Sharpest super wide angle lens between 65mm and 80mm for 6x12cm panorama camera

A49 · Dec 27, 2014

Hope that you all had or still have nice Christmas days!

Forword (can be skipped):
Three days ago I have aquired a self-made 6x12cm panorama camera for 120 roll film. It was built by a very talented DIY photographer and seems to be great in terms of functionality, compactness and weight (only about 700 grams without lens).

I mananged to put a 1960ies Schneider Super-Angulon 8/65mm on the camera, calibrated infinity with a ground glass and 8x loupe and did a test film.

Everything worked real fine, the negs looked great,where evenly spaced and did not have vignetting. But when I examined them under the enlarger I was really disappointed to see that the most left and right areas of the neg where fuzzy and unsharp at every aperture that I have shot with (f/8, F/11, F/16, F/22, F/32). The middle of the negs was nice and sharp and best at F/16 and still very good at F/11 and F/22. The fuzziness and unsharpness of the left and right side areas was still visible at 4 times magnification with my enlarger.

So I think that the 1960ies Super-Angulon 8/65mm is not sharp enough for my project or maybe I have a dog

Here is my question (sorry to ask the "Which one is best"?"-type of question):

Which 75mm (or maybe 65mm or 80mm) super wide angle is likely to be the sharpest for 6x12cm (or 4x5 inches) over the whole field? I have read that my 1960ies lens has only 6 elements and newer designs feature 7 (Nikkor SW) to 8 elements (newer and faster Super-Angulon and Grandagon). Did anyone of you compare a Nikkor SW 4.5/75mm directly with a Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/75mm, a Grandagon 6.8/75mm (6 element), a Grandagon 4.5/75mm (8 element), Super Symmar XL, Apo Grandagon or similar lenses?

Thank you very much in advance for your opinions and experiences.

Andreas

mdarnton · Dec 27, 2014

I would check the parallelism of lens and film first before discrediting the lens. Does the lens seem to focus closer on one side relative to the other?

Check by taking a picture of something detailed with a lot of distance change, like looking downward at a lawn, so you have close to far all over the film and carefully locate where the plane of focus is, exactly, from one side across to the other. Focus should be at the same distance (height on film) all the way across.

jamie young · Dec 27, 2014

For excellent sharpness schneider 80mm super symmar xl and late model rodenstock 4.5 Apo grandagons are amazing lenses. They tend to cost though as they were the last and best of that type of lens before digital came. It might also just be the lens you have that's not working well. Might be a lemon. It might be wise to see how the lens works on another camera, just to have a base line to work from. There are great optics out there from earlier lenses, but quality control was less stringent.

ic-racer · Dec 27, 2014

Check that the lens is perpendicular and that the film is held flat. I use a laser to align the 65mm on my 6x9cm camera.

snapguy · Dec 27, 2014

straight

Let me see if I have got this straight. You have a camera thrown together by Mick E. Mousse and you are certain it is the lens that is making the fuzzy images. Hummm. Do you see anything wrong with this portrait other than it seems a bit fuzzy in the logic department?. I'd check out the alleged camera first.

summicron1 · Dec 27, 2014

lenses meant to be used on a 120 camera are typically only formulated to cover 6 by 9 -- you're 1.5 cm outside that on each side. What you need is a lens formulated to cover 4 by 5 -- if that lens is not, you need another lens.

If it is, and you want that wide a coverage area, maybe your mechanic should consider a curved film plane?

LJH · Dec 27, 2014

72mm SAXL.

Dan Fromm · Dec 27, 2014

summicron1 said:
lenses meant to be used on a 120 camera are typically only formulated to cover 6 by 9 -- you're 1.5 cm outside that on each side. What you need is a lens formulated to cover 4 by 5 -- if that lens is not, you need another lens.

If it is, and you want that wide a coverage area, maybe your mechanic should consider a curved film plane?

Interesting. https://www.schneideroptics.com/inf..._format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-65mm.html reports that the lens covers 155 mm. 4x5 country and a tiny bit larger than 6x12's 125 mm. Note, however, that Messers Perez and Thalmann got mediocre results with the one 65/8 SA they tested. See: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

The OP's camera is fitted with a Linhof selected lens. When the lens passed Linhof's quality assurance it was at least as good as Schneider claimed. It wasn't a dog then. Could be a dog now, old lenses have sometimes suffered abuse.

I have a 6x12 Sinar Panorama (fixed format) roll holder and a 65/8 Ilex (f/8 SA clone). On a 4x5 Cambo they give good results with no obnoxious loss of sharpness towards the ends of the frame.

Sinar isn't the only maker of 6x12 roll holders with flat film planes. A curved film plane isn't necessary for 6x12 or the somewhat larger 4x5. What were you thinking?

OP, was the subject you shot perfectly flat?

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 27, 2014

The lens currently on the camera is fine if there's nothing wrong with it or its mounting alignment or film flatness. You'll have some light fall-off so you may, or may not, want to add a center filter once you correct the fuzziness issue. There was a recent thread in which a member had a lens that was taken apart by a previous owner and one cell group was reassembled with one lens inverted. Once he corrected that problem the lens performed as it should.

scheimfluger_77 · Dec 27, 2014

LJH said:
72mm SAXL.

Heck, go for the whole banana--SAXL 47mm. Here's the cheap one on the 'bay at the moment
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-S...38457486?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item418cffef8e

I'm with the others, take a hard look at the lens/film plane alignment before doing anything. And test the lens on a known 4x5.

Steve

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 27, 2014

A49 asked about lenses in the 65-80mm range... but if he/she wants to go REALLY wide then consider a 38mm SAXL. We may be getting into territory A49 either isn't interested in or lenses too wide to fit the camera or are too pricey. In the focal length range A49 asked about the 65mm SA already on the camera is perfect provided there are no problems with it or the camera.

A49 · Dec 27, 2014

Thank you for your many answers.

I strongly believe that the lower sharpness on both sides is no alignment issue. To me it looks more like a lens flaw (maybe coma) since horizontal lines are relatively sharp but vertical lines are much more fuzzy. Fuzzy might be a misleading word - what I clearly see is that the side areas have much less sharpness than the center area and would be to bad for a perfectly sharp 25x50 cm print which I regard as the minimum to justify the use of 120 roll film for me (and not to use 35mm film). Also the right and left side look symmetrical to me but I will check again the open aperture F/8 neg if I can discover that the focus on one side is nearer than on the other. I did a cityscape scene with detail beginning from 10 meters up to 100 meters and did check details that were at least 40 meters away wich should be infinity for a 65mm lens at F/8 and smaller apertures.

I also don´t think that it is a film flatness issue since on the border areas the film is much better hold by the frame than in the middle. I would expect film flatness issues on this broad frame but more in the center and mid center areas. I will check the flatness with an expired film and the camera without the lens to see where and how much it bows. I will also calculate depth of focus for F/16 plus f/22 and 30 lpm to see how critical flatness and alignment really is.

Anyone who has experiences how much sharper a new lens is against one from the 1960ies?

Dan Fromm · Dec 27, 2014

A49 said:
horizontal lines are relatively sharp but vertical lines are much more fuzzy.

This is a classic description of astigmatism. Are the lens' cells fully seated in the shutter?

A49 · Dec 27, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
This is a classic description of astigmatism. Are the lens' cells fully seated in the shutter?

The shutter seems to be original and everything looks alright.

A49 · Dec 27, 2014

Does anyone know another source for LF lens testing like Perez & Thalman did?

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 27, 2014

Can you borrow another 65mm lens from someone to test it on your camera?

A49 · Dec 27, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
Can you borrow another 65mm lens from someone to test it on your camera?

Unfortunately I don´t know anybody in my hometown to borrow a lens in the desired range.

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 27, 2014

I guess you could rent one but I doubt it's worth the considerable expense.

Dan Fromm · Dec 27, 2014

A49 said:
Does anyone know another source for LF lens testing like Perez & Thalman did?

Nope. And knowing how well a used example of a lens did on test has few implications for how well another used example of the same lens will do for you. Not all used lenses are as good as new or as each other.

Your best bet is to buy with the right of return. I realize this will require collimating each lens you try to your camera, but there's no way around this.

Your used lens clearly has problems, it should be well-corrected for astigmatism and it isn't. You don't want the sharpest, you want a lens that's good enough and fits your budget and can be mounted to your camera.

Likely lenses that have the coverage you need were made by, in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock. In addition to these, the 80/6.3 Wide Field Ektar might do (mine covers 6x12). Here's a link to a set of links to catalogs: http://1drv.ms/1w0vbMD Root around in there to get a sense of what might do, and pay attention to dimensions. I'm not sure that your camera can use a lens with a large rear cell. I'd like to be wrong about that but you'd best check. You absolutely do not want a 65/6.8 Angulon, a 65/6.8 Optar or Raptar.

www.keh.com has a couple of lenses in the focal length you specified and has a very generous return policy.

Besk · Dec 27, 2014

In my opinion the lens exhibits classic curvature of field. This is most noticeable with wide angle lenses. Modern lenses with more elements may be adjusted for that somewhat but I don't know for sure.

To get the sharpest image with your lens you will need to set the focus at something less than infinity in the center.

Dan Fromm · Dec 27, 2014

Bob, as the OP described it his problem isn't curvature of field per se but rather astigmatism. Lenses that suffer astigmatism can't focus horizontal and vertical lines simultaneously. IMO his lens is a dud now even though it passed Linhof QA when it was new.

Besk · Dec 28, 2014

It could be astigmatism --- but since the format he was testing it with is a long 6X12 it would seem that astigmatism would be just one of the possibilities.

Dan Fromm · Dec 28, 2014

Bob, please see post #12 in this discussion.

A49 · Dec 28, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
You don't want the sharpest, you want a lens that's good enough and fits your budget and can be mounted to your camera.

Dan, thank you for summarizing and covering all the things that I have in mind for finding a replacement. And yes, I have to watch out with the dimensions of the rear cell to avoid much effort with constructing a new barrel for the mounting the lens. My budget for a used lens at this point is limited to about $ 400. To have a right to return with the purchase is a very good idea. I´m in Germany so I would have 14 days when I buy from a pro seller which should be enough.

But there are still questions which lens I should go for for a try. To name 3 of them:

- Is there positive evidence that an average 7 or 8 element WA is better than an average older slower F/8 and 6 element lenses? Are the 2 more elements mainly to achieve the higher speed or also for the far-off center sharpness?

- If I would go for a Grandagon 65 or 75mm: Which one probably would have better corner sharpness - the 8 elements F/4 or F/4.5 version or the slower and more convenient and compact 6 elements F/6.8 version.

- Is it worth to save some money and go for the most modern design like SAXL or Apo Grandagon? Are they clearly better than their brothers from the 1980ies or 1990ies?

(I have in mind that sample quality plays a considerable role so I just ask for average tendencies.)

I hoped that anyone did directly compare two WAs in my desired range to have at least some hints. So again my callout:

Did anyone make a direct comparison of two different WA products not longer than 80mm?

A49 · Dec 28, 2014

Bob Eskridge said:
In my opinion the lens exhibits classic curvature of field. This is most noticeable with wide angle lenses. Modern lenses with more elements may be adjusted for that somewhat but I don't know for sure.

To get the sharpest image with your lens you will need to set the focus at something less than infinity in the center.

Thank you for this valueable advice. So I would have to slightly reduce the flange focal distance of my current set to have the center and corner sharpness more balanced?

Sharpest super wide angle lens between 65mm and 80mm for 6x12cm panorama camera

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency