Large Format equivalent to hasselblad SWC lens

[davido]

I have used both the Hasselblad SWC and the LC-A 120, both with 38mm lenses. I really like the angle of view of that lens on MF and would like to find the equivalent on 4x5. I would be also cropping to 4x4 square. I have come up with what I think is close to the equivalent- a 65mm lens. Does that sound correct?
Thanks, David

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Yes, a 65mm or 75mm will give you a similar angle of view. I have to ask, however: if you're cropping square anyway, why not just stick with the Hasselblad?

 

[davido]

Thanks Doremus. The SWC is a beautiful camera but I want a more versatile system for travelling. And I'm kinda camera poor at the moment

 

[ic-racer]

I use this 125mm on 8x10.

 

[davido]

I have come across a nifty angle of view calculator. The angle of view of the SWC 38 mm lens is 72.8 degrees. In this calculator you can create a custom image size, so I plugged in 4x4 inches or 101x101mm. For that format, the lens would have to be 68.5 mm to have exactly the same angle of view as the SWC (72.8).
Here is the site: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Lotsa 65 mm lenses that cover 4x5. Lotsa 75s that cover 4x5. Few, if any, 70 mm lenses, fewer 68s, fewer still 68.5s. But then, the short dimension of 4x5 isn't 101 mm. 95 mm is more like it.

Which compromise are you going to make?

 

[wiltw]

Using the frame's short dimension for determination of 'equivalent AOV', the 38mm FL on 56mm Blad frame short dimension is like using 62mm FL on 92mm 4x5 frame short dimension...0.678 * frame dimension.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have used both the Hasselblad SWC and the LC-A 120, both with 38mm lenses. I really like the angle of view of that lens on MF and would like to find the equivalent on 4x5. I would be also cropping to 4x4 square. I have come up with what I think is close to the equivalent- a 65mm lens. Does that sound correct?
Thanks, David

Stick with Hasselblad if you want photographs like the Hasselblad SWC because the SWC is rectilinearly correct and no Large Format lens can provide that, they may provide the viewing angle, but not the correctness the the SWC provides.

 

[Nokton48]

Sinar Handy with Strap and Cable Extension by Nokton48, on Flickr

I designed and built this "Sinar Norma Handy" 4x5/9x12 camera a couple of years ago. I made the camera from some original Norma parts, and some others that I cobbled together.The viewfinder is a Mamiya 7 43mm and does the job. Now I am retired and I have time to play with it. The 65mm F8 chrome Super Angulon IS an exceptional lens. Requires fast film, on my test run I used HP5+ processed in Microphen at EI 800 so not a big stretch. I shot eighteen 4x5" sheets handheld, in about two full filled hours. Very Handy Indeed. They named it right.

People stop me every time I take this out. Lots of interest in this Handy. Yes it is a blast to shoot with

4x4" is a huge increase in fidelity over 6x6 120 size. This lens delivers the goods.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You've still got a rectilinear vs non-r. issue. There was a rather heavy rectilinear 90 Biogon available, sometimes used on 4x5 Technikas, but I'm not aware of anything shorter. It had less image circle than most WA 90's with their usual stretching or distortion.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've been using a 65mm f8 Super Angulon for about 30 years, it's the same chrome version as Nokton48's. I use it sparingly only when I need an extreme wide angle lens but I've made some great images with it. As the OP is planning on cropping the very slight corner vignetting isn't an issue.

More recently I began using a 75mm f8 Super Angulon I have one permanently fixed to my 6x17 camera but had tried it on my Wista 45DX and like the focal length. Eventually I found a reasonably priced 75mm f5.6 Super Angulon and I find it a more practical focal length when I need something wider than my 90mm.

The downside to many 65mm f8 Super Angulons is early are in Compur #00 shutters, they have no preview lever so have to be set to B and locked with a cable release to focus etc the shutters are harder to get serviced. but they are often quite cheap.

If I needed to replace my 65mm SA I'd most likely buy a 58mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL but I'd struggle to justify buying a lens I know I'd rarely use. The 58mm might be the 5x4 option for the OP.

In terms of Rectilinear most issues with WA lens are with retro focus designs on 35mm and 120 SLRs. I've not heard of field curvature issues with post WWII LF wide angle lenses.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

You've still got a rectilinear vs non-r. issue. There was a rather heavy rectilinear 90 Biogon available, sometimes used on 4x5 Technikas, but I'm not aware of anything shorter. It had less image circle than most WA 90's with their usual stretching or distortion.

Did you mean 60 mm? Unobtanium.

Rectilinear, schmectilinear. The OP seems to have been concerned with angle of view, i.e., focal length, not rectilinearity. And for most applications any of the 65s that cover 4x5 will do quite well.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

4x5 camera I made after using a friend's SWC:

75mm Fuji lens on a helicoid. Use it much like an SWC with a 4x5 Grafmatic, 6x7cm, and 6x12cm roll film backs.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Almost ALL large format wide angle lenses have inherent distortion issues. They stretch things toward the corners. It's a different problem from barrel distortion. The shorter they are, generally the worse they are. 65's are awful in that respect. Just comes with the territory of wide angle lenses, regardless of film format. Rectilinearity is an absolute necessity for something like aerial mapping. Quite a few rectilinear lenses actually exist for med format and smaller camera usage; but there's not much to fill the gap in large format until you get clear up to heavy machinery-style automated aerial cameras. You could put
something like a 38 Biogon on a 4x5 lensboard and get a donut-hole style image. I don't know if it was cropped to square and shot well stopped-down what the coverage would be like, but probably blank in the corners.

 

[Ian Grant]

Almost ALL large format wide angle lenses have inherent distortion issues. They stretch things toward the corners. It's a different problem from barrel distortion. The shorter they are, generally the worse they are. 65's are awful in that respect. Just comes with the territory of wide angle lenses, regardless of film format. Rectilinearity is an absolute necessity for something like aerial mapping.

The distortion you're talking about is a feature of all of the wider wide angle lenses regardless of format. How you use the lens can exaggerate or mitigate the effects, I borrowed a Leitz 21mm back in the mid 90's and found with careful use no one realised I was using an extreme wide angle seeing the prints, it's the same with my 65mm and 75mm Super Angulons.

Mapping lenses are specialist, flat field and corrected for rectilinearity, and in some cases temperature variations as well mounting in special barrels.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Hassie SW camera also has a rectilinear lens. NASA was quite concerned about the issue when taking a handheld camera to the moon. They didn't want distortion. There's quite a bit of info on the web about that. But one of my wife's former patients is one the of last surviving members of the Apollo team, a test pilot as well an flight engineer and trained astronaut alternate, and was in charge of a lot of ergonomic customization of specific gear for specific pilots. I've briefly discussed this with him; but he's a lot more interested in life-and-death guidance systems.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The OP asked if and only if there is a large format equivalent to the Hasselblad SWC, therefore unless the large format lens is rectilinearly correct the answer has to be no. As pointed out there are some very good large format lenses, but they are still not equivalent without rectilinearity. If you have used a SWC, you will know the difference, otherwise you probably do not have a clue.

 

[Ian Grant]

The OP asked if and only if there is a large format equivalent to the Hasselblad SWC, therefore unless the large format lens is rectilinearly correct the answer has to be no. As pointed out there are some very good large format lenses, but they are still not equivalent without rectilinearity. If you have used a SWC, you will know the difference, otherwise you probably do not have a clue.

Actually the OP says he really likes the angle of view of his 38mm lenses. So equivalent is as stated a few times 5is approx 8mm, or 65mm as he talks about cropping to 4"x4".

Unless it's an applied photographic use there's no need for specially corrected rectilinear lenses..

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

It is the other way around. All large format lenses are rectilinear, like the 38mm rectilinear Hasselblad lens. However, there are no fisheye large format lenses like the Hasselblad 30mm fisheye.

 

[Nokton48]

Look at all the classic B&W Architectural Photography done with the 65mm F8 chrome Super Angulon back in the day. No barrel or pincushion lines at all.

This is a great lens, I have it in three versions. One is Norma specific (in barrel) for the Norma Shutter. And I have one on a custom welded deep recess board, the uber rare swiveling 45 degree cable socket, and the third mounted on an uber rare Norma cone/Schneider 65mm F8 SA focusing mount (see above) ^^

Personally I prefer to use the 4x5 Norma Handy, over the Superwide.

Buy a locking cable release. No big deal. And I own the 30mm Fisheye.

 

[Ian Grant]

It is the other way around. All large format lenses are rectilinear, like the 38mm rectilinear Hasselblad lens. However, there are no fisheye large format lenses like the Hasselblad 30mm fisheye.

I think the term rectilinear is being misused by some to cover a a further level of correction needed in aerial lenses and some copy lenses, after all Rapid Rectilinear lenses go back to the 1800's.

However we are talking about corrections in Wide Angle lenses and I've never heard of issues of Rectilinearity in any post WWII lenses. I do remember images showing process lenses which like aerial lenses are flat field distorting near object objects at the edges of the photograph, particularly shots with a lot of depth.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rectilinear has a formal definition. No Super Angulon lens or its clones from other manufacturers is rectilinear. Nor does using view camera rise movement to obtain nonconverging vertical lines equate to rectilinearity. Whole different subject. But as far as Unobtanium goes, it's a rare earth radioactive element no longer allowed in lens manufacture. But they still put it in aerosol non-stick frying pan coatings. So just spray some of that on your lens and you'll instantly be able to get Unobtainable images.

 

[Richard Man]

I don't think I have seen the SWC Biogon being referred to as rectilinear? Just "pincushion and barrel" distortion "free" (or minimal, if one were to be less hyperbolic). Not an optic engineer so not sure if the terms are interchangeable. Bottom line is that the SWC Biogon renders straight lines as straight lines, so it can also be used as a flat field copy camera.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 90 Biogon will cover 4x5, but has a considerably smaller image circle than Super Angulon style lenses of the same focal length, which are more appropriate for the considerable amount of rise sometimes needed in architectural photography. And Richard, the terms are NOT Interchangable.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The 90 Biogon will cover 4x5, but has a considerably smaller image circle than Super Angulon style lenses of the same focal length, which are more appropriate for the considerable amount of rise sometimes needed in architectural photography. And Richard, the terms are NOT Interchangable.

What on earth are you talking about? You keep mentioning a 90 mm Biogon. The longest f/4.5 Biogon I'm aware of is the 75.