using large format lenses "wide open"

bicycletricycle · Nov 15, 2005

i am a new alrge format person, just got my camera today! technikardan. i am now looking for a lense, i shoot alot at night. in fact only at night and i want a wide/superwide lense. in my experience with medium format this was nice for focusing and also for reasonable exposure times. many times i have heard that you would never shoot a large format lense wide open and that the faster lenses are only good for easier focusing. Is this because at those f stops most lenses would not have enough covering power due to reduction in the image circle or is it because of edge sharpness or is it something else? I keep seeing the comment that all modern lenses made by the big four are the same in quality, can it be true? is the only thing to consider when buying a lense finding the right combination of focal length/angle of view/covering power and f stops. For instance a nikon 65mm sw is faster than anything else in that length f4. it has a smaller image circle than a grandagon n or super angulon xl so it would allow less movements. is that all there is to consider? are all the 65mm lenses the same sharpness? do you just choose which one has the details that you want most? thanks

glbeas · Nov 15, 2005

Best thing in this case is just try it! If you like it the do it more. You will get less sharpness overall but whether that is right is determined totally by the image you want. A few test shots will tell you quickly what aperture you would want to use.

JohnArs · Nov 15, 2005

Hi

The lenses have smaller covering power full open.Only Nikon has in the brochure some dates about the covering power of the lenses full open.
So the 65mm Nikkor has only 110mm at f4 the 75mm has 126mm at f4,5 and the 90mm is the first wich really covers 4x5 full open at 154mm
This can be translated to the other facturers more or less!
Hope it helps.

pharquarx · Nov 15, 2005

Moving down your list of questions, my experience is that it is prudent to stop the large format lenses down to increase depth of field, but, with the shorter focal length that you are talking about, your depth of field would be significant, focused at infinity, even with the lens wide open. Try it!!!

Faster lenses are easier to focus because they give you a brighter image on the screen.

Regarding quality of lenses, modern lenses are superb and I believe it is a matter of personal preference for a brand name and the depth of one's pocketbook. All of my lenses are Schneider with the exception of a 400 mm Osaka. I am as satisfied as the next person with the quality of images.

You didn't indicate which format you are shooting, for me (4 x 5), my decisions are based on the view that I want to achieve and then the diameter of the image circle. The smaller the image circle, obviously the less flexiblity you have in movements. Schneider has a great brochure available on their website (www.schneideroptics.com) that covers a lot of the basics for LF lenses. You may find it very informative, regardless of which lenses you wind up with.

Note too that as you get wider with LF lenses, you may need a center filter in front of the lens. Brightness drops off quickly towards the perimeter of the image (light enters more directly through the center of the lens than along the edge) and a center filter will even out the brightness across the entire image. I found this to be a must with the 47mm lens that I shoot with, even though it impedes focusing under lower light situations.

Charlie

pharquarx · Nov 15, 2005

After I posted, I thought about the center filter comment, actually, the goal is to even out the exposure across the image. Without the center filter on the wider lenses, the correct exposure for the center of the image may not give sufficient exposure for the edge. This is of course probably a moot point for someone shooting at night, but is significant for day time work.

Charlie

Dan Fromm · Nov 15, 2005

Save your pennies, buy a 75/4.5 Biogon in Compur. Minimal movements on 4x5, but usably sharp wide open and more even illumination than anything else that short.

medform-norm · Nov 15, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
Save your pennies, buy a 75/4.5 Biogon in Compur. Minimal movements on 4x5, but usably sharp wide open and more even illumination than anything else that short.

I'd love one of those too, but hey, I saw I sure need to save a lot of pennies before it will cover the current going rate of that beauty.

[BTW Dan, we just received the Boyer Beryl you bid on too, remember? It's a cute lens, soooo small, I can hardly believe it is ment for 4x5". But the condition it came in was as French as the lens itself. Needed plenty of TLC and we're not done with it yet. Has okay coverage for a 90mm and the image on the GG looks promising in contrast and sharpness, can't wait to try it, but must make recessed lensboard(s) first.]

Norm

Amund · Nov 15, 2005

I`m not shure if it applies to the wider Fujinons, but my 150mm f/5.6 is VERY sharp wide open...
Here`s an examplescan, TMX developed in Pyrocat HD
Example

1MB file....

Dan Fromm · Nov 15, 2005

medform-norm said:
I'd love one of those too, but hey, I saw I sure need to save a lot of pennies before it will cover the current going rate of that beauty.

[BTW Dan, we just received the Boyer Beryl you bid on too, remember? It's a cute lens, soooo small, I can hardly believe it is ment for 4x5". But the condition it came in was as French as the lens itself. Needed plenty of TLC and we're not done with it yet. Has okay coverage for a 90mm and the image on the GG looks promising in contrast and sharpness, can't wait to try it, but must make recessed lensboard(s) first.]

Norm

Norm, opinions differ about them, but I wouldn't do without the 38/4.5 Biogon I shoot on 2x3. Doesn't cover the format, but I can live with dark corners and there's always cropping. $1500-1600 and some patience should get a 75 Biogon, and it will cover 4x5. Again, opinions about whether they're worth having and using differ.

While I was over at Charlie Barringer's on Saturday he hauled out a couple of 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical lenses. These are sort of like 75 Biogons but aren't quite echt Zeiss. Much, much bigger than the real thing. We discussed what to do with them and real 75 Biogons. Short answer, unless one has extreme requirements -- 1/2 normal focal length or shorter, relatively fast, and sharp wide open -- like the original poster, its hard to justify the expense.

Thanks for the update on your Beryl. It looked good in the listing, I'm sorry it needs service before you can use it. Please send me your e-mail address by PM, and I'll send you a list of the lenses I've been dragging around with me. Then you'll understand why I was willing to bid low on the Beryl but didn't bid seriously. Ich habe genug. Non, J'ai trop.

I can't evaluate lenses very well on the basis of the images they throw on the ground glass wide open. Don't know why, but not all of the ones I've tried have shot as well as they looked. But at least you can focus it. I've had a few macro lenses that couldn't be focused wide open at their optimal magnifications. One of the reasons why I advise against choosing used lenses by reputation alone.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan Fromm · Nov 15, 2005

blix@broadpark.no said:
I`m not shure if it applies to the wider Fujinons, but my 150mm f/5.6 is VERY sharp wide open...
Here`s an examplescan, TMX developed in Pyrocat HD
Example

1MB file....

Nothing personal, please don't be offended, but the picture looks fuzzy to me.

jimgalli · Nov 15, 2005

Hate to be devils advocate but the whole reason I keep my Mamiya Universal / Sekor 50mm f6.3 is in case I ever need to shoot exactly as you just described. I tried to duplicate that lens / camera combination when I jumped to 4X5............75mm f6.8......and it sucked. It's one of the things LF does poorly IMHO. Of course you'll tell me I'm crazy and try it anyways.

Amund · Nov 15, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
Nothing personal, please don't be offended, but the picture looks fuzzy to me.

Takes more to offend me
But fuzzy? Are you sure? Did you look at it at the original size, as the downsizing by p-base is rather crude. The DOF is very shallow of course, but to my eyes it`s really sharp...

Oh well ,damn scanning, you should see the contact print instead

Earl Dunbar · Nov 15, 2005

Dan: What? Mildly limited DOF, but what is in focus is very sharp on my monitor.

I too have this lens and it was always impressive. I never did any formal tests at various apertures, but maybe I should.

Earl
edit: BTW, the focus point is not on the hands, but more like the jacket cuffs. Also look at the printing on the newspaper in the plane of focus. And yes, there are digital artifacts, some strange (to me) ones at that. Amund, send me a contact print!

JG Motamedi · Nov 16, 2005

I regularly shoot a LF lenses open wide. Most aren't designed to do so, but the majority of modern lenses will produce an acceptable image as long as you don't enlarge too far. Note however that DOF can be a major issue, particularly with longer lenses. My 150/2.8 Xenotar is a great lens, but open wide the DOF is so narrow that resolution practically becomes irrelevant.

Dan (or any other reader); do you have any experience with the Pacific Optical Biogon copy? I recently picked one up for cheap, and am trying to figure out how much I should expect from it, and if I should have it mounted.

Frank Petronio · Nov 16, 2005

Same here. When you shoot an Aero-Ektar at f/2.5 who really cares about the resolution?

I've often had to do "normal" sharp large group portraits wide open with large format because of the lack of light. Shooting 60 people at 1/60th at f/8 on ISO 200 4x5 film is pretty common. Of course I wish I could use f/16 but it just ain't possible sometimes.

MichaelBriggs · Nov 16, 2005

As a generality, the big four LF lens manfacturers all make top quality lenses. But that isn't to say that there isn't sometimes a reason to choose a particular lens. Probably each manufacturer makes a unique lens of some type. I look at coverage (but in longer focal lengths, past a certain point, one has enough coverage and more doesn't matter), aperture, weight, cost, filter size, etc.

Re using LF lenses wide open. Of the several modern LF lenses that I have tested, all have improved significantly with stopping down. Even the center peformance picks up stopping down a stop or two. Stopping down a bit more continues to improve the edges and increase the coverage. DOF is less in larger formats at a given aperture, so DOF wide open is small. But try your own experiments.

I've done some night scenes in cities with 4x5. I stop down a few stops and makes exposures of a few minutes. Some areas will be very dark, but I feel that it makes the photo look like a night scene. If you have little or no manmade lighting in your night photos, then you will probably have to shot wide open. At some point reciprocity just gets too severe. If this (nightime with no manmade lights) is your application, maybe MF would be better.

vet173 · Nov 16, 2005

jimgalli said:
Hate to be devils advocate but the whole reason I keep my Mamiya Universal / Sekor 50mm f6.3 is in case I ever need to shoot exactly as you just described. I tried to duplicate that lens / camera combination when I jumped to 4X5............75mm f6.8......and it sucked. It's one of the things LF does poorly IMHO. Of course you'll tell me I'm crazy and try it anyways.

I had one of those with my Mamiya camera, That and the 75 were some of the best glass I ever used on 6x9.

Ole · Nov 16, 2005

Schneider Xenar 300mm f:4.5 - wide open, with lots of swing (and a little tilt):
Dead Link Removed

I know it isn't quite what you asked about, but it shows some of what can be done with a wide open lens.

Dan Fromm · Nov 16, 2005

JG Motamedi said:
I regularly shoot a LF lenses open wide. Most aren't designed to do so, but the majority of modern lenses will produce an acceptable image as long as you don't enlarge too far. Note however that DOF can be a major issue, particularly with longer lenses. My 150/2.8 Xenotar is a great lens, but open wide the DOF is so narrow that resolution practically becomes irrelevant.

Dan (or any other reader); do you have any experience with the Pacific Optical Biogon copy? I recently picked one up for cheap, and am trying to figure out how much I should expect from it, and if I should have it mounted.

Jason, funny you should ask about the 75/4.5 Pacific Optical. I was given one on Saturday and have partially dismatled it. AFAIK, the person with the most experience with these monstrosities is John Stafford, who has gone through quite a lot of pain while trying to build a camera around one of his.

If yours has a shutter, remove it -- its held to the barrel by two screws -- and examine. The lens is fixed aperture, the working end of the shutter slips into the lens barrel like a Waterhouse stop. When the shutter's off, remove the clamp it attaches to -- two more screws -- and detach the lens from the board -- four more screws. Then extract the lens and look through it. Don't have to go through this rigamarole to look through the lens, but its much easier to handle when free of its board. Anyway, the exit pupil is clearly visible considerably more than 45 degrees off-axis. Until proven otherwise, the len seems to cover quite a bit more than 4x5.

If I were to try to put mine to use, I'd probably have some Waterhouse stops made, put the lens itself on a pair of pedestals, and mount a 4x5 Speed Graphic behind it on a slide. Move the film plane, not the lens, to focus, use the Speed's shutter to time exposures.

I b'lieve that a #0 has a maximum aperture big enough to suit, but I'm not sure one would be strong enough to support the lens. If I were to pay a machine shop to modify the lens' barrel so that a #0 or even #1 could be inserted between the cells, I'd still want to support the lens on two pedestals and move the film plane to focus. I think this calls for a camera improvised from scratch, not for a much-modified monorail camera.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan Fromm · Nov 16, 2005

blix@broadpark.no said:
Takes more to offend me
But fuzzy? Are you sure? Did you look at it at the original size, as the downsizing by p-base is rather crude. The DOF is very shallow of course, but to my eyes it`s really sharp...

Oh well ,damn scanning, you should see the contact print instead

Digitization is a sin.

medform-norm · Nov 16, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
Norm, opinions differ about them, but I wouldn't do without the 38/4.5 Biogon I shoot on 2x3. Doesn't cover the format, but I can live with dark corners and there's always cropping. $1500-1600 and some patience should get a 75 Biogon, and it will cover 4x5. Again, opinions about whether they're worth having and using differ.

Thanks for the update on your Beryl. It looked good in the listing, I'm sorry it needs service before you can use it. Please send me your e-mail address by PM, and I'll send you a list of the lenses I've been dragging around with me. Then you'll understand why I was willing to bid low on the Beryl but didn't bid seriously. Ich habe genug. Non, J'ai trop.

I can't evaluate lenses very well on the basis of the images they throw on the ground glass wide open. Don't know why, but not all of the ones I've tried have shot as well as they looked. But at least you can focus it. I've had a few macro lenses that couldn't be focused wide open at their optimal magnifications. One of the reasons why I advise against choosing used lenses by reputation alone.

Cheers,

Dan

Hi Dan,
I just had this great idea! Why don't we exchange our Beryl for your 75 Biogon! The Beryl is a mighty fine lens, on second inspection - and after our servicing it will be as new....
Jeez, $1500! We'll have to work for years to be able to throw that kind of money around. Being poor struggling artists and all that. But I saw some shots taken with the Biogon and they look sumptuous indeed.

I concur with your opinion about images on the GG differing from the actual results. Perhaps I should take photos of the GG images instead - have seen people doing that, mind you. With varying results.

About sending you a pm for a list of ALL your lenses - I'll be more than happy (and curious enough) to do so, but Dan, why don't you come out of the lens closet and admit you have Gallis' syndrome? It's nothing to be ashamed of and you've come to the right place for treatment.

Our lens list is probably not as long as yours nor quite as impressive. But right now, I don't have the required amount of hours/days available to dig them all out and list them.

Cheers, Norm

Dan Fromm · Nov 16, 2005

Galli's Disease? The most important clinical sign of this disease is possession of many lenses of the same focal length and maximum aperture not held for resale. Jim pretends to accumulate lenses for resale, but I think that's an excuse. It seems that his inventory grows continuously.

I have very few "duplicates" and would like to sell most of them. Unfortunately not all of the ones I've offered on eBay have sold. I have, alas, some lenses acquired as parts of bundles that seem completely unsaleable. 50/3.5 and 135/4.5 Saphir B, for example. The bundle they came in also contained a 40/4.5 Luminar, and I'm quite happy with the transaction.

The closest I come to fitting the classical definition of Galli's Disease is having 4"/2.0 Taylor Hobson, 101/4.5 Ektar, and 100/6.3 Neupolar. This fails to meet the definition since they're not interchangeable in practice. The Taylor Hobson is best for shooting at relatively large apertures and, since it is in barrel and relies on my Speed Graphic's focal plane shutter for timing exposures, relatively shoot exposures. The Ektar is best for shooting at distance at small apertures or long exposures. And the Neupolar is strictly a macro lens, outstanding from 1:8 to 8:1.

Next closest is having two usable 210s, an f/7.7 dagor type Boyer and an f/9 Konica Hexanon GRII. I also have a 210/4.5 Industar-51 that I really should sell. Someone please make me an offer on it.

Like Jim, I also accumulate lenses for resale. As for example, the three 240/9 dagor type G-Clarons and eighteen 38/4.5 Biogons I no longer have. My inventory shrinks.

Cheers,

Dan

JG Motamedi · Nov 16, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
Jason, funny you should ask about the 75/4.5 Pacific Optical...

Thanks Dan!

jason

Dan Fromm · Nov 16, 2005

JG Motamedi said:
Thanks Dan!

jason

Jason, IIRC, you have at least one 8x10 camera. If you extract your monstrosity from its cone, would you please hold it in front of an 8x10's ground glass -- carefully, please -- and report back roughly how large a circle it illuminates? I just did the "focus the window on the wall and rotate the lens" excercise with mine. It images the window fairly well when not quite parallel to it. Well, not quite parallel, but I eyeball estimate the angle between lens and wall at < 30 degrees. Unbelieveable.

We are going to have to stop teasing Stafford about his. IIRC, his current best thinking differs from the sketch I gave you mainly in moving the lens to focus.

Cheers,

Dan

mmmichel · Nov 16, 2005

Just a quick tangentially related question. For those of you who do use LF for night photography, how do you keep the sheets from "popping"? I've heard that some people use double-sided tape in the center of the holder, but it seems that this would make loading the holder kind of tricky.

using large format lenses "wide open"

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency