Wide Angle Lens Recommendations

[jeroldharter]

My widest lens is a 90 mm f6.8 Caltar II. I am wondering about getting a wider lens for 4x5 B&W photography, probably a 75 mm lens. The choices available look like a 75 mm Grandagon or Nikkor vs an 80 mm Super Symmar.

Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

 

[roteague]

I've got a Super Symmar 80 XL; it is small, light and very sharp. I USED to use a 90mm F8 Nikkor, no longer. The 80 wins hands down. If you have a 90 and are happy with it, I would think the 80 would be a bit too close, in terms of focal length. You might like the 75mm instead. Personally, I would get the 80mm XL and trade the 90 in for a 110 XL (which just what I intend to do this summer).

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I've got a Super Symmar 80 XL; it is small, light and very sharp. I USED to use a 90mm F8 Nikkor, no longer. The 80 wins hands down. If you have a 90 and are happy with it, I would think the 80 would be a bit too close, in terms of focal length. You might like the 75mm instead. Personally, I would get the 80mm XL and trade the 90 in for a 110 XL (which just what I intend to do this summer).

Excellent advice from roteague IMO!

The Super Symmar XL lenses are incredible! I have the SS 110 XL and the SS 150 XL.

 

[John McCallum]

Another vote for the 80mm Super Symmar Jerold. I've also compared results against the Nikon SW 90 and there is a noticeable difference. If the funds will stretch that far, it's very unlikely you would be dissappointed.
Don't forget the center weighted filter.

 

[jeroldharter]

How necessary is the center filter for both the 80mm and 110mm Super Symmar?

 

[John McCallum]

The affects of illumination fall-off are significant on the 80mm. About 1.5 stops; enough to be noticed, sometimes even useful. But I'd suggest you would not want to have to live with them.

 

[rbarker]

How about the 150mm Super Symmar XL? Then, slip an 8x10 behind it.

I use the 110mm SS XL on 4x5 quite a bit, along with the classic 90mm SA and a 65mm SA. The 65mm is really too wide for many things, though, because of distortion in the corners.

 

[jeroldharter]

Thanks for the photo and advice. Is the light falloff problem the same with the 75 mm Grandagon type lenses?

 

[coriana6jp]

I looked at both the 80mm Super Symmar and the 72mm Super Angolon XL, and ended up buying the 72mm. Its a little wider than the 80mm, and is (at least mine) razor sharp to the edge. For most things a centre filter has not been necessary. I have used the 72 mm on a 6x17 back as well, and it covers it very well. I think it compliments my 90mm very nicely as well, though at some point I am thinking about getting rid of the 90mm, and replacing it with the 110.

Hope it helps.

Gary

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The 80/110 SSXL combo is excellent, but if you don't want to switch everything around, I can vouch for the 75/4.5 Grandagon-N as also being an outstanding lens. Here's a sample shot with no center filter, front drop as indicated in notes--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I normally use the Schneider III center filter, because that's the one I happen to have and it works fairly well with a few of my wide lenses. Here's one with the center filter (and a little front tilt, maybe a tiny amount of front rise on this shot)--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imla'ie.htm

The falloff is pretty similar on all the modern lenses in this range. Though there are center filters that are designated for particular lenses, they are more interchangeable than most people realize. For instance, I compared my Schneider III with Robert Teague's IIIb, and we discovered that there is only about a quarter stop between them at the center, and a center filter does not really correct falloff completely in most cases anyway. It's a tradeoff between how much ND correction you can tolerate for a particular image and how much falloff is excessive. I think Bob Salomon once posted on the LF forum that Rodenstock offered stronger center filters at one time that completely eliminated falloff, but few of them sold, because most people don't want to sacrifice three stops+ for the filter plus stopping down to the optimal aperture for use with the filter, and a little falloff looks natural anyway.

 

[roteague]

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imla'ie.htm

I was wondering when you were going to print that one.

 

[jeroldharter]

I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback from all of you. Thanks.

 

[jeroldharter]

I notice that few people seem excited about Nikkor lenses. They are a few hundred dollars cheaper. Any idea why they are not more popular?

 

[roteague]

I have a Nikkor 90mm, as I mentioned before. I don't like the lens because it is so dark, F8, but, I also find the backwards rotation of the shutter speed/f stop ring to be irritating.

 

[doc4x5]

wider than 90

I too am struggling with the "wider than 90" question. I have a Nikkor 90mm f/8. I have been happy with it for a long time and really do not feel like a major trade-purchase combo. I have debated the 75, is it too close to the 90, vs the 65, vs going really wide with a 58 or 55.

I'd love to hear other's thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Eric

 

[doc4x5]

As regard Nikkors vs other brands, I'm not an expert. I have 90 f/8 and 150 f/5.6 Nikkors as well as a 210 f/5.6 Fuji. I shoot only black and white film so the fine points of color are irrelevant to me. However, I would be surprised if anyone can differentiate reasonably modern lenses of similar focal length and speed from any of the major manufacturers (Scheneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji) by looking at a print. There are too many other variables involved in making an image. I do not deny that convenience, eg brightness on the ground glass, may matter, but that has nothing to do with the final image. Comments?

Eric

 

[wilhelm]

I was in the I-wanna-go-wider-than-90 club a while back, and scored a pretty good deal on a Super-Angulon 75mm f/5.6. It's darn nice, and it's very wide; I think any wider would be just too wide. I don't have the center filter, and should probably pick one up at some point, as there is definite falloff. I've got a 90 (also a S-A f/5.6), and that's sometimes iffy on the falloff, but the 75 pretty clearly needs falloff help. I'd imagine the Super-Symmar probably would need the same help, and I'm sure the Grandagon would as well.

I have heard that the difference between 65 and 75 is not enough to make you want both, and 75 and 80 are very close too, so I'd suggest trying both, to see just how wide you want to go, before you make the plunge. And your eye may just like one focal length over the other.

Will

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The difference between 65 and 75 is enough for me to have both, but I use the 75 much more than the 65.

The attached image is a handheld 6x7 shot made with the 75, which I just had cammed for my Tech V. No center filter on this one.

 

[jeroldharter]

Looks like a little time has past, but I finally purchased a used Caltar (Rodenstock) 75 mm. Have not received it yet but I am eager to try it out. the price was right and I was happy with the 90 mm f6.8 Caltar of the same vintage.
Thanks again for all the advice.