Light, wide angle 5x4 lens

[gwatson]

In my unerring quest for a 5x4 kit that I can bung in a carrier bag, I have now turned my attention to lenses.

I'm fine for 150mm and 210mm, but I want a 90-105mm that has enough coverage for movements but doesn't need a horse to cart around.

Options:

• 90mm Angulon - Dodgy optics? not enough coverage?
• 90mm Super Angulon - Great lens and coverage - needs a horse?
• 90 - 105 Nikkor/Fujinon SW - Look good, but how heavy?

The lens needs to be second hand and cheap (less than 250GBP ($500)). Anyone with any other ideas or comments?

Cheers

Geoff

 

[Nick Zentena]

The 105mm Fuji SW uses I think 67mm filters. That will give you an idea of size. It's not tiny but it's not what I would call heavy either. I don't know about UK prices but the older models in Seiko shutters are very cheap usually. Less then $300 when I bought mine.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The 90/6.8 Angulon is really light and compact. It covers, but the image circle is limited, so you don't get much in the way of movements. The optics are fine at normal LF apertures, as long as you know the limits. It uses 40.5mm filters. Combine it with another lens that uses the same filters--135/5.6 Sironar-N, 135/5.6 Symmar, or 150/4.5 Xenar, and you've got a very compact two-lens kit.

The 90/8 Super-Angulon offers a lot of bang for the buck and more image circle than the Angulon but isn't quite so compact. If you're backpacking and need to shave every gram, then go for an Angulon, but otherwise, this is a perfectly portable lens.

 

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hi Geoff !
I own an Angulon, the 6.8 version of the 50's. Smaller is difficult to make. Of course, it just covers 4x5 (it is given for 9x12 by Schneider, not 4x5). The shutter is heavier than the cells..... In my case, the MPP cone panel is bulkier and heavier !
And frankly, the images are good. You can find a decent used one for about £90~100, so give it a try. It will reward you !

 

[jamie young]

The 110 super symmar xl is pretty compact and is a great lense. I bet the 80 symmar xl would cover as well.
great lenses
Jamie

 

[Richard Kelham]

The 110 super symmar xl is pretty compact and is a great lense. I bet the 80 symmar xl would cover as well.
great lense

And great prices?

 

[david b]

I have a Schneider Linhof 90mm 6.8 I am thinking of selling.

 

[jstraw]

I have the 90mm/8 Super Angulon and I am very comfortable with the size and weight.

 

[removed account4]

i also have a (chrome barrel) super angulon.
it is a nice lens, not too heavy, and to be totally honest, aside from its
movements, i never really noticed a difference in image quality between it,
and a wollensak raptar (air corps) that i had.
it was *tiny* and allowed for good movements as well
(maybe it was the color dot on the rim that made the difference ?) ...

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

My choice is a Kodak Ektar Wide Field 100mm.

Wayne

 

[kirkfry]

The 90mm f 6.8 angulon of late 50's is a great lens. Try to find one in a linhof labeled shutter. Urban legend has it that these were hand selected as being better than the average. I have very nice pictures taken with it.
K

 

[Ole]

Yet again, Dead Link Removed shows what kind of coverage the 90mm f:6.8 Angulon has - on 5x7" film. The coverage is considerably better than "urban legend" (and Schneider) has it.

There is a possibility that those which have been reported soft have suffered decentering - only the outer elements are supposted by the barrel; the two inner elements are only supported by the lens cement. Urban legend has it that Angulons should be stored flat, and never on edge to avoid this happening - particularly in hot climates.

I have a 90mm f:8 Super Angulon too, which I use on 5x7" or when I need ridiculous amounts of movements on 4x5".

 

[gwatson]

Many thanks for all your replies.

I've just pulled the specs for the Super-Angulon and the f:8 weighs in at about 360-380 gms and the f:5.6 is the best part of 600 gms. (The Angulon 6.8 is 131 gms.) I think I could manage 360 gms, so I'm erring towards the f:8. Thanks again.

Geoff

 

[Ian Grant]

Geoff, another excellent lens to look out for is a Rodenstock f6.8 90mm Grandagon.

I have one, and also an f8 90mm SA both are superb, the f6.8 Angulon is not in the same league.

Ian

 

[Baxter Bradford]

Geoff

I agree with Ian, the grandagon N f6.8 which I had worked very well. Two modern small lenses to go for are the 80XL and 110XL from Schneider. The 110XL is supposed to be superb, mine has just arrived at RW. As for the 80XL, I found that I really needed the centre filter another £200 since I was getting slight fall off. This makes it quite a bit more bulky. If you are sticking with B+W then you ought to be ok. The 110XL has masses of coverage.

The f5.6 S-A as you noted weighs loads (probably equiv of 80+110!), but works well and has much more coverage than the Grandagon 6.8 which is why I changed over.

HTH

 

[Tom Stanworth]

the 90 angulon should not be dismissed as folklore. I have never owned one, but read this mini test here:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/AngSSXL.html

.My experiences with G clarons have thus far (210 and 240) shown them to be well beyond their publisihed IC stopped down and I will do tests on the 150 to see how that does on 5x7. I think Perez's results while subjective are relevant. If he can see no real difference on a 20x16 when comparing aparrent resolution of a 90 angulon vs a 110XL at f22 I personally believe him. Just like my 'cheapo' triplet geronar 300 f9 is as sharp as anything else at f22-f45. If I ever develop a light 5x4 combo I would certainly be trying out an angulon. Some old lenses are stunning. My ancient 203mm Ektar was incredibly sharp! Also, my tiny 65mm f8 Super angulon was tack sharp too, but lacked coverage.

You might also wish to consider some of teh 75mm f8 lenses by Fuji for something tiny, light and cheap.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tom, I've seen that web-page before, but it's not really very objective, the tests are too cursory, and there's a lot of flare in the images.

I've had 2 90mm Angulons, the first was Ok, useable but very limiting due to its poor coverage, so I sold it when I bought a Grandagon. In comparison the Grandagon's a real pleasure to use and far more flexible, in 20 years I've never run out of coverage.

I bought my second 90mm Angulon last year, they are ridiculously cheap now, it fits my hand-held 5x4 Crown Graphic, yes it's sharp, reasonable contrast, but it's nowhere near as good as my 90mm f6.8 Grandagon, or my Super Angulons (65mm, 75mm, 90mm and 165mm) which all have that slight edge in terms of micro-contrast & sharpness.

So the Angulon will be transferred to a spare Wide-angle Speed Graphic, for workshop use.

If you want a cheap cheerful 90mm, that will produce your very occasional WA 5x4 images, and you don't need rise & fall etc then an Angulon is fine.

If you want more then a newer lens design is a must. Super Angulons, Grandagons, and the Nikon, Fuji, Congo equivalents will be far more flexible.

Ian

 

[darinwc]

People seem to have differing opinions on the angulons. Keep in mind that the angulons and super-angulons were made for decades. And each persons opinions are probably made from a small sample of these. Most likely a single sample.

Chris Perez has done lens testing on different samples of Angulons and his tests are listed here:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
The tests results vary considerably from sample to sample.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Darinwc,

I am sure you are right in the sample variation being a huge factor. The Rodenstock WA lenses always seemed pretty heavy to me. I had a 65 4.5 Grandagon and this was a truly wonderful lens! In the 90mm area, the Nikkor SW 90 f8 is the lightest and has the same coverage as the f4.5 lenses. I have to confess tho, and I admitted this at the time, that the 65 grandagon had something pleasing about its look. Their 90 6.8 is not however especially light.

 

[walter23]

I really like my rodenstock grandagon-N 90 f/6.8. Mine sports the name caltar-II N 90mm f/6.8 (same lens, same factory).

Lots of coverage (~230mm I think), reasonably small, relatively inexpensive.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I really like my rodenstock grandagon-N 90 f/6.8. Mine sports the name caltar-II N 90mm f/6.8 (same lens, same factory).

Lots of coverage (~230mm I think), reasonably small, relatively inexpensive.

Rod 90 6.8 has an IC of 221mm acc to the manufacturer, so its pretty good and plenty for 5x4. The 235 of the NIkkor f8 allows a touch more movement (assuming all manufacturers use simalar criteria deciding IC, which they of course DO NOT!!!) but this is only really relevant if you plan to use it on 5x7 where it is still tight. only the whopping 90XL has more coverage.

The Rodenstock 90 6.8 is 460g which is 110g over the Nikkor f8. I would say that I was spoilt using the Nikkor on an Ebony with a nice bright GG. I never found the lens dingy but then again I always used a darkcloth. Seems that apart from teh hugley expensive 80XL at 280g, there is nothing to fill the gap between the Nikkor at 350g and the ultra small and light Angulon in size and weight terms, unless I am mistaken.

An option might be a 100 wide field Ektar as I hear these offer more movemet than the 80 angulon but I have no idea how heavy or compact they are. My 203 7.7 Ektar was wonderfully sharp and i hear that Kodak produced many other superb performers. Maybe worth looking at as I bet they can be snapped up for little money.