find one in mint condition.

And use a sturdy tripod, and focus with a good loupe, and make sure your GG is properly located, filmholders within spec.......

The lens is just a link in a chain.

 

[Xander Fischer]

Thanks guys, really appreciate the input. I know falloff happens to all 90s, but I'd rather pay ~$200 for a center filter that $$$$$$$ for the 10000000mm filter for the XL. I haven't seen any tests, I'm still getting my feet wet in the intriguing LF waters. Good to know they're all sharp. I have the Nikon 65mm, and it's great, but the movements are so limited. I'll keep poking around and see what I find.

Thanks all! Other perspectives still welcome.

 

[Xander Fischer]

Also, is there a quality difference between the nikon 90 f/4.5 and the nikon 90 f/8? I assume faster doesn't necessarily designate better lens quality with LF lenses like it tends to for DSLR lenses?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Also, is there a quality difference between the nikon 90 f/4.5 and the nikon 90 f/8? I assume faster doesn't necessarily designate better lens quality with LF lenses like it tends to for DSLR lenses?

Lens speed and lens quality are utterly unrelated, whether the lens is used on a DSLR, a view camera, a microscope........ of course the ad copy writers will have you believe differently.

The faster lenses are easier to focus (which makes a big difference in the corners of the GG when using an extreme WA lens, as you are) and more expensive - that's it.

 

[EdSawyer]

The nikon 90/8 is widely regarded as better than the 90/4.5. Empirical testing bears this out, which should be obvious anyway from the optical design. the 90/8 nikon has a greater image circle than basically all other slow 90s (f/6.8 - 8).

 

[removed account4]

get an old chrome barrel super angulon, they are not very expensive, and if you
decide you want something else, they retain their value so you can just sell and upgrade ..
i have had and used wollensak 90mm raptar and a 3 1/2 " wollensak exwa lenses which were very sharp stopped down
and very small ... i sold them years ago and got a super angulon 90, and to be honest i can't tell the difference between any of them ...
as EvH suggests, focus well, use a sturdy tripod, make sure your gg + film holders are "right" stop down ... and you should be good to go,
unless you get a lens whose previous owner mixed up the cells, or lens / shutter spacing &c, then no amount of perfection will help you ..

Also, is there a quality difference between the nikon 90 f/4.5 and the nikon 90 f/8? I assume faster doesn't necessarily designate better lens quality with LF lenses like it tends to for DSLR lenses?

the main difference is the one with the larger aperture will be easier to focus wide open.
some people have a hard time focusing lf lenses whose largest fstop is f8 ...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

How about a nice late model all black 90mm f/8 SA in nearly mint condition... the later model with the factory writing on the side. How does $225 shipped CONUS sound?

 

[Andre Noble]

The Nikon 90 SW f8

 

[Andre Noble]

Also, is there a quality difference between the nikon 90 f/4.5 and the nikon 90 f/8?

The f8 has 8 elements and is highly corrected. The f4.5 has 7 elements.

I have owned both. The f8 is really impressive in sharpness - provided you get a good sample. The Nikon 90 f4.5 is just *OK*.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've not only heard it the other way around, but know a number of nitpicky people (myself included) who consider the Nikkor 90/4.5 to be the best 90 wide ever made up to that point. It's extremely crisp, and a Schneider 82mm CF works perfectly on it.

 

[250swb]

The important thing is not to get confused between the sharpness of a slightly older lens and the contrast of more modern lenses. It is easier to increase contrast in processing than the impossible task of increasing the sharpness. Give or take most fairly modern era large format lenses are pretty damned sharp, the main improvements in evolution being in colour rendition and micro contrast, not sharpness.

Steve

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

All the modern 90s are sharp.

The only thing I'll add is that you MAY get sharper results from a faster lens (f4.5 or 5.6) for two simple reasons.
1. you will be able to see the ground glass better which aids focusing.
2. When the 4.5 and 5.6 lenses are wide open for focusing they through the out of focus elements slightly more out of focus than an f8 model, which may also allow you to focus more accurately.

I used to use a 90mm SA f8 and switched to a 90mm Nikkor SW f4.5 for these reasons.

Assuming you are focused properly I believe all the modern 90s will give similar results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Most DIY alleged sharpness tests are basically BS for at least one simple reason, esp with short focal
lengths like the one in question: the variations in film plane in a conventional holder affect focus more than variations between lenses! You'd have to use a vacuum holder or glass plate, or compare
aerial images w/o film. In the specific comparison of a Nkkor 4.5 vs f/8 it's mainly a tradeoff between
portability vs brighter viewing. The difference in optical performance per se is probably miniscule.

 

[Andre Noble]

Drew is right to a certain point. I doubt in 8x10 or even 16x20's prints one can easily tell the difference between the Nikon f4.5 vs the Nikon SW F8 Nikkor.

But do know Drew's opinion of the Nikon f4,5 being sharper than the f8 is in the clear minority. Do a web search and go back to threads over the last dozen years. He's clearly wrong here.

I cherry picked from three brand new 90 f4.5 and kept the one that was acceptable. This cherry picked sample is a competent optic but it's not even in the same league in terms of resolution performance as the Nikon 90 f8.

PS: The f8 is not difficult to focus in daylight conditions. It's also half the size and weight of the f4.5.

 

[EdSawyer]

+1 What Andre said.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Ummm, guys. Here's what Drew said:"In the specific comparison of a Nkkor 4.5 vs f/8 it's mainly a tradeoff between
portability vs brighter viewing. The difference in optical performance per se is probably miniscule."

 

[DREW WILEY]

Digging up this food fight once again - Andre, my standard is not 16x20 - its a 30X40 Cibachrome
made on a vacuum easel with precise graphics lenses. And lots of test have been done by lots of people. You'll find opinions both ways, but I'll bet not one of those web chatter remarks you find
authoritative even factored in the film plane variable, or the FACT that normal film holders don't hold
film dead flat. I measure my film plane with a special depth micrometer, and if needed use a special
kind of filmholder. I really don't really care who is right or wrong. The point is, given the exceptional
quality of these Nikon lenses in general, there are much more practical overall considerations. I bought mine because I was doing a certain amt of indoor architecture where the brighter viewing was essential. And in any event, the lens was distinctly sharper than Super Angulons I have used;
and at the time was considered by quite a few working pros with solid reputations as the best of the
90's. You obviously prefer the f/8 and I'm certain it's a wonderful lens too. I don't know how anyone
could go wrong with either.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One practical point which might help one choose one version of Nikon versus another is not only the
max aperture but the working image circle. They might appear identical, but if you read the fine print, the f/4.5 circle is calculated at f/16, not f/22 as in most other cases. This means that at this
aperture the image circle will in fact be bigger; and given the fact that 90's are often chosen for
serious rise or other architectural movements, the performance near the edge of such images might
in fact be inherently better. Smaller max-apertures lenses are easier to correct - but it's the real world application which determines what distribution of sharpness takes the priority. And certainly
when you get past f/22 or so with a lens of this focal length, diffraction pretty much levels the playing field anyway. When I want extreme sharpness, I don't use any kind of wide angle design.